---

Mr. Rockefeller: Mr. President, first of all, I want to truly congratulate the Senator from Rhode Island for his statement which was delivered forcefully, intelligently, accurately, and with great conviction which comes from his extremely broad experience in life.

For this Senator's part, my view is this: Unless the Senate invokes cloture and moves to finish action on the fiscal year 2007 authorization bill, we have failed for the third time, or as Senator Levin put it, since 2004 when we last passed it, to pass important national security legislation. Everything that the American people are worried about, everything that comes out of events like yesterday in Blacksburg, VA--and by the way, I spent a good deal of time on the phone talking to students I know down there--everything points to a massive, tectonic change in the way we are carrying on.

I speak very proudly of a PBS series which is looking at this whole subject. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, 12 consecutive hours of looking at what Islam is, what it isn't; what jihad is, what it isn't; and how we came to this point. It is done from all points of view, usually without any journalists, just soldiers talking. It is brilliant, and I recommend it to my colleagues.

We tried last week to move the Intelligence authorization bill, and we were prevented from doing so due to objection from some of our Republican colleagues. When cloture on the motion to proceed was passed last Thursday, the vote was 94 to 3. That is not just to drop off a number, that is a significant expression of public will in the Senate. The Senate was again prevented from moving to the bill for the purpose of debate and amendment by a continued Republican objection, forced 30 hours to run on the motion to proceed. As a result, we have wasted 2 days.

As my distinguished and good friend Senator Bond said, we wasted 2 days when we could have considered and disposed of many amendments, which we were prepared to do.

Vice Chairman Bond and I have been working together, the two of us, to clear and pass amendments even this day, and have done so, a goodly number of very important ones, because we are determined that this should work. However, many of those 42 amendments filed are extraneous, and they are nonrelevant. We have to pay attention to those things that are outside the jurisdiction of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the purpose of the authorization bill so they don't fall, but we won't be able to get to those.

So I would just conclude this way. Oversight of the activities of the U.S. intelligence community is a necessary and essential duty of this body. It is a duty which Vice Chairman Bond and I take extremely seriously. He is very aggressive about it and cares a great deal about it. I do, too. I think it defines the integrity of the process with which we protect our Nation and the people who protect our Nation, covertly, overtly, as the Senator from Rhode Island talked about.

So it is our constitutional duty. I don't like to be in dereliction of my constitutional duty at any particular time. I can't think of any time that is more important to me not to do so than right now.

In addition, I fear that it sends a disturbing message to the clandestine collectors and the intelligence analysts of the intelligence community who actually watch us and pay a lot more attention to us, particularly here in Washington, and read our tea leaves and take their signals about where they stand on our priority list. I want them to stand at the very top. I think the vice chairman wants them to stand at the very top. If we do not consider them a legislative priority, then I am saddened by that.

I call upon my colleagues to set aside politics and vote for cloture and final passage of this intelligence authorization bill that has languished in legislative limbo for more years than I am happily willing to admit.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Mr. Bond: Mr. President, I regret we have come to an impasse. The chairman and I and the members of the committee have worked very hard to get a bill that is getting much better. I am very sorry that we were not allowed to vote on amendments this afternoon and to continue with our efforts to move this bill forward. The leaders are responsible on both sides for running this body, and we are in a position now where it appears to the minority that amendments will not--could be precluded under that circumstance. I am afraid there will not be the support for cloture. I regret that we have worked so long and hard and apparently will not be able to continue with this bill. I hope to do so at a later time.

I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider is agreed to.

cloture motion

The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No. 20, S. 372, the Intelligence Authorization bill of 2007.

Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Russell D. Feingold, Jay Rockefeller, Evan Bayh, Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Menendez, B.A. Mikulski, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, S. Whitehouse, Byron L. Dorgan, Blanche L. Lincoln, Ron Wyden.

The Presiding Officer: By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.

The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 372, a bill to authorize appropriations through 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, shall be brought to a close?

The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.

The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk called the roll.

Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.

