[Congressional Record: April 17, 2007 (Senate)]
[Page S4559-S4562]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 372, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 372) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2007 for the intelligence and intelligence-related activities
of the United States Government, the Intelligence Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Rockefeller/Bond amendment No. 843, in the nature of a
substitute.
Collins amendment No. 847 (to amendment No. 843), to
reaffirm the constitutional and statutory protections
accorded sealed domestic mail.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Republican manager, Senator Bond,
and I and our staffs have been working together to clear some
amendments, and we have in fact cleared already 10 amendments. I now
ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to consider en
bloc the following amendments, that they be agreed to en bloc, and that
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. These were
agreed to by both sides and have been cleared by all parties. The
numbers of the amendments are 845, 846, 856, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862,
863, and 872.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the several requests?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is very important that we move forward
with this bill. We have given time for our colleagues to debate and
raise other questions. We would ask that we be able to proceed in a
reasonable timeframe to take up amendments which have been introduced
by the chairman and the vice chairman together and reflect bipartisan
agreement. As vice chairman, I am firmly committed to passage of
intelligence reauthorization. I would say further it remains my
intention to reduce the partisanship and politicization of intelligence
matters.
Events on the Senate floor yesterday, including direct personal
attacks on me, indicate this remains a tall order. This bill makes
getting a bill harder, and it is already hard enough. Given the kitchen
sink provided in the administration's Statement of Administration
Policy indicating a possible veto, the chairman and I are trying in
good faith, as the chairman indicated, to work through 9, 10, or a
dozen amendments to correct the major objections that the
administration has.
The administration must know that as we try to weigh their key
priorities, they must respect our priorities and our fundamental
oversight responsibility which I and the Members of this body should
take seriously, as any Senator will.
As for yesterday's events, Senator McConnell manages the floor for
the minority. He did not want to end the debate prematurely and the
opportunity to offer amendments by the minority, especially with 18
Members absent from the Senate due to bad weather. I supported him
because it is the responsibility of our two leaders to manage the floor
debate and to protect the rights of minorities and absent Senators.
While the attacks on me were inappropriate and offensive, I will
continue to work for passage of this intelligence reform measure, which
is one of the most important bills we can pass in this session. The
measure is too important to be derailed by personal and political
attacks.
My friends on the other side of the aisle want more oversight of
intelligence. I agree. We got into problems prior to 9/11 because we
didn't have good oversight. We have found that there are holes that
need to be plugged in oversight. We need to move forward. But forcing
an end to the debate with 18 Members absent was not the way to do so. I
am hoping that we can show progress by adopting amendments and moving
this bill forward to exercise our oversight to provide the intelligence
community the direction they need. Our desire is to move forward in the
regular order, work our way through amendments, work out a time
agreement, dispose of amendments, and hopefully conclude with a bill
that most, if not the overwhelming majority, of Members can support so
we can get to conference and continue the process.
I will continue to work with the chairman under the difficult
circumstances that he and I both face. I am not for delay or any
effort, real or imagined, to kill this bill, but I have honest
concerns, as others, that there should be an opportunity to address
through the regular order in a reasonable timeframe. If there are
unreasonable delays, then we will pursue other options which are
necessary sometimes to move a bill.
Because of the difficult division present in recent years over these
issues, we have been unable to get an authorization bill passed. I find
that unacceptable, and I am committed to finding a bill, but it can't
be just any bill. It must be the product of give and take and mutual
respect and compromise between both parties and both bodies and one the
administration can sign.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the vice chairman yield?
Mr. BOND. Yes.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma has
indicated to me that he will not object to the managers' amendment
going forward, if he would be allowed to finish what he was talking
about, which I assume would happen within the next 5 or 8 minutes. If
that is the case, then we will have made progress.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I didn't mean to cut the Senator off. For
the movement of this bill, we had hoped to
[[Page S4560]]
be able to clear some amendments so we could show progress, but the
Senator from Oklahoma is seeking recognition. I am sure he has some
important things to say. I hope we will finish in time to allow us to
pass the cleared amendments prior to 12:30. I apologize to the Senator
from Oklahoma and thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for the next 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Earmarks
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is very important we not leave the
debate on earmarks. What we saw was an issue about the integrity of
Congress which Senator DeMint and myself have been championing. There
are only 4 Members of the Senate who don't offer earmarks, 4 out of 100
who don't play the game of earmarks. It is important that the American
people know that if we are going to have earmarks, it ought to be
clearly identified. We ought to know who is benefiting, who is getting
the money, who is sponsoring the money, and what the outcome will be.
It is great that the Appropriations Committee has just stated that they
are going to voluntarily accede to the rules we passed 98 to 0, except
there is one small problem with that; the fact is, there is no
enforcement of the rules available to Senators when they violate that
very point, which means they may follow that, but if, in fact, they do
not, we have no course of action with which to raise a point of order
when they do not.
I wish to go back to something the esteemed Senator from Illinois
said, which is, we have gotten what we want. No, we have not. We have
not gotten it until the American people get the transparency they need
about how the Congress operates. If you eliminate earmarks in
appropriations but do not eliminate earmarks in authorizations, what is
authorized as an earmark will come to the appropriation as not an
earmark because it is then authorized, so we will play the same game
but one step further back.
I am disappointed at the leadership, that they would block what the
American people so fully want. And the idea we have to conference what
should be a Senate rule, when the House has already passed a rule--they
operate under the very same thing Senator DeMint has asked for--all we
have to do is agree we will, in fact, abide by those rules by accepting
that as a rule of the Senate. Anything less than that is political
Washington doublespeak which the American people are tired of.
There should not be one earmark, one special favor, one indication of
anything done at any level--authorization or appropriations--the
American people are not fully aware of as to who has the vetted
interest and who will be the benefactor and what the motivations might
be in association with that.
So the fact the majority objects to incorporating what we obviously,
supposedly, all agreed to--or was it the fact that people voted for it
because the people wanted us to and now we will not carry it out? What
it does, by not adopting this rule, Senator DeMint's rule, is we
undermine again the integrity of this body.
The American people deserve transparency. The American people should
have transparency. The only way we can truly be held accountable by the
American people is if they can see everything that is going on.
To deny this rule, to deny the fact we are going to operate in the
open, to deny the fact we are going to be held accountable is exactly
what the American people are sick of.
I remind my colleagues we do not have a higher favorability rating
than the President at this time, whom we are so quick to impugn, and
the reason we do not is the very reason we saw in the objection placed
on this rule, this resolution. To me, it is a sad day in the Senate
because we are playing games again with the American people. I said,
after we passed the ethics bill, it will be a long time until we see
anything. It will be a long time. It has already been a long time. Why
hasn't it been conferenced? There have been 80 days to conference an
ethics bill. There has not been the first step. There has not been the
naming of conferees. There has not been the first step to move forward
toward that.
The American people should surmise--and correctly--the Congress still
wants to work in the shadows, they still do not want to have
transparency; therefore, they still do not want to be held accountable
by the American people.
I thank you for the time and yield back, and I will offer no
objection to the request of the Senator from West Virginia to accept
amendments on the Intelligence authorization bill.
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. CORNYN. 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment so I may call up amendments Nos. 848, 849, 850, 851,
852, and 853, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as I indicated before, the
distinguished Republican manager, Senator Bond, and I and our staffs
have been working together to clear some amendments. We have cleared
10. I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to
consider en bloc the following amendments, that they be agreed to en
bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc.
The amendment numbers are 845, 846, 856, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 863,
and 872.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CORNYN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from West Virginia
has the floor. I don't.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The Senator from West Virginia would be interested
as to why it is the distinguished Senator from Texas objects.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, 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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 849 to Amendment No. 843
(Purpose: To amend chapter 113B of title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit the recruitment of persons to participate in terrorism, to
provide remedies for immigration litigation, and to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the requirements related to
judicial review of visa revocation and to modify the requirements
related to detention and removal of aliens ordered removed)
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up Amendment No. 849.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment
numbered 849 to amendment No. 843.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, April 16, 2007,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Amendments Nos. 846, as modified; 856, 858, 859, 860, as modified; 861,
as modified; 862, 863, and 872, as modified, en bloc, to amendment No.
843
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I resume my request which I will make
in full, and that is that the Republican
[[Page S4561]]
manager, Senator Bond, and this Senator from West Virginia and our
staffs have been working together to clear some amendments. We have
cleared 10 amendments--9 amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be
in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments,
that they be agreed to en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid
upon the table en bloc. Those amendment numbers are 846, 856, 858, 859,
860, 861, 862, 863, and 872.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 846, as modified
On page 37, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(7) develop 15-year projections and assessments of the
needs of the intelligence community to ensure a robust
federal scientific and engineering workforce and the means to
recruit such a workforce through integrated scholarships
across the intelligence community, including research grants
and cooperative work-study programs;
amendment no. 856
(Purpose: To strike the requirement for a study on the disclosure of
additional intelligence information)
Beginning on page 11, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 12, line 20.
amendment no. 858
(Purpose: To improve the notification of Congress regarding
intelligence activities of the United States Government)
Strike section 304 and insert the following:
SEC. 304. IMPROVEMENT OF NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS REGARDING
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT.
(a) Clarification of Definition of Congressional
Intelligence Committees to Include All Members of
Committees.--Section 3(7) of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(7)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``, and includes each
member of the Select Committee'' before the semicolon; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, and includes each
member of the Permanent Select Committee'' before the period.
(b) Notice on Information Not Disclosed.--
(1) In general.--Section 502 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 413a)
is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b) Notice on Information Not Disclosed.--(1) If the
Director of National Intelligence or the head of a
department, agency, or other entity of the United States
Government does not provide information required by
subsection (a) in full or to all the members of the
congressional intelligence committees, and requests that such
information not be so provided, the Director shall, in a
timely fashion, notify such committees of the determination
not to provide such information in full or to all members of
such committees. Such notice shall be submitted in writing in
a classified form, include a statement of the reasons for
such determination and a description that provides the main
features of the intelligence activities covered by such
determination, and contain no restriction on access to this
notice by all members of the committee.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
authorizing less than full and current disclosure to all the
members of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate
and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives of any information necessary to keep
all the members of such committees fully and currently
informed on all intelligence activities covered by this
section.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d) of such section,
as redesignated by paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, is
amended by striking ``subsection (b)'' and inserting
``subsections (b) and (c)''.
