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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 and people with disability who are under Medicare. That negotiating clout needs to be used. We are considering this bill right now because the American people want it. According to a poll conducted by the AARP, 87 percent of all Americans said they want Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices--87 percent. That is a pretty big number. Eighty-seven percent of the seniors, according to AARP, when asked, have said: Yes, of course, we want the Federal Government to negotiate to get the very best price.
Why do consumers want Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices? Because they know what everybody knows: large purchasers are getting deep discounts for prescription drugs, and they want the same from Medicare.
This bill does not do the same thing as the VA, but the VA is a good example of what can be done when there is negotiation, when the Federal Government brings its clout as it does for our veterans. It gives us some idea of the kinds of discounts that can be achieved.
For example, we know that on average, the VA health system gets prescription drugs for approximately 58 percent less than their retail prices--58 percent--and on some medicines, it is up to a 1,000-percent difference. Now, I would say, if the VA can do this and get 58 percent, we can get a better deal if we negotiate, knowing again that this bill does not reflect what the VA does, but it gives you a sense of what can be done when we have that kind of clout.
Let's be clear about what we are doing right now with this bill. We are opening the door to lower drug prices so Medicare beneficiaries can afford the medicines they need and we can save taxpayers money. We all know how many times we have heard the stories--I hear them all the time--of folks trying to juggle between keeping the lights on, buying food, and getting their medicine. Our top goal should be, as a Medicare Program, to make sure people can get the medicine they need at the very best price. This bill moves us in that direction.
Let's be clear also about what we are not doing. This legislation does not create a national drug formulary, nor does it establish price controls. Seniors will have access to all of the drugs they do today, and possibly more. The prescription drug industry will continue to thrive, and R&D will not be affected. The change we will see is a change we have been asking for for the last 3 years, that seniors and families have been asking for for the last 3 years.
It is also important to note because we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that somehow, if Medicare is going to have the opportunity to negotiate or if the Secretary can negotiate at appropriate times for lower prices, we are going to see the prices of the VA go up. Well, I asked the Congressional Budget Office to submit to me in writing if that were, in fact, true under this bill. They, in fact, said: No, under this bill, that is not the case. We are not going to see veterans or any other group see their prescription drug prices go up under this legislation. So that is one good thing we need to make clear and debunk as we begin this debate.
Now, what we do know is we have a very interesting thing going on. We have two kinds of debate going on right now in opposition from those who are major beneficiaries of the current system, the special interest groups that have the benefit right now of seeing huge profit increases as a result of this prescription drug bill. On the one hand, we are seeing ads that say: This legislation will do nothing. Do not pass it; it will not do anything. Then, on the other hand, the very same people are saying: But it will cause seniors to not be able to get the choice of medicines they want, it will cause veterans to see their medicine costs go up, it will cost R&D and we won't be able to do research and development into new prescription drugs anymore. I find it so interesting that the same people are arguing both sides: It will not do anything, and it will have all of these devastating effects.
At the same time, we are seeing huge amounts of money, millions and millions of dollars--for months, I have seen ads on TV and radio, newspaper ads telling us these people do not want negotiation or that it will not do anything, all paid for by the same people who benefit by the current system. I might just say that just today, a full-page, single-color ad running in the Washington Post on page A5 today, costs about $135,000--this is today, this is yesterday. We have ad after ad after ad being run and paid for by people who tell us this bill will not do anything. It will not do anything, but yet they have spent millions of dollars on TV, millions of dollars on the radio, in ads we have seen, ads for our benefit, ads telling us people do not want negotiation.
I might add that in this ad which is running right now, where they say people really do not want Medicare to negotiate, what they say in the fine print is that, in fact, 89 percent oppose Government negotiation if it could limit access to new prescription medicine--if it could limit access to new prescription medicine. This bill does not limit access to new prescription medicine--or old prescription medicine, for that matter. That is not what we are talking about.
In fact, what I find interesting, and the subtle part of this is, if we negotiate for a better deal, they won't be able to do research anymore. We know that right now the drug industry spends 2½times more on marketing and advertising than they do on research.
I would suggest we can negotiate to get a little better price. And I wonder how much $135,000 would buy in medicine for somebody today instead of one ad? Let's cut down a little bit on the marketing and advertising, and we won't have to worry about whether Medicare can negotiate for the very best price.
So I hope that tomorrow we are going to have a vote to proceed to this very important public policy issue, this very important bill. I hope we are going to, in fact, do what 87 percent of voters are saying they want us to do--negotiate the very best price for prescription drugs.