Mr. Lott: The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 45, as follows:

Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg. - Debate Cloture on S. 372
YEAS--50
Akaka	Baucus	Bayh	Bingaman	Boxer
Brown	Byrd	Cantwell	Cardin	Carper
Casey	Clinton	Conrad	Dodd	Dorgan
Durbin	Feingold	Feinstein	Hagel	Harkin
Inouye	Kennedy	Kerry	Klobuchar	Kohl
Landrieu	Lautenberg	Leahy	Levin	Lieberman
Lincoln	McCaskill	Menendez	Mikulski	Murray
Nelson (FL)	Nelson (NE)	Pryor	Reed	Reid
Rockefeller	Salazar	Sanders	Schumer	Snowe
Stabenow	Tester	Webb	Whitehouse	Wyden
Nays--45
Alexander	Allard	Bennett	Bond	Bunning
Burr	Chambliss	Coburn	Cochran	Coleman
Collins	Corker	Cornyn	Craig	Crapo
DeMint	Dole	Domenici	Ensign	Enzi
Graham	Grassley	Gregg	Hatch	Hutchison
Inhofe	Isakson	Kyl	Lott	Lugar
Martinez	McConnell	Murkowski	Roberts	Sessions
Shelby	Smith	Specter	Stevens	Sununu
Thomas	Thune	Vitter	Voinovich	Warner
Not Voting--5
Biden	Brownback	Johnson	McCain	Obama

The Presiding Officer: On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

Mr. Feingold: Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed and concerned about the continuing Republican filibuster of the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill. This bill is critical for our national security. It supports the intelligence community while ensuring that Congress can conduct necessary oversight of our intelligence activities. Failure to pass this legislation would undermine the men and women of our intelligence community who look to Congress not only for funding but for policy guidance and legal clarity. It also sends a terrible signal to the American people, that despite repeated abuses by this administration from warrantless wiretapping to National Security Letters, Senate Republicans have chosen to shield the administration from congressional scrutiny and oversight. Unchecked executive authority is contrary to our constitutional system. And the American people understand well what the 9/11 Commission stressed--that strong congressional oversight is an essential part of defending and protecting America.

There are a number of provisions of the bill that I view as particularly important. Besides authorizing the intelligence programs that help keep us safe, the bill improves congressional oversight of the intelligence community and advances the critical work of intelligence reform. The National Security Act requires that the congressional intelligence committees be kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities. The administration failed to comply with this law with regard to its illegal warrantless wiretapping program. I am pleased, therefore, that this bill limits the ability of the executive branch to deny information to the full membership of the Intelligence Committee. I am also pleased that the classified annex to the bill includes my amendment calling on the administration to work with the committee to ensure adequate oversight of the program, which has not yet occurred.

With regard to intelligence reform, the bill establishes, within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, an inspector general of the intelligence community, which will strengthen accountability across the community. The bill also requires the declassification of the aggregate budget for all intelligence activities. This longstanding intelligence reform goal, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, will allow for basic budget transparency and a level of accountability without damaging our national security.

The bill includes an amendment I offered to the classified annex with Senator Rockefeller calling for more intelligence resources to be directed toward Africa. The continent presents a wide range of threats, such as terrorist havens and the transnational movements of terrorist organizations, while corruption, authoritarianism and poverty allow these conditions to fester. In order to bolster our national security, we need greater information and understanding of these threats. Of particular concern is Somalia, where the committee encouraged the intelligence community to work with other agencies of the U.S. Government on a comprehensive strategic plan for stability. Unfortunately, since the amendment was originally accepted by the committee in May 2006, the situation in the Horn of Africa has only deteriorated and the overall U.S. Government strategy for addressing the crisis remains sorely inadequate.

Finally, I am pleased that, in response to the concerns of Senator Wyden and myself, a provision creating a new exemption to the Privacy Act has been removed. Widespread abuses involving National Security Letters recently uncovered by the Department of Justice inspector general only underscore why Congress must conduct vigorous oversight of how current authorities are being used before providing new ones.

I again express my disappointment that the bill is being filibustered and hope that the bill will soon be passed into law.

Mr. Kyl: Mr. President, I rise to talk to my colleagues about my amendment No. 866 to protect the classified information handled by Congress.

Having served on the Intelligence Committee for 8 years, no one needs to tell me how important it is for Congress to have the information it needs to perform oversight of the intelligence community.

However, we must be mindful that much of this information could do great damage to our national security. This bill includes what I believe are misguided provisions related to clandestine prisons, the Detainee Treatment Act, and the enormous expansion of access to highly sensitive national security information.

The bill would declassify information about the intelligence budget, dramatically expand the number of members and staff with access to the most sensitive national security information our government holds, and provide details of the interrogation techniques used by our military and intelligence community.