(c) Reports and Notice on Covert Actions.--
(1) Form and content of certain reports.--Subsection (b) of
section 503 of such Act (50 U.S.C. 413b) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Any report relating to a covert action that is
submitted to the congressional intelligence committees for
the purposes of paragraph (1) shall be in writing, and shall
contain the following:
``(A) A concise statement of any facts pertinent to such
report.
``(B) An explanation of the significance of the covert
action covered by such report.''.
(2) Notice on information not disclosed.--Subsection (c) of
such section is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) If the Director of National Intelligence or the head
of a department, agency, or other entity of the United States
Government does not provide information required by
subsection (b) in full or to all the members of the
congressional intelligence committees, and requests that such
information not be so provided, the Director shall, in a
timely fashion, notify such committees of the determination
not to provide such information in full or to all members of
such committees. Such notice shall be submitted in writing in
a classified form, include a statement of the reasons for
such determination and a description that provides the main
features of the covert action covered by such determination,
and contain no restriction on access to this notice by all
members of the committee.''.
(3) Modification of nature of change of covert action
triggering notice requirements.--Subsection (d) of such
section is amended by striking ``significant'' the first
place it appears.
amendment no. 859
(Purpose: To strike the pilot program on disclosure of records under
the Privacy Act relating to certain intelligence activities)
Strike section 310.
amendment no. 860, as modified
Beginning on page 29, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 31, line 15, and insert the following:
(1) Report required.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National
Intelligence shall provide to the members of the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives a report on any clandestine prison or
detention facility currently or formerly operated by the
United States Government for individuals captured in the
global war on terrorism.
(2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) The date each prison or facility became operational,
and if applicable, the date on which each prison or facility
ceased its operations.
(B) The total number of prisoners or detainees held at each
prison or facility during its operation.
(C) The current number of prisoners or detainees held at
each operational prison or facility.
(D) The total and average annual costs of each prison or
facility during its operation.
(E) A description of the interrogation procedures used or
formerly used on detainees at each prison or facility,
including whether a determination has been made that such
procedures are or were in compliance with the United States
obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention
Against Torture.
amendment no. 861, as modified
Beginning on page 96, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 97, line 6, and insert the following:
``(2)(A) As directed by the Director of National
Intelligence, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
shall also develop a system to facilitate the analysis,
dissemination, and incorporation of likenesses, videos, or
presentations produced by ground-based platforms, including
handheld or clandestine photography taken by or on behalf of
human intelligence collection organizations or available as
open source information into the National System for
Geospatial-Intelligence.
amendment no. 862
(Purpose: To change the name of the National Space Intelligence Center
to the National Space Intelligence Office)
Strike section 410 and insert the following:
SEC. 410. NATIONAL SPACE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Title I of the National Security Act of
1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding after
section 119B the following new section:
``NATIONAL SPACE INTELLIGENCE OFFICE
``Sec. 119C. (a) Establishment.--There is established
within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence a
National Space Intelligence Office.
``(b) Director of National Space Intelligence Office.--The
National Intelligence Officer for Science and Technology, or
a successor position designated by the Director of National
Intelligence, shall act as the Director of the National Space
Intelligence Office.
``(c) Missions.--The National Space Intelligence Office
shall have the following missions:
``(1) To coordinate and provide policy direction for the
management of space-related intelligence assets.
``(2) To prioritize collection activities consistent with
the National Intelligence Collection Priorities framework, or
a successor framework or other document designated by the
Director of National Intelligence.
``(3) To provide policy direction for programs designed to
ensure a sufficient cadre of government and nongovernment
personnel in fields relating to space intelligence, including
programs to support education, recruitment, hiring, training,
and retention of qualified personnel.
``(4) To evaluate independent analytic assessments of
threats to classified United States space intelligence
systems throughout all phases of the development,
acquisition, and operation of such systems.
``(d) Access to Information.--The Director of National
Intelligence shall ensure that the National Space
Intelligence Office has access to all national intelligence
information (as appropriate), and such other information (as
appropriate and practical), necessary for the Office to carry
out the missions of the Office under subsection (c).
[[Page S4562]]
``(e) Separate Budget Account.--The Director of National
Intelligence shall include in the National Intelligence
Program budget a separate line item for the National Space
Intelligence Office.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for that Act
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
119B the following new item:
``Sec. 119C. National Space Intelligence Office.''.
(b) Report on Organization of Office.--
(1) Report required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the
National Space Intelligence Office shall submit to the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives a report on the organizational structure of
the National Space Intelligence Office established by section
119C of the National Security Act of 1947 (as added by
subsection (a)).
(2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) The proposed organizational structure of the National
Space Intelligence Office.
(B) An identification of key participants in the Office.
(C) A strategic plan for the Office during the five-year
period beginning on the date of the report.
amendment no. 86
(Purpose: To modify the requirements related to the Director and Deputy
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency)
Strike section 421 and insert the following:
SEC. 421. DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
(a) Establishment of Position of Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence Agency.--Subsection (a) of section 104A of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-4a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f),
and (g) as subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i)
respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsections (b) and (c):
``(b) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence Agency.--(1)
There is a Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate.
``(2) The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency shall assist the Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the
Director.
``(3) The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency shall act for, and exercise the powers of, the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency during the
absence or disability of the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency or during a vacancy in the position of
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
``(c) Military Status of Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency and Deputy Director of Central
Intelligence Agency.--(1) Not more than one of the
individuals serving in the positions specified in subsection
(a) and (b) may be a commissioned officer of the Armed Forces
in active status.
``(2) A commissioned officer of the Armed Forces who is
serving as the Director or Deputy Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency or is engaged in administrative
performance of the duties of Director or Deputy Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency shall not, while continuing
in such service, or in the administrative performance of such
duties--
``(A) be subject to supervision or control by the Secretary
of Defense or by any officer or employee of the Department of
Defense; or
``(B) exercise, by reason of the officer's status as a
commissioned officer, any supervision or control with respect
to any of the military or civilian personnel of the
Department of Defense except as otherwise authorized by law.
``(3) Except as provided in subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (2), the service, or the administrative performance
of duties, described in that paragraph by an officer
described in that paragraph shall not affect the status,
position, rank, or grade of such officer in the Armed Forces,
or any emolument, perquisite, right, privilege, or benefit
incident to or arising out of such status, position, rank, or
grade.
``(4) A commissioned officer described in paragraph (2),
while serving, or continuing in the administrative
performance of duties, as described in that paragraph and
while remaining on active duty, shall continue to receive
military pay and allowances. Funds from which such pay and
allowances are paid shall be reimbursed from funds available
to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of subsection (e)
of such section, as redesignated by subsection (a)(1) of this
section, is further amended by striking ``subsection (d)''
and inserting ``subsection (f)''.
(c) Executive Schedule Level III.--Section 5314 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.''.
(d) Role of DNI in Appointment.--Section 106(b)(2) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 403-6(b)(2)) is
amended by adding at the end the fallowing new subparagraph:
``(J) The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency.''.
(e) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act and shall apply upon the earlier of--
(1) the date of the nomination by the President of an
individual to serve as Deputy Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, except that the individual
administratively performing the duties of the Deputy Director
of the Central Intelligence Agency as of the date of the
enactment of this Act may continue to perform such duties
after such date of nomination and until the individual
appointed to the position of Deputy Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, assumes the duties of such position; or
(2) the date of the cessation of the performance of the
duties of Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
by the individual administratively performing such duties as
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
amendment no. 872, as modified
On page 28, line 19, strike ``legal opinions'' and insert
``legal justifications''.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that it
be in order for any of the cleared amendments to be modified to comport
to the substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman. We are moving forward
now on the bill. As indicated, we have some drafting problems we are
working out, but we also have high hopes of being able to adopt a
number of the amendments that have been filed on both sides. Some of
them may require modification.
Mr. President, as we get ready to go to our policy lunches, I once
again ask that Members with amendments come forward and let us know
what the amendments are. We ask that they be germane, because
nongermane amendments, even if they are passed, will not survive
conference. We want to keep the proceedings moving forward, so we ask
that amendments be germane. We ask Members to work with us so we can
accept them or offer a compromise to make them acceptable. We want to
do that. Otherwise, when votes are needed, and I am sure they will be,
we ask that a reasonable time period be agreed on by both sides, the
proponent of the amendment and the opponent, so we may get some orderly
procedure so our colleagues will know how we are moving forward and we
can show progress.
I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
____________________
[Congressional Record: April 17, 2007 (Senate)]
[Page S4562-S4587]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr17ap07-177]
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Cornyn amendment.
Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 5 minutes.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will first allow me
to lay down an amendment but not speak to it.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is the Cornyn amendment.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 866 to Amendment No. 849
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I simply ask unanimous consent to call up as
a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment my amendment No.
866.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S4563]]
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 866 to amendment No. 849.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To protect classified information)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. ___. UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED REPORTS BY
ENTRUSTED PERSONS.
(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person who is
an employee or member of the Senate or House of
Representatives, or who is entrusted with or has lawful
possession of, access to, or control over any classified
information contained in a report submitted to Congress under
this Act, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
of 2005 (Public Law 109-177; 120 Stat. 192), the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
458; 118 Stat. 3638), or an amendment made by any such Act
to--
(1) knowingly and willfully communicate, furnish, transmit,
or otherwise makes available such information to an
unauthorized person;
(2) publish such information; or
(3) use such information in any manner prejudicial to the
safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of
any foreign government to the detriment of the United States.
(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall
be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not
more than 10 years, or both.
(c) Information to Congress.--Nothing in this section shall
prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information
to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House
of Representatives, or joint committee thereof.
(d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
(1) the term ``classified information'' means information
which, at the time of a violation of this section, is
determined to be Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret pursuant
to Executive Order 12958, or any successor thereto; and
(2) the term ``unauthorized person'' means any person who
does not have authority or permission to have access to the
classified information under the provisions of a statute,
Executive Order, regulation, or directive of the head of any
department or agency who is empowered to classify
information.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is now recognized.
USCIS Naturalization Test Redesign
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for giving me 5
minutes.
As my late friend Alex Haley, the author of ``Roots,'' said, ``Find
the good and praise it.'' We talk an awful lot about illegal
immigration here in the Senate. The majority and minority leaders have
both said that before Memorial Day, we will bring up immigration reform
in a comprehensive manner. I hope very much that we do that. That is
our responsibility. It is too big a problem for one party to solve, and
we should work on it in a bipartisan way.
