[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4636-S4653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator
from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Specter, prior to a vote on a motion to proceed to S. 378.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this week we join in mourning the tragic
killings at Virginia Tech on Monday. The innocent lives of students and
professors are a terrible loss for their families and friends and for
their community. It affects us all. We honor them and mourn their loss.
I expect that in the days ahead, as we learn more about what happened,
how it happened and perhaps why it happened, we will have debate and
discussion and perhaps legislative proposals to consider.
For example, I know that Senator Boxer has introduced a School Safety
Enhancement Act, S. 677, to allow matching grants for school security,
including surveillance equipment, hotlines and tip lines and other
measures.
We may need to further enhance the COPS in Schools Program begun by
President Clinton. I look forward to working with Regina Schofield, the
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs at the
Department of Justice, Domingo Herraiz, the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, and others to make improvements that can increase
the safety and security of our children and grandchildren in schools
and colleges.
Today, we may finally make progress on security in another important
setting by turning to the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, S.
378. Frankly, this legislation should have been enacted last year but
was not. It should not be a struggle to enact these measures to improve
court security. We are fortunate that we have not suffered another
violent assault on judges and their families.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I concur with the statements by the
chairman. We introduced court security during the 109th Congress after
we had the brutal murders of the family of a Federal judge in Chicago.
We have continuing problems. Rat poison was mailed to each of the nine
Justices on the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that there is an
urgent need for additional court security, in light of the attacks on
the judges. The independence of our judiciary is fundamental in our
society for the rule of law.
This bill passed by unanimous consent last December, but,
unfortunately, it was not taken up by the House. We ought to consider
it expeditiously, and I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture.
Cloture Motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant
to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture
motion, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 107, S. 378, the Court Security
Improvement Bill.
Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Chuck Schumer, Jack Reed,
Byron L. Dorgan, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, Dianne
Feinstein, Daniel K. Inouye, Daniel K. Akaka, Jim Webb,
Dick Durbin, Jay Rockefeller, S. Whitehouse, Barbara A.
Mikulski, Ken Salazar, Edward M. Kennedy, Pat Leahy.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to consideration of S. 378, a bill to amend title 18,
United States Code, to protect judges, prosecutors, witnesses, victims,
and their family members, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 93, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--3
Coburn
Gregg
Inhofe
NOT VOTING--4
Brownback
Johnson
McCain
Rockefeller
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 93, the
nays are 3. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having
voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the motion to proceed has just passed,
93 to 3. We will bring before the Senate in fairly short order the
Court Security Improvement Act of 2007. I rise today to speak in
support of that act. It is a bill that is as simple as it is important.
At a time when judges are the subject of sometimes vitriolic
criticism, when judges and their families have been made the targets of
acts of violence and murder, when the independence of the judiciary
must be maintained in a climate of violence, we should take these
important steps to improve the safety of our judges and their families.
This bill will do that by requiring the U.S. Marshals Service--which
has oversight over the safety of the judicial branch--to consult with
the Judicial Conference to determine security requirements of the
judicial branch, and it authorizes $20 million for the Marshals Service
to protect the judiciary further.
[[Page S4637]]
The bill also amends the Criminal Code to enhance penalties for the
possession of dangerous weapons within Federal court facilities. This
bill also extends and expands to family members the authority of the
Judicial Conference to redact certain information from a judge's
mandatory financial disclosure for security purposes.
The bill directs the Attorney General to report to Congress on the
security of assistant U.S. attorneys arising from the prosecution of
terrorists and violent gangs. I will speak in a moment to an incident
that happened in my State.
The bill will increase criminal penalties for tampering with or
retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, and it will
authorize grant programs to expand witness and victim protection
programs.
In my own experience as U.S. attorney in Rhode Island, I have been
the subject of threats. Indeed, one man went to prison for threatening
me. Prosecutors whom I sent to court we had fitted with body armor
because of the security to their personal safety. We had prosecutors
have extensive security systems installed in their homes to protect
their security. That is one experience from one U.S. attorney in one 4-
year term. Across this country, the need is very great.
In February, the Judiciary Committee held an important hearing where
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke to us about the need to
preserve an independent judicial branch and to pass this bill. U.S.
District Court Judge Brock Hornby also had important testimony
regarding the need to pass this legislation. He said: ``This bill will
contribute significantly to the security of Federal judges and their
families.''
In short, it is long past time that this bill be enacted. Indeed, the
core provisions of this bill have already passed the Senate twice last
year, the second time by unanimous consent. So it is a little
surprising that it is not being approved by unanimous consent at this
time. But apparently some of our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have lodged an objection. Nevertheless, I am happy to spend
whatever time is necessary to ensure passage of this important
legislation.
The Framers of our Constitution understood the importance of an
independent judiciary. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 78:
``The independence of judges is equally requisite to guard the
Constitution and the rights of individuals . . . ''
While in this Chamber we may disagree on judicial nominations and we
may argue over judicial philosophies, we should all, every one of us,
agree to do everything we can to make sure the men and women who work
in the judicial branch, who serve their communities in those important
positions--and their families--are safe, as they make the important
decisions lodged in their care.
I am pleased this bill has broad bipartisan support. I am pleased
with the powerful results of the motion to proceed. I wish to commend
particularly the efforts of Chairman Leahy of the Judiciary Committee
and our ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, for
their hard work on this issue. I look forward to supporting passage of
this important legislation.
I yield the floor, and I 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. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Bipartisanship
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are a little over 100 days into the new
congressional session. With new leadership, new management, there was
hope--and still is--that we can find some ways to establish bipartisan
cooperation. By its nature, the Senate almost requires it. Under Senate
rules, anything that is serious and important takes 60 votes. In a
Chamber with 100 Members, that is obviously a supermajority, and that
requires cooperation. When Senator Johnson has recovered to the point
that he is back on the Senate floor and we are at full complement,
Senate Democrats will have 51 votes to the Republicans' 49. This means
that on any given day, if we are going to pass or consider important
legislation, it has to be bipartisan. We need help. We need Republicans
to join with Democrats to bring it to 60 votes. That is the nature of
the Senate.
Some people, particularly House Members--I used to be one--look at
this as not only a quaint procedure but in many cases antiquated. I
disagree. The nature of the Senate is reflected in the wisdom of the
Founding Fathers who needed to create this body in order to have a U.S.
Government. When they initially suggested that Congress would reflect
the population of America, smaller States, such as those represented by
the Presiding Officer, the State of Rhode Island, said: We don't have a
chance. We are going to be overwhelmed by the big States such as
Virginia and Massachusetts. So in their wisdom, they said: In the
Senate, every State has two Senators, no matter how large or small.
In the Senate, when it came to rules, the rules reflected the same
feeling, that minority rights would always be respected, that it would
take a large majority vote to overcome those minority rights; in other
words, 60 votes. At one time it was 67 votes. That 60-vote margin was
added in the 1960s. As a result, to achieve anything in the Senate, we
need to work together.
Unfortunately, in the first 100 days, there have been a few instances
of cooperation but some other disappointing episodes. When we wanted to
debate and have a vote about President Bush's proposal to send 20 or
30,000 more of our best and bravest American soldiers into the war in
Iraq, when we wanted the Senate to go on record on that issue to debate
it honestly so the American people and their strong feelings would be
represented, we were stopped, stopped by the Republican minority. They
would not allow us to go to the substance of that debate. They didn't
want the Senate to spend its time considering a resolution going on
record as to whether we approve or disapprove of the President's
action.
I personally think the escalation of ground troops in Iraq is the
wrong decision. This is a civil war, a war between Sunnis and Shias.
Our sons and daughters are caught in the crossfire of that civil war, a
war that is generated by a conflict within the Islamic religion that
dates back 14 centuries. I don't believe sending 20 or 30 or 40,000
more American soldiers is going to change the conflict. Only the Iraqis
can change it. I wanted to make that point in the debate and let those
who defend the President's position to escalate the war make their
point as well and bring it to a vote. That is what the Senate is
supposed to be about. But the Republican minority, with the power given
them under Senate rules, said: No, there will be no debate.
We couldn't find 60 votes to even have a debate on that issue. They
stopped us. Earlier this week, they stopped us again. What was the
measure in question? It was the reauthorization of the intelligence
agencies of the Government. These agencies are critical to our national
security. Intelligence is the first line of defense when it comes to
terrorism. Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia is chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee; Senator Chris Bond is the ranking
Republican. The two of them worked on a bipartisan bill and brought it
to the Senate floor. There was a lot of give and take. Senator
Rockefeller acceded to the requests of Senator Bond and vice versa.
They brought this bill to the floor. For the first time in years, we
were going to have an authorization bill that addressed some of the
serious problems of intelligence gathering so that we can be safer.
What happened? As it turned out, the Republican leadership decided they
didn't want to have this debate. They didn't want this bill to be
seriously considered and passed. On two different occasions this week,
they refused to vote to give us 60 votes so we could consider this bill
and pass it. We had to put it back on the calendar, take it off the
floor.
Think about that. In the midst of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, with
all of the threats to the United States, a trip to an airport now
becomes a half-hour commitment. As you take off your shoes and make
sure your toothpaste is in a plastic bag and all of the things we go
through that relate to terrorism, the Republican minority decided they
didn't want us to debate and
[[Page S4638]]
bring to a vote intelligence reauthorization. That was their decision.
For the second time, on a critical issue--first on the escalation of
the troops in Iraq and then on the reauthorization of our intelligence
agencies--the Republican minority has said: We don't want the debate.
We don't want the Senate to act. It is within their power. That is what
the Senate is all about. A minority, in this case 49 Republican
Senators, was able to stop it.
But that was not the end of it. There was another issue, one that
many of us consider to be very basic. It relates to the Medicare
prescription Part D Program. Medicare prescription Part D is a program
long overdue. When Medicare was created by President Johnson in the
1960s, it didn't include prescription drugs. Over the years, as more
and better prescription drugs were discovered and invented and
marketed, we understood that to keep people healthy, our parents and
grandparents and disabled people needed access to affordable drugs.
For many years, many of us have supported the idea of including
prescription drugs in the Medicare plan so seniors could have help in
paying for them. When the bill came before us to vote on several years
ago, when the Republicans were in control of this body, we wanted to
add one provision. The one provision said the Medicare Program could
bargain for less expensive, more affordable drugs. Private insurance
companies could do the same, but the Medicare Program could offer
prescription drugs to seniors on Medicare as one option, and then
seniors could make a choice. Do they want to go with a private
insurance company? Do they want to go with some other source for their
prescription drugs under Medicare? Or do they want to go back to the
Medicare plan?
Our thinking behind it is sound, because what we said is: We learned
a lesson at the Veterans' Administration. In the Veterans'
Administration we learned that to reduce the cost of prescription drugs
for the men and women who serve in uniform and are now veterans, our
Veterans' Administration bargains with pharmaceutical companies, and
they have bargaining power. They buy in bulk. They buy at discount. Our
veterans benefit from it. They get the best at the lowest prices, and
it is good for them and for taxpayers.
Why can't our seniors under Medicare have the same opportunity? That
was the point we wanted to make, a point that said: Medicare should be
allowed to bargain bulk discounts, low prices for seniors so we can
give them even a better deal than the current program offers. The
pharmaceutical companies hate this idea like the devil hates holy
water. The notion that they would face competition, that they would
have to give bulk discounts, eats right into their profits, their
bottom lines, and their CEOs' golden parachutes. They have been
spending millions of dollars trying to convince America that this kind
of bulk discount, this effort to have bargaining for lower prices, is
somehow fundamentally wrong. They have spent a lot of money on it--
full-page ads in newspapers, television advertising to try to convince
Americans that having some competition when it comes to prescription
drugs is plain wrong.
They didn't convince many, but they convinced enough, because earlier
this morning we had a vote as to whether we would move to this proposal
to allow Medicare to bargain for lower prescription drugs and, once
again, the Republican minority stopped us. They don't want to have that
debate. They don't want to face a vote. They want to make sure their
friends in the pharmaceutical industry don't have to face competition.
I am sure they feel their position is correct. I happen to believe my
position is correct.
The nature of debate in the Senate is that we stand and talk and
ultimately come to a vote. But on three separate occasions now, the
Republican leadership has stopped the debate, stopped the debate on
escalating troops in Iraq, when it comes to intelligence
reauthorization, and when we try to reduce prescription drug prices for
seniors.
It seems they want to do nothing. They want the Senate to come in,
collect its paycheck, and go home; make a few speeches on the floor,
wave a few flags, and head on home.
That is what happened around here for a long time. The do-nothing
Congress of the last 2 years is the reason the voters came out and
voted as they did last November. They said: We sent you to Washington
to do something. We sent you to Washington to address issues that are
meaningful and important to people across America. One of those issues
is the war in Iraq. Another issue is homeland security. Certainly
another issue is the cost of health insurance and the cost of
prescription drugs. In the Democratic majority, we have tried to come
to those issues. We have tried to move the debate to those issues. But
the Republican minority has stopped us time and time again.
Ultimately, they will be held accountable for their strategy. That is
what elections are all about. But we have a year and a half to go here,
a year and a half more before another election. Are we going to waste
all this time? Are we going to spend a little time addressing the
issues that count: first and foremost, the war, but then keeping
America safe? How about a national energy policy? Will the Republican
minority stop us from debating that at a time when we know we are so
dependent on foreign oil that we are sending hundreds of millions of
dollars each day to countries around the world that disagree with our
basic values because they happen to be supplying us with oil?