Can anyone imagine what would happen if al-Qaida became privy to the interrogation techniques our military and intelligence community use? Does anyone think al-Qaida wouldn't adapt and train its terrorists accordingly?

I believe disseminating this information is a mistake. But, if we are going to disseminate it, we must put in place a mechanism to ensure this sensitive information does not get into the hands of our enemies. And we must give pause to those who would use this information to conduct their own personal foreign policies, as has been seen in the systematic use of leaks of classified information in recent years.

My amendment will ensure this information is treated as it should be by imposing a 10-year criminal penalty on those Members and staff who leak our national security secrets.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Medicare

Mr. Cornyn: Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Medicare prescription drug program that Congress passed a little over 3 years ago with a bipartisan majority. We have all heard the very impressive statistics associated with the Medicare Part D program. More than 90 percent of seniors eligible for the benefit have drug coverage, and they will save on average $1,200 per year.

More importantly, more than 80 percent of enrolled seniors have expressed their satisfaction with the program. Competition in the prescription drug benefit has forced down costs far below what was anticipated. In 2007, the average premium for the benefit was $22 a month, 40 percent less than projected at the outset.

The Congressional Budget Office's new budget estimate for the next 10 years shows that net Medicare costs for the prescription drug benefit will be more than 30 percent, or $256 billion, lower than originally forecast. Not only are the costs for this prescription drug benefit lower than expected, but for 2007 more drugs are also being covered by participating plans than last year. The average plan now covers 4,300 drugs in its formulary versus 3,800 last year, a 13-percent increase.

The basic point is this: We passed a prescription drug benefit that uses market competition to provide critical medications to seniors at a cost much lower than originally projected. The results so far demonstrate a familiar principle: competition and choice bring lower prices and, I might add, better service.

There are some who want to change that successful model, so we have to ask ourselves: How does their plan improve on this very successful Government program?

Since I believe being a zealous guardian of the taxpayers' dollars is one of the reasons my constituents sent me here, one of the first questions I ask is: Will the alternative plan of interfering with this market-based competition actually save taxpayers money while continuing to provide choice and access to prescription drugs for seniors?

The simple answer to this question is, no, and you don't have to take my word for it. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that the proposal that is before us would have a "negligible effect" on reducing Government spending.

The advocates of this particular proposal that is pending before us cannot point to any Government source that will support their claim that the Federal Government can negotiate more effectively than the private market. Specifically, CBO writes that "CBO estimates that H.R. 4 would have a negligible effect on Federal spending because we anticipate that the Secretary would be unable to negotiate prices across the broad range of covered part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDPs under current law." Secretary Leavitt describes in practice how having the Government negotiate drug prices will not lead to lower costs for beneficiaries or taxpayers. He has written:

We are seeing large-scale negotiations with drug manufacturers, but they are being conducted by private plans, not the government. A robust market with a lot of competitors has driven down prices. It's the magic of the market. To assume that the government, in our genius, could improve on this belies the reality of a complex task.

In fact, public opinion polls back up Secretary Leavitt's comments. A study by the Tarrance Group found that only 28 percent of seniors believe that the Government would do a better job in setting drug prices than a competitive marketplace.

The Washington Post agrees. It has written, on January 14:

Governments are notoriously bad at setting prices, and the U.S. Government is notoriously bad at setting prices in the medical realm.

As policymakers, it is also our job to ask: What are the potential consequences of this new legislation that is pending before us? Quite simply, the consequences are dire. Since Government will decide which drugs seniors have access to, seniors will be left with fewer choices.

In terms of analyzing the consequences of this alternative plan, it is helpful to look at examples in other countries that have tried what Democrats are now advocating in this model. We don't have to guess about what the consequences would be because other countries have tried it. I recently read a piece published in the Washington Post and written by Alberto Mingardi, president of a think tank in Italy, and I want to quote from this article because I believe it demonstrates my point. He writes about the Democrats' plan to require the Government to set prices, or at least giving the Secretary the authority to do that. He said:

It would create a Medicare drug program that looks a lot like the system we have in my country, Italy, where drug prices are among the lowest in Europe. At first glance, this might seem like an enviable model for America to follow. But before Pelosi rushes down the road to Italian-style health care, let me offer a word of caution. Italy is hardly a health care paradise. In fact, it's more like a quagmire of red tape.