I would ask my colleagues to vote to allow us to proceed to the bill. We can continue to work together on exactly what the language should look like, but the idea that you would stop it before we can even have the debate would be extremely disturbing. People in this country do not understand why it is that decisions are made too often for those who happen to have the lobbyists here or the ads on TV or in the newspaper and not enough for the folks who are working hard every day or are retired on a fixed income trying to make ends meet.
Tomorrow is a chance for us to show that those folks are not making the decisions, that we are going to move forward on a bill which is positive for seniors, which is going to give us an opportunity to open the door to negotiating good prices and make a real difference for people, a real difference for people whom the system is supposed to help, the Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors, for people on Medicare. They deserve the best price. Tomorrow, we will have a chance to vote to go to that debate and work together to get a bill that will do that. I hope we are going to vote to do that.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. Shelby: Once again, today, tax time is upon us. It is April 17. We know April 15 is the magic day, but it has been extended because of when it fell. Today is the day everybody in America knows that the Federal Government income taxes are due. If you are like me, you spent way too much time completing your taxes this year.
Our Tax Code and its accompanying regulations total tens of thousands of pages which are complicated, confusing, and costly to comply with. In fact, since we last had major reform in 1986 there have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code. Average taxpayers should not have to pour over tax regulations for hours on end or pay a tax professional to complete their tax documents.
In the IRS' own estimation, the average time burden for all taxpayers filing a 1040 is 30 hours. Unfortunately, what this means is that for most people is that in addition to paying the Government every year, they need to pay someone or buy software to tell them exactly how much to pay their Government.
Americans need a simple, common-sense solution. This is why I have introduced S. 1040, the Tax Simplification Act.
The Tax Simplification Act establishes a flat income tax of 17 percent on all income and places real spending limits on the Federal Government. First, my proposal would replace our current incomprehensible Tax Code with a flat rate of 17 percent on all individuals' income beyond an exemption for the individual and any dependents. To prevent the double-taxation of income, earnings from savings would not be included as taxable income, resulting in a tax cut for virtually all taxpayers and providing a strong incentive for people to save. Increasing the savings rate in this country should be a priority of this Congress and this bill will do that.
As complicated as the individual tax system has proven, it pales in comparison to the hoops U.S. businesses are required to jump through. In preparation for 2005 taxes, businesses and nonprofits spent an estimated 6.4 billion hours complying with the Federal Income Tax Code, with an estimated compliance cost of over $265 billion. Without action, that number is expected to grow to over $482 billion by 2015.
What this means is that for every $5 the Government collects right now, businesses are forced to spend another $1 to comply with the countless rules and regulations that we, the Government, have created. These additional costs are then passed on to the consumers, investors, and employees. We need to overcome this notion that our corporate income tax simply applies to some faceless boardroom. Corporations do not pay taxes. People pay taxes. Corporations do not comply with our tax laws. People do.
Under my legislation, companies would pay the flat tax of 17 percent rate on their income, simplifying the complicated calculations businesses currently go through to determine their taxable income. S. 1040 simply defines income as the positive difference between revenue and expenses. As the legislation is implemented, the rate of taxation would be 19 percent in the first 2 years and then lowered to the desired rate of 17 percent in the third year.
Finally, this legislation would require a three-fifths majority in Congress for any tax increase. This ensures that only in times of the most need would the Government be able to take any more money out of the hands of hard-working Americans. By enacting this legislation we would institute a strong backstop against those that would seek to continue the out-of-control growth of the Federal Government. And we would open a new chapter of responsibility and accountability in our revenue collection.
Yes, the flat tax would revolutionize the way our Government operates. Today, if a flat tax were in place, taxpayers would file a return the size of a postcard. Rather than spending hours deciphering convoluted IRS forms or resorting to professional tax assistance, the flat tax would allow taxpayers to complete their taxes quickly and easily.
The time for significant reform of our Tax Code is now. The flat tax would revolutionize the way our Government operates. The complexities and inequities of the current tax system would end. They would be replaced by a system that treats every taxpayer equally and represents a massive reduction in the tax burden carried by hard-working Americans.
Only by treating every taxpayer equally can our Tax Code ever achieve true fairness. Only when the shackles of our burdensome Tax Codes are removed will we truly see what our great economy is capable of doing.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. Levin: Mr. President, Mr. Isakson has a very brief statement, perhaps 2 minutes. I wonder if he can be recognized for 2 minutes and then Senator Nelson for 2 minutes and then I be recognized for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Isakson: Mr. President, I ask to address the Senate as if in morning business.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Isakson: Mr. President, I rise today to express my sympathy and I know the sympathy of all of the Members of the Senate and the people of the United States of America on the tragic losses yesterday at Virginia Tech.