When it comes to issues such as global warming, will they use the
same strategy to stop the debate so that for 2 more years things will
get worse instead of better when it comes to the greenhouse gases and
the global warming and climate change which we all know is a reality?
They have the power to do it.
The only thing that can break the grip they have on the agenda and
calendar of the Senate is if 10 of their Members have the courage to
break ranks and join us. It is the only way we can come to these
debates. So far a handful have edged across the line, put the toe in
the water and said: Well, maybe we are with you on the debate. But it
is never enough. It is always enough just to have a press release back
home saying: We tried to help the Democrats--but never enough to get
the job done. That is what we face.
Now comes this bill before us, the Court Security Improvement Act of
2007. This bill is the kind of bill which routinely passes in the
Senate with no debate. The reason is, it isn't debatable. It comes down
to a question of protecting the men and women who serve in the Federal
judiciary.
This is an issue which is personal with me. In 2005, one of my close
personal friends, a woman I appointed to the Federal court in Chicago,
Joan Lefkow, went through a tragic personal experience. Someone invaded
her home and murdered her husband and mother. Those killings were
perpetrated by a disgruntled litigant who had his case dismissed by
Judge Lefkow. It was an unwelcomed wake-up call for our country. It
sensitized many of us to the vulnerability of our judges and their
families.
It was not an isolated incident. Last year, a judge was shot in Reno,
NV. In Louisville, KY, a man pleaded guilty to threatening to kill the
Federal judge presiding over the outcome of his arson trial. In March
2005, three people were killed in an Atlanta courthouse, including a
county judge. Just yesterday, there were reports that the car and
garage of an Illinois State court judge on the north side of Chicago
were damaged by gunshots.
The sad reality is that violence and threats against our judges are
on the rise. Between 1996 and 2005, the number of threats and
inappropriate communications toward judges went up dramatically--from
201 in 1996 to 943 in 2005. There may be many reasons for this
increased violence against judges, but one of the most regrettable is
the rise in criticism and condemnation of these fine men and women not
only in the halls of Congress but on some of the shock radio shows that
go on and pass as news on some cable channels and radio stations.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a woman I respect, who recently retired
from the Supreme Court, said recently:
[T]he breadth and intensity of rage currently being leveled
at the judiciary may be unmatched in American history.
It is time for the rage and irresponsible rhetoric to come to an end.
It is
[[Page S4639]]
also time for Congress to step up and increase protection for judges.
In 2005, Senator Obama, my junior colleague from Illinois, and I
helped obtain an appropriation after the terrible Lefkow incident. We
wanted to provide enough money so judges would have some basic
protection in their home.
The bill we vote on today--the Court Security Improvement Act of
2007--is another important response. It passed the Senate last year on
two different occasions. The House of Representatives refused to take
it up. Let me touch on a couple important provisions in this bill, and
then let me tell you why, at the end of these remarks, we have reached
another terrible moment when it comes to considering a bill of this
importance.
First, the bill has new criminal penalties for misusing personal
information to threaten harm to judges and their families. It expands
the definition of dangerous weapons that are banned from Federal
courts. It extends and expands the ability of Federal judges to redact
personal information from their financial disclosures that might
endanger themselves or their families. It allocates more resources to
the U.S. Marshals Service to protect Federal judges. It requires better
coordination between the Marshals and the Federal judiciary. It
authorizes State courts to receive Federal grant money to improve
security. It is essential that we pass this legislation, and it is long
overdue.
A year ago, on the first anniversary of the murders of her husband
and mother, Judge Lefkow, of Chicago, released a statement. Here is
what she said:
The tragedies which we experienced have necessarily alerted
me to the fragility of judicial security. Accordingly, I have
made a commitment to all of my judicial sisters and brothers
to do all in my power to help improve the safety of all
judges in the years ahead. It is my fervent hope that nothing
that happened in Chicago and Atlanta last year will ever be
repeated.
Those are words we need to take to heart today. I commend Majority
Leader Harry Reid for bringing up this bill. This Court Security
Improvement Act is a legacy to the memory of those judges and family
members whose lives were cut short by tragic, vicious acts of violence.
Judges should always feel secure in their courtrooms and safe at
home. We owe it to them and their families to do everything we can to
protect them.
As I said before, this is the kind of bill which Members would come
to the floor and make a few statements on, such as I made, and then
pass by a voice vote, for obvious reasons. Who is going to argue
against this bill? Who believes our judges should not be safe in their
courtrooms and at home? We cannot ignore the obvious. There are dangers
to their lives, and we should act on them. But what has happened in the
Senate from a procedural viewpoint reflects the argument I made
earlier. A Senator on the Republican side, within his rights under the
Senate rule, objected to this bill. Well, it was not enough he
objected--he can do that; he could vote against it if that is his
choosing--but he demanded we have what we call a cloture motion, that
we postpone this bill for 30 hours before we take it up and consider
it. That is his right. I will fight for his right to do so. But it
reflects a mindset among some on the other side that is not
constructive and not positive.
Hard as it is to believe, there are some who think the bill I
described is an insidious part of the procedure of the Senate, and they
call it an earmark--an earmark. This is not the kind of Jack Abramoff
earmark where a fat cat lobbyist on K Street in Washington inserts a
provision in the bill for one of his clients, which ends up with
millions of dollars for his client and a fat fee for him to take home.
Nothing in this bill inserts a dollar for any private entity, nor does
it create any opportunity for a lobbyist to get fat and sassy. Yet some
on the other side of the aisle are arguing this bill has to be stopped
because it is an earmark. An earmark? An earmark to create a program to
provide money for courts to make them safer? An earmark to increase the
penalties for those who would harm our judges and their families?
They have corrupted the word ``earmark'' to the point where they
think everything is an earmark. This bill is not. This bill emerged
from the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, with strong
bipartisan support. Instead of enacting it and moving on to other
important bills, we have been bogged down again by procedural hurdles
that are thrown at us from the other side of the aisle--something as
basic and as fundamental as this bill.
Now, I am glad Republican Senators joined us in trying to stop this
one Senator who believes he sees an earmark behind every bill and every
bush. But the point is, if we are going to be constructive in the
Senate--whether it is on the war or intelligence or reducing the cost
of prescription drugs or protecting judges--we need much more
bipartisan cooperation. As I said earlier, I will fight to the death to
defend my colleagues' rights under the rules of the Senate. Those rules
have been used by me and by other Senators, and that is why they are
there. But common sense should prevail. I think the common good should
prevail, and we should come together, Democrats and Republicans,
and compromise and cooperate. That is one thing the American people are
begging for: Start addressing the real problems, some that affect only
a small number of Americans, as important as they may be, such as
members of the Federal judiciary, and others that affect us all, such
as the war in Iraq.
Isn't it time we put behind the do-nothing Congress, the do-nothing
mentality, and start out on a new day in this Congress, trying to find
bipartisan ways to cooperate and solve the real problems that face our
country?
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Algeria Bombings
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, last Wednesday, April 11, terrorists
exploded two bombs in Algiers, Algeria, killing 33 people and wounding
over 200. The terrorist organization al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb
took credit for the attacks, which targeted the Algerian Prime
Minister's office and a police station.
The attack occurred 1 day--1 day--after three would-be suicide
bombers blew themselves up in Casablanca, Morocco, killing a police
officer in the process. A fourth individual was shot before he could
detonate his bomb. It also preceded, by only 3 days, attacks by two
more would-be suicide bombers in Casablanca, Morocco, this time outside
the American consulate and the American Language Center. The consulate
subsequently closed.
While a link between the Algeria bombings and the terrorists in
Morocco has not yet been established, the confluence of these events
demonstrates an increasingly deadly and dangerous situation in North
Africa, for the region, for the United States, and for our friends and
our allies.
The bombings should also remind us of the need to be more globally
focused in the fight against al-Qaida and its affiliates, which must be
our national security priority. Yet the administration, fixated on
Iraq, remains narrowminded in its focus and seemingly almost
indifferent to last week's attacks in North Africa.
Until last fall, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb was known as the
Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or GSPC. It has been described
by the State Department as a regional terrorist organization which
recruits and operates in Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Mauritania, and
Tunisia, as well as in Europe.
In 2005, GSPC killed 15 people at a military outpost in Mauritania.
Police in France, Italy, and Spain have arrested individuals suspected
of providing support to the organization. GSPC has also called France
``public enemy number one.'' A French counterterrorism magistrate has
described GSPC as the biggest terrorist threat facing his country
today.
Last year, al-Qaida leadership announced its formal ties to the GSPC,
raising concerns about the extension of al-Qaida's deadly reach. In
testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee this February, FBI
Director Mueller warned of the possible consequences of
[[Page S4640]]
this alliance, including to the United States. According to Mueller's
testimony:
Al-qaida has made efforts to align itself with established
regional terrorist groups such as the GSPC that may expand
the scope of the threat to the Homeland.
Despite this clear threat, our Nation barely took notice of the
attacks last week. The State Department issued a brief statement. The
White House said virtually nothing--or nothing. Vice President Cheney
mentioned them during a radio interview on Friday and again on Sunday,
but only in passing, as a part of his repeated efforts to try to link
9/11 to the war in Iraq and to support an endless and disastrous war
that is emboldening the members of al-Qaida and other terrorist
organizations.
Let me read exactly what the Vice President said:
We had--just this week there were attacks in Algeria and
Morocco by al-Qaida, bombings that were aimed at killing
innocent civilians. It is a global conflict, by anybody's
measure. And it is clearly against some of the world's worst
offenders, and Iraq is very much a part of that. It is, right
now, the central front on that global conflict.
Amazingly, the only comments by the White House on these horrific
attacks in north Africa were to insist that a terrorist attack in
Algeria somehow proved that Iraq, more than 2,000 miles away, is the
central front in the war on terrorism. The Vice President's assertions
are not just factually wrong, they are offensive to the people murdered
in Algeria last week, as well as their families and all those working
hard to capture these terrorists. It is also indicative of everything
that is wrong with this administration's national security policies.
We should be directing our attention and resources to combating the
threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates, wherever they may be. As
we all know, this is not a conventional war. It requires better
intelligence, better cooperation with friends and allies, stronger
regional institutions, and diplomatic and economic policies designed to
deny terrorists safe havens. It is not easy, and I have enormous
respect for the men and women in our intelligence community, diplomatic
corps, military, and other elements of our Government who are working
hard to protect us from this threat. We should provide them our full
support, not only in terms of resources but also with an effective
global counterterrorism strategy rather than the current myopic and
misguided focus on Iraq.
First, we must improve our intelligence with regard to threats in
Africa. The Intelligence authorization bill we were considering in the
Senate earlier this week includes an amendment I offered with Senator
Rockefeller calling for more intelligence resources to be directed to
Africa. If we are to protect our national interests on the continent,
we must commit ourselves to understanding not only the terrorist
organizations that operate there but regional conflicts, corruption,
poor governance, endemic poverty, and the historic marginalization that
has allowed terrorists and other threats to fester.
Second, we must expand and strengthen our diplomatic and foreign
assistance activities in the continent. Our presence in far-flung parts
of Africa, whether it be a new consulate or outpost or an expanded
USAID development or public health program, exposes local populations
to our Nation, linking us to parts of the world which, as we know, we
can no longer afford to ignore. We need to help build strong
governmental institutions that respect human rights and an equally
vibrant civil society, while also strengthening the relationship
between the two.
Third, we need military policies that place counterterrorism in the
context of a larger, more comprehensive strategy. Policies such as the
Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative are important, particularly in
improving the capacities of local governments. But unless they are part
of bilateral and multilateral policies that emphasize human rights and
democratization and anticorruption, our military resources may be
squandered or, worse, may be even directed in counterproductive ways.
For this same reason, I have supported the establishment of an Africa
Command within the Defense Department, while insisting that its mission
be squarely within the broader strategic goals of the United States on
the continent.
Fourth, we must develop effective policies for dealing with terrorist
safe havens such as the one in the Sahel where al-Qaida in the Islamic
Maghreb operates. According to the most recent State Department
terrorism report, the organization not only trains, recruits, and
operates in the region, it also raises money, including through
smuggling. Clearly, confronting this organization requires addressing
the root causes that have allowed it to develop and operate, whether
they be poverty or corruption or the lack of government support to and
presence in the region. We must develop comprehensive policies to
confront these safe havens, including the settlement of regional
conflicts and an adequate provision of economic and development
assistance, so local populations can reject terrorist organizations.
Fifth, we must help governments in the region in their efforts to
confront terrorist organizations. The most recent State Department
terrorism report stated that, in Mali, the sheer size of the country
and the limited resources of the Malian Government ``hamper the
effectiveness of military patrols and Border Patrol measures.'' The
report also indicated Mauritania, another country where al-Qaida in the
Islamic Maghreb operates, lacks funding and resources to combat
terrorism.
In order to combat international terrorist organizations such as the
al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, we need regional strategies that
address the capabilities and policies of all affected countries on a
bilateral and multilateral basis. We must expand our assistance to
these and other countries while ensuring that their counterterrorism
policies are consistent with ours and that corruption and human rights
abuses do not undermine efforts to combat terrorist organizations.
Sixth, we must work closely with our European allies. Al-Qaida in the
Islamic Maghreb is a direct threat to Europe; our allies have every
incentive to work with us. By working to establish mutually agreed upon
approaches to counterterrorism, we can develop a strong, coordinated
strategy that helps keep all of us safer.