For the most part, Italy's lower drug prices are the product of government price controls. In Italy, these price controls have created a number of problems. The government's attempt to force down drug prices has not produced overall health-care spending. Rather, it has resulted in a spike in demand--which is one reason why Italy's health-care spending has skyrocketed, growing nearly 68 percent between 1995 and 2003.

As for the quality of Italy's care, that, too, has suffered. With demand for drugs rising, the Italian government has attempted to save money by adopting reimbursement policies that favor certain drugs over others. Unfortunately, the most innovative products often aren't considered reimbursable by the government precisely because they are the most expensive.

It's a great system if you just need an antibiotic. But if you're hoping to avoid open heart surgery through access to a miracle drug, it can be a nightmare.

He concludes.

The economy is also harmed. Because it's simply not profitable for companies to invent cures in Italy, price controls have decimated Italy's pharmaceutical industry. So by attempting to hold down drug prices, the Italian government has deprived its citizens of the best care without reducing health-care spending. And it has deprived the country of what could be a vibrant sector of the economy. In their rush to revamp Medicare, U.S. policy leaders should be careful not to make the same mistake.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in its entirety in the Record at the conclusion of my comments.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Menendez): Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. Cornyn: Mr. President, I also want to stress the last sentence that I read one more time, where he says: It is a great system, if you need an antibiotic. But if you are hoping to avoid open heart surgery through access to a miracle drug, it can be a nightmare.

We don't need to go down this path. We don't have to change course. Right now, under Medicare Part D, market forces and competition have created a wildly popular benefit that uses market competition to provide critical medications to seniors at costs much lower than projected a few short years ago.

I have spent a few moments describing my concern with the Democrats' plan to "so-called" negotiate prices. I would say to ration drugs is a more accurate description. But by far my biggest concern about this bill is, of course, another example of their preference for Government control in health care rather than market-driven, patient-centered approaches favored by those of us on this side of the aisle.

I would urge my colleagues to call this debate what it is: It is not so much about noninterference clauses in Medicare prescription drug laws. There is a much more importantly and potentially consequential debate about whom Americans want to be making decisions in our health care system. Do they want it to be the Government or do they want it to be patients themselves and their doctors?

I recently read a quote from a physician in Switzerland that I found particularly poignant. He reminds us that:

We all have a single-payer health care system. Citizens always wind up paying for health care, either through taxes, insurance premiums, or out-of-pocket costs. The real question is whether they will have a single-decider system. In many European countries, there are single-decider systems in which governments and their agents control what medical services its citizens will or will not receive.

Of course, we know all too well how close we are in this country to having a single-payer health care system. Roughly, 50 cents of every health care dollar we spend in the United States is spent directly by the U.S. Government. The health care economy is approximately $2 trillion annually, or one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy. I believe we have to reform our health care system, emphasizing individual choice and trusting patients and their families and their doctors to make the right choices--not lawyers or, yes, even bureaucrats in Washington, DC,--to make the important health care and treatment decisions.

So make no mistake about it, this bill is about a much larger issue than the title of the legislation itself would suggest. We are not debating some sterile provision called a noninterference clause. We are debating something far more significant.

The Washington Post believes this debate is about something much larger than the noninterference clause as well, and they have written:

The Democrats' stance is troubling because it suggests an excessively governmental-led view of health care reform. The better approach is to let each insurer offer its own version of the right balance, see whether it attracts customers, and then adapt flexibly.

In my State, the Dallas Morning News has written:

When congressional Democrats press for this change next year, remember they're pushing for much more than lower prices. They're seeking to move the line where government should stop and the marketplace should start.

I do agree with the Democrats that this debate is about negotiation, but the real question is not should we have negotiation but who should negotiate. The proponents of this legislation believe it should be the Government, and I couldn't disagree more. The proponents of this legislation believe the Government is more skilled in making pricing decisions than the free market, and I have to say, I think that is wrong.

We have been presented in this legislation with a remarkably clear choice: If you believe the way to improve our broken health care system is to embrace a market-driven approach that lowers costs and does not reduce choices for seniors, then you will vote to continue the prescription drug program that we passed a few short years ago. If you believe, as the advocates of this legislation do, that Government bureaucrats are better suited than the free market to make pricing decisions for thousands of prescription drugs, then you will want to vote for this legislation.

I will vote for the current market-driven approach that provides choices for seniors and puts patients and doctors in control rather than the Government, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Cornyn: Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, I rise to express my deep concerns about S. 3, the Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act of 2007.

