[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9110-9128]
[From the U.S. 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.


[[Page 9111]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 9112]]

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 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.

[[Page 9113]]

  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 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

[[Page 9114]]

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 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

[[Page 9115]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9116]]

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 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.

[[Page 9117]]

  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 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

[[Page 9118]]

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 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

[[Page 9119]]

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 
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

[[Page 9120]]

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 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

[[Page 9121]]

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 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

[[Page 9122]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 9123]]

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 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

[[Page 9124]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9125]]

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 9126]]

 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.

[[Page 9127]]

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 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?

[[Page 9128]]

  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, 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.

                          ____________________