Seventh, we must encourage regional institutions to confront
terrorism. For example, the African Union has established a Center for
Study and Research on Terrorism to combat terrorism throughout the
continent. This center and other regional initiatives are worthy of far
more attention and support than we have thus far provided.
Finally, we must at last recognize that the fight against al-Qaida is
being undermined by the endless war in Iraq. As the NIE of last April
concluded, the war has become a ``cause celebre'' for international
terrorists. Moreover, tactics from Iraq are now being used around the
world, including by terrorists in Algeria. As the State Department
terrorism report noted:
Using lessons from Iraq and wanting to reduce the level of
casualties sustained in direct confrontation with Algerian
security services, the GSPC carried out attacks using
roadside improvised explosive devices. In one act on
September 14, GSPC terrorists killed three Algerian soldiers
and wounded two others in a military vehicle near Boumerdes
by remotely detonating a roadside IED.
The horrific bombings last week in Algiers and the manifest threat in
Morocco should remind us that our national security does not begin and
end in Iraq. Indeed, Iraq remains a drain on our national attention to
resources and an endless distraction from our real national security
priorities, which is fighting al-Qaida and its affiliates. We cannot
ignore the rest of the world to focus solely on Iraq. Al-Qaida is
continuing and will continue to be a global terrorist organization.
Contrary to what the administration has implied, al-Qaida is not
abandoning its efforts to fight us globally so it can fight us in Iraq.
No. Instead, it is forming alliances with groups like the GSPC, and it
is seeking to attack us and our friends and allies around the world. By
downplaying this threat, the administration is ignoring the lessons of
September 11 and endangering our Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S4641]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Medicare Part D
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, when Congress passes a law, the
American people have every right to expect that their elected
representatives will do what is best for them. But the country did not
get a fair deal in 2003 when Congress passed the Medicare Part D
prescription drug program. Today, the Senate had the opportunity to
remedy this problem, and politics won out over providing affordable
prescription drugs to our seniors.
Providing prescription drug coverage to millions of seniors is a very
important benefit, and I very much support it, but Part D got off to a
very rocky start. Seniors were overwhelmed and confused. Many were not
enrolled in a timely fashion. When they were enrolled, there were
serious, even life-threatening delays in getting the medication they
needed. A number of States, including my own, declared public health
emergencies and had to step in to fill the gap. At the time, my mom, a
former second grade teacher, told me that Medicare Part D got the grade
it deserved from the beginning. Since then, many of these early
problems with implementation have been remedied.
Even today, however, Medicare Part D remains needlessly complex and
confusing, with dozens of insurance companies involved, hundreds of
different plans, and countless benefit structures, pricing tiers, and
drug formularies, not to mention the ``doughnut hole'' which each year
eats deeper into the wallets and pocketbooks of millions of seniors.
However, by far, the most serious flaw in the original law is the
noninterference clause that expressly prohibits Medicare from
negotiating lower prices from pharmaceutical companies. This
prohibition is contrary to how Medicare handles its purchases of other
goods and services. It is contrary to how both Medicaid and Veterans
Affairs purchase medications for their beneficiaries. It is contrary to
good business practices and to good government.
This prohibition has imposed substantial and unnecessary costs on
America's taxpayers and seniors who are paying excessive prices for
prescription drugs. An analysis last year by Merrill Lynch found that
after Part D took effect, prices on popular brand-name drugs increased
by 8.6 percent. This week, there is a new analysis from Families USA.
It finds that the prices charged by the largest Part D plans for the 15
most commonly prescribed medications increased by an average of 9.2
percent during the past year. This increase is almost four times the
general inflation rate, and it is nearly three times the cost of living
adjustment that seniors received this year for their Social Security
income. By banning the Government from negotiating discounts, Congress
saddled seniors with inflated prices for their medications, while
handing a huge financial windfall to the pharmaceutical industry.
As I travel throughout my State, Minnesotans tell me they are
mystified and frustrated that the Government has tied its own hands
when it comes to achieving huge cost savings with prescription drugs.
The people of my State repeatedly tell me they want Medicare to use
every possible tool to get the best prices. It is a simple principle of
economics that consumers strike better deals when they band together
and exercise their bargaining power. The power of many has much more
leverage than the power of the few. Congress rejected this commonsense
principle when it barred Medicare from negotiating drug prices. This is
just plain wrong. When appropriate, the Government should be empowered
to harness the collective bargaining power of 43 million Americans on
Medicare to deliver low-cost medication to seniors.
We are now poised to give the Government the power to negotiate. The
House has already passed a measure to do so. Now it is our turn, and it
is our responsibility. This is a matter of fairness for our seniors who
deserve affordable prices for their drugs, and it is a matter of
fairness for American taxpayers who pay 75 percent of the bill for
Medicare Part D.
Under current law, only individual insurance companies can negotiate
Medicare drug prices. The pharmaceutical industry has tried to reassure
Americans that this will inevitably produce the lowest prices because
of competition. This explanation is unconvincing. Evidence and
experience shows us that the present system often does not produce the
fairest prices.
The pharmaceutical companies like to say that Part D Program costs
are lower than projected, but beating artificial projections has not
resulted in lower prices. Numerous studies show that Part D prices are
significantly higher than prices for drugs and programs where
negotiation is permitted.
For example, a review of drug prices in Florida last October reported
that the lowest retail price--the price you get by just shopping
around--is usually cheaper than the Medicare price for popular drugs.
In January of this year, a study by Families USA found that the top
five Medicare Part D insurance companies serving two out of three
enrollees charged prices at a median rate that were 58 percent higher
than the same drugs provided to veterans through the VA. The study
compared the lowest price available under Part D and the lowest VA
price for the 20 most common medications prescribed to seniors.
Celebrex, for arthritis, was 50 percent more expensive under Medicare
Part D; Lipitor, for cholesterol and heart disease, was 51 percent more
expensive; Nexium, for heartburn and acid reflux disease, was 65
percent more expensive.
If these aren't bad enough, consider these:
Fosamax was 205 percent more expensive under Part D. That is for
osteoporosis; Protonix, for heartburn and acid reflux disease, was 435
percent more expensive; and Zocor, for cholesterol and heart disease,
was over 1,000 percent more expensive.
With this tremendous disparity in drug prices, it simply defies
common sense to assume Medicare is giving our seniors a good deal. They
should be negotiating for better prices.
Maybe the discounts would not be as great as the VA gets because of
the differences in those two programs. But how can anybody be satisfied
when Medicare is paying prices that are, on average, 58 percent higher?
Can we not at least try to get a better deal? Can't we even allow the
possibility of negotiation by our Government with the drug companies?
Yet this administration and its Secretary of Health and Human
Services have shown absolutely no interest in the potential of
negotiation. In fact, the Secretary has been aggressively defiant about
even the idea of it. This needs to change.
There is another reason we should not trust the assurances of the
pharmaceutical industry that America's seniors are already getting the
lowest prices possible. The Government can often negotiate bigger
discounts than insurance companies, which represent smaller numbers of
seniors. There is no good reason to arbitrarily foreclose this
opportunity for gaining a price cut.
By Medicare's own calculations, Part D private plans are negotiating
prices that are 73 percent of the average wholesale prices. But
Medicaid pays only 51 percent, and the VA pays only 42 percent.
The Congressional Budget Office also agrees that the Government could
be more effective than private plans in negotiating prices for unique
drugs that have no competition.
Even limited savings on popular drugs could translate into billions
of dollars. Consider Zocor and Lipitor, two top-selling prescription
medications. If Medicare could negotiate prices in line with what the
VA gets, the savings from those two drugs alone could be more than $2.8
billion each year. Even a fraction of this amount would still represent
substantial savings. That would mean cheaper drugs for seniors, a
better deal for taxpayers, and less Government spending.
The only real winners from a prohibition on negotiation are the
pharmaceutical companies. They vigorously lobbied for the ban, knowing
it would boost their profits, while denying fair prices to seniors and
taxpayers. They paid big money to make sure they got a Medicare drug
program that prohibited price negotiation, and now they are spending
big money to keep that profitable ban in place.
Since 1998, the pharmaceutical industry has spent over $650 million
on lobbying. In the past year and a half, they
[[Page S4642]]
have spent a record $155 million. What are America's seniors supposed
to think all that money goes for?
The drug industry employs some 1,100 lobbyists. That is two drug
lobbyists for every Member of the Senate and House of Representatives.
The pharmaceutical industry has fired up its lobbying machine again to
oppose efforts to lift the ban.
The industry lobbying organization, PhRMA, has been running a massive
advertising campaign in opposition to negotiating lower prices. It
includes full-page ads in newspapers across the country. They have been
buying these ads in my State, too. The most recent full-page ad
appeared earlier this week in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It tells
Minnesotans how they are supposed to think. It uses quotes from USA
Today and the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
With all due respect to these good newspapers, we Minnesotans know
how to think for ourselves and how to reach our own conclusions. When
it comes to Medicare Part D, the people of Minnesota have made up their
minds. A statewide survey earlier this year found that fully 93 percent
of Minnesotans want Medicare to have the power to bargain for lower
prescription drug prices.
But the drug industry keeps using scare tactics, throwing around
words such as ``rationing'' and ``price controls.'' It ignores
promising negotiation approaches that don't limit the drugs available
to seniors and that do not involve price setting.
I have dealt with this before. In the last few years, I was actually
accused of trying to ration Lipitor. That simply isn't so. My mom takes
Lipitor. If people think I would advance a proposal that would take my
mom's drugs away, they don't know my mom.
Allowing negotiation would not mean rationing, but lifting the ban on
negotiations would cut into the hugely profitable windfall the drug
industry has enjoyed, thanks to Medicare Part D. In the first 6 months
after Medicare Part D went into effect, the profit for the top 10 drug
companies increased by over $8 billion, which is a 27-percent jump.
It should be no surprise. Medicaid Part D has provided the drug
companies with a surge of new Government-subsidized customers. And
Congress has allowed the drug companies to charge excessive prices.
This has been especially true with the more than 6 million Americans
who were transferred from Medicaid to Medicare under the Part D law.
They are known as dual beneficiaries or dual eligibles because they are
eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. They now account for more than
25 percent of all Part D enrollees.
Before the Part D law took effect, Medicaid was already buying
prescription drugs for these individuals under a ``best price'' rule.
This meant the price a drug company offered Medicaid could not exceed
the lowest price it received for that same drug in the private market.
These dual-eligible individuals are now covered only under Medicare
Part D, which has no ``best price'' rule and, of course, no negotiating
power either.
Two economists have analyzed last year's financial filings from the
top drug companies. In a study released earlier this month, the two
economists concluded these companies have gained substantial new
profits because they no longer had to provide the rebates and discounts
previously demanded by Medicaid. That is great for the drug industry,
but it is not so great for all of us.
I grew up believing every dollar, every quarter, every penny counts.
I remember saving all my quarters from baby sitting in a box in my
room. I also believe that is true for our Government, for our
taxpayers, and especially for our seniors. The average income for a
retiree is about $15,000, with most living on a fixed income. Seniors
need medications more than any other age group. For those over age 75,
they depend on an average of almost eight prescription medications.
So for seniors, money and medications are a very serious matter. It
must be a serious matter for us, too. By lifting the ban on price
negotiations, we will continue to give seniors access to the
medications they need and the same broad range of plans. The difference
is that the Federal Government, representing all 43 million Medicare
beneficiaries, will also be at the bargaining table.
It is time to lift the ban. It is time to negotiate with the powerful
drug companies. It is time to help our seniors get the lower, fairer
prices they deserve for the life-saving and life-enhancing medications
they need.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, may I inquire as to where we are at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to
proceed to S. 378.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Tax Simplification Act of 2007
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, yesterday was tax day 2007. I had hoped to
come to the floor at that time, but we were busy on several other
issues. I join with my friend and colleague, Senator Shelby, as a
cosponsor of S. 1040, which will replace our current broken tax system
with a simple, what I call fair flat tax.
Over the years that I have served the State of Idaho in the Congress,
I have looked numerous times at the concept of a flat tax and believe
it to be by far a more preferable system for all our taxpayers to be
involved in.
Only a few weeks ago, we debated the fiscal year 2008 budget
resolution and some recurring points began to emerge. Over and over
again, from both sides of the aisle, we heard about the repeal of the
death tax, the repeal of the alternative minimum tax, the child tax
credit, and marriage penalty relief, and problems associated with the
so-called tax gap.
The average American listening to that debate, if they were not true
students of the Tax Code or if, in fact, they hadn't been victims of
that portion of the Tax Code, would have wondered in what kind of code
the Senators were speaking or talking through at the moment.
Congress has offered temporary fixes to these problems for years, but
these problems are merely symptoms of a larger problem that needs
fixing. I believe the larger problem is we have a convoluted, broken
Tax Code system today.
The current Tax Code is--well, let me use this as an example. In
2005, according to the IRS's own estimates, Americans spent 6.4 billion
hours preparing their tax returns and a whopping $265 billion in
related compliance costs. You know that if you make any kind of money
at all and you can afford to, you start hiring attorneys and tax
experts to find ways of manipulating yourself through the system, not
necessarily to avoid taxes but maybe to provide some level of
inheritance to your children and your grandchildren so Uncle Sam
doesn't get it on your moment of death. The complication has
increasingly grown over the years and, of course, the cost is
phenomenal.