Today, I want to talk about legal immigration as opposed to illegal
immigration. About 650,000 individuals become U.S. citizens every year.
Each of us has attended ceremonies where this happens. This is at the
very heart of our Nation. This is why we call the United States of
America the Nation of immigrants. What is so important about them is
that no one becomes an American based upon his or her race or where
their grandparents came from. In fact, that is constitutionally
impermissible. One becomes an American by a remarkable oath of
allegiance to this country as opposed to some other country, and then
demonstrating good character, being here for 5 years, and showing that
you know our common language, English, and an understanding of the U.S.
history.
The importance of that was brought home to me last week when I was
visiting in Nashville. About 30 percent of all of the students in
Tennessee who have limited English proficiency happen to be in the
Nashville School District, and Pedro Garcia, the superintendent of
schools, was telling me that many of those students who are not now
American citizens want to make sure they learn enough U.S. history in
middle school and high school so they can pass the citizenship test and
become Americans when they graduate.
Today, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, is
formally releasing the Citizen's Almanac. I call it to the attention of
our colleagues. It is a collection of American symbols of freedom and
liberty to be given to every newly sworn citizen, and that would be
650,000 this year. It is built upon action that was taken earlier this
year by the USCIS to create a new and better citizenship test.
At the conclusion of my remarks, I ask unanimous consent that a fact
sheet about the naturalization test redesign be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the purpose of that test is to simply
give new meaning to what it means to be an American. That oath of
allegiance which these 650,000 new citizens will take is basically the
same oath that George Washington and his officers took at Valley Forge
in 1778. It has a great deal of meaning. Other countries in the world
have not had the experience we have had helping people from around the
world become Americans. The English, the French, the Japanese, and the
Germans are struggling with that right now, as people move in who are
not Japanese, German, English, or French. It is hard for them to become
part of that national identity. We have not had that problem. We
welcome everyone based upon their understanding of the symbols and
documents represented in the Citizen's Almanac. So if we don't teach
about these things in our schools or immigrants don't learn it in the
naturalization process, then we are not a united country.
As I have said many times on this floor, diversity is a great
strength of the United States of America, but it is not our greatest
strength. Our greatest strength is that we have been able to take all
of this diversity and mold it into one country, not because of race or
ethnicity but because of a belief in a few principles and our common
language. We are able to say we are proud of where we came from, but we
are prouder to be Americans.
I salute the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for this
document, and the National Endowment for the Humanities for its hard
work on it. The Citizen's Almanac includes the patriotic anthems and
symbols of the United States, Presidential and historical speeches from
Presidents Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt, Kennedy and Reagan, and
Martin Luther King, Jr., and landmark decisions of the Supreme Court.
It ought to be in every Senate office. It will be in every home of
every new citizen. It will be a good document to be in every school in
America.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Jan. 22, 2007]
USCIS Naturalization Test Redesign
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is
revising the naturalization test to create a test and testing
process that is standardized, fair and meaningful. A
standardized and fair naturalization test will include
uniform testing protocols and procedures nationwide to ensure
that there is no variation between offices. A meaningful test
will encourage civic learning and patriotism among
prospective citizens. A revised test, with an emphasis on the
fundamental concepts of American democracy and the rights and
responsibilities of citizenship, will help to encourage
citizenship applicants to learn and identify with the basic
values that we all share as Americans.
BACKGROUND
During the past 10 years, the standardization and
meaningfulness of the naturalization test have come under
scrutiny. Various studies found that the exam lacked
standardized content, instruments, protocols or scoring
system. Inconsistencies were reported in the way the exams
were administered nationwide, and there was no assessment of
whether applicants had a meaningful understanding of U.S.
history and government.
To address these concerns, Immigration and Naturalization
Services (INS) launched a test redesign project in 2000 that
has included technical assistance from several test
development contractors, the National Academy of Sciences, a
panel of history and U.S. government scholars, and a panel of
English as a Second Language (ESL) experts. In addition,
USCIS has sought input from a variety of stakeholders,
including immigrant advocacy groups, citizenship instructors,
ESL teachers, and USCIS District Adjudications Officers.
Changes to the naturalization test
The reading and writing portions of the pilot
naturalization exam is similar to the current test except
that the new exam contains more civics-based vocabulary.
Applicants will still have up to three chances to read and
write a sentence correctly in English. In the writing section
of the test, the testing officer will dictate a sentence and
ask the applicant to write everything the officer reads.
During the reading portion
[[Page S4564]]
of the test, the test officer will ask the applicant to read
each word out loud in that sentence.
The proposed format for the new civics exam will still
require applicants to correctly answer six out of 10
questions chosen from a master list of 100 civics questions
and answers. The difference is that the new sentences will
now focus on civics and history topics, rather than the
general range of topics on the current test. USCIS has placed
these questions and answers, along with a study guide on the
Internet and elsewhere in the public domain to help
applicants prepare.
Q. What are the new civics questions and English vocabulary
list items?
A. USCIS posted has made the English vocabulary lists
available at: www.uscis.gov/natzpilot.
Q. How were the questions developed?
A. English Items. A panel of English as a Second Language
(ESL) and other test development experts chosen by the
association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other
Languages (TESOL) developed the English items. The TESOL
panel established an English language level for the test
consistent with Department of Education reporting levels for
adult basic education.
Civics Items. The TESOL panel also assisted in drafting and
reviewing civics questions using a content framework
identified by the Office of Citizenship from a review of
government authorized civics and citizenship texts, the U.S.
Department of Education's National Standards for Civics and
Government, the current naturalization test, and the study
guide developed by a panel of experts assembled by USCIS in
2004.
Q. How are the new questions an improvement over the old
questions?
A. By weighing the questions on the new civics and U.S.
history test we will ensure that all test forms are at the
same cognitive and language level. By creating test forms at
the same level of difficulty, we are ensuring that an
applicant who goes for an interview in one city of the
country has the same chance of passing the test as in any
other city. The English vocabulary on the new test is also
fairer because it is targeted at a language level consistent
with the Department of Education reporting standards for the
level required by Section 312 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. District Adjudication Officers are being
trained to administer and score the naturalization tests in
the same way nationwide to ensure uniform administration of
the test.
Applicants will receive a study guide on the new civics and
U.S. history questions so they can deepen their knowledge and
understanding of our Nation as they prepare for the exam. The
new items will focus less on redundant and trivial questions
based on rote memorization and will focus on concepts, such
as the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Some items
on the current test fit those needs and required little
content change, so several items from the current test will
appear on the revised test. The range of acceptable answers
to each question will also increase so that applicants can
learn more about a topic and select from a wider range of
acceptable answers. And finally, the reading and writing test
will provide a tool for civic learning because the vocabulary
list is civics-based.
Q. How will the interview process change for applicants?
A. The interview process will not change.
PILOT PROGRAM
As part of the test redesign, USCIS will conduct a pilot
program in ten cities beginning in February 2007 to ensure
the agency has all the information necessary before the new
test is fully implemented nationwide in 2008. During this
pilot, USCIS will carefully analyze the new test questions to
make certain that the questions are fair and work as they
were intended. USCIS will also collect information about
testing procedures, to include feedback from DAOs, to help
refine the testing procedures and facilitate the smooth
transition to the new naturalization exam.
Q. What will USCIS pilot?
A. USCIS plans to pilot 142 U.S. history and government
questions and approximately 36 reading and 36 writing items.
The topic areas include principals of American democracy,
system of government, rule of law, rights and
responsibilities, American History, and geography. About half
of the questions include rephrased versions of questions on
the current test. All citizenship applicants in the 10 pilot
areas who are scheduled for their naturalization test during
the pilot will receive advance copies of the civics questions
and the two lists of vocabulary for self-study. USCIS has
also posted these study materials on the web at: http://
www.uscis.gov/natzpilot. The actual test will become
available to the public.
Q. How were the questions selected?
A. The TESOL panel assisted USCIS in drafting and reviewing
civics questions using best practices and conventional sample
techniques, such as regression analysis, currently used in
private industry.
Q. Where are the test sites?
A. The pilot program will run in 10 cities that were
randomly selected based on citizenship application volume.
The ten pilot sites are: Albany, NY, Boston, MA; Charleston,
S.C.; Denver; EL Paso, Texas; Kansas City, Mo.; Miami; San
Antonio, Texas; Tucson, Ariz.; and Yakima, Wash.
Q. How were the 10 pilot cities selected?
A. To capture the diversity of USCIS offices and
applicants, USCIS randomly selected a representative sample
of 10 districts by geographic region and the volume of
applications that were processed in each office to conduct
the pilot. This method will help insure that the final
results can be made with equal accuracy and statistical
weight.
Q. What is the purpose of the pilot?
A. A pilot is a crucial component of any test design
process. A pilot ensures that the draft test items, scoring
rubrics, and administration processes are appropriate, not
too difficult, and elicit the responses we expect.
Q. How will USCIS conduct the pilot?
A. USCIS must administer about 6,000 tests to achieve a
representative and significant study.
Pilots will begin in February 2007 and will last between
two to four months.
USCIS trained the test administrators on the new exam
process.
USCIS will mail a notification to all applicants scheduled
for an interview at the pilot sites during the pilot period
informing them that they have the opportunity to participate
in the national pilot program.
Applicants will also receive a letter explaining the pilot
and study questions.
Applicants who take the pilot but do not pass one or more
parts will have the opportunity to take the current test or
part of the current test immediately during the interview,
thus giving them an additional opportunity to pass the
naturalization test.
Many of the questions on the pilot test and the current
test cover the same subjects, so additional preparation is
expected to be minimal.
Once pilot results have been analyzed, piloted items will
be revised accordingly.
Q. Must applicants participate in the pilot?
A. No. Applicants will have the choice to decline
participation in the pilot test. For those who decline, they
will be given the current test.
USCIS will continue to meet with local immigrant service
providers, advocates, and ESL teachers in pilot sites to gain
their support so that they can encourage immigrants to
participate in their government and make this a successful
pilot.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Feingold and I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in my capacity as chairman of
the Rules Committee to speak about a bill that the Committee heard and
passed out unanimously a short time ago. That bill is entitled the
``Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act.'' It is sponsored by Senators
Feingold, Cochran, and 32 other Senators. It would require that Senate
campaign finance reports be filed electronically rather than in paper
format. That is all the bill does.