Back in 2003, I helped draft the Medicare Modernization Act. I was one of the Senate's chief negotiators for the House-Senate conference on this legislation. We wrote legislation that was approved by both Chambers of Congress and signed into law by the President in December 2005. And by enacting this legislation, Medicare beneficiaries are now offered a quality prescription drug benefit at an affordable price. It is a successful program by any measure.

I want to take a few minutes to talk about the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and what a difference it has made in the lives of Medicare beneficiaries.

Today, there are 38 million Medicare beneficiaries and over 90 percent participate in the Medicare Part D program. Eighty percent of Medicare Part D beneficiaries are happy with their Medicare prescription drug plan. And they are happy with their plans, because they have a choice in coverage--beneficiaries are able to get a plan that meets their needs. We don't have a one-size-fits-all program attempting to stretch over 38 million people. The cost savings have been profound for both beneficiaries and for taxpayers.

When the Medicare Part D plan first began in January 2006, we thought that the average premium would be around $37 per month. Because of plan competition, the average premium is $22 a month. That has reflected for taxpayers over $113 billion of savings over what Congress had originally estimated. And the other good news is that if a beneficiary hits the doughnut hole--the point where the beneficiary has to pay out of pocket for his or her prescriptions-- there are now plans in every State that will provide coverage through the doughnut hole period.

As we all know, back in January, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would require the prices of prescription drugs received under the Medicare Part D program to be negotiated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Late last week, the Senate Finance Committee also approved S. 3, the Medicare Fair Prescription Drug Price Act of 2007. While this legislation does not mandate that the Secretary negotiate drug prices for the Medicare Part D benefit, it gives the Secretary the discretion to do so.

Any way you look at it, Congress requiring the Secretary to negotiate prescription drug prices would lead to a one-size-fits-all drug plan which would result in fewer choices. Beneficiaries would have less satisfaction with a one-size-fits-all plan. And, in my opinion, drug prices will not be lower.

In addition, beneficiaries would have fewer choices. When you negotiate drug prices, there is really only one way to do it. You limit the choices available. You say I am going to take your medication off your drug plan or I am only going to pay X amount for a drug, a price so low that perhaps the manufacturer cannot participate. If the Government starts doing that, suddenly you have the Government making choices about who can get what drug as opposed to beneficiaries and their doctors making those decisions.

Currently there are over 4,400 drugs available on Medicare Part D plans. Beneficiaries may choose a plan that meets their needs. That is exactly why 80 percent of Medicare Part D beneficiaries are happy. And for those who aren't, the good news is we can help find a plan that serves them better. If we had one plan, one formulary, then we would have a lot more unhappy people.

And how does the Secretary of Health and Human Services feel about this new responsibility? I would like to take a minute to read an editorial that appeared in the Washington Post on January 11, 2007. This editorial was written by Secretary Mike Leavitt, not only a good friend of mine but a very thoughtful, knowledgeable, and openminded Secretary of HHS as far as health care policy is concerned. "Medicare And the Market Government Shouldn't Be Negotiating Prescription Prices," by Mike Leavitt, Thursday, January 11, 2007; Page A25:

We all want people with Medicare to get the prescription drugs they need at the lowest possible prices. The issue before Congress this week is how best to do that. Should consumer choice and private-sector competition determine prices--or should government?

The success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit provides strong evidence that competition among private drug plans has contributed significantly to lowering costs. The average monthly premium has dropped by 42 percent, from an estimated $38 to $22--and there is a plan available for less than $20 a month in every state. The net Medicare cost of the drug program has fallen by close to $200 billion since its passage in 2003.

Seniors and people with disabilities like the benefit. Studies consistently show that three-quarters of Medicare beneficiaries are satisfied with their coverage. Individuals like being able to choose the plan that best fits their needs. A single, one-size-fits-all drug plan would have made the choice easier, and Congress did create a standard plan. But fewer than 15 percent of enrollees have selected that standard plan--opting instead for plans with lower premiums, no deductibles and enhanced coverage.

Despite the success of the benefit, some people believe government can do a better job of lowering prices than a competitive marketplace. Legislation under consideration would require the secretary of health and human services to negotiate and set the prices of drugs. In effect, one government official would set more than 4,400 prices for different drugs, making decisions that would be better made by millions of individual consumers.