I learned this morning that one of those first tragic losses was a young gentleman by the name of Ryan Clark, and I, from the floor of the Senate, send to Martinez, GA, my sympathy, that of Senator Chambliss, and that of all Members of the Senate on the tragic loss of Ryan.
None of us can understand what happened yesterday, but all of us must understand the profound tragedy and the loss of youth in its prime.
Ryan Clark, 22 years old, a double major in English and biology, was about to walk across the stage and graduate and then pursue a masters and a Ph.D. in psychology. Ryan is survived not only by his mother Letitie but by his brother Bryan. Bryan told us that his brother was known best by his nickname on the campus, "Stack." Stack, if you go to the Web site of the Virginia Tech band, can be seen volunteering his time in a food drive for the needy. In fact, just last December, in the Georgia Dome at the Peach Bowl of 2006, one of the last times that Ryan went back to Georgia, he performed with the Virginia Tech band at halftime of that bowl game.
This young man was a residential adviser, a member of the band, an outstanding student, a proud son, and a proud brother. I am very proud as a Georgian to have known of his accomplishments, and I send his mother Letitie my prayers and my hopes that she will accept our sympathy and endure the tragedy of the loss of her son Ryan.
To the families of all of those professors, employees, and students who were hurt yesterday in Blacksburg, VA, I extend my sympathy and my deepest prayers that we will find reconciliations out of tragedy.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Nelson (FL): Mr. President, our hearts go out to the citizens of Virginia, to the university community, and to the families and the loved ones of those in this tragedy. It goes without saying that we will get to the bottom of this and then find out what is going wrong in this country that our sense of morality has gone askew so that a senseless set of murders such as this would occur.
I am here to speak on behalf of this intelligence legislation on which we are about to have a vote, cutting off debate so we can proceed to finalize the bill. It is necessary that we do that. I had the privilege of serving on the Intelligence Committee along with my colleague, the Senator from Michigan, on his committee, the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There is so much going on that is at stake for this country that we cannot in any way delay this Intelligence bill; it needs to be considered; it needs to be amended, if that is the will of this body; it needs to be passed, and we need to then get reconciled with the House and get it to the President for his signature. There are too many things that are super important to this country for us to do anything other than protect the interests of this country through our intelligence activities.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. Levin: Mr. President, the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July of 2004 fueled a debate about how our intelligence community should be restructured to better respond to the post-9/11 threat.
In response to problems identified by the 9/11 Commission, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. Most notably, that bill created the Director of National Intelligence, empowering the DNI with budget power and control over personnel in the intelligence community.
The bill also created the National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, with the authority to conduct strategic counterterrorism planning and to assign roles and responsibilities for counterterrorism activities. Passage of intelligence reform was a watershed moment in the drive to better organize our Government to deal with the threat of terrorism.
On December 8, 2004, the same day the Senate passed the Intelligence reform bill, it passed the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005. It is troubling that that day, December 8, 2004, was the last day this body passed an Intelligence authorization bill, and it underscores the importance of the Senate passing the bill before us. Since passage of the Intelligence reform bill in 2004, we learned a good deal about what additional changes to law might be needed to improve our intelligence community functions. In addition, as we have learned about such activities as the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, we have come to better appreciate the need for strong congressional oversight of the intelligence community.
As a matter of fact, the 9/11 Commission said the following in its very lengthy and thoughtful report, "Strengthen Congressional Oversight of Intelligence and Homeland Security." That is the heading of the section, and this is the one pungent sentence from that report which I hope will cause a lot of people to rethink their opposition to cloture on this bill:
Of all of our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important.
Those words should have an impact on the vote that is coming up in about 40 minutes.
More than 30 years ago, the Senate passed S. Res. 400, establishing the Select Committee on Intelligence, and charging that committee with providing "vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The legislation before us today takes significant steps toward reinvigorating our oversight responsibility. For example, effective oversight depends on Members of Congress having timely access to intelligence information. Unfortunately, too often that is not the case, as requests from Congress for intelligence information are stonewalled and slow walked. Section 108 of the bill before us requires the intelligence community to provide, upon request from the chairman or vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee or chairman or ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, timely access to existing intelligence assessments, reports, estimates, legal opinions, or other intelligence information.