Currently, House candidates, Presidential candidates, political
action committees, and party committees are all required to file
electronically, and they do. But Senators, Senate candidates,
authorized campaign committees, and the Democratic and Republican
Senate campaign committees are exempt. As a result, we have a very
cumbersome system in which paper copies of disclosure reports are filed
with the Senate Office of Public Records, which then scans them, makes
an electronic copy of them, and sends that copy to the FEC on a
dedicated communications line. The FEC then prints the report and sends
it to a vendor in Fredericksburg, VA, where the information is keyed in
by hand and transferred back to the FEC database. All of this costs
about $250,000, and it is a waste of money, a waste of staff, and a
waste of time.
At our hearing on February 14 on this bill--and this bill is just on
this point--it was clear that there was no public opposition to this
proposal, only public support. The bill has been hotlined. It has
cleared on the Democratic side. It has not cleared on the Republican
side.
Now, again, this bill says we will just allow us to electronically
file our quarterly reports. I just electronically filed my quarterly
reports. I then gave a paper copy to the Secretary of the Senate. This
is exactly the type of good-government law the Senate can adopt as a
stand-alone measure.
I hope we move this legislation today, without burdening it with
other items. It is really long past time to bring the Senate into the
modern era. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
join me in ensuring timely access and disclosure of Senate finance
campaign activities and bring that information before the public.
I will now yield to the author of the legislation, the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin.
[[Page S4565]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I
am very pleased to be here with her today. I sincerely thank the
Senator from California for moving the Senate Campaign Disclosure
Parity Act through the Rules Committee so that we are now in a position
to finally pass this legislation. As the Senator from California
indicated, at last count, we now have 35 cosponsors for S. 223, 20
Democrats and 15 Republicans, and no known opposition.
The bill fixes the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly
impossible for the public to get timely access to Senate campaign
finance reports, even though most other reports are available on the
Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election
Commission, FEC. This bill will finally bring Senate campaigns into the
21st century by amending the section of the election laws dealing with
electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the
Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24
hours.
This step is long overdue. There is no excuse for keeping our own
campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the
information filed by House and Presidential candidates, PACs, parties,
and even 527 organizations is readily available almost immediately. The
Washington Post has called the outmoded Senate campaign reporting
system ``obviously unjustified,'' and Roll Call has called it
``indefensible.'' I couldn't agree more.
The current system means that the FEC's detailed coding, which allows
the press and the public to do more sophisticated searches and
analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for
House reports. It means that the final disclosure reports covering the
first 2 weeks of October are often not available for detailed scrutiny
until after the election. That is scandalous and there is no good
reason for it.
Let me just say that I know that the election laws have a big impact
on campaigns and all Senators have a strong personal stake in vetting
changes to those laws. I am very familiar with controversial and
contested campaign finance legislation. This isn't that kind of bill.
This bill is as close to a no-brainer as you can get in this area.
In addition to bipartisan support here in the Senate, major media
outlets have endorsed it, as have bloggers on the left and the right.
No one that I know of opposes it. And yet, it has now been nearly 3 and
a half years since I first introduced it. That is nearly half as long
as it took us to pass McCain-Feingold. I know McCain-Feingold. You
might say McCain-Feingold is a friend of mine. This bill is no McCain-
Feingold.
As I understand it, this bill has cleared the Democratic side. Given
the strong support for it from across the political spectrum, and
cosponsorship from many Republican Senators, and I especially thank
Senator Cochran for being the main author along with me. I sincerely
hope there won't be an objection on the Republican side. It would be
wrong to hold this bill up as some kind of bargaining chip. It is time
for the Senate to pass this bill, and I hope that can be done today.
Once again, I thank the Senator from California, and I yield the
floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I will ask a question of the
Senator from Wisconsin. First, I thank him for his leadership on this
issue.
If I can ask the Senator, is there any item in this bill other than
electronic filing?
Mr. FEINGOLD. No, there is not.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Doesn't this bill simply enable Members of the
Senate, just as every other political office does, to file directly
electronically their finance reports?
Mr. FEINGOLD. That is all it does.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, this is such a simple, direct bill with respect to
transparency. It is an idea whose time has long come. It happens
everywhere else except for the Senate, Senate committees, and the
Senate campaign committees. The time is long overdue to pass this bill.
It is such a simple, good-government issue. It is very hard for me to
understand who could oppose this and what their reason for opposing it
could be. I hope that if there is opposition in this Senate, the Member
would be willing to come down to the floor and express why they would
oppose this bill.
We have the solid support of the entire Rules Committee. This bill
was easy to pass out of committee. It was easy to hotline on the
Democratic side, and it should be easy to pass by unanimous consent.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 96, S. 223, a bill to require
Senate candidates to file designations, statements, and reports in
electronic forms; that the committee-reported amendment be considered
and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed;
and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no
intervening action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of a Republican Senator, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, 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. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Action on Amendments Nos. 856 and 859 Vitiated
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
previous action on amendments Nos. 856 and 859 be vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45
p.m. today, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider be agreed
to, the motion to reconsider be agreed to, and without further
interning action, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on S. 372, the Intelligence authorization bill; further, that
Members have until 4:45 p.m. to file any second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I should say this has been cleared on
both sides.
Mr. President, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business
for half an hour, although I probably will not speak that long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Medicare
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier this year I gave a series of
statements on this floor on the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
Back then, I said I was informing my colleagues because in the near
future Congress would consider some fundamental changes in how the
benefit works.
Well, for the entire Senate, the future is now. Last week the Senate
Finance Committee marked up legislation on the so-called prohibition on
Government negotiations under the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
When I gave these four statements during February, I said it was
important for the public and also for Medicare
[[Page S4566]]
beneficiaries to understand the proposed changes, and that it was
equally important to explore the effects these changes would have.
Those reasons still hold true this very day. They are even more
important now as the Senate gears up for action on that ill-advised
legislation. I will inform my colleagues on this topic today, tomorrow,
and the rest of the week, if I need to, because I want to make sure
everyone understands the consequences of this legislation that is going
to change the Medicare Program and hurt the Medicare Program, a program
that is working; that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am willing to
talk about this issue until I am blue in the face.
First, everyone should recognize that political opponents of the drug
benefit that we call Part D of Medicare have tried for 4 years to tear
this benefit apart since day one. Day one dates back to December 2003,
when the President signed the bill. These naysayers feel Government can
always manage better. They want a Government-run benefit program of
drugs in Medicare, and they want the Federal Government dictating drug
prices, as if the Federal Government can dictate drug prices.
Thankfully, the naysayers lost when that legislation was being
considered. But that has not stopped them from constantly whining and
carping about the drug benefit that is now law. The naysayers said
there would be no prescription drug plans. Then when there were plenty
of prescription drug plans coming into the system, approved by the
Secretary of HHS to administer to the seniors of America, they said
there were too many plans.
The naysayers said it was too confusing, that the seniors would not
be able to choose plans, even arguing that there would be a small
number of seniors signing up.
But the seniors have enrolled. In fact, 92 percent of the seniors in
America are covered by a prescription drug plan. And what about their
satisfaction? Interviews show a great deal of satisfaction on the part
of seniors with the plans.
Then the naysayers suggested plans could change their prices and the
drugs they cover at the drop of a hat, which has not happened. So the
naysayers were wrong again. They did all they could to taint
beneficiaries' views of the benefits before it even got off the ground.
But the naysayers' biggest criticism of the drug benefit is that,
according to them, the Government does not negotiate with drugmakers
for lower prices.
Now I will show you how silly that is and how wrong that is and, more
importantly, how misleading that is. I say according to ``them,''
meaning according to the naysayers, because they have gone to great
lengths to make it sound as though nobody is negotiating with drug
companies. If you believe the naysayers out there, you would think that
drug companies name their price and Medicare is forced to pay it. That
is so wrong that it truly boggles the mind. It seems to me, as I see
these arguments, there is no embarrassment on the part of the
naysayers' part.
Now, it is correct, of course, that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services himself does not negotiate with drug companies, but it is
absolutely not correct to say there are no negotiations. That is
complete and utter nonsense. It is embarrassingly wrong. Under the
Medicare drug benefit, multiple drug plans compete against each other
for the membership of seniors and disabled people covered by Medicare.
These plans compete to get the lowest prices from manufacturers, for
you as a member, because they want to keep you as a member.
In fact, these plans want to be the best negotiators and to offer
beneficiaries the best possible drug plan with low premiums, low cost
sharing, and even with additional benefits. They compete to be the plan
that beneficiaries want to join.
Now, is this something new? No, it is nothing new. This is the same
approach used for health care benefits for every Member of Congress,
and 3 million Federal employees, under what we call the Federal
Employee Health Benefit Program. If beneficiaries do not like the job
their plan is doing, you can fire your plan. You can leave it, join
another plan. You can choose a better plan. Yet, you see, it is
actually very simple how this works; very simple. Harnessing the power
of competition among plans gives the Medicare Program beneficiaries and
the taxpayers access to better negotiation than anything the Government
could do on its own.
In fact, there are five negotiators out there that are negotiating in
a bigger way than even the Federal Government can. Can you imagine
that, there are five negotiators that are bigger than the Federal
Government that were negotiating this? Competition, then, is the
mainstay of our free market economy. Businesses compete every day in
almost every sector of our economy to produce the products consumers
most want at a price that consumers pay, which is probably what
consumers can afford.
But the naysayers of the drug benefit somehow do not like that. They
are uncomfortable with the free market. They want the Government to run
everything. They want the Government itself doing the negotiation. They
find it hard to believe anyone could do a better job negotiating than
big Government.
Of course, along the lines, they are ignoring the simple fact that
competition is working. They are ignoring that competition has led to
lower premiums, $22 this year instead of $23 last year, instead of $37
when we wrote the legislation.
They are ignoring that competition is bringing choices to
beneficiaries, those who said we would never have choice, that you
could not use plans because plans would not work. You know what. Those
very Members of Congress are wrong, because in my State there are 43
plans. Will there always be 43 plans? No, I imagine there are some that
are small, will weed themselves out, will be bought. These people are
ignoring that the Government is not actually very good at figuring out
what it should pay for drugs. They are ignoring the fact to carry on
with the political scam that they committed against beneficiaries and
against the public.
I have a chart I used a month ago that I want to show again. On it is
a quote from the Washington Post, recognizing as well, when it wrote
the following in an editorial, that this is a political scam and that
governments don't do a very good job of negotiating:
Governments are notoriously bad at setting prices, and the
U.S. Government is notoriously bad at setting prices in the
medical realm.