So, Mr. President, if you will bear with me for a moment, think about
this analysis: Americans, if they had to wade through the 66,498
pages--that is right, 66,498 pages--of the Federal tax rules on a
letter-size sheet of paper, that amount of pages would stand about 22
feet tall. That is about three times taller than I am with cowboy boots
and a cowboy hat on. That is pretty significant stuff. Yet the average
American is supposed to figure out how to get through that? That is why
they spend $265 billion hiring the experts to figure out how to get
them through it. The Tax Code's purpose is simply to fund the Federal
Government, but we have turned it into a system loaded with
preferences, deductions, credits and exceptions and, yes, other kinds
of loopholes that cater to a special-interest tier and fail to treat
all taxpayers fairly because we politically are manipulating where we
want the money to go, how we want the economy to run, how we want the
average person to spend or not spend his or her hard-earned wages in a
way that is, by our definition, beneficial to the
[[Page S4643]]
country, to the culture, to the economy at large.
The time for half-measures ought to be over. Fundamental reform is
the only thing that will restore, in my opinion, fairness and
simplicity to the system, and I have long thought a flat tax is the
best approach toward reforming the code.
A flat tax, such as the one in S. 1040, will provide a simple flat
rate of 19 percent, eliminate special preferences, end the double
taxation of savings and investment, and provide a generous exemption
based on family size.
Not everyone agrees--I am sure we all understand that--but that
shouldn't stop the conversation, the fundamental debate, the energy of
this Senate and this Congress becoming involved in reforming our Tax
Code for the greater benefit of our country.
That is one of the reasons why I joined Senator Wyden, a Democrat on
the other side of the aisle, in launching a bipartisan Cleanse the Code
Coalition. Although Members of the coalition disagree sharply about the
best approach to tax reform, we all agree fundamentally that reform is
imperative, that it is something that should embody the principles of
simplicity, fairness, and fiscal responsibility.
Our current tax system is a handicap on our Nation's citizens, our
businesses, and our economy. As we continue to increase our competitive
character and compete with other economies around the world, those
features of simplicity and fairness become increasingly important.
Our current tax system is a handicap. There is something that ought
to be done about it. We will, again, tinker around the edges, as we did
with the 2008 budget resolution that sets parameters for spending and
for revenues and, once again, we will talk about it a great deal more
than we will act on it. When we act, we will simply adjust and change
and modify, and every time we do, in that illustrative picture I gave
you, we will add another cowboy hat to the top of my head and make that
66,000-page stack of papers that is 22 feet tall a little taller for
the average American to work their way through in frustration,
sometimes in anger, sometimes in fear that they have failed to comply
and the IRS is just around the corner.
I hope that a day will come in April, a year or two from now, when
the process of filing a tax return is a simple sheet of paper: Here is
how much I have made, you apply the 19 percent to it, it is all online,
and you don't have to hire attorneys and accountants in great
complication to weave your way through the morass of rules and
regulations. And Americans for the first time could say: You know, that
was a pretty easy task. I am a responsible citizen. I have paid my
taxes.
As one who gains the great benefit of this country, while we may not
necessarily like it, it ought to be an easy and painless task to do.
That ought to be our challenge. That is why I am a part of the
legislation and in support of it and why I am on the Senate floor
today--to challenge my colleagues to think a little more about it. It
ought not be a game of dodge and hide and replace and reshape. It truly
ought to be one of saying to the average citizen: We want to make it
easy, we want to make it simple for you to fulfill your responsibility
in assisting your Government in paying for the necessary services it
needs in a straightforward and, most importantly, simplistic way.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Partial Birth Abortion Ban Upheld
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today with great hope in my
heart that a step was taken forward on human dignity today. Earlier
today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the partial-birth abortion ban
passed by Congress in 2003, and I applaud the Court for this decision.
As many of my colleagues know, partial-birth abortion is one of the
most heinous and grotesque forms of abortion. Science has shown that
after 20 weeks, unborn children do indeed feel pain. Imagine the pain a
prenatal baby feels as it is so savagely destroyed in the latter part
of the pregnancy. It is incomprehensible that we should allow such a
procedure to continue in our Nation, and I am thankful--I am thankful--
the Congress passed this important ban, that President Bush signed it
into law, and now the Supreme Court has upheld this in the face of a
challenge. I think this is an important day for human dignity, that we
are starting to recognize the dignity of everybody at all stages.
We had a big debate on the Senate floor last week about stem cells
and whether we should destroy the youngest of human lives for research
purposes. I don't think we should. We should extend dignity. But
certainly we should extend dignity to a child who is very well
developed in the womb and who is being aborted feeling great pain, the
child itself. We should show dignity for that life. The Court is
starting to express the fundamental right to life and the dignity of
each life in the country, and what a great message to our Nation, what
a great message to our world for us to have that.
The majority decision of the Court, authored by Justice Anthony
Kennedy, recognizes that partial-birth abortion is not medically
necessary. Far from it. Both mother and child deserve far better than
abortion, particularly such an invasive, barbaric procedure as partial-
birth abortion.
I am pleased that the Court states in its opinion:
It is, however, precisely this lack of information
concerning the way in which the fetus will be killed that is
of legitimate concern to the State.
Citing Casey, the father of the Presiding Officer, supra, at 873, it
states:
States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable
framework for a woman to make a decision that has such
profound and lasting meaning.
The State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is
well informed. It is self-evident that a mother who comes to
regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more
anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only
after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed
a doctor to pierce the skull--
Of a child, her child--
and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child . .
.
The child is human and in her womb.
I repeat, today's decision by the Supreme Court puts hope in our
hearts. Americans understand that life is a precious gift and worthy of
respect and protection. Indeed, this deep belief is at the very root of
our Nation's founding--of our Constitution. I believe our laws and the
precedents of our courts ought to reflect this culture of respect for
human life and human dignity at all stages, in all places; that every
human life is precious, it is unique, it is sacred, and it is a child
of a loving God. It applies to the child in the womb at whatever stage
its development. It applies to a child in poverty. It applies to a
child in Darfur. It is pro-life and it is whole-life, beginning to end,
and that is as it should be.
I am delighted that the Supreme Court is moving forward to see the
expression of life in the Constitution. I hope that someday we will see
all life respected at all stages and protected in this land and around
the world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded, and I ask to proceed as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Alternative Minimum Tax
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, yesterday was tax return filing day for
most Americans for the 2006 tax year. While filing that 2006 tax return
and paying tax owed for 2006 was stressful enough, for 23 million
families who will be AMT taxpayers in 2007, there was added stress.
That added stress is due to the fact that those 23 million families
bear the uncertainty of whether
[[Page S4644]]
there will be an AMT patch for the year 2007; in other words, for
Congress to take action so the alternative minimum tax will not apply
to an additional 23 million families for this year's earnings as the
present law is going to do it. Congress, each year, has taken action so
that would not happen. The big question is will Congress act soon
enough so that the uncertainty of these 23 million taxpayers will not
be realized.
This matters for taxpayers now because the first quarter estimated
tax payments are due for the 2007 tax year. I have a chart here I wish
to show that shows the form for the payment these 23 million families
have to make, and why going through the trouble of filling this out is
stressful for the 23 million taxpayers--in addition to having to pay
all of this tax. Barring an extension in the ``hold harmless''
provisions that made certain that people who filed on 2006 earnings did
not have to pay the AMT, if we do not take action for the year we are
in, AMT exemptions then will return to the pre-2001 levels. Many
Americans may be surprised to find in their 1040 ES instruction package
that the AMT exemption amount for single taxpayers is decreasing from
$42,550 in 2006 to $33,750 in the year we are in now for earnings,
2007. And for married taxpayers, the exemption amount is decreasing by
nearly $20,000, from $62,550 down to $45,000.
You can see here on line 29 that these higher exemption amounts are
there. To add insult to injury in this whole matter, certain credits
will not be allowed against the alternative minimum tax in 2007,
including the credit for child and dependent care expenses, credit for
the elderly or the disabled, and education credits. And that is just to
name a few.
The alternative minimum tax is not a new problem and has been with us
for several decades. The individual minimum tax--that is a precursor to
our AMT--was originally enacted in 1969 after Congress discovered that
155 taxpayers with incomes greater than $200,000--these are 1969
figures--were not paying any taxes at all.
As originally formulated, the individual minimum tax affected one out
of a half-million taxpayers. Clearly that situation has changed now
very dramatically in the last 30 years when today about 4 million
taxpayers are paying the alternative minimum tax. If we do not do
anything this year, 23 million more people will pay it on earnings they
are making right now.
Although not its only flaw, the most significant defect of the
alternative minimum tax is that it is not indexed for inflation. If it
had been indexed for inflation, then obviously we would not have these
3 million people, or these potential 23 million people, having to worry
about paying the alternative minimum tax.
This failure to reindex the exemption and the rate brackets, the
parameters of the AMT system, is also a bipartisan problem.
Perhaps the most notable missed opportunity to index the AMT for
inflation was the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Another missed
opportunity was the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act in 1993, in which
the exemption levels were not indexed but were increased to $33,750 for
individuals and $45,000 for joint returns. But this was accomplished by
an additional rate increase.
By the way, the 1993 tax increase passed this body with only
Democratic votes. Once again, graduated rates were introduced, except
this time they were 26 percent and 28 percent.
By tinkering with the rate and exemption level of the AMT, these
bills were only doing what Congress has been doing on a bipartisan
basis for almost 40 years, which is to undertake a wholly inadequate
approach to a problem that keeps getting bigger. And by ``keeps getting
bigger,'' I mean it is applying now to 23 million taxpayers for
earnings this year to whom it should not apply.
In 1999, the issue again had to be dealt with. At that time Congress
passed the Taxpayers Refund and Relief Act of 1999. In the Senate, only
Republicans voted for the bill. That bill in fact included a provision
that actually repealed the entire alternative minimum tax. If this bill
had not been vetoed by President Clinton, we would not even be talking
about this today.
Later on, in 1999, an extenders bill, including a fix good through
2001, was enacted to hold AMT harmless for a little longer.
Most recently, in March of 2007, less than a month ago, this body,
now under the control of the Democrats, voted against an amendment I
sponsored to put some honesty back into the budgeting process and to
stop spending amounts that are scheduled to come into the Federal
coffers through the alternative minimum tax.
Take a minute to visit about that vote on my amendment to the budget
resolution a month ago. That amendment would have amended the budget
resolution for fiscal year 2008 in order to accommodate a full repeal
of the alternative minimum tax, preventing the same 23 million people,
both families and individuals whom I am talking about today, from being
subject to the alternative minimum tax in 2007, not to mention the
millions of families and individuals who will be hit by it in
subsequent years.
You would think we would have seen a flood of bipartisan support for
that amendment, given the numbers of families represented by my
colleagues across the aisle who are now paying the alternative minimum
tax in 2007. But, instead, true to form, not a single Democratic
Senator voted for the amendment to provide relief from the alternative
minimum tax and to stop spending money this country does not have and
was not intended to get. If you get it from these 23 million people, it
has the capability of ruining the middle class in America. We got not a
single vote from the other side of the aisle.
So even though the alternative minimum tax is a problem that has been
developing for a while, almost 40 years, Congress has had an
opportunity to deal with the issue but has blocked attempts to deal
with the issue thoroughly. Or, if Congress passed it, President Clinton
vetoed it. Although on numerous occasions Congress has made adjustments
to the exemption and in the rates, it has not engaged in a sustained
effort to keep the alternative minimum tax from further absorbing the
working people who are in middle-class America. Instead, despite
temporary measures, the AMT has gone from being a threat to millions of
taxpayers who were never supposed to be subject to a minimum tax, to
being a reality when they sent in their estimated income tax payments
to the IRS for the first quarter.
That the alternative minimum tax has grown grossly beyond its
original purpose, which was to ensure that the wealthy were not exempt
from an income tax, is indisputable, and that the alternative minimum
tax is inherently flawed then falls into the commonsense category.
Despite widespread agreement that something needs to be done about
the alternative minimum tax, agreement on what exactly to do is not so
widespread. I suppose if there had been an agreement to repeal it, I
would have gotten more than 44 votes on my amendment to the budget
resolution a month ago. So you can use your mathematics. It is going to
take at least seven more people to agree with me before we can get that
done. And a major factor in the disagreement relates to massive amounts
of money that the alternative minimum tax brings to the Federal
Government. In 2004, the alternative minimum tax brought $12.8 billion
into the Treasury. Projections show that the AMT balloons revenues in
coming years. These projections are used to put together the budget
using current law, so that is why this money that was never supposed to
be collected is put into the budget by the Congressional Budget Office
and by the Office of Management and Budget in the executive branch.
This is a bipartisan problem. Whether you have a Republican majority
or Democratic majority in this body, it is going to be handled the same
way. Republican and Democratic budgets, then, rely on the same source
of revenue--even though it is a revenue that was never supposed to be
collected. In 1969, it was never anticipated it would hit more than
people with adjusted gross incomes, at that time, of $200,000; and if
you brought that on for inflation now, it would be somewhat a bigger
figure but it would not take in 3 million people as it does today and
it wouldn't be taking in 23 million people as it will this very year.
This means the central problem in dealing with the AMT is not money
[[Page S4645]]
that will come in, but people are counting on it to come in. I call it
phantom income. Of course, for the 23 million people who file or have
to file for this year's income, if we do not do something, it is going
to bring in additional revenue, and it would not be phantom in that
case, but it is phantom in the sense that if it was supposed to hit a
few rich people and it is hitting 23 million middle-income Americans,
it does not seem legitimate to count it as money coming into the
Federal Treasury.
There are some people who would say we can only solve the alternative
minimum tax problem if offsetting revenue can be found to replace the
money the AMT is currently forecast to collect. Anyone who says this
sees the forecast showing revenue being pushed up as a percentage of
gross domestic product and, quite frankly, they like to spend more
money so they want to keep it there.