The bill before us also advances Congress's oversight of particular matters. For example, section 313 requires the Director of National Intelligence to submit a classified report on any clandestine detention facilities operated by the U.S. Government. This public law requirement reflects the Intelligence Committee's determination to undertake serious oversight of any intelligence community detention and interrogation practices. The bill before us also establishes within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence an inspector general of the intelligence community. That is a major reform. It is highly important, and it is long overdue. The creation of an inspector general of the intelligence community will strengthen accountability by permitting independent examinations of problems, abuses, or deficiencies.
We should not let another year go by without an Intelligence authorization bill. We cannot defeat the threats this Nation faces without the strongest and most effective intelligence community which, in turn, requires strong oversight.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Dorgan: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Salazar): Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Dorgan: Mr. President, later this week there will be a group of us in the Senate holding a meeting on trade issues and talking about what our response will be to the request by President Bush to extend what they call trade promotion authority. Trade promotion authority is a slogan that was used to replace fast track because fast track apparently became some sort of a pejorative term, at least in the minds of some. So they came up with the term "trade promotion authority." It is like labeling things healthy forests or clear skies, trade promotion authority. What it means is fast track. The Congress, by Constitution, has the right to be engaged in foreign commerce. That is where it is described, in the Constitution. It is not described as part of executive branch responsibilities. It is described as part of the responsibilities of Congress to be involved in the issue of trade and foreign commerce.
What has happened over some years is the Congress has given the President authority to negotiate trade agreements in secret behind closed doors, bring the trade agreements to this Congress, and we agree we will put on a straitjacket and not be allowed to offer any amendments, and it will be considered as a trade agreement that we have negotiated with some other country under expedited procedures. The Congress itself has decided to put itself in a straitjacket with something called fast track or trade promotion authority. I did not support that. I didn't support it for President Clinton. I don't support it for President Bush. President Bush has had fast track trade promotion authority now for some while. It is about to expire on June 30. He is asking that it be extended. As for me, I will not support extending it. I hope to be involved with a group of Senators who similarly will describe the danger to this country's economic future that would be entailed by supporting the extension of fast track or trade promotion authority.
Let me describe what the danger is. Some wish to ignore all the evidence that exists with respect to trade. The fact is, in the past year our trade deficit in 1 year was $830 billion. What does that number mean? It probably doesn't mean much to most people. It means every single day we purchase from foreign countries $2 billion more than we are able to sell to foreign countries. Every single day we put $2 billion worth of IOUs in the hands of another country. A substantial portion of those IOUs is now possessed by China, Japan, and others. About $1 billion is owed from the citizens of this country to China and Japan.
In addition to the imbalance of $2 billion a day importing more than we export or consume--saying it another way, about 6 percent more than we produce--we are seeing American jobs being shipped overseas. We have actually some cheerleaders for that proposition. We have some people in this country who say isn't that great. Isn't that a wonderful situation where we can actually move American jobs abroad. None of those people will ever lose their jobs. They will write books and make laws, but they will never lose their jobs. It is the folks who shower after work who lose their jobs; the people who go to the plant, the people on the assembly line; the people who find their job is going elsewhere because there is someone else in the world, a billion to a billion and a half people willing to work for 20 or 30 cents an hour. They will work with no health care benefits and no retirement benefits and in some cases for 20 cents an hour. If they decide they are being cheated out of wages and try to organize workers, they will be sent to prison.
That is the new economy? That is the new circumstance of the global economy? That is free trade? That is good for our country? I don't think so.
I have spoken at length about this issue. I am for trade and plenty of it. Sign me up. I support trade. I like trade. I insist that it be fair to this country. I am flat out tired, through fast track, of having trade agreements being negotiated in secret overseas someplace behind closed doors by U.S. negotiators who forget who they are working for. They bring them to this Chamber under expedited authority called fast track and there is the prohibition of any amendment being offered to change what is obviously wrong with the agreement. Then it runs through here like a hot knife through butter. We have had NAFTA and CAFTA and U.S.-Canada. We have had all these trade agreements, at the end of which we have the largest trade deficit in the history of humankind. It is not even close. Every time we pass a new trade agreement, we have a larger deficit.
The people who come up with these concoctions called free trade say: Isn't this wonderful? No, it is not. Would they say it was wonderful if they were losing their jobs? They wouldn't. But they are not the ones losing their jobs.
Alan Blinder, a mainstream economist, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, said this about the outsourcing of American jobs: There are 40 million American jobs subject to outsourcing. Not all of them will leave this country, but even those that remain will have downward pressure on their income because there is someone else somewhere else in the world willing to work for pennies.
So is that the new global economy? Is that the flat world? Mr. Friedman wrote the book "The World is Flat." I know better than that; so does he. The world is not flat. In the chapter where he looks at Bangalore, India and says, isn't this wonderful, all these jobs in India, no, it is not wonderful.