We knew this because of the Government's experience paying for drugs
covered by Medicare Part B. There are not very many drugs covered by
Medicare Part B, but there have been a few and over a long period of
time. What did we learn from that experience of Part B Medicare? These
happen to be the drugs that are given during a physician's office visit
or other drugs such as oral cancer drugs. Medicare payments for these
drugs were based on what is called the average wholesale price, AWP. It
is similar to a sticker price for a car. No one actually pays that
price on the sticker of a car. The joke was that average wholesale
price or AWP actually stood for ``ain't what's paid.'' Over the past
decade, reports issued by the inspector general, by the Department of
Justice, and by the Government Accountability Office found that by
relying on average wholesale price, Medicare was vastly overpaying for
these drugs. Recommendations were made to change payments so they
reflected actual market cost. The Clinton administration tried to make
some of these changes but after pushback from providers, it backed off.
Congress took another run at this issue in 2003 in the Medicare
Modernization Act and was successful. Congress reformed how Medicare
pays these drugs under Part B, not Part D. Medicare now bases its
payment for many of these drugs on a market-based price, a real price,
not the average wholesale price, not the ``ain't what's paid'' price
because it wasn't paid. This change, believe it or not, is saving the
taxpayers and beneficiaries, but it took years to get that fixed. In
all that time, Medicare and taxpayers paid too many dollars for drugs,
wasted money, billions and billions of dollars wasted. So using the
Part B tradition, we don't want to make the same mistake. We don't want
to repeat that experience under the new Part D of drugs for Medicare.
We also knew Medicare overpays for a lot of other services and
equipment.
[[Page S4567]]
The bookshelves are full of other reports from the General Accounting
Office, from the inspector general, from the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, from the Congressional Budget Office, and others, about how
Medicare is paying too much in too many areas. For example, Medicare
overpaid for durable medical equipment for years until the Republican-
led Congress made changes in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act. In
addition, each year the Office of Inspector General issues what is
called the Red Book, which presents cost savings recommendations. The
books are usually 50 or more pages long, and the recommendations span
all aspects of Medicare--hospitals, physicians, home health care plans,
and others. This is more evidence of the many areas where Medicare
doesn't get the best deal.
Congress has even created the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission,
called MedPAC, to provide advice to Congress on payments for services.
Every year, Congress hears recommendations from MedPAC to address
Medicare overpayments, but many times it takes years for the Secretary
of Health and Human Services or for the entire Congress to act to save
the taxpayers money. In making recommendations, MedPAC looks at profit
margins, for example. One type of provider had been found to have
margins of 17 percent off of Medicare payments. The Congress has been
able to act on many MedPAC recommendations, but it can be very hard to
accomplish these changes. I remember when I was chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee over the last 4 years. I received letters from
Members saying something like: Please don't cut payments for this
provider group or that provider group.
In fact, on the Senate floor just before recess, I fought to prevent
this very Senate from freezing a Center for Medicare Services' rule
that would have prevented wasteful spending in the program we call
Medicaid. Is the rule a good thing or a bad thing? We didn't bother to
hold the first hearing on the subject. The only thing that mattered was
that a group of providers complained. Like the Clinton administration
found, letters and complaints such as that can make it difficult, in
the very short order, to do anything about a problem, despite the
compelling evidence of overpayments, despite the high profit margins,
despite the fact that a proposed change could save taxpayers billions
of dollars.
Those of us who wrote the Part D Medicare drug plan passed 4 years
ago--and that was mostly Senator Baucus for the Democrats and me for
the Republicans--were concerned that this same kind of dynamic might
happen with this Part D program. Political pressures on Medicare drug
benefits would tie the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. If that happens, the programs would be unmanageable and costs
would skyrocket. Instead, Congress put competing private plans in
charge of negotiating. These plans and their negotiators have years of
experience in this arena. This is what they do for a living. Health and
Human Services has had very little experience and a very dismal track
record.
On this chart, these plans and their negotiators and managers have
powerful bargaining clout in the market. They manage the drug coverage
for tens of millions of people. There are plans that cover upwards of
50 million people--75 million, in one case--far more than the 41
million Medicare beneficiaries. Clearly, Medicare beneficiaries account
for a large number of all prescriptions filled each year, so some might
argue that 41 million beneficiaries have more clout than 75 million
nonbeneficiaries, but numbers alone do not necessarily translate into
lower costs.
As evidence of that, we had all sorts of experts come before the
Finance Committee in January on this very topic. In response to
questions I asked, particularly of Professor Scott Morton of Yale
University, he said it doesn't matter whether you negotiate on behalf
of 1 million or 43 million people; what matters is what leverage you
have and how you use that leverage.
I think I ought to emphasize that. It is how you use the leverage. So
it is what is done to leverage those numbers, then, that leads to lower
costs. That leverage comes from the plan being able to say to a drug
company something such as: I can get a better deal on drug A from a
different manufacturer that has the same clinical effect as your drug
B. If you can't match it or do better, then I am going to leave the
table.
Some plans will get a better deal on drug A and put it in their
formulary. Some plans will get a better deal on drug B. But many
experts agree--and experience suggests--that it would be difficult for
the Government itself, our Government, to walk away from the table.
There would be enormous pressure to cover everything. If it did, the
negotiating power lies not with the Government but with the
manufacturers.
Here is what Professor Scott Morton said would happen if someone
negotiating drug prices couldn't have a formulary:
Each manufacturer would know that, fundamentally, Medicare
must purchase all products. The Medicare ``negotiator'' would
have no bargaining leverage, and therefore, simply allowing
bargaining on its own would not lead to substantially lower
prices.
At the same hearing, we had another witness. That witness was Mr.
Edward Haislmaier, of the Heritage Institute. I would like to quote him
from his written testimony:
[that] volume purchasing encourages manufacturer
discounting, it is not, in and of itself, sufficient to
extract large discounts. Manufacturers will only offer
substantial discounts if the buyer combines the ``carrot'' of
volume with the ``stick'' of being able to substitute one
supplier's goods with those of another.
In drug negotiations, that stick is called a formulary. Plans
participating in drug benefits can use that stick. Expert after expert
agrees it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Government,
however, to use that stick under Medicare. In fact, in a November 2
Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Dr. Allen Enthoven, an economist at
Stanford University, wrote:
When the government negotiates, its hands are tied because
there are few drugs it can exclude without facing political
backlash from doctors and the Medicare population, a very
influential group of voters.
Let's be honest with each other. What do you think would happen in
the Senate if the Center for Medicare Services, CMS, tried to cut a
large drug company headquartered in New Jersey or North Carolina, for
example, completely out of Part D because they wouldn't meet the
Government's price demands? Would Senators from those States say
something such as: Oh, well, that is just too bad? Would any of you say
that if it was in your State that a manufacturer was being cut out?
Again, let's be honest with each other.
What are we left with then? At the January Senate Finance Committee
hearing, Professor Scott Morton said that without a formulary--the
``stick,'' as I refer to it--the Secretary would have about as much
negotiating power as you would get by calling a drug maker and saying
something such as: I would like you to offer a lower price. Their
answer might be: Why should I? You have to buy my drug, so why would I
offer you a lower price? About all you have left after that is: Please,
won't you give me a lower price? That is not going to get you very far.
If my friends on the other side of the aisle think this bill is going
to achieve real savings for consumers or the Federal Government, they
must have some ideas in mind. I can't believe my friends would come to
the Senate floor with a bill that is truly as ``do nothing'' as CBO
describes it.
Here is what the Congressional Budget Office said about S. 3. It
would have ``a negligible effect on federal spending.'' Another quote:
Without the authority to establish a formulary, we believe
that the Secretary would not be able to encourage the use of
particular drugs by Part D beneficiaries, and as a result
would lack the leverage to obtain significant discounts in
his negotiations with drug manufacturers.
So let me repeat that other quote: It would have ``a negligible
effect on federal spending.''
The bill we are considering and voting on tomorrow cannot possibly be
as innocuous or inconsequential as what the Congressional Budget Office
said. Certainly, there must be creative ideas out there to find savings
we have not considered.
Since the Finance Committee's markup of S. 3 the other night, I have
been considering how a Secretary
[[Page S4568]]
might use his imagination to find savings. One of the first places we
looked at was H.R. 4, the bill that passed the Senate.
H.R. 4 struck the language in the statute that prevents the Secretary
from instituting a price structure for reimbursement of covered drugs.
Did the House strike the ban because they want an imaginative Secretary
to use price controls as part of negotiations? Because all we have
heard is they do not want price controls.
Last Thursday night, we offered an amendment to S. 3 to prevent the
Secretary from using a preferred drug list, or PDLs as they are called.
A preferred drug list is just a formulary under a different name. It is
essentially a Government-controlled list of drugs that you can or
cannot have.
While I do not think there is a difference between formularies and
preferred drug lists, we have seen the courts rule that a State can use
one in Medicaid even though Medicaid bans the use of formularies.
So Thursday night, we had an amendment to prevent the Secretary from
using preferred drug lists. After all, we do not want the Secretary
coming up with a list of drugs you can or cannot take, do we?
To my surprise, the Democrats on the committee rejected my amendment.
So what is going on? Perhaps they think that having the Government
establish a preferred drug list is one of the imaginative ideas a
Secretary will be able to use to save money.
I think this bill is a Trojan Horse. It is dressed up as a do-nothing
message bill. But before the week is out, we are going to look inside
that horse and see all the bad that could be waiting to hurt
beneficiaries. We will see what is bad in this bill that will hurt
access and choices beneficiaries currently have in this Medicare drug
benefit program.
Maintaining access and choice--access and choice--is critical because
beneficiaries have different drug needs. The way the benefit is
structured now is that plans can have different formularies. Some might
get a good price on one drug; another might get a better price on
another drug. They can have different formularies, and beneficiaries
can have choices that meet their needs.
When Congress finished work on the new drug benefit in 2003, we knew
it was an experiment. Nothing like this had ever been tried. Here is
what we learned: Private competition works. It has been successful at
keeping costs down. The 25 most used drugs by seniors cost 35 percent
less. Plan bids have come in lower than expected. This year, they were
down 10 percent from last year's bids.
Premiums are lower than they were estimated to be. Before 2006,
Medicare's chief actuary estimated the average monthly premium would be
$37, but it was actually $23 in 2006. That is 38 percent lower than
expected. Because of the strong competition between plans, the average
premiums for beneficiaries is expected to be about $22 in 2007, not the
$39 that had been estimated.
Why? Private competition works.