These arguments are especially ridiculous when one considers that the
alternative minimum tax was never meant to collect as much revenue; in
other words, it is a failed policy. It is simply unfair to expect
taxpayers to pay a tax they were never intended to pay. It is even more
unfair to expect them to continue paying that tax once we get rid of
it.
The reform or repeal of the AMT should not be offset because it is
money we were never supposed to collect in the first place. So the way
to solve this problem is to look on the other side of the ledger, on
the spending side. Budget planners need to take off their rose-colored
glasses when looking at the long-term revenue projections and read the
fine print.
In general, it is a good idea to spend money within your means. That
is true in this case as well. If we start trying to spend revenues we
expect to collect in the future because of the alternative minimum tax,
we will be living beyond our means. We need to stop assuming that
record levels of revenue are available to be spent and recognize that
the alternative minimum tax is a phony revenue source.
As we consider how to deal with the alternative minimum tax, we must
first remember we do not have the option of not dealing with it if we
want to maintain a middle class in America. The problem will only get
worse every year and make any solution more difficult.
We must also be clear that the revenue the alternative minimum tax
will not collect as a result of repeal or reform should not be offset
as a condition of repeal or reform. We should not call it lost revenue
because it is revenue we never had to begin with.
This week millions of families are beginning to feel the
ramifications of that revenue vortex. I have outlined that the
alternative minimum tax problem has been developing for decades, but I
want to make clear that something distinctly different and more onerous
is happening this year for alternative minimum taxpayers; that is, that
for the first time in 6 years, there is no money in the budget to fix
the alternative minimum tax even for 1 year. So the outlook for those
23 million people who are paying it right now on incomes earned this
year is even a little bleaker than in recent years.
For the first time in 6 years, there is also no bill on the floor to
deal with the issue. Now, there is the Baucus-Grassley bill that I do
not think the Democratic leadership has put on the schedule yet but
they ought to if they want to preserve the middle class.
At estimated tax payment time last year, folks were feeling a similar
crunch on the alternative minimum tax. But the legislative posture on
this point was significantly different. This time last year, the
alternative minimum tax fix bill for 2006 had already passed in both
the House and the Senate. At this time last year, the tax-writing
committees were in conference on a tax package that included a fix to
the alternative minimum tax for the year 2006 income and was enacted in
May of 2006.
This year, those 23 million families facing a 2007 estimated tax
payment have nothing to refer to but the IRS instruction package that
is telling them it is time to start paying on the 2007 alternative
minimum tax problem now.
It is time for Congress to wake up to this problem. It cannot wait
until the end of this year. It cannot wait until the end of the next
Presidential election. The time is now. So I implore my colleagues to
join me in addressing this issue.
Perhaps the 23 million families who are feeling the absolutely
maddening tax increase of 2007, beginning this week, will be inspired
to act, and hopefully we will have a prairie fire of support for acting
on this quickly and maybe even doing the right thing by repealing it
entirely.
We just went through that time of the year where, for most people,
the Tax Code transforms from an abstraction to a concrete reality. The
same is true of tax relief. What may be an academic or policy
discussion becomes something more when the men and women of our Nation
actually work out how much of what they have earned they turn over to
us in Congress to spend for them.
Thanks to the popular and bipartisan tax relief enacted in 2001 and
2003, virtually all Americans paid less in taxes this year than they
did last year. There seems to be several Members of this body who view
that as a bad thing to happen, who would rather take what others have
earned and stuff it into the pork barrel.
I think that American workers are the best people to decide how to
spend their money and that letting them keep as much of their own money
as possible is very good.
As I said, Americans generally paid less this year than they did last
year because of bipartisan tax relief. Last year I talked about the
slim majority who have governed the Senate for the past several years.
If tax relief hadn't been bipartisan, the 2000 tax relief bill would
not have received the support of nearly a quarter of the Democratic
caucus that year when the conference report came up for a rollcall
vote.
However, this popular and bipartisan tax relief has been put at risk
by Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. The Senate-passed
budget resolution only provides 44 percent of the revenue room needed
to make tax relief permanent; only 44 percent. The House-passed budget
resolution provides zero percent of the revenue room necessary, which
means that taxpayers face a serious risk of being hit with a wall of
tax increases in 2011, as illustrated by this chart, the wall between
what taxes are being paid now and what will be paid when 2011 happens.
According to the U.S. Treasury, a family of four with an income of
$40,000 will be hit by a tax hike of $2,052 per year, every year. That
is an increase for a family of four with an income of $40,000 a year,
not rich people.
To see the consequences, we need to look past academic seminars and
working papers and wordy editorials to see what this tax hike will mean
for real people. For a family of four at $40,000, this tax wall of
$2,052 of increased payment to the Federal Government is real and at
that time will be a real problem.
Right now I want to walk through the specific components of the
bipartisan tax relief that are at risk. This chart breaks down what
could be a $407 billion tax increase over 5 years. Here is the tax
increases of various parts of the 2001-2003 tax bills that have those
subdivisions in it, and as these expire, income will be coming in this
much more from various things that automatically happen.
Let me be clear on this: This is a tax increase that Congress is not
going to vote for. This is a tax increase that Congress would not have
guts enough to vote for. This is a tax increase that is automatically
going to happen because the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 sunset in 2010.
To anybody around this body who says they are not voting to increase
taxes, we can stop this. If we stop this, we keep the present level of
taxation, we would not be cutting taxes more. The policy we have had in
place for this decade would stay in place the next decade. That is not
a bad tax policy because of the increase of the 7.8 million new jobs.
And that is Chairman Greenspan saying it is responsible for the
recovery we have. As pointed out, almost everything statistically that
we use to show that the economy is working, it is all very positive.
So let's look at some of these subdivisions of this 2001-2003 tax
bill. Let's take the marginal tax rate cuts. We set up a brand-new 10-
percent bracket that year in 2001 so that low-income people
[[Page S4646]]
would not have to pay as much tax, if their first tax dollar is taxed
at 10 percent, where it used to be taxed at 15 percent for lower income
people.
That costs $203 billion over 5 years, according to the Joint
Committee on Taxation. I am sorry. That included the 10-percent
bracket. But I was talking about the marginal tax rate cut generally,
including the 10-percent bracket. What I said about the 10-percent
bracket, making it possible for low-income people to pay less tax on
their first dollar, is also true.
But the $203 billion applies to all tax rates. The 10-percent bracket
costs $78 billion over 5 years, all by itself. But that proposal
reduces the taxes of approximately 100 million families and individuals
across the Nation. When considering the rest of the marginal rates, it
appears some folks think the 35-percent tax rate is too low of a top
rate.
Well, guess what. Repealing the marginal tax rates hits small
business, the biggest source of new jobs in America. It hits that class
of people the most.
The Treasury Department estimates 33 million small business owners
who are taxed on their business income at the individual rate benefits
from the marginal tax rate cuts. Repealing these cuts would cause 33
million small business owners to pay a 13-percent penalty. Why do we
want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, and that is small
business, where most of the jobs are created in America? It is the
backbone of our economy.
Do Democratic leaders want to raise taxes on those taxpayers?
Treasury also projects that small business gets over 80 percent of the
benefits of the cut in the top two rates. Do we want to raise the tax
rates of small business by 13 percent? Does that make any sense?
Democratic leaders, what would you say about raising that amount of
money from small business, a 13-percent tax increase, if Congress does
nothing?
So obviously I am recommending we take action between now and that
sunset to make sure a tax policy that has been good for the entire
economy, according to Chairman Greenspan, stays in place to continue to
create jobs above and beyond the 7.8 million jobs that are already
created in this recovery.
Now, what about death tax relief? That package scores $102 billion
over 5 years. Most of the revenue loss is attributable to increasing
the exemption amount and dropping the rate to 45 percent on already-
taxed property. Is it unreasonable to provide relief from the death
tax? Why should death be an incident of taxation? Why should you have a
fire sale, when you do not get as much for assets when someone dies in
order to pay the taxes? Why not let the willing buyer or willing seller
make a decision when the marketplace is going to work? Death is not the
marketplace working. Is it unreasonable to provide that sort of relief,
or should we raise the death tax on small business and family farms?
That is what will happen if the bipartisan tax relief package is not
extended.
Now we have the child tax credit. That is the fourth one down on the
chart. Mr. President, 31.6 million families benefit from the child tax
credit according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. How about the
refundable piece that helped 16 million kids and their families? That
proposal loses $41 billion over 5 years. I didn't think we would have a
lot of takers on letting that one expire, but the Democratic leadership
may be proving me wrong.
The next item on the list is the lower rates on capital gains and
dividends. Thirty-three million Americans, a good number of them low-
income seniors, benefit from the lower tax rates on capital gains and
dividends. Some people try to portray this tax reduction as only for
the idle rich. But the beneficiaries of this provision include working-
class Americans who have spent a lifetime building up equity in
property and securities and probably have their pension funds and their
401(k)s invested in the stock market.
Does the Democratic leadership think we should raise taxes on these
33 million families and individuals?
Take into consideration the fact that 25 years ago, only about 12, 15
percent of Americans had any investment in the stock market. Today it
is between 55 and 60 percent because of 401(k)s, IRAs, and pensions.
Then we have the marriage penalty. Why would we ever think there
should be a penalty on people being married? We finally did something
about the marriage penalty. It is the first relief we delivered to that
class of people in over 30 years. This proposal scores at $13 billion
over 5 years. The Treasury estimates nearly 33 million married couples
benefit from the abolition of the marriage penalty. Again, I don't
think many folks would want to raise taxes on people just because they
are married. Most of the folks who do want to raise taxes on married
couples must be serving in the House and Senate because that is what is
going to happen when this sunsets.
Another proposal is expensing for small business, meaning expensing
of depreciable property, depreciable equipment, among other things.
This is a commonsense bipartisan proposal. According to the Internal
Revenue service, 6.7 million small businesses benefited from this
provision in 2004. That is the most recent year for which we have
statistics. If we don't make this provision permanent, small businesses
face a tax increase of $12 billion in 5 years. When this sunsets--and
the majority wants it to sunset--do they want to hurt small business? I
think that is unwise tax policy.
Continuing on through the bipartisan tax relief package, let's look
at the education tax relief provisions. This package helps Americans
cope with college education costs. It scores at $2 billion over 5
years, and 16 million families and students benefited from this tax
relief in 2004. In this era of rising higher education costs, should we
gut tax benefits for families who want a college education for their
kids? In order to keep competitive in the global economy, we ought to
think about having the most educated workforce we can. Especially in
the runup to the last election, I heard a lot about the importance of
higher education and helping to ensure that costs do not keep people
out of college. But college education is going to increase for middle-
income people who are taking advantage of this tax exemption for
college tuition. These provisions put those ideas into action and help
people afford a college education. Does the Democratic leadership think
scrapping them is good for our young people, good for our economy, good
for middle-class families?
The last item on this chart is where both parents work and have to
deal with childcare expenses. The tax relief package includes enhanced
incentives for childcare expenses, and 5.9 million families across
America benefit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. These
provisions helped working mothers and fathers remain in the workforce
while having a family. Does the Democratic leadership think we ought to
take away these childcare benefits from working families?
I have taken my colleagues through about $407 billion of tax relief.
It sounds a lot like an abstraction, but it provides relief to almost
every American who pays income tax. I ask any of those who want to
adjust or restructure the bipartisan tax relief, where would they cut
in this package? Where would they cut? It would be very difficult,
considering how this tax package has contributed to the revitalization
of this economy, according to Chairman Greenspan, to touch it at all.
It seems to me they would not want to kill the goose that laid the
golden egg. Wouldn't they want to keep that goose laying those golden
eggs into the next decade and do it today instead of waiting until 2010
to do it before it sunsets? The principle of the predictability of tax
policy to get business to create jobs is very important. It is very
unpredictable now. We get to 2009 and 2010, and we are not going to get
the long-term investment until people know what the tax policy is. Some
economists tell us this has a very detrimental impact on the economy.
When you ask what you would restructure or adjust, would you hit the
10-percent bracket, drive up taxes for low-income people, or would you
hurt small business tax relief and kill the engine that creates most of
the jobs, or would you eliminate the refundable child tax credit so
parents, where both parents work, would have additional costs of
working, and maybe one of them would have to leave the workforce, or do
you want to kill small business and farmers by not reforming
[[Page S4647]]
the estate tax, or do you want to penalize married people again by
doing away with the marriage penalty relief?
What about dividend and capital gains relief, one of the tax bills
that has brought $708 billion of new revenue because of increased
economic activity, because we are letting 70, 80 million taxpayers
decide how to spend their money instead of 16,000 corporate executives,
if it is retained in the corporation instead of being given out in the
form of dividends, or do you want to hurt people who are getting a
college education because of the tuition tax credit or childcare
generally?
In a smooth-running, with above-average levels of individual income
tax as a percentage of gross domestic product, even with this tax
relief package in place since 2001 and 2003, what area, I ask the
people who want this to sunset and bring in more revenue because they
want to spend more, would they adjust? Where would they restructure?
Why undo a bipartisan tax cut that makes the Tax Code more progressive?