Is this the kind of new economy we signed up for? Have we forgotten the lessons, have we forgotten what it took to get to this kind of standard of living?
James Fyler was shot 54 times. It was said once he died of lead poisoning. I guess when you are shot 54 times--he was actually killed in Ludlow, CO, nearly 90 years ago. He was killed because he thought people who went into the coal mines to mine for coal had a right to a fair wage and a right to work in a safe workplace.
Move forward a century from James Fyler, from people who gave their lives to lift the standards in this country, to expand the middle class, to provide for good jobs, demand a fair wage, demand decent benefits, and then ask yourself if, after a century, when we expanded the middle class in this country--with good jobs that pay well--have we now decided there is a new strategy, a bankrupt strategy, which is so- called free trade, which is unfair to the American worker, because it is a race to the bottom, saying to companies: If you can find somebody who will work for 20 cents an hour, have them make the Huffy bicycles, have them make the Radio Flyer little red wagons, have them make the Fig Newtons, have them make the Hanes underwear, and have them make the Levi's. They are all gone because they went in search of cheap labor. All those American jobs are gone. Now, I ask you, is that a road to a better future for American workers?
We, actually, in this Chamber, mind you--not me but a majority--have supported one of the most pernicious provisions I have ever seen, a provision that says: Do you know what, if you want to close your manufacturing plant and fire your workers and move the jobs to China, we intend to give you a big fat tax break for doing it. That is unbelievable. I have tried four times to change that in the Senate and have come up short in the vote four straight times. But I guarantee you this: One day, there will be enough clear thinking in this Congress to decide we ought to stop subsidizing the export of American jobs.
So I started by saying we have an $830 billion trade deficit. That relates to the export of jobs and the purchase every day of $2 billion more than we are able to ship abroad. We are going to have to repay that someday. You can make a case on the budget deficit that is money which we owe to ourselves. You cannot make that case with the trade deficit. That will be repaid someday with a lower standard of living in this country.
That is why we ought to, as a country, begin worrying about and thinking about this new strategy. I am for a fair trade strategy. I am for trade, and plenty of it, but it must be fair to this country. I am sick and tired of seeing trade agreements that pull the rug out from under our workers and pull the rug out from under our standards. I want to lift people up, not press people down. I do not believe in a future in which 40 million to 50 million additional workers are subject to outsourcing. But if they are not outsourced, they, nonetheless, can come home and say: Honey, I didn't lose my job today, but they are going to pay me less.
One final point. I spoke here about a week ago about Circuit City. I do not know much about that company. I do know this: They announced they were going to fire 3,400 people. Because they were bad workers? Not a bit. No. They said: We are going to fire them because we want to rehire other workers to whom we can pay less money. They were making, I think, slightly above $11 an hour. They wanted to fire 3,400 workers so they could hire cheaper workers, less expensive workers.
I do not know. If you go into a store and ask somebody where the camera counter is, are you going to find a worker who knows? Maybe you have a worker you could pay less money to, but do these companies forget that their company is their workers, the company is represented by their workforce, that is their brand?
We are headed in the wrong direction. There is no social program in this country as important as a good job that pays well. Yet the whole notion here of the companies that want to produce in China and ship here and run their income through the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes to this country--the whole notion is, this is a new day, it is a new economy. Don't you understand it? Free trade. That is not fair trade, where I come from.
My colleague, Senator Brown, has worked on this issue for a long while in the U.S. House, and now in the U.S. Senate. I really appreciate seeing new voices come to the Senate demanding we move toward fair trade relationships. We can compete, but the competition has to be fair. That has not been the case with any of these trade agreements.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield the floor so my colleague, Senator Brown, can be recognized.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for only 5 minutes or so.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I wish to echo much of what Senator Dorgan has said and thank him for his leadership on trade issues. I came to the House of Representatives in 1993, elected in 1992. Our trade deficit was fairly large in those days, we thought: $38 billion. Today, as the Senator said, depending on whether you count services in addition to manufactured products, it exceeds $800 billion.
Interestingly, if you add the aggregate trade deficit from 1992 through 2006--that means the amount of imports we have brought into our country versus the amount of exports we have going out of our country-- we have had a $4 trillion trade deficit in the aggregate. That is $4 trillion of wealth having gone out of our country.
To understand what $4 trillion is, because nobody can really understand that, if you spent $1,000 every second of every minute of every hour of every day--if you spent $1,000 of every second of every minute of every hour of every day--to spend $4 trillion, it would take you 135 years. That is the kind of wealth we have seen go out of our country. But to understand that in more human terms, let me just share a story, if I could, for a moment.