The net cost to the Federal Government is also lower than expected.
In January, the official Medicare actuary announced that the net 10-
year cost of Part D has dropped by $189 billion over the original
budget window used when the Medicare Modernization Act was enacted.
That is 2004 to 2013. That is a 30-percent drop in the actual cost
compared to the projection.
Why? Because private competition works.
The savings are unheard of for a Government program of any kind.
Where else have you ever heard of a cost underrun in a Federal program?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, could I please have 4 more minutes? I
ask unanimous consent for that additional time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I wish to emphasize: We have a cost underrun in a
Federal program. When have you ever heard of that?
You could not get those lower prices and lower costs unless the
prescription drug plans are being strong negotiators with the drug
makers. States are also saving money in lower contributions, better
known as ``clawback'' payments. State clawback payments are now
projected to be $37 billion less over a 10-year period. That is 27
percent lower. Just in 2006, States saved $700 million.
Why? Because private competition is working.
The plans are negotiating lower prices for drugs. I have said so many
times, for the top 25 drugs used by seniors, the Medicare prescription
drug plans have been able to negotiate prices that on average are 35
percent lower than the average cash price at retail pharmacies--35
percent lower.
Why? Because private competition is working.
Here are some examples: Lipitor is 15 percent lower, Atenolol is 63
percent lower, while Fosamax is 30 percent lower. I could go on down
the list.
Now, when the drug benefit was signed into law, we believed it would
work and hold down costs. That is certainly happening today even more
than we expected because private competition works.
We also said that if it did not work--if the negotiating model used
for the drug benefit did not hold down costs--then Congress would need
to reexamine things. If costs grew too fast, then the whole idea would
have to be revisited.
Maybe we would have to restrict access to drugs. Maybe we would have
to rely more on mail order pharmacies instead of liberal access to
local retail pharmacies. Maybe more drastic cost-cutting measures would
be needed.
But that is not the position we are in today. Why? Because private
competition works.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think the naysayers out
there need a little repetition therapy. Everyone has heard the old
saying that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' It certainly applies
here, and the evidence shows it.
I would like to be the first one to say that the Medicare drug
benefit is not perfect. There are improvements that can be made.
Congress should look at ways to make it easier for low-income
beneficiaries to get the additional assistance they need by reexamining
the low-income subsidy asset test.
We need to look at payments to pharmacies and make some reforms in
that area. We need to look at ways we can simplify the enrollment
process. And there are other areas where we can make improvements.
But one area that is working very well is the negotiating power of
Medicare drug plans. They have shown their ability to hold down costs.
It is working.
The pleas from the naysayers to put the Government in charge of
negotiating are about politics, not policy. These voices have not given
up in their misguided quest to score political points with the drug
benefit. It saddens me the Democratically controlled Congress has
devoted so much time to this issue rather than looking at some of the
improvements we can make in Part D that I mentioned.
Why they have put politics ahead of constructive changes is beyond
me.
In January, I had hoped we could put politics aside and focus on some
of the real improvements we could be making with the drug benefit. But,
sadly, that is not the case, and that is why I am here today.
Under the drug benefit today, with the plans negotiating with drug
makers and competing with each other, we have lower drug prices for
beneficiaries, lower program costs for the Government--saving the
taxpayers money--and prescription drug choices for beneficiaries.
Private competition works.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose S. 3. It is a big
government takeover of the private market that is working for the
Medicare benefit.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to
proceed as in morning business for such time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, let me just comment. I did not come to the floor to
speak about the bill specifically. I wish to speak about the
alternative minimum tax in a moment. But I cannot help, since I am a
member of the committee--listening to the ranking member talk about
Medicare and what the
[[Page S4569]]
impact of allowing Medicare the possibility of being able to negotiate
might or might not be--but speak to that for a moment, if I can.
I think most Americans understand, as a matter of common sense, that
when an entity that represents their tax dollars has the ability to go
out into the marketplace and negotiate for a price, the probability
they are going to have saved tax dollars is pretty real, if there is a
good and decent negotiation.
The resistance of the Senator from Iowa and others is interesting
because it is a resistance that represents the power of big companies
in the country--the drug companies--to sort of say: Hey, we kind of
like the system the way it is--which we understand because the profits
are enormous. But our job is to represent the taxpayers' dollars. Our
job is also to use the marketplace thoughtfully.
I do not know what it is that suggests, on the one hand, it is
legitimate for the Veterans' Administration to go out as a Government
entity and negotiate a lower price for the drugs it purchases to
distribute to veterans--which we do--but it is not OK for Medicare--
which is another Government program that costs the taxpayers a lot of
money--to be able to go out and negotiate a lower price for seniors. It
is illogical.
What they do is come in and try to scare people and say: Well, we
have given this special privilege to the Veterans' Administration, but
if all of a sudden we allow somebody else to negotiate it, then the
veterans are not going to get as good a deal.
Well, nobody knows that until you go out into the marketplace. The
Veterans' Administration and Medicare together still do not represent
the entire market. You are going to have an incredible number of
private citizens still purchasing through private health care plans or
their HMOs or other plans--private as they are--also.
The marketplace is still going to have its capacity to work. This is
not such a large block that it represents a complete and total
eradication of a marketplace, No. 1. No. 2, there are other countries
where you have this kind of negotiated fee for the service being
provided which has worked very effectively.
I think the bottom line is that people have to remember that this
legislation we are talking about does not order the Secretary to do
this. It is pretty obvious under this administration it is not going to
happen because they do not believe in it. All we are doing is lifting
the prohibition against the Secretary doing it. So if all the negative
things the Senator talks about are true, a smart Secretary is not going
to do them because they are negative.
But why would you put in place a prohibition? Why do you specifically
say: No, the Secretary can't go out and negotiate the price. You are
stuck with the status quo. You are stuck with the current system. The
reason is very simple: because it is a lot of money out of the pockets
of taxpayers into the pockets of the big companies. That is it, and
they are here protecting that.
This is a question of whether we are simply going to lift the
prohibition, let the Secretary make the judgment. Can you go out into
the market? Can you do this without hurting veterans? Can you do it
without upsetting the marketplace? Can you do it and still have the
kind of resources you want put into the research of new drugs and other
things? I am confident a Secretary is going to make a smart decision.
It is interesting to see the people who usually spend the most time
arguing in this country ``don't let the government interfere'' are the
ones who are standing up to let the Government--excuse me, not let the
Government, force the Government, in effect, to interfere with the
marketplace. Actually, what they really are doing is putting in place a
prohibition against the Secretary actually letting the marketplace work
or testing whether the marketplace could work more effectively. In
effect, we leave it in a state where the companies are dictating
effectively what the price is going to be and the citizen, as a result,
winds up paying an unfair burden.
We are not doing the best job possible as Government trustees of
taxpayer money in taking care of that money and in representing the
interests of our taxpayers. That is what is at stake here. Are you
prepared to trust the discretion of the Secretary to analyze this, to
look at what is best for the country, best for the delivery system, and
make that judgment? All we are doing is lifting an unfair special
interest prohibition to allow a full analysis of what the better
alternative might be.
Alternative Minimum Tax
Mr. President, as Americans prepared their taxes this year, millions
of families in Massachusetts and across the country found a very
unpleasant surprise. Beyond their regular income taxes, families found
another hidden income tax, which is the alternative minimum tax. It
costs those families many thousands of dollars. Most taxpayers are
accustomed to computing their income tax liability in the usual way:
adding up their income, making whatever deductions they are entitled
to, subtracting exemptions for their dependents, and then checking
their tax bracket to find out how much they owe. But this year, many of
those same taxpayers discovered another tax that ate up any exemptions
and deductions they might have claimed. It is a hidden income tax, and
it affects the wrong people. It affects people we never intended to
affect, and each year that we don't address it, it grows worse.
This alternative minimum tax is a tax that made sense once upon a
time. When it was first enacted in 1969, it had a rationale, but since
then, it has become bloated and illogical. The tax was first put in
place when Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr, during his 1 month as the
shortest tenured Treasury Secretary in history, told Congress about 155
wealthy Americans who had paid no income tax in 1966. Congress was
overwhelmed with mail expressing outrage that these 155 rich Americans
weren't pulling their weight. In response, Congress passed the first
version of the AMT. So the AMT was put in place to address Americans'
concerns with 155 of the richest Americans at a time when 155
represented a large block of those who were among the wealthiest
Americans. Urging tax reform, Secretary Barr coined the phrase
``taxpayers' revolt'' and that is exactly what we are likely to see
unless we get this right now.
In 1970, 20,000 taxpayers were affected by the alternative minimum
tax. This year, about 4 million Americans will pay it, and next year
that number could rise to 23 million Americans. What was originally a
small fix at the edge of our Tax Code has now ballooned into a massive
inconvenience and unfairness at the center of our Tax Code. Instead of
serving its original purpose, the tax cuts we saw passed into law a few
years ago, illogical and deceptive as they were, are winding up
targeting the very people we are supposed to be helping. The very
people we hear most of the rhetoric about--those who need help in
America and the middle class being unfairly taxed--are the very people
who are being unfairly taxed by this hidden tax people don't want to
talk about. The fact is the middle class has seen an enormous shift in
the burden away from the wealthiest Americans onto the middle class,
the very people the AMT was designed to protect.
The AMT is now poised to make a dramatic shift from the wealthy to
the middle class. In 2006, taxpayers earning more than half a million
dollars will pay 47 percent of the tax. By 2010, that number will drop
to 16 percent. We are going to go from 47 percent of the people who
earn more than half a million dollars who are supposed to be the
targets of the alternative minimum tax--that will drop to 16 percent--
and the people who are going to pick up the difference are going to be
Americans in the middle class who are struggling with increasing
tuition costs, increasing energy costs, increasing health care costs,
and wages that are either frozen or going down. Meanwhile, investment
income will not be impacted by the alternative minimum tax, and the top
alternative minimum tax rate is lower than the top marginal tax rate,
which is what people pay on their income.
So a tax designed to cover or apply to the wealthiest Americans has
become a solidly middle-class tax.
This tax also punishes certain States in our country more than other
States, and particularly a State such as mine--Massachusetts--but other
States in the Northeast and large industrial States.
[[Page S4570]]
In 2007, 24 percent of Massachusetts taxpayers, up from about 5 percent
last year, will be hit by the alternative minimum tax, so that
Massachusetts will be No. 4 in the rankings of all the States in the
country. I don't think we ought to be putting an undue burden on the
middle class, and we certainly shouldn't be putting one unfairly on
certain States while other States are exempt.