I say that without any hesitation whatsoever based upon the judgment
of the Joint Committee on Taxation that those making more than $200,000
a year are paying a higher percentage of income tax than they were
prior to the 2001 tax cut. As things stand right now, based upon the
budget resolution that passed this body last month, bipartisan tax
relief is in danger. The Democratic Senate has only provided for 44
percent of the tax relief beyond 2010, and the Democratic House has not
provided for any. I am sure much will be said of the high cost of tax
relief, but those comments are inherently misleading. My colleagues
need to think about the high cost to the American taxpayers when they
are hit with the largest tax increase in the history of the country
that is going to happen without even a vote of the Congress.
Federal revenues are already at historically high levels, and if
something is not done soon Americans will be hit with an additional
wall of tax increases, January 1, 2011. If what some have called tax
cuts for the rich expire, a family of four with incomes of $40,000 will
face an average tax increase of $2,052.
In order to protect the interests of working Americans, our
collective Republican leadership has introduced a bill, S. 14, called
the Invest in America Act, to ensure that this largest tax increase in
history does not go into effect. This bill will help small businesses.
It is going to help families afford college. It will help seniors who
rely on capital gains or dividends for income. It will help working
parents take care of their children.
Why doesn't the Democratic House want to do any of these things?
Which 44 percent of tax relief does the Democratic Senate have in mind?
When I say this Republican leadership bill invests in America, it
maintains existing tax policy. It is going to make sure the taxpayer
doesn't run up against this tax increase wall.
I want to end today, as I did in some remarks I made last week, by
urging the Democratic caucus to tear down this wall. The Republican
Congress is eager to work with them in bipartisan cooperation to
promote a progressive and fair Tax Code and to prevent a wall of tax
increases from crushing the American taxpayer.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, may I ask, what is the business, what is
the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the motion to
proceed to S. 378.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for about 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk
about the vote we had earlier today on the Medicare noninterference
provision, which prohibits the Secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services from getting involved in the negotiations between
the private plans offering the Medicare drug benefit and the drug
manufacturers.
I did not vote for cloture today because I support the Medicare
prescription drug benefit. The benefit is working well. Seniors have
access to drugs. They are saving money, and most beneficiaries are
happy with the benefit. Removing the noninterference provisions, as the
Democrats want to do in S. 3, would jeopardize the Medicare drug
benefit and could force beneficiaries to rely on a one-size-fits-all
big Government bureaucracy for their prescription drugs.
I was a strong supporter of the 2003 Medicare drug bill and worked
very hard to get it passed. For too long, Medicare had not covered
prescription drugs for seniors, even though many of these drugs are
life sustaining and life enhancing. Since the drug bill was enacted,
all Medicare beneficiaries have access to prescription drug coverage,
and low-income beneficiaries receive substantial help in affording
their prescription drugs.
One of the most important elements in the 2003 bill was allowing
private plans to offer the prescription drug benefit. Under the bill,
these plans negotiate with drug manufacturers for the prices on
prescription drugs, and then market their benefits to beneficiaries.
Medicare beneficiaries have a choice of plans to select. In my State
of Kentucky, there are 24 companies offering 54 plans. All of these
plans are different, and each one of them offers a different formulary.
Plans compete with each other by offering the best benefit, which may
not mean the same thing to all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. Some
beneficiaries may not have many drug expenses each month, so they can
go with a cheaper plan. Other beneficiaries may have more costly drug
expenses and may need a plan that offers more coverage.
The point of having private companies offer the drug benefit was so
seniors could pick the plan that works best for them. It is working,
and seniors are saving a substantial amount of money. In fact, the
average beneficiary is saving about $1,200. Ninety percent of Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries have drug coverage, and 80 percent of them are
satisfied with the program.
To me, this sounds like a success--a real success. Part of this
success comes from the fact that we kept the Medicare bureaucrats out
of the program. Traditionally, Medicare is a one-size-fits-all program
that sets prices for doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, hospice care,
ambulance providers--you name it.
Medicare beneficiaries should ask their doctors the next time they
see them how fairly Medicare reimburses them. I suspect most doctors
would say their reimbursements fall short of their actual costs, and
they are constantly on the lookout for ways Medicare may try to change
their reimbursement for the services they offer.
The drug benefit, however, is different. It allows the drug plans to
negotiate directly with the manufacturers for prescription drugs. These
plans, then, have to attract Medicare beneficiaries to join their
program by offering the best possible benefit. A plan that does not
offer a competitive benefit will not attract members. A plan that
offers an attractive benefit will attract members to its rolls.
It is simple--really, it is--and it is working. The Democrats would
have you believe Government negotiation is going to save money for
Medicare and seniors. Unfortunately, they are wrong.
First of all, saying Medicare will ``negotiate'' is a
fallacy. Medicare does not negotiate; it sets prices. Just ask your
doctor how often the Medicare Program negotiates.
Second, the Democrats haven't said a word about how this new
authority would actually work. There wasn't one word in S. 3 about what
this negotiation would look like. Is Medicare going to negotiate for
only a few drugs, as some Members have suggested? No one knows. Are
they negotiating prices for all drugs? No one knows. Will the Secretary
actually deny access to certain drugs if he doesn't get the price he
wants? No one knows. It seems to me that before you undermine a
successful, well-received program such as the Medicare prescription
drug benefit, you better have the guts to tell people exactly how it is
going to change.
[[Page S4648]]
Third, there is a real concern by experts in this area that
Government price-setting for Medicare drugs could cause drug prices to
increase for other payors, including Medicaid, the Veterans'
Administration, and private purchasers. This hardly seems like a good
plan.
Finally, the Congressional Budget Office has said repeatedly over the
years that removing this provision has a negligible effect on Federal
spending. In fact, CBO Directors under both Republican- and now
Democratic-controlled Congresses have come to the same conclusion.
Without Medicare creating a national formulary and limiting access to
drugs, it is unlikely they would be able to get a significant discount
on drugs.
I also wish to point out that this provision isn't new. In fact,
prior to the passage of the 2003 Medicare drug bill, many Members of
Congress had proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
Many of these bills, including those by Democratic lawmakers, included
a noninterference provision. For example, the former Democratic leader,
Senator Daschle, in the Senate had a bill in 2000 that included such a
provision. This bill was cosponsored by 26 Democratic Members still
serving in Congress, including the current chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Baucus. It is curious that this language was fine
for Democratic bills but for some reason isn't fine presently for this
bill.
The Medicare drug bill we passed in 2003 is working well.
Beneficiaries have access to drugs, and people are saving money. Now is
not the time to significantly alter the program and rip out the
competition that is working so well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motions
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning, in one of the newspapers
that covers Capitol Hill, there was a story with some complaints by the
minority and the leader of the minority that the majority is filing
what are called cloture motions. We are, in fact, filing cloture
motions, and the reason we are doing it is because the minority doesn't
want to move to debate the issues.
To give you an example, in recent days, we have had to file a cloture
motion to have a vote on the Intelligence Authorization Bill. It turned
out the minority, in nearly a unanimous vote, succeeded in blocking our
ability to even debate the bill. That was the motion to proceed on the
debate, not the debate itself. The question is: Shall we proceed to
debate reauthorization of intelligence? The minority said we won't give
you the permission to approve the motion to proceed. We are going to
have to have you file cloture on that. We will then have a cloture vote
and 40-plus will decide to march in against it. So you cannot proceed
on the intelligence reauthorization.
On the issue of negotiating lower prescription drug prices, the
minority says we won't allow you to go to the bill to negotiate lower
drug prices under Medicare. You have to vote on a motion to proceed.
They come over and, by and large, oppose the motion to proceed so we
cannot go to negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare.
About an hour or two ago, we had to have a vote on going to the issue
of court security--security in our court system. They required us to
file cloture and have a vote on the motion to proceed to going to
security for America's court system. It is unbelievable.
Let me go back for a moment on this issue of intelligence. They
required us to file cloture on the motion to proceed. If there is
anything critically needed by this Congress and this country--
especially this country--it is to get this issue of intelligence right.
Why is that important? We live in a very dangerous world. We face a lot
of threats and challenges. We have been through the last half decade or
more in a circumstance where the intelligence function in our
Government has dramatically failed. The consequences of that have been
life or death. Here are some examples:
We went to war with Iraq. We had many top secret briefings prior to
the war given by our intelligence officials and top members of the
administration. They told us, for example, that the country of Iraq
threatened this country because it had mobile chemical weapons labs.
They gave us substantial information about mobile chemical weapons labs
in Iraq. It turns out now, much later, we discover that in fact those
so-called laboratories didn't exist. The information our intelligence
community gave Congress came from one source, a man who was named
``Curve Ball,'' who was largely considered to be a drunk and a
fabricator. A single source--someone considered to have been a drunk
and a fabricator--convinced our intelligence community and this
administration to tell us and the American people that Iraq threatened
this country because they had mobile chemical weapons labs. We now
understand that wasn't true, but it was part of the foundation upon
which a decision was made to go to war.
Aluminum tubes for the reconstruction of a nuclear weapons program in
Iraq--we were told there was a nuclear weapons program, the
reconstruction of which will threaten our country and threaten the
world. It turns out the administration and the intelligence community
told us a half truth. Some in the administration felt the aluminum
tubes specifically ordered by Iraq were for the purpose of
reconstructing a nuclear capability. Others in the administration felt
equally strongly that there was no such thing involved, that it was for
rocketry; it didn't have anything to do with the reconstruction of a
nuclear weapons program. The intelligence community did not tell
Congress about that portion of the debate.
Yellowcake from Niger. The President told the Congress in briefings
and intelligence sources upstairs that Iraq was attempting to procure
yellowcake from Niger for the purpose of reconstituting its nuclear
capability. It turns out that was based on falsified documents,
fraudulent documents. Based on a lot of information, including
yellowcake from Niger, and allegations about Iraq trying to secure it,
aluminum tubes purchased it was alleged for the purpose of
reconstructing a nuclear capability, or mobile chemical weapons labs,
reports of which came from apparently one source, a single source, a
drunk and fabricator who used to drive a taxicab in Baghdad. That was
the basis, at least in part, on which to build a foundation that told
this country a threat exists against the United States and we must take
military action against the country of Iraq.
We know what has happened in the interim. This war with Iraq has cost
an unbelievable amount of money and lives. It has cost this country
dearly around the world. Now we are in a situation where, according to
the latest National Intelligence Estimate that there is a civil war in
Iraq. That is a combined judgment of all of the intelligence sources in
our country and the top intelligence officers and folks in the
administration.
It is not, as the President seems to suggest, the fight against al-
Qaida in Iraq. Our National Intelligence Estimate tells us what it is.
It is sectarian violence. There is some presence of al-Qaida in Anbar
Province in Iraq, but principally what is happening in Iraq is not
about al-Qaida and terrorists; it is about sectarian violence,
committing acts of terror--Sunni against Shia and Shia against Sunni--
and the most unbelievable acts of terror you can imagine.
In fact, the head of our intelligence has since said this, that the
greatest terrorist threat to our country is with al-Qaida and its
leadership, which is in a secure hideaway in Pakistan. These are the
people who boasted about murdering innocent Americans on 9/11/2001. No,
they have not been brought to justice. They are, according to the head
of our intelligence services, in a secure hideaway in Pakistan.
What, then, should be our greatest goal? What should be our priority?
Continuing in a civil war in Iraq, having our troops in the middle of a
civil
[[Page S4649]]
war in Iraq? Or deciding we are going to go after the terrorists who
represent the greatest threat to our country, al-Qaida? That is not
from me. The description of that comes from the head of our
intelligence services in this country.
I have described the mistakes that were made. In fact, there was no
oversight, of course, in the last few years in the Congress, none at
all--no hearings, no oversight to talk about this. So I held oversight
hearings as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. One day, I had
four people come before the committee who previously had worked for the
CIA, and others. One of whom was COL Larry Wilkerson, who served 17
years as a top assistant to Colin Powell, including when he was
Secretary of State. He was there when the presentation was made at the
United Nations. He said later that was the perpetration of a hoax on
the American people.
I cannot pretend to know what went wrong or how. I know in the
aftermath that this Congress, with the majority that existed last year,
held no oversight hearings and didn't seem to care, wanted to keep it
behind the curtain. I know this, however: Going forward, this country's
future and this country's security depends on good intelligence. It
depends on our getting it right, and it depends on our knowing what is
happening. Reauthorizing the intelligence functions of our Government
is critical.
It undermines our soldiers, in my judgment, for us not to take action
to provide the very finest intelligence that can be available to us
through reauthorizing our intelligence functions. It should have been
done before, but it wasn't. It is brought to the floor now, but it will
not be allowed to be debated because the minority says they don't want
to reauthorize the intelligence functions under these conditions. I
don't understand that. I think that shortchanges the American people.
But it is not just intelligence. Earlier today, the minority said we
will not allow you to move forward on a domestic issue, and that is
having the American people feel as though their Government is giving
them the best deal possible by negotiating decent prices with the
pharmaceutical industry for drugs that are purchased under Medicare. We
hoped to have a debate about that. In 2000, the drug companies, the
pharmaceutical companies, ran an advertising campaign in this country
in support of creating a Medicare drug benefit. This is what they said:
They touted a study that said private drug insurance will lower prices
30 to 39 percent. That is what they said.
We understand about prices. Mr. President, let me, if I might, show
you two bottles that formerly contained medicine. This is Lipitor. The
American people understand about drug pricing and the unfairness to the
American people. This is a drug produced in Ireland. A lot of people
take it to lower their cholesterol. These bottles are, as you can see,
identical. They held tablets of Lipitor, made in the same plant, FDA
approved--exactly the same medicine. The difference is this one was
actually sent to Canada to be sold. This one was sent to the United
States. Well, this one was twice as expensive to the U.S. consumer. The
same pill made by the same company, made in the same manufacturing
plant, sold in two different places--one in Canada and one in the
United States--and Americans were told you pay double. And it is not
just Canada. Almost any country I could name will be paying lower
prices for the same drugs, because the American consumer is charged the
highest prices.