There is also the danger that government price setting would limit drug choices. Medicare provides access to the broadest array of prescription drugs, including the newest drugs. But price negotiation inevitably results in the withholding of access to some drugs to get manufacturers to lower prices.

The Department of Veterans Affairs, often cited as an example of how government can negotiate prices, operates an excellent program for veterans, but the VA formulary excludes a number of new drugs covered by the Medicare prescription benefit. Even Lipitor, the world's best-selling drug, isn't on the VA formulary. That may be one reason more than a million veterans are also getting drug coverage through Medicare.

Some observers point to the massive buying power of the federal government as the means to exert clout over drug companies, but the federal government has nowhere near the market power of the private sector. Private-sector insurance plans and pharmacy benefit managers, who negotiate prices between drug companies and pharmacies, cover about 241 million people, or 80 percent of the population. Medicare could cover at most 43 million.

The independent Congressional Budget Office has said that government price negotiation would have a "negligible effect on federal spending." And previous experience with Congress and Medicare regulating drug prices has not been reassuring. Medicare Part B, which covers physician services, outpatient hospital care and other services, sets the prices for some medicines--notably a number of cancer drugs. It has a history of reimbursing at rates substantially greater than prevailing prices. In 2005, Part B drug spending increased by almost 20 percent.

If the Federal Government begins picking drugs and setting prices for all Medicare beneficiaries, administrative costs would add a new burden to taxpayers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have to hire hundreds of new employees. Legions of lobbyists would follow, each seeking higher Medicare payments for the drug companies they represent. As a Post editorial noted in November, "having the government set drug prices is a sure way of flooding the political system with yet more pharmaceutical lobbyists and campaign spending."

There is a proper role for government in setting standards and monitoring those who provide the benefit. We should ensure that beneficiaries have access to medically necessary treatments. But government should not be in the business of setting drug prices or controlling access to drugs. That is a first step toward the type of government-run health care that the American people have always rejected.

There are many ways the administration and Congress can work together to make health care more affordable and accessible. But undermining the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which has improved the lives and health of millions of seniors and people with disabilities, is not one of them.

Secretary Leavitt is correct--providing flexible prescription drug plans to beneficiaries should be one of our top goals. Getting Medicare beneficiaries the best price possible for their prescription drugs should be one of our top goals. And offering Medicare beneficiaries high quality prescription drug plans should be one of our top goals. In my reading of this legislation, passage will result in none of these goals being achieved and, in fact could result in the Medicare prescription drug benefit becoming a national formulary which could result in higher prices for drugs and limited choices for Medicare beneficiaries.

When we were drafting this bill, we took great care to provide protections to Medicare beneficiaries who decided to participate in the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. We wanted to provide beneficiaries with a drug benefit that would not cost them an arm and a leg, and that would allow access to a wide range of prescription drug choices.

In order to preserve those choices, the Medicare Modernization Act prohibits the Secretary from establishing a formulary. If the Secretary cannot lower prices without a formulary and if it is prohibited by law for the Secretary to establish a formulary then I ask you--what is the purpose of this bill?

I believe that, should this bill become law, it will be no time before its supporters decide that now they want the Secretary to establish a formulary. I think this bill is a Trojan horse with a Medicare formulary hidden inside.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to think carefully about this issue. I urge them to talk to their Medicare beneficiaries in their states and ask them whether or not they are happy with their prescription drug plans. I believe tha benefit and changing this benefit is a terrible mistake on our part.

federal income tax filing deadline

Mr. Hatch: Mr. President, today the tax man cometh.

Americans have April 17 circled on their calendars, and not with a smiley face.

This year, roughly 135 million Americans sat down to complete their tax returns. Many have made the unfortunate discovery that they owe additional money to the IRS.

Others are shocked to learn that they owe something called the alternative minimum tax.

I would like to emphasize one point today, a point that many of my constituents have learned the hard way: their tax burden is already too high.

For middle-class Americans, tax day has become an aggravation at best, and an outrage at worst.

Many Utahns, as well as distraught taxpayers throughout the Nation, know the look of tax overload. They see it when they look in the mirror, and they see it when they look at their spouse.

There is the kitchen table. A late night. Some scattered papers and receipts. An elbow on the table. And a hand on the forehead in disbelief. This is the look of overtaxed Americans. It is the look of misery and confusion. It does not need to be this way.

There are economic burdens as well, and that burden is only going to grow if the Democrats get their way.