Worse still, the tax penalizes families with children because it
eliminates any dependent exemptions. So here we are talking about
family values, but the family values are stripped away for those
middle-class families because they lose their exemptions for their
dependents.
In 2007, the alternative minimum tax will impact a family with four
children and an income of $57,000. Married couples will be more than 12
times as likely as singles to face the alternative minimum tax in 2010.
So those of us who argued strongly about the marriage penalty need to
note that the marriage penalty is, in fact, growing larger as a
consequence of the alternative minimum tax. We wrote the exemptions
that we had specifically to help families to get away from that
problem, and my question is, do we now want to burden them with this
additional tax.
President Bush has acknowledged, at least rhetorically, this is a
failed policy. There is room for bipartisanship here. Congress and the
President need to work together to address what has become a major
structural problem in our Tax Code. I commend my colleague from
Massachusetts, Congressman Neal, who is working in the House on this
issue and showing important leadership in order to try to address it,
and I look forward to seeing his proposal.
In fixing this tax, there are two major pitfalls we have to avoid.
The first is: Don't simply repeal the tax without paying for it. We
can't afford to do that, and it is clearly not fiscally responsible.
Finally, it doesn't solve the problem. Second, we need to find a
permanent solution. The alternative minimum tax itself was originally a
small fix for a different tax issue. It is the accumulation over time
of stopgap measures that has brought us to the current problem. So I
don't believe it serves us well at all to push this issue down the
road, as has been the practice of the Congress in these last years.
We also need to make the tax policy of our country simpler and more
straightforward and fill it with a little more common sense and a
little less special interests. Our tax problem as a nation was, in
fact, made significantly worse by the Bush tax cuts, and the
alternative minimum tax has been used quietly, more and more, to ask
middle-class families to pay the burden of the wealthiest Americans'
tax cut.
We can all agree the main reason this tax has grown out of proportion
is that it wasn't indexed to inflation. The same money we talk about
today went an awful lot farther in 1970. The movies back then cost
$1.65. The fact is we haven't adjusted the tax brackets to rise with
inflation.
Another major problem has been the alternative minimum tax
interaction with the Bush tax cuts. This administration and the
Republican Congress purposefully allowed the tax system to become
unbalanced. This was done in order to hide the true cost of the tax
cuts. Normally, sound tax policy involves changing the alternative
minimum tax to reflect changes in regular tax cuts. For example, in
1993, we raised rates for both taxes simultaneously. But under this
President, in 2001 and in 2003 and in 2004, we cut the regular income
tax rate without making corresponding significant changes in the AMT.
Instead of paying upfront through the regular income tax, this
administration used the AMT to finance tax cuts for the very people the
AMT was designed to tax. The AMT quietly takes back a portion of the
Bush tax cuts by 2010, about 29 percent, transferring the tax burden
from the top tax brackets to largely middle-class tax families.
If we had a vote on the floor of the Senate which specifically said:
Are you going to tax middle-class families in order to pay for a
wealthy tax cut and shift the burden by about 29 percent, almost
everybody here would vote no. So it is the hidden tax cut that has the
impact. Before the Bush tax cuts, 17 million taxpayers would have been
affected by the alternative minimum tax in 2010, but with the Bush tax
cuts, that number almost doubles to 31 million. If we let the Bush tax
cuts expire in 2011, at least the number of AMT taxpayers would drop
dramatically. I am confident that will be an important debate down the
road here. In 2007, a family with 2 children and an income of $80,000
will see 59 percent of their tax cut taken back by the alternative
minimum tax. Tom Waits, the 1970s singer and songwriter, once said the
large print giveth and the small print taketh away. Well, the small
print, my friends, is the alternative minimum tax, and it is taking
away America's families' tax savings.
We need to be honest about the cost of our tax cuts. Back in 2001, I
tried to offer an amendment that exempted all taxpayers with incomes
under $100,000 from the AMT. At that time I warned that the AMT is
encroaching on middle-class taxpayers and that the tax cuts would only
make things worse. The fix for the AMT problem at that time was
estimated to cost $110 billion over 10 years, money that instead is now
being paid by middle-class families. The amendment at that time was
revenue neutral. It offset the cost by delaying some of the Bush tax
cuts. It cut the 39.6 rate down to 37 percent, instead of 35, but
unfortunately, the amendment failed.
I don't believe we can continue to put this problem off. Unless we
reform our tax system for the sake of middle-class families--and we
simply can't afford not to reform it--we are going to pay one way or
the other, with the debt that is passed on to our children or with
taxes passed on from the wealthiest to an ever-growing part of the
middle class. We need a bipartisan, fiscally responsible, permanent
approach, not one that masks the costs of irresponsible cuts or becomes
a burden for the middle class, and not one that gives more and more
families an unpleasant surprise on tax day.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The distinguished Senator
from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to propound a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will inquire.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 372.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation--I may
not have the floor. May I ask the Chair, please tell me what the
parliamentary situation is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has been
recognized by the Chair and now has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if that were not the case, what would be the
case?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no current time agreement. The Senate
is considering S. 372 under no time agreement.
Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, I am not going to speak just now.
I want to respect the wishes of another Senator who is on the floor at
the moment. In a few minutes, I will want to speak a bit. As of now, I
am going to take my seat. I will ask the Senator, does he wish to speak
at this time?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia for his courtesy. If it would not be too great an imposition,
I will speak for a few minutes on the Intelligence bill. That would be
very much appreciated.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I am
going to sit down and listen. May I ask the Senator this question: How
long will he likely speak?
Mr. WYDEN. Again, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his
courtesy. I will speak less than 10 minutes. I so appreciate the
thoughtfulness of the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. After he
yields the floor, I will seek recognition. I understand the rules of
the Senate. I am just stating at this point what I intend to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
[[Page S4571]]
Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves, Senator Byrd has always been so kind to
this Senator. I appreciate it.
I wish to take a few moments to talk about the critically important
Intelligence authorization bill that is before the Senate now. I am
disappointed that this legislation has not yet passed because it seems
to me that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have done an
awful lot of very good work in terms of negotiating on this legislation
and doing it in a bipartisan fashion. A number of us have felt that it
was critically important that intelligence, in the days ahead, at a
time of great threat to our country, be an area that is pursued in a
bipartisan way. My view is that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman
Bond have really kept that kind of bipartisan lodestar in mind as we
have conducted our work throughout this session. That is one of the
reasons I have so wanted this legislation to move forward.
I wish to take a minute to highlight just one of the provisions that
seems to be objectionable to the executive branch and try to show how,
in my view, that should not be the case and how the Senate ought to
come together around it and move forward on this bipartisan piece of
legislation.
There is a provision in the bill the Senate is now considering--a
provision that I offered--which would make public the total size of our
national intelligence budget. This provision would not make public how
much the country spends on any particular collection method; it would
simply state the U.S. Government spends X amount of money on national
intelligence programs.
This has long received bipartisan support. The bipartisan 9/11
Commission was for it. The former Director of the CIA, Stansfield
Turner, is for it. I would like to note that our current Secretary of
Defense, Secretary Gates, when he was before the U.S. Senate
Intelligence Committee--and I will quote here--said:
From my personal perspective, I don't have any problem with
releasing the top line of the intelligence community budget.
I am of the view that Secretary Gates was right when he said that a
number of years ago, and he is right at this time as well. In my view,
to suggest that disclosing the total size of our national intelligence
budget would cause any harm whatsoever to national security is
ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd to think that Osama bin Laden is
off in a cave somewhere contemplating what the overall national
intelligence budget is. It is absurd to suggest that Kim Jong Il is
somehow sitting in his office wondering and worrying, for example,
whether the Wyden amendment to the intelligence authorization is going
to pass. It is absurd to believe that any terrorist or dictator or any
other enemy of the United States will gain any sort of advantage
whatever from the public disclosure of the top line of the national
intelligence budget.
But there are people who will gain an advantage; that is, the
American people. Making the total size of our intelligence public is
going to increase public accountability and will allow for a more
informed debate about national security. If the national intelligence
budget's overall number is made public, there will be a more informed
discussion about whether money should be spent on aircraft carriers or
submarines or on intelligence gathering. This debate will only ensure
that taxpayer dollars are used more wisely and that America will be
safer.
Senator Byrd has been very gracious to give me this time this
afternoon. There are other provisions that I feel strongly about in
this legislation. The increased penalties, for example, for outing a
covert agent is something I feel strongly about. After the Dubai Ports
debate, it is clear that there should be additional resources devoted
to looking at the intelligence ramifications of those particular
issues.
But my bottom line is, at a time when Americans are questioning our
intelligence agencies' ability to keep them safe, the Congress has a
responsibility to provide support. At a time when the intelligence
community is undergoing major reorganization, the Congress has a
responsibility to provide guidance. At a time when our allies and our
citizens are raising serious questions about detention issues, Congress
has a responsibility to conduct oversight. At a time when Americans
continue to open their morning papers and read about aggressive new
forms of Government surveillance and, in particular, the now-disclosed
abuse of the national security letters, Congress has a responsibility
to demand accountability.
Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have done a lot of good
work on this legislation. The distinguished occupant of the chair has
been involved in those debates, and we are pleased that he is part of
the committee. I hope the Senate will move expeditiously to move
forward on this legislation. It is an important bill, at a critical
time for the security of the American people.
Again, I express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia for giving me the opportunity to speak this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator
from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, for his courtesy, and I also want to say that
he is one of the immortal 23 Senators who said, in kind words and
respectful words and in senatorial terms, we won't go--meaning, we were
going to be Senators. We know what the Constitution says about Members
of the Senate and the House, we were going to be Senators, we were
going to be respectful, but we were going to vote our way. We were
respectful of the President, but we knew we were Senators and that
there were three branches of Government, and we know and knew then that
this is the legislative branch--the first branch of Government that is
mentioned under the Constitution, and it is sometimes called ``the
people's branch.'' That is for good reason.
Now, what is the floor situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 372 is the pending question, and the
Senator from West Virginia has the floor with no present time
restriction.
Mr. BYRD. Further parliamentary question: Is time controlled at this
moment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that I may speak as in morning business--in other words, out of order--
for not to exceed 20 minutes. I don't expect to take that much time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Veto Threats
Mr. President, the 110th Congress will consider legislation this
session that raises passions and excites partisan fervor. It is likely
that much of what the Congress considers this year and next will be
subject to Presidential veto threats because the President's political
party no longer controls the Congress.