About 7 or 8 years ago, after the North American Free Trade Agreement, unfortunately, passed the House and Senate--Senator Dorgan voted against it in the Senate; I voted against it in the House, a dozen or so years ago--I flew to McAllen, TX, at my own expense and rented a car and went across the border with a couple of friends and visited Reynosa, Mexico, to see what NAFTA had brought to the border areas and to the country of Mexico--at least that part of Mexico.
I went to the home of two General Electric workers--General Electric, Mexico. Both made about 90 cents an hour. Both worked pretty much 60 hours a week, 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. They lived in a home maybe 20 feet by 15 feet, with no running water, no electricity. They had dirt floors. When it rained hard, the floors turned to mud.
When you went outside their home--these are people who worked 60 hours a week each for an American company, a Mexican subsidiary of an American company, 3 miles from the United States of America in Reynosa, Mexico--if you went outside their home, there was a ditch behind their house, maybe 4 feet wide, with 2 by 4s across the ditch. Children would be playing in this ditch with human waste, industrial waste--who knows what was going through it. The American Medical Association said the Mexican-U.S. border is the most toxic place in the Western Hemisphere. And these children were playing in whatever this human and industrial effluent waste was in this neighborhood.
As you walked through this neighborhood, you could tell where the workers worked by the construction materials from which their homes were built--packing materials and cardboard boxes from the companies for which they worked or from the suppliers to the companies for which they worked. They used that as roofs and walls to build their shacks.
Again, these are people who hold full-time jobs for General Electric, Mexico, 3 miles from the United States of America.
Then, nearby, within a mile, I visited an auto plant--an auto plant that looked just like an auto plant in Lordstown, OH, Avon Lake, OH, with modern technology, even more modern than what we have often in auto plants in Ohio, unfortunately. They had clean floors and hard- working workers who were very productive.
There was one difference between the Mexican auto plant and the auto plant you would see in Cleveland. The difference was there was no parking lot in the Mexican auto plant because, simply put, the workers have not shared in the wealth they produce for their company.
You could go halfway around the world. You could go to a Motorola plant in Malaysia, and the workers are not paid enough to buy the phones they make. You could come back halfway around the world to Costa Rica to a Disney plant, and the workers do not make enough money to buy the toys they make for their children. You could go back halfway around the world to China, and the workers at the Nike plant are not paid enough to buy the shoes they make. The difference in their economy and ours, and these trading partners where we have huge trade deficits, is the workers are not sharing in the wealth they create.
But that is starting to happen in the United States. In the last 30 years, the wealthiest 20 percent in our country, the wealthiest 5 percent, the wealthiest 1 percent are seeing their wealth go up while wages are stagnant for the rest of the country. That is why the middle class is shrinking, because people who are working hard and playing by the rules simply are not sharing in the wealth they create.
They are more productive than they have ever been. We are setting productivity records in this country. Yet wages are stagnant or worse. Companies are outsourcing, companies are going overseas. Senator Dorgan said those same companies are getting tax breaks and all kinds of advantages, as this body and, across the Capitol, the House of Representatives continue to pass these job-killing trade agreements that outsource our jobs, that betray our middle class, that mean layoffs of police and fire and teachers and people who make our communities healthier, as families are hurt by these layoffs or as families are hurt by stagnant wages.
That is why we need a very different trade policy--whether it is with Japan, whether it is with Mexico--a trade policy that lifts up the middle class and helps to strengthen the middle class, a trade policy that will help workers in the developing world instead of this trade policy that outsources our jobs, betrays our communities, and hurts our families.
Mr. Dorgan: Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield for a question?
Mr. Brown: Yes.
Mr. Dorgan: Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has described automobiles as one part of his discussion. I wonder if the Senator from Ohio knows, for example, with respect to South Korea, we imported about 700,000 automobiles from South Korea in the last year. We were able to export about 4,000 American cars to South Korea.
Now, why the imbalance? Mr. President, 99 percent of the cars driven on the streets of South Korea are made in South Korea. That is the way they want it. Once in a great while, we have a little burst. The Dodge Dakota pickup--all of a sudden, it looked like they were going to sell some Dodge Dakota pickups in South Korea. Just like that, the Government shut that down. Oh, they do it very subtlely, but they know what they are doing--just like that.