Many of us pay too much in taxes already. But the policies of the congressional majority are a blueprint for even higher taxes. Neither our citizens nor our economy can bear much more.

Middle-class Americans are overtaxed.

According to the Tax Foundation, this year Americans will work 120 days to pay their total tax burden.

Let's put this in perspective. They will work 62 days to pay for their house and home. They will work 52 days for health and medical care. They will work 30 days for food. But they will work 120 days to pay their taxes.

If you told my parents' generation that their tax burden would be that high, they would have thought we lost a war to France.

But the Democrats are not satisfied. They want the so-called rich to pay more of their so-called fair share.

Let me translate. By "rich" they mean anyone with a job.

And by "fair share," they mean empty your wallet.

According to recent data from the IRS, persons making more than $30,122, or the top 50 percent of all income earners, paid 97 percent of all income taxes in 2004, the latest year there were data available.

Those who made more than $60,041 in 2004, the top 25 percent, paid 85 percent of all income taxes.

These people are not rich.

As one of my Democratic colleagues noted earlier this year, a mother and a father making $90,000 a year in a place like Virginia or New York or California or New Jersey are not rich. They are doing the best they can to provide for their families. And once you factor in taxes, housing, clothing, medical care, and college savings, those paychecks do not go that far.

The middle class is already paying out much more in taxes than is spent by the Government on its behalf.

According to the Tax Foundation, an individual making over $65,000 a year pays $7,217 more in taxes every year than is spent for him or her.

But for some Members of this body, our system is still not progressive enough.

I know that there are some policy wonks and political strategists who think the days of tax revolt are over.

Apparently we are at some postpartisan, end of history, where Americans just accept big government and big bites out of their paychecks.

I for one am not buying it.

It seems some things never change in this country.

One of those things is the commitment of Americans to their rights of life, liberty, and property.

Americans remain very jealous of their liberties, and rightly so. Chief among our liberties is the freedom to use the money you earn through your hard work and initiative, to build your business, buy a home, and take care of your family.

Working hard to fund some new Government bureaucracy is not at the top of the list. If taxes go up significantly, the party responsible is going to be in for a rude awakening. They are going to be reminded, with grave electoral consequences, that the Government can take only so much.

Along with many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, I think our tax burden is still too high. Many Americans still pay too much. The estate tax still destroys family businesses. Too many startup businesses are killed off by taxes before they have begun. We need to be providing tax incentives so people can responsibly save for their retirement and health care. We need to be coming up with innovative tax policies and entitlement reforms.

Instead, the Democrats are keeping mum as Medicare and Social Security take on water, keeping to themselves their foolproof plan to bail us out: Raise taxes.

The combined unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare is $84 trillion. That is "trillion" dollars. Where is that money coming from? They are having a hard time coming up with money today for a $50 billion 1-year fix for the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. Where are they going to get $84 trillion?

Do not worry, they tell us; they are going to fix Social Security and Medicare. But fixing it their way will break the backs of middle-class taxpayers. Mark my words, they will raise taxes on the middle class, taking away or limiting savings vehicles for health and retirement. They will raise taxes on individuals, hiking rates and hurting families. And they will raise taxes on businesses, killing industry and choking initiative.

Conservatives are fond of saying that ideas have consequences. They certainly do. There are important differences between the parties. In their guts, Democrats distrust markets, believe that more Government intervention and Government programs are the answer, and are willing to hike taxes to achieve their goals.

Those of us on this side of the aisle believe in personal responsibility, low taxes, and encouraging the freedom, entrepreneurialism, and dynamism of the American people.

Ideas have consequences. One leads to economic prosperity; the other leads to national stagnation. I want my constituents to know that on these debates to come, I stand with the taxpayers. We need to be encouraging industry. We need to be growing our economy. We need to be lowering and simplifying our tax burden.

Today's Democratic majority promised real change. Instead, we are getting the same tired song. They are not taking our Nation's fiscal woes seriously. They are hoping Americans will not object when their taxes are hiked to pay for our coming entitlement train wreck.

They should think twice before going down this road. Middle-class Americans, such as my constituents in Utah, are trying to get their taxes done by midnight tonight. They want their tax burden lowered, and so do I. There are lots of promises made by our friends on the other side to get rid of the AMT. They have had at least three chances to vote to get rid of the AMT for the vast majority in the middle class and they have refused do so.