I was quite surprised recently to hear some Senators take the
position that this body is wasting its time in drafting and passing
legislation which the President threatens to veto.
Let me respectfully remind all who listen that the Congress
legislates for the people and has a constitutional obligation--in other
words, duty--to act independently from--I say this again, I say it
respectfully--from the White House. There are three branches, as
everybody knows, of Government. This is a separate but equal branch. I
want Senators to listen. This is a separate branch, but it is equal.
I will repeat myself. As Senators already know, there are three
separate but equal branches of Government. The Constitution's Framers
never considered a President to be the final arbiter of the public
good. Whether the question relates to military, foreign, or domestic
affairs, a Presidential veto threat is not the last word in what should
become the law of our land. Those decisions are left to the
representatives of the people, along with the power over the purse--
along with the power over the purse--and other constitutionally
enumerated congressional powers.
We hear almost daily a Presidential scolding of the Congress
concerning the supplemental appropriations bill, which is shortly
headed for a House-Senate conference. Continued Presidential veto
threats on the funding for the Iraq war represent a stubborn
unwillingness to concede that the American people have over time and
with considerable debate come to see that the Iraq war was a mistake.
[[Page S4572]]
In the case of Iraq, it is likely that the people of the United
States would have come to these opinions much earlier had they not had
information withheld from them or, in some instances, presented to them
falsely. Of course, I knew this.
Of course, also, it remains the constitutional prerogative of the
President to exercise the veto. I respect that. But it also remains the
prerogative of the Congress--the other body across the way and this
body--it also remains the prerogative of the Congress to challenge that
veto and to assert and defend the will of the people.
A President's power to veto is not and should not be absolute. Let me
repeat that. A President's power to veto is not and should not be
absolute. If the President vetoes a measure under our Constitution, the
Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote of both Houses.
All Senators know that. I am not telling Senators anything they don't
know.
A Presidential veto does not necessarily end the legislative process.
When the President vetoes legislation under article I, section 7 of the
Constitution, the President's objections are submitted to the House of
Congress--Congress being of two bodies--submitted to the House of
Congress in which the measure originated so that the measure and the
President's objections can be reconsidered. All Senators know that. Any
schoolboy who has studied the Constitution knows that. But I am stating
for the record, again, for all who run to read.
A new vote can be scheduled on the same piece of legislation and a
veto can be overturned if the people's representatives--if the people's
elected representatives--in Congress demand it.
There is nothing earthshaking about overturning a Presidential veto.
Since 1969, the Congress has overridden almost 20 percent of the
Presidential vetoes. President Franklin Roosevelt had nine vetoes
overridden by Democratic Congresses. I repeat: President Franklin
Roosevelt had nine vetoes overridden by Democratic Congresses.
President Ronald Reagan had six vetoes overridden by a Democratic House
and a Republican Senate.
The veto override provision in the Constitution is a protection for
the people whom the Congress represents. Members of Congress are
elected by the people to make laws based on sound public policy, not to
capitulate or surrender to any--Republican or Democrat--to any
Presidential threats. The Senate must never--hear me now, the Senate
must never--become a rubberstamp for any President, Republican or
Democrat or Independent or otherwise.
Certainly, the Congress should carefully consider the announced
reasons for a Presidential veto, but the Congress has a duty, if the
President's reasons are not credible or do not reflect the will of the
people, to overturn Presidential vetoes, if the Congress wishes to do
so.
The veto on the override is a healthy public opportunity for Members
of Congress--both Houses--to consider the reasons offered by the
President for his veto. Just as the President is held accountable for
his veto, we Senators are held accountable for our votes on bills that
are sent to the President and, if applicable, a subsequent veto
override vote.
Members of the Senate and the people understand that when the
President submits a bill to Congress and then asks that it be passed
without any amendments or conditions--the President has a right to do
that, but we all know that the President is treating the Congress like
a subordinate branch capable of only saying yes or no and never
expected to alter a Presidential proposal in any way.
The President knows what the Constitution says, and he knows that the
Congress has a right to listen, to study, and then to act as it seeks
to act. So this is an argument that contradicts the most basic
constitutional principles on which our Republic is founded.
The Congress was envisioned as a check on an overzealous or unwise
President, and that is no reflection on either party--that the
President can be a Democrat, a Republican, or otherwise--and we do our
duty to the Constitution when we vigorously utilize our enumerated
powers.
So let us hear no more about measures that the President has
threatened to veto being not worthy of the Senate's consideration. Let
the President issue his veto threats as he wishes, but also let the
Congress dutifully represent the will of the people.
On the matter of Iraq--and I say this most respectfully--I have been
chagrined of late to hear the falsehoods and scare tactics emanating
from the Oval Office. President Bush has repeatedly intimated that
there is a connection between the attacks of 9/11 and the Iraq war when
no such link exists. President Bush has suggested--he is my President
and yours, Senators--that the supplemental appropriations bill as now
written would cause death and destruction in America, which is patently
false. I speak now as the chairman--of course, everybody knows it--I
speak as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry: Are we under limited
time, I ask the Chair?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 30 seconds remaining
of the 20 minutes he requested.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am not going to belabor Senators. I have
seven more pages to read. I know what is in here, and so I ask
unanimous consent that I may use whatever time I consume, and I assure
Senators I will not consume more than 10 minutes, if that much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. President Bush has said the bill does not fund the troops,
which is false. The Senate bill provides $2 billion more than the
President requested for the troops and provides $1.8 billion more for
veterans health care. I regret this continual barrage of misinformation
coming from the White House just as I regret the intransigence--the
intransigence--of a President who will not cool off--and I say this
respectfully--of a President who will not cool off and stop
fearmongering long enough to negotiate a resolution to the differences
in the bill's language. He--the President--has been invited to do so in
good faith and yet still the almost daily castigation from the White
House continues.
I wonder about the effect on the morale of our brave fighting men and
women when the President--any President--repeats inaccuracies like the
Congress has failed to fully fund the troops. It seems to me that it is
not a prudent thing to say. Congress and the American people support
our troops, and the supplemental bill that we shall shortly take to
conference robustly funds their needs in the field and cares for their
needs after they return home.
For the President to assert otherwise is a disservice--and I say this
with the utmost respect. I will say it again. For the President to
assert otherwise is a disservice. Honorable men and women may disagree,
but Members of Congress and officials of the executive branch have a
duty to try to find common ground, especially when the issue is a
violent and controversial war, with our troops in harm's way every day.
I shall hope for a more reasonable and more realistic tone from our
President--and I say it with the utmost respect, but this is an equal
branch with the executive branch and the judicial branch--in the coming
days. May I say further that more light and less heat on this matter
would truly be in the best interests of our troops and of our sorely
divided country.
Now, Mr. President, I have been here a long time. I know how to
speak, when to speak, and when not to speak, but I am a U.S. Senator,
and I am asserting this Senate's constitutional duty. My Republican
friends and my Democratic friends know this, and I know they have a
right to do the same, but that is my speech for today, God willing.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair, I thank all Senators, and I yield
the floor.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished
colleague from West Virginia for his insight, as always, and wisdom on
so many issues. He epitomizes what it means to be a Senator, and we are
honored and appreciative of his leadership.
Prescription Drugs
Mr. President, I do want to speak today as it relates to prescription
drugs and the very important vote we will be having tomorrow, but I
also first want to speak to what is happening as it relates to
Blacksburg, VA,
[[Page S4573]]
and Virginia Tech University, just to indicate that we know there was a
memorial service today; that all of us, even as we carry on the normal
business of the Senate, are very mindful and aware of what has occurred
in the massacre at Virginia Tech University. My thoughts and prayers go
out to everyone who has been affected throughout the university, most
particularly the families.
Certainly, I think I can speak for the people of my great State of
Michigan when I say that we are deeply, deeply sorrowful, and our
prayers go out to each and every one of the people who have been
affected.
Mr. President, we have a very important vote tomorrow, which is
whether to proceed to legislation that would begin the process of
allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to be able to
negotiate the very best price for our seniors under Medicare. I want to
take this opportunity to commend our majority leader for getting us to
this point, Senator Reid, and the Finance Committee for getting us to
this point, for bringing the issue of Medicare drug pricing to the
Senate floor. I hope tomorrow we are going to see a strong bipartisan
vote to proceed with the bill.
Frankly, it is very unfortunate we are having to vote on whether to
proceed to this bill, but since that vote is occurring, I hope we will
have a resounding yes tomorrow for something that is so clear to the
American people. The direction we will hopefully take tomorrow is the
direction that the voters asked us to take. Their message last November
was crystal clear: that they want to make sure we are making health
care decisions in the best interests of people--the best interests of
seniors, of children, of families--and not the special interests that
make money off the system. Tomorrow is going to be a vote on that.
Tomorrow will be the first step in the process. We are removing the
provision that prohibits Medicare from using its negotiating clout.
What we are going to be voting on tomorrow is whether we will proceed.
And why are we doing that? Well, first of all, this Medicare bill that
was put in place a few years ago actually prohibited the Secretary from
negotiating to get the best price for seniors, amazingly. People to
this day ask: How in the world did that happen? Well, it happened
because, unfortunately, there were too many provisions in that bill
that were put in on behalf of the special interests rather than our
seniors.
The step we take tomorrow is good for our seniors, it is good for
families, and it is good for taxpayers. It is good for taxpayers to get
the best deal so that our dollars can go as far as possible under
Medicare. So tomorrow is an important day.
I have been fighting for this provision ever since the Medicare
prescription drug program was passed in late 2003. I wish I could have
supported that bill. I did not, in part because of the prohibition that
was put into place. That bill was written and designed with a huge gap
in coverage--it has often been called the doughnut hole--that, frankly,
wouldn't be there if we were able to get the very best pricing and
stretch those Medicare dollars as far as they should go.
In fact, I joined a group of Senators to introduce legislation on
December 12, 2003, to repeal the prohibition on negotiation, which is
what we are talking about now, because we knew then what we know today.
If the Secretary of Health and Human Services negotiates Medicare
prescription drug prices, seniors will pay the lowest possible price.
That should be what we are all focused on as it relates to Medicare
prescription drugs. More than 3 years later, we are taking the first
step toward getting this done. It is about time. I think that is what
the American people are saying to us.
The best way to get the lowest possible prices on prescription drugs
is to use the negotiating clout of 43 million seniors an