China is a good example. We did a trade agreement with China. China is now creating an automobile export market. They want to be a big automobile exporter and intend to export to this country. Here is what we said to China, a country with which we have a giant trade deficit: When you ship your Chinese cars to the United States, we will impose a 2.5-percent tariff on your cars. And we agree that for any U.S. automobiles we would sell in China, you may impose a 25- percent tariff. So to a country with which we have a giant trade deficit--we now have a $230 billion trade deficit with China--we have said: It is OK for you to impose a tariff that is 10 times higher than we would impose on your cars.
That is unbelievably ignorant, in my judgment, ignorant of our own economic interests.
If I may make one additional point. In Ohio, they used to make Huffy bicycles. I have spoken about that at some length on this floor. They paid people $11 an hour to make Huffy bicycles. Huffy bicycles are 20 percent of the American bicycle market. You can buy them at Wal-Mart, Kmart, Sears. The people at the plant in Ohio loved their jobs. They made the Huffy bicycles for over a century. They all got fired. They all lost their jobs. You can still buy a Huffy bicycle. They are all made in China.
But on the last day of work, after they were fired, these Huffy bicycle workers, as they drove out of the parking lot of the plant, all left a pair of empty shoes where their car used to sit in the parking lot. It was their way of saying to this company: You can ship our jobs overseas, but, by God, you are not going to fill our shoes. It was a poignant way for workers to say: This job mattered to me. We worked here for a century making bicycles as American workers. And now it is gone.
It is unbelievable, when you hear these stories and see what the consequences are of American companies that have decided: Do you know what, the new economy says, let's produce where we can pay people 30 cents an hour. Incidentally, that is how much workers get who are now producing Huffy bicycles. They are paid 30 cents an hour. They work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day. That is what the Ohio workers were told. You cannot compete against that, so you lose.
In my judgment, our country, this Senate--Senator Brown and I and others--has to begin standing up for the economic interests of our country and our workers. If we do not, we will surely see a shrinking of the middle class and a dramatic impact on the economy and future growth of this country. That is why this is such an important issue.
Again, let me just say how impressed I am with not only Senator Brown but especially Senator Brown and some others who have joined us in the Senate, who will be very strong voices on behalf of a sane, thoughtful, sensible protrade policy that is pro-fair trade and stands up for this country's economic interests.
I thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding to me.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, I reemphasize what Senator Dorgan says so often; that is, we want trade--plenty of it--we just want it with different rules. We want fair trade. Plenty of countries around the world practice trade, as South Korea does, for their own national interests. We practice trade according to some economics textbooks some days, and other days we practice trade according to what is in the interests of these large corporations that outsource. But these companies--again I use the word "betray"--they betray our families, they betray our communities when they do what Huffy Bicycles did because those jobs were good-paying union jobs in Shelby County OH, in western Ohio. As Senator Dorgan said, they have been there for hundreds of years.
In the far corner of northwest Ohio there is a company called the Ohio Art Company. The Ohio Art Company makes something that almost everyone who grew up in this country knows about: they make the Etch A Sketch. Some years ago, Wal-Mart went to the Ohio Art Company and said: We want to sell Etch A Sketch in our stores for under $10, and the Ohio Art Company couldn't make them for that price, so they pretty much moved most or all of their production to China.
It is that kind of betrayal by these corporations, with the concurrence of our Government, because our Government writes the rules for these trade agreements--our Government has consistently practiced trade and allowed our largest companies to practice trade not according--unlike other countries that don't practice it according to our national interests, and it is time that we do.
Mr. Dorgan: Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator to yield for one more point. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, tried very hard to keep a company in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania House Furniture. They make fine furniture with Pennsylvania wood, a very special kind of Pennsylvania wood. They make top-of-the-line furniture and did for a long time--I think for over a century as well. They were purchased by La-Z-Boy, and La-Z-Boy decided that Pennsylvania House Furniture would be outsourced to China. At that point, Governor Rendell and folks in Pennsylvania got involved to try to save Pennsylvania House Furniture, but they couldn't do it. The jobs all went to China. Incidentally, they now ship the wood from Pennsylvania to China, put the furniture together, and then ship it back to be sold as Pennsylvania House Furniture.
There is somebody in this country who has a piece of furniture that they don't understand the value of. The last day at work at this plant where they had made furniture, these craftsmen, who made top-end, top- of-the-line furniture, these craftsmen, the last day of work, on the last piece of furniture that came off the assembly line in Pennsylvania, turned it over and they all signed it. Someone has a piece of furniture with the signatures of all the craftsmen at that plant who, on their last day at work, decided they wanted to sign as a note of pride in the work they had just completed.
Then the jobs were gone, all gone to China, because the Pennsylvania workers could not compete with those who would work for 25 cents, 30 cents, 35 cents an hour. But they shouldn't have to. That is the point of our discussion about fair trade.