We have legislation to try to respond to that. There is plenty of
opposition in this Chamber. The first step in dealing with this is for
the Government, as the institution that created the prescription drug
benefit under Medicare, to be using its capability to buy in large
quantities to reduce the price by negotiating with the pharmaceutical
industry. But when the prescription drug plan for Medicare was put into
place in this Chamber, then the Republicans in the majority said: We
are going to prohibit the Federal Government from negotiating lower
prices with the pharmaceutical industry.
That is almost unbelievable, when you think about it. Can you think
of anybody in your hometown doing that--saying we are going to do
business with somebody, but we are going to be prohibited from
negotiating the best price? Well, nonetheless, that was the law, and so
now we are trying to change it to say, no, we believe the Federal
Government ought to be allowed to negotiate better prices for quantity
discounts. Yet, now the minority party will not even allow us to
continue because they force a cloture vote on a motion to proceed--not
the bill itself, but on a motion to proceed to the bill--and they block
it.
Well, the pharmaceutical industry had said if we pass prescription
drug benefits in the Medicare Program, it would lower prices 30 to 39
percent. Has it done that? Well, no. I will give you examples: From
November 2005 to April 2006--that is a half year--the prices charged
for the 20 drugs most frequently prescribed to senior citizens
increased by 3.7 percent, or about four times the rate of inflation. In
the first quarter of 2006, drug prices shot up 3.9 percent, the highest
first quarter increase in drug pricing in 6 years.
Now, some of my colleagues will argue that private plans are doing a
terrific job of negotiating with drug companies. Well, we recently did
a study on this subject. We did a study of 53 stand-alone Part D plans
that are available in my State. We looked at the prices these plans
paid for the 25 drugs most frequently prescribed to senior citizens. If
those senior citizens bought the drugs at average Part D prices, it was
$829. If you walked into the pharmacy downtown, it was $845. At Costco,
it was $814. Where is the 30 to 39-percent discount here because the
Federal Government has now become a giant purchaser? We used to get
discounts under Medicaid--still do, in fact, under Medicaid, but those
low-income senior citizens who migrated from Medicaid to Medicare mean
we now pay more because we don't negotiate for lower prices with the
prescription drug industry under Medicare. And that is the problem.
If all Secretary Leavitt would do as Secretary of HHS is to buy part
D prescription drugs from Main Street pharmacies, Medicare will save
money. I don't understand why those who are self-labeled as
conservative would not be on the side of having the Federal Government
make the best deal it can to save money when it is making bulk
purchases of prescription drugs.
I understand part of what is happening. Part of what is happening is
the pharmaceutical industry has a great deal of clout, and there is
support for them in this Chamber. I don't come to the floor denigrating
the industry. I don't like their pricing policies. I have told them
that. The pharmaceutical industry produces some lifesaving medicine,
some of it with research paid for by the American taxpayers through the
National Institutes of Health and other venues, and some of it through
their own research investment. They produce lifesaving medicines, and
good for them. But lifesaving prescription drugs offer no miracles to
those who can't afford to buy them, and pricing is an issue for all
Americans.
With respect to the issue of senior citizens who are getting their
prescription drugs now under the Medicare Program, pricing is an issue
for the taxpayers because we are paying a much higher price than we
should if we were to buy prescription drugs as we do in the veterans
system, in the VA system. They are allowed to negotiate for lower
prices in the VA system, and the result is dramatic.
We pay much lower prices for those prescription drugs because the
Federal Government, as a very large producer, has the clout to
negotiate lower prices. The Government is prevented specifically by law
from doing the same thing with respect to the Medicare Part D Program,
and it makes no sense at all.
I started by saying the minority party is now complaining in the
newspapers this morning about the number of cloture motions that are
filed in this Chamber. That is inconvenient, apparently, or they don't
like it. I understand. But the fact is, the very party that complains
about the cloture motions is objecting even to moving to a motion to
proceed.
The motion is not shall we debate this issue, the motion is shall we
proceed to the issue for a debate, and they are requiring that we file
a cloture motion because they will not debate the motion to proceed,
let alone the issue itself.
[[Page S4650]]
It was interesting that after the cloture motion failed on the motion
to proceed because the minority blocked it, we had some people come to
the floor to speak about the issue this morning to defend the
pharmaceutical industry and say: No, the Federal Government shouldn't
negotiate. It seems to me if they wanted to speak about the issue, why
wouldn't they support the motion to proceed so we could actually get on
the debate and they could debate on the issue rather than debate
outside of what they have prevented?
I don't understand that. Maybe I shouldn't say that. I guess I do
understand it. The complaint about our being required to file cloture
motions comes from those who don't want to apparently go to
intelligence reauthorization. They don't want to debate that bill, so
they blocked it. They don't want to debate a provision that will allow
us to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, so they blocked that
bill. They forced us to have a vote on the motion to proceed on
providing court security, for God's sake, in the shadow of the
unspeakable tragedy and the heartbreak all of us feel with what has
happened at Virginia Tech. The issue of court security ought not be
controversial. Why on Earth should we be forced to file a cloture
motion? Why should there be required a vote on the motion to proceed to
something such as this issue? It doesn't make any sense.
The fact is, I have always said I think both political parties
contribute something to this country. I believe that. We ought to get
the best of what each can contribute to this country rather than what
we often do, the worst of each. The best of what both parties can
contribute to this country would give this country something to feel
proud about. We ought to bring these issues to the floor of the Senate.
Yes, reauthorize intelligence, yes, allow us to debate the issue of why
shouldn't we negotiate lower priced prescription drugs on behalf of the
taxpayers and on behalf of the American citizens. I held a hearing this
morning on international trade. Yes, let's have that debate on the
floor of the Senate. Why are we drowning in an $832 billion trade
deficit? Why are American jobs being shipped off to China?
Let's have these debates on the floor of the Senate. Let's bring the
bills out and have these debates rather than have exercises to try to
block anybody from getting anything done. That is what has been
happening. Block people from getting anything done and then go complain
to the press that nothing is getting done--that is a very self-
fulfilling prophecy but not very genuine, in my judgment.
I hope in the coming days and weeks--we have 6 weeks or so before
there is a period of a few days off during the Memorial Day break--my
hope is that during this period of time, we can move forward on some of
these issues on the floor of the Senate, have aggressive debates, and
try to get the best ideas that could come from both Republicans and
Democrats and put them in legislation that will advance this country's
interests.
This country deserves that debate on fiscal policy, on trade policy,
on foreign policy, on a whole range of issues. This country deserves
that from this Congress.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Jersey.
Tragedy at Virginia Tech
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with an incredibly heavy
heart to talk about the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Today families and
loved ones across the Nation are grieving. A community, a college, and
a nation are struggling to mourn the loss of more than 30 of its best
and brightest.
I rise to speak today because, as we know, it is not just Virginia
that is suffering, but this is a pain that is felt all across the
country. This tragedy hit particularly close to home in New Jersey. At
least three New Jersey families have suffered unspeakable losses. They
are enduring any parent's worst nightmare--losing a child.
These three young people had yet to carve out their path in life, but
each had promising ambitions, dreams they hoped to fulfill, and diverse
interests that would, no doubt, have left their mark in this world.
Matt LaPorte, a 20-year-old from Dumont, was a talented student and
musician who hoped to serve in the Air Force. He was in the Air Force
ROTC attending Virginia Tech on a scholarship. A former Boy Scout, Matt
was known as a gifted cellist and was a drum major in his school's
marching band.
Julia Pryde, from Middletown, had graduated from Virginia Tech with a
degree in biological systems engineering and was working on her
master's degree. She was drawn to environmental engineering and was
interested in clean water issues in South America, a passion that would
no doubt have led her to further travel and work abroad. Friends have
described her as having a bright spirit and as someone who loved to see
the world.
Michael Pohle, Jr., from Flemington, was preparing to graduate in
just a few weeks. A biochemistry major, he was working on finding a job
that was a good fit for him and that would keep him close to his
girlfriend Marcy, whom he had planned to marry. A natural athlete, he
was known for his outgoing personality and a glowing smile.
These were young, innocent, and promising lives lost in Monday's
vicious attack. Those who knew and loved them may never be the same. We
cannot mend the hole in the hearts of the families who are suffering,
but we can honor each life lost and carry on their memory.
I join all of my fellow New Jerseyans in offering my condolences to
the families and friends who knew and loved these three young people.
I also extend my thoughts and prayers to a fourth New Jersey family
who has been watching over their son, Sean McQuade. I join them in
hoping and praying for his full recovery.
My heart goes out to all the families who are suffering because of
this senseless tragedy. Our Nation grieves with them, and we share in
their sorrow.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again, this morning the Senate voted
overwhelmingly to proceed to the court security bill. Ninety-four
Senators voted for cloture to bring debate to a close on the motion to
proceed to the bill. Yet here we are still stuck in postcloture debate
or, in fact, nondebate on that procedural step of going to the bill.
I have heard rumor that one Senator, a Senator on the Judiciary
Committee the panel that unanimously reported this very bill, now has
10 amendments to propose. I say to him and to all Senators, that no
amendments can be offered until we get to the bill. This objection is
apparently what is preventing that.
Today, we may finally make progress on security in another important
setting by turning to the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, S.
378. Frankly, this legislation should have been enacted last year but
was not. It should not be a struggle to enact these measures to improve
court security. We are fortunate that we have not suffered another
violent assault on judges and their families.
It was 2 years ago when the mother and husband of Judge Joan Lefkow
of Chicago were murdered in their home. Judge Lefkow's courageous
testimony in our committee hearing in May 2005 is something none of us
will forget. We witnessed the horrific violence at the courthouse in
Atlanta in which a Georgia State court judge was killed. And then last
year there was the violence against a State judge in Nevada. Despite
our efforts and the commitment of Senator Durbin and Senator Reid,
despite Senate passage of this measure twice last year, Congress has
yet finally to enact these measures to improve court security.
I introduced this bipartisan measure on January 24, 2007, along with
Senator Specter, the majority leader, Senator Durbin, Senator Cornyn,
Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch, Senator Schumer and Senator Collins.
Senator Cardin also joined the bill as a cosponsor. House Judiciary
Chairman John Conyers introduced an identical measure in the House also
with bipartisan support. We hoped to send a signal with our bicameral,
bipartisan introduction at the beginning of this year that we intended
to move quickly to complete our work and increase legal protections for
the Judiciary and their families.
The Judiciary Committee then held a remarkable hearing in February
with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. That hearing reminded us
all of
[[Page S4651]]
the need to provide resources and protections crucial to our Federal
and State courts. We also discussed the critical need to preserve the
independence of our Federal Judiciary so that it can continue to serve
as a bulwark protecting individual rights and liberty. As the Judiciary
Committee discussed in our hearings, the independent Judiciary faces
many types of threats. I take all of these threats seriously, from the
threats to judges' physical safety to rhetorical attacks by some
affiliated with the political branches upon their independence. We
cannot tolerate or excuse violence against judges, their families and
those who serve our justice system.
Nor should we excuse the overheated rhetoric that has become so
prominent in political campaigns lately. During the last few years,
even as judges have come under physical attacks, we have seen federal
judges compared to the Ku Klux Klan, called ``the focus of evil,'' and
in one unbelievable instance referred to as a threat ``more serious
than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.'' A prominent
television evangelist proclaimed the Federal Judiciary ``the worst
threat America has faced in 400 years--worse than Nazi Germany, Japan
and the Civil War.'' We have seen some in Congress threaten the mass
impeachments of judges with whom they disagree and heard comment that
violence against judges could be brought on by their own rulings. That
is irresponsible and dangerous.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has spoken out in recent years about the
danger of this rhetoric and criticized the uncivil tone of attacks on
the courts, noting that they pose a danger to the very independence of
the Federal Judiciary. Like Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy urged us
to find a more civil discourse about judges and their decisions. This
high-pitched partisan rhetoric should stop, not just for the sake of
our judges, but also for the independence of the Judiciary. Judicial
fairness and independence are essential if we are to maintain our
freedoms. During the last few years it has been the courts that have
acted to protect our liberties and our Constitution. We ought to do all
we can to protect them, physically and institutionally.
We can take a significant step today by passing the Court Security
Improvement Act. This bill responds to the needs expressed by the
Federal Judiciary for a greater voice in working with the U.S. Marshals
Service to determine their security needs. It would enact new criminal
penalties for the protections of judges, their families, and others
performing official duties, expand resources available to state courts
for their security, and provide additional protections for law
enforcement officers.
Our Nation's Founders knew that without an independent Judiciary to
protect individual rights from the political branches of Government,
those rights and privileges would not be preserved. The courts are the
ultimate check and balance in our system. We need to do our part to
ensure that the dedicated women and men of our Judiciary have the
resources, security, and independence necessary to fulfill their
crucial responsibilities. We owe it to our judges to better protect
them and their families from violence and to ensure that they have the
peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs. Our
independent Judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take care
to protect and preserve it so that it may preserve, protect and defend
the Constitution of the United States and the rights and liberties that
define us as Americans.
I thank the majority leader for recognizing the significance of this
bill and seeking to move to it. The Judiciary Committee voted
unanimously to report the bill after its consideration. I have taken
care to report the bill favorably to the Senate with a committee
report, which has been available since last month.