Mr. Brown: Mr. President, in the next decade our Nation needs to--our Government needs to come up with a manufacturing policy. If our trade laws and our tax laws continue to encourage outsourcing, continue to contribute to this erosion of the middle class, we will be a country with less and less manufacturing, fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs, less and less of an ability to protect our national interests. It is a question of national security, to be able to have a strong manufacturing component to our economy, and it is a question of economic security for families in places such as Dayton, in places such as Steubenville and Painesville and Cleveland, OH, places where people have built middle-class lifestyles, bought their homes, sent their children to college, worked for a decent retirement because they have worked hard and played by the rules and manufactured goods that people in our country use.
I think it is important as we move forward with Senator Dorgan and people like Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island, who is also very interested in this, that we move forward on developing this manufacturing policy on trade, on tax law, and on helping particularly our small manufacturers compete in this global economy.
I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
Mr. Whitehouse: Mr. President, we have seen a considerable number of the members of the Intelligence Committee come up to this floor this afternoon, and that is because we have before us S. 372, legislation authorizing funding for our intelligence and national security services. But rather than work with Congress to ensure agencies such as the CIA, FBI, NSA, and many others receive the funding they need to meet their missions and keep Americans safe, the Bush administration and some in the Republican minority are stonewalling this legislation.
As the newest member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, I am deeply troubled to see this legislation stalled at the expense of the security of our Nation. My father was a Foreign Service officer, and through his eyes I have seen the power of American diplomatic and intelligence efforts to do both great good in the world and great harm.
In their misuse and in the politicization of America's intelligence apparatus, President Bush and his administration have done great harm to America's standing in the world and our security at home. Now we face the bleak prospect that for the third year in a row the Senate may not pass an intelligence authorization bill. This should give every concerned American pause.
This measure will fund our intelligence community agencies, fight terrorism, strengthen our capabilities to collect, analyze, and act on intelligence, and, most importantly, expand transparency and oversight of our intelligence community. It is a reflection of diligent, thorough, and tenacious work by our committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia whom I see with me on the floor this afternoon, along with his Republican counterpart, Vice Chairman Bond. I was hopeful that at least we could end the partisan logjam that has crippled the Senate Intelligence Committee for the last several years. I have been pleased with the thoughtful and serious tone of the committee's work on both sides of the aisle. Yet now something has suddenly changed, and the Republican minority has maneuvered to block this legislation from becoming law. Now it appears the White House has intervened, has called in chits, and twisted arms to stop a bill on which Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have worked so long and hard.
We understand this administration does not want congressional oversight. They don't want oversight on their inept response to Hurricane Katrina. They don't want oversight on the unprecedented purge of U.S. attorneys. They don't want oversight on the debacle going on in Iraq. They don't want oversight on intelligence either. But no administration in recent memory has more badly needed congressional oversight, and in no area has that need been more plainly demonstrated than in the intelligence function of our Government.
This is the administration that failed to ensure adequate oversight of national security letters under the PATRIOT Act. This is the administration that conducted its own secret wiretap program to monitor conversations, including the conversations of U.S. citizens. This is the administration that established its own secret prison network offshore to hold terrorism suspects off the record of this country's legitimate judicial institutions. This is the administration that cherry-picked its intelligence to justify the claim of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. That abuse of intelligence alone cost our country thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and damage to our relations with allies around the world that will linger for many years.
One can see why this administration would resist congressional oversight, but Congress is obligated to oversee our country's national security and intelligence-gathering services. That is our duty under the Constitution. This duty is particularly important with the covert intelligence agencies because their work is not subject to public inquiry. These are not organizations that work in the bright light of day but in the deep dark of the secrecy they require to be effective. So meaningful and appropriate congressional oversight is our only safeguard.
This administration welcomes oversight less than almost any I can think of, but no administration in recent memory has needed it more. Perhaps the Nixon administration, but like the Nixon administration, this administration's resistance to congressional oversight is a measure of how badly that oversight is needed. Unfortunately, for too many years this Congress has conducted oversight by the principle, "out of sight, out of mind" or maybe "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." You don't have to look far to see how badly this strategy has failed.
But there is a new team in town and a new leadership of this Congress that takes these responsibilities seriously. It is an abdication of our responsibility under the Constitution, and it is irresponsible with respect to the security of our Nation to let this legislation languish.
I urge my colleagues in the minority to reconsider their actions, to return to this floor in good faith, to continue the good work that Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond have so nobly accomplished, and to give our intelligence agencies the funding they need to keep us safe.
I yield the floor.