I was disappointed that we could not gain the consent of the other
side to adopt this measure, pass it and send it to the House for its
consideration last month. An anonymous Republican objection has stalled
Senate action in that regard. Last week, the majority leader sought
consent to proceed to the bill, but that was prevented by Republican
objection. The Senate has been required to file a cloture petition in
order to consider the majority leader's motion to move to this
bipartisan, court security legislation.
I do not know exactly who has objected or why. It is unfortunate. I
have heard rumors that someone objects to the authorization for States,
local governments, and Indian tribes to create and expand witness and
victim protection programs to prevent threats, intimidation, and
retaliation against victims of, and witnesses to, violent crimes. That
was a provision contained in the court security bill we passed last
year. While other useful programs were required to be stripped from the
bill, that one was retained when the Senate passed this measure last
fall. I do not know why someone who agreed to that provision last year
now finds authorizing a victim program objectionable. We are about to
honor and recognize the importance of crime victims by commemorating
National Crime Victims' Rights Week beginning this Sunday, April 22. I
hope we can pass this bill with the authorization to prevent threats,
intimidation and retaliation against victims of violent crime intact.
I look forward to Senate consideration and passage of this worthwhile
legislation. I hope that secret holds and extraneous proposals will not
be used to complicate its passage by the Senate and enactment by the
Congress. We have a great deal to do. We have an ambitious agenda to
assist the judicial branch. We need to extend needed temporary
judgeships that are otherwise expiring and expired. We need to consider
the important issue of judicial pay. We will need next year to take a
comprehensive look at what additional judgeships are needed in the
Federal Judiciary. I hope that those who have acted to delay us will
work with us and get down to business. It is past time to enact this
judicial security legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee for stating that the debate we are having on this bill isn't
really about the bill. The debate is about the process.
We had an election in November, and one of the things outlined by
that was that Americans are concerned with excessive spending. There
are some big facts that face us. Our judiciary is not nearly as at risk
as our children and grandchildren are from the lack of cogent and
disciplined spending by this body.
The reason we are at the place we are today is because I believe, and
the vast majority of Americans agree with me, that we have to have
priorities in how we spend our money. For us to be good stewards of the
American taxpayers' dollars, we ought to establish priorities. This
bill is a priority. I support the concepts behind the bill, and I will
go through them in a minute. But what should be a greater priority for
us is that we offer our children and grandchildren the same
opportunities, the same freedoms, and the same liberties we enjoy.
The way the Senate works is something I believe needs to be changed,
and I am willing to stand out here on every bill that comes to this
floor to do exactly the same thing as I am going to do today. Here is
the little problem that nobody--or very few in the Senate--wants to
address. We react and create a good piece of legislation. This is a
good piece of legislation. But we don't do the other half of our job,
and the other half of our job is to get rid of the things that aren't
working well.
Assume for a minute that every bill we authorize every year is done
in a manner that says everything else in the Federal Government is
working well. First of all, you ask the average citizen, and they would
say: No, that isn't quite right. You go down, and everybody has a
different complaint. But the fact is, we continue to authorize, we
continue to authorize, and we continue to authorize, but we never go
back and look at what isn't working and deauthorize.
My complaint with this bill isn't with the Senator from Pennsylvania.
He was very cooperative in trying to address my desires for us to
deauthorize certain things that either have excess monies or programs
that aren't efficient or aren't working as they were intended to.
However, when approaching the chairman of the committee, he refused to
even consider the idea that
[[Page S4652]]
we ought to deauthorize something that isn't working in order to create
this thing we all know is needed. It is a good piece of legislation,
and we ought to pass it, and we will pass it. But the point that needs
to be made to the American people, a point they agree with, is that
authorizing a new piece of legislation is only half of our job. As a
matter of fact, it shouldn't even be half. We ought to spend three-
quarters of our time looking at what we are doing already that is
authorized and making sure it is working efficiently. I don't think
anybody in their right mind would disagree with that.
We, in my subcommittee in the 109th Congress, along with Tom Carper,
held 49 oversight hearings on the Federal Government. What we found is
that of the discretionary budget, the non-Medicare, non-Social
Security, non-Medicaid budget, $1 in every $5 we spend is either
wasted, abused, defrauded, or duplicated. It hardly seems fair to a
middle-income taxpayer out there, who only yesterday paid their taxes
and got hit with an extra $1,500 or $2,000 under the AMT, that they
would have to pay that extra money at a time when we are allowing $1
out of every $5 to be wastefully spent, misspent, abused, or defrauded.
So the idea behind what I sent to all of my fellow Senators at the
beginning of the year--and the Senator from Vermont knows very well why
I objected to coming to the floor without a motion to proceed, without
a cloture on that; it is because he represents what I think has to be
changed--that we have to be responsible stewards of the American
taxpayers' dollars, and we are not.
The idea is to change the culture of how we work. How do we do that?
Well, we don't do it by continuing to pass new authorizations without
ever looking at what could be deauthorized to pay for what we are
authorizing anew. What we do is we fail the test of being good stewards
to the very people we represent. As I said, Senator Specter, the
ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, was very cooperative in
trying to find those offsets. I think he basically agrees with my
contention that we ought to be about doing good things, but we also
ought to be about getting rid of the things that aren't working.
It saddens me to think that all through this 110th Congress, I am
going to be doing this on every new authorization that comes out here
if my colleagues don't believe we ought to be changing the way we work.
It is a simple request. It is easy to find the offsets. As the Senator
from Pennsylvania knows, we had offsets for this bill in terms of
deauthorizations. They weren't acceptable to the chairman because he
disagrees with the underlying fundamental premise of what I believe is
an absolute obligation for us in terms of being good stewards.
At the beginning of this Congress, I sent a letter to every Member of
this body, and I outlined some principles under which I was going to
work in this Congress. I am dedicated to those principles, and it
doesn't have anything to do with me or anything to do with the parties.
I don't care who is in the majority or who is in the minority.
It has to do with our future. That is what this is about. This is
about fighting for our future and having a long- range vision rather
than a short-term vision of putting out a fire somewhere.
The principles I outlined said that I would put a hold--and, by the
way, the chairman this morning said there was an anonymous hold. That
is not true. I very eloquently and directly communicated my hold on
this bill. And the letter I sent to everybody in the Senate at the
beginning of this Congress directed that I would be the one holding the
bills. I said this:
If a bill creates or authorizes a new Federal program or activity, it
must not duplicate an existing program or activity without
deauthorizing the existing program. That is No. 1. And several bills I
had last year were duplications.
No. 2 is, if a bill authorizes new spending, it must be offset by
reductions in real authorized spending elsewhere. How are we ever going
to control our deficit? And we do not have, as the administration said,
a $170 billion deficit. Our real deficit, what we actually added to the
debt last year, what we actually added to our children's debt,
was about $340 billion. So when we are adding $340 billion every year
to our kids' and grandkids' debt, isn't it incumbent upon us to do the
necessary things to make sure that doesn't happen in the future? Well,
one of the ways to do that is to look at programs which aren't working
and are not effective and which do not need authorization.
What happens in the Senate is that the appropriators decide what will
get spent and what won't get spent. But the authorizing committee, the
committee that is charged with that area, never deauthorizes anything.
So we have this continuing mounting of authorization, with limited
dollars to go for it, which never forces real priorities or a debate
over the priorities by the authorizing committees.
The third point I made is that if a program or activity currently
receives funding from sources other than the Federal Government--i.e.,
a match--then we shouldn't increase the role of the Federal Government
in terms of increasing the percentage the Federal Government pays. Take
our $340 billion deficit. Every State, save one, has a surplus. They
did last year, and they will this year. So if States have surpluses and
we have a deficit, we shouldn't increase our role. We shouldn't be
doing that.
Finally, if we create a new museum or some new cultural program, then
we ought to endow it rather than set it up for its continuing cost. We
should use the power of compound interest to help us save money in the
future. If we really think something is important enough to invest in,
we should endow that and use the power of compound interest with the
idea that the endowment will earn enough money to take care of that
program in the future rather than passing that new program off to our
kids.
Four very simple things that I ask.
I also stated in that letter that if I thought something was
unconstitutional, then I would object to it, also. However, that
doesn't apply in this instance. There is a legitimate role for us here.
This is a good piece of legislation. But it does lack one of the
criteria under which I stated I would try to hold bills up. I have no
intention of filibustering this bill. I have no intention of making it
difficult to pass the bill. I have every intention to make it an issue
with the American people that we are not doing our job and that we are
better than that. We are better than that. The people in this body
care. The question is, Do we care enough to put the elbow grease into
doing what is necessary to preserve the future? I believe we do care. I
believe we can, and I believe, with persistence--and the chairman and
the ranking member know that if there is anything I am about, it is
about being persistent--if it requires this type of structure in terms
of bringing bills to the floor, then I am happy to oblige the Senate in
that to continue to make the point.
Almost 2 years ago, maybe more than 2 years ago, the infamous bridge
to nowhere was brought to light, which bought about the changes we are
seeing in earmarks. It was one example, which really wasn't a fair
example to the Senator who had that, but nevertheless it characterized
and became the caricature for the bad habits we have in Congress.
My hope is that the American people will look at the commonsense
approach I am trying to propose for us as we authorize new programs and
say: That makes sense. Why would you continue funding things that don't
work? Why would you continue authorizations for programs that aren't
effective? Why would you continue authorizations for programs that are
duplicative? Where one works good and one not so good, why shouldn't we
put money into something that works good rather than not quite so good?
So the question is not whether we should have court security. Of
course we should. The question is not whether this bill should pass. It
should. The question is, How do we address this fact?
Every child who is born in this country today, every one of them, has
a birth tax on them. It is now at $453,000 a child.
People say: How do you get that?
You take the $70 trillion in unfunded liabilities that we are going
to transfer to this next 200 million children, and you can see what
they are liable for.
Take 10 percent interest. If you took a 10-percent interest rate on
$453,000,
[[Page S4653]]
simple interest, to pay the interest on the debt, to cover what we are
leaving to our children and grandchildren, is $45,300 a year.
The greatest moral question in our country today is not the war in
Iraq, it is not who marries whom, it is not abortion, it is not child
abuse, it is stealing the opportunity and the heritage this country has
given us and taking that away from our children and grandchildren.
I know the Senator from Vermont is not happy with me for doing this.
He believes it is fruitless. But it is the very real difference between
he and I. I believe there is plenty in the Federal Government that is
not working right that we ought to be about fixing, and one of the ways
we do that is by forcing ourselves, before we do a new program, to look
at the old programs and see what is wrong with them and clean them up.
You can debate that. You can object to it. But the fact is, the vast
majority of Americans agree with that.
We are going to be going through this multiple times this year until
we get to the fact that we are doing what our oath tells us to do. That
oath is to the Constitution. We cannot fulfill that oath if we continue
to waste money on ineffective programs and authorize programs that are
not accomplishing their goals. It is an oath that we violate, an oath
to the Constitution but, more important, it is an oath we violate to
the very people who sent us here.
Every dollar we waste today is a dollar that is not going to reduce
that $453,000 for our children and grandchildren. One of the greatest
joys I have in life today is that I have four grandchildren, each one
of them unique, and the great pleasure of seeing your children through
your grandchildren and reliving memories. That is always couched in the
idea of what can I do to make sure the future is fair and a great
opportunity is made available to them and all their peers throughout
this country, no matter where they come from, what family they come
from. Shouldn't they all have the same opportunities?
If you read what David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United
States, has to say--and all you have to do is go on the Web site of the
Government Accountability Office--what you find is we are on an
unsustainable course. It is not what Tom Coburn says, it is what the
head of the Government Accountability Office says. Things have to
change. Every day we wait to change them costs us money and makes it
more painful when we get around to changing them.
I plan, in a moment, on offering to proceed to the bill. We are out
here today because the vision that was created for us, and the heritage
that was created for us, is at risk. It is at risk because we do not
want to change our culture. We don't want to be responsible. We want to
pass but not oversee. We want to do the easy but not the hard. The hard
is the thing that is going to secure the future for our children and
our grandchildren.
It is easy for us to pass a port security bill. It is bipartisan. It
is hard for us to do the very real work of making sure every penny, of
the American taxpayers' dollars is spent in an efficient way, that it
is not wasted.
Mr. President, if you think $1 in $5 of the discretionary budget of
this country should not be wasted, if you think the Congress ought to
be about looking at everything and saying, is it working, ought to be
about getting rid of the $200 billion of waste, fraud, abuse, and
duplication that is in our Federal Government today, then there is no
way you could disagree with the principles I outlined to all the
Senators in this body. Yet we find ourselves here at this point in time
because the chairman of the Judiciary Committee refuses to agree with
the premise that we owe it to our children and grandchildren. That is
basically it because I am not about to do that. We do not believe that
is necessary.
Something has to change if we are going to give our children and our
grandchildren the benefits and the opportunity we have all experienced.
I think that is worth taking some time on the floor, pushing the
envelope to raise the awareness of the American people. I know I can't
change this body through persuasion, through words. But what does
change this body is the American people. The American people are the
ones who send us here. If they will act, if they will put pressure on,
then we will do what we are supposed to do. It is a shame we have to
work it that way, but this last election proved that. It proved when we
are not doing what we are supposed to be doing, the American people
awaken, and they change who has the power, who has the representation.
What I am calling for is let's do that for the American people. Let's
do it ahead of time. Let's not make them force a change, let's do what
we were sent up to do.
With that I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I make a motion to proceed to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending. Is there further
debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
____________________