If left unchecked, the AMT is going to, within the next 10 years, be assessed on over 35 million Americans. Remember, it started out because there were about 159 people who did not pay their taxes, people who were immensely rich. Now we are talking up to 25 million Americans as we stand here today, and up to 35 million Americans within the next ten years. I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to live up to their campaign promises and let us get rid of AMT. It is very unfair to the middle class, and frankly, for most Americans.

I promise to do all I can to see we do that.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. Chambliss: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Chambliss: Mr. President, I rise today to oppose S. 372, the fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill, in its current form. I believe, without amendment, this legislation will deteriorate the existing working relationship and trust the intelligence community has with Congress.

I voted against this legislation in both the Intelligence Committee and the Armed Services Committee because I believed significant alterations needed to be made before I could offer my support. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am fully cognizant of the importance of passing an authorization bill to guide our intelligence community as well as to advise the Senate appropriations process. Passing an authorization bill reasserts much needed Congressional oversight of the intelligence community, and it ensures that the Senate is relevant on national security issues that are critically important.

At this time, I question whether the Senate is serious about the need to examine all possible improvements to the bill or is willing to devote the time necessary to discuss and debate all amendments. Given the natural and conflicting interests involved, it is prudent that Congress act carefully and work with the executive branch to ensure that its needs are met, rather than hastily making demands through legislation that many provisions of this bill attempt to do. This will only create further friction between the two branches. I believe there are other ways to ensure effective oversight.

Some sections of this bill, particularly sections 304 and 107, are problematic to me, and I believe they will not further meaningful Congressional oversight. Therefore, I have offered amendments to strike these sections and urge my colleagues to support my amendments.

Let me detail my concerns with these two sections. First, section 304 requires the intelligence community to notify all of the members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees whenever the House and Senate leadership and committee leaders are briefed on highly sensitive intelligence or covert actions. It requires that the notification include a statement of the reasons why only the leadership was informed, as well as a description of the main features of the matter.

There is a history of compromise and cooperation between the executive and legislative branches regarding the sharing of sensitive intelligence with Congress. The President has the duty to protect intelligence sources and methods. One such way is to limit the number of people who are privy to the information. Congress recognized this duty in the National Security Act, which states that information be shared:

with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources or methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.

The reporting requirement in section 304 may disclose the very sensitive information the President has determined only the leadership has a need to know. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I recognize there are some highly sensitive matters I do not have a need to know, and I support having limited notification when absolutely necessary to protect the information.

Frequently the Congressional leadership will be informed of tightly controlled classified operations in which limiting knowledge of them is appropriate. Many of us do not have a need to know about various sensitive operations which, if leaked, could result in lives being lost as well as the termination of Congressional access to information.

Additionally, I have confidence in the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I count on the leaders of the committee to be responsible for determining when additional access to information is warranted and for requesting that additional members be briefed as necessary. Section 304 seeks to abandon these practices which have been refined over three decades of aggressive Congressional oversight.

Next, section 107 requires the public disclosure of the National Intelligence Program budget requests and Congressional authorizations and appropriations for the intelligence community. Disclosing these figures to the public also discloses them to our enemies who will be watching for fluctuations in these figures, which may damage intelligence sources and methods over time.

Additionally, declassifying the overall budget for the intelligence community may lead others to demand that each agency declassify their budget. No doubt this would have grave effects on the capabilities of our intelligence agencies. For those reasons I oppose S. 372 in its current form and the managers' amendment to it. I urge my colleagues to support my amendments to strengthen this bill.

Fair Tax Act

Mr. President, today is the deadline for all taxes to be filed. As many millions of Americans rush to file their taxes, I rise to bring attention to our horribly broken, overly complex, and unfair American tax system. I have and will continue to support significant reform of the Tax Code in this country, as I have consistently done during my service in Congress.

Accordingly, I have recently introduced the Fair Tax Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, my colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson, Senator Coburn, and Senator Cornyn, because we are in desperate need of tax reform.

Imagine the economic freedom and purchasing power provided by a tax system that would allow us to retain 100 percent of our earnings while maintaining the benefits of Government-sponsored programs, and allowing them to flourish. Such would be the case under the system proposed in the Fair Tax Act.

The Fair Tax Act would create a national sales tax as the primary source of Federal revenue, would eliminate our current archaic and inefficient Tax Code, and would replace it with a simpler, fairer means of collecting revenue. Specifically, the Fair Tax Act would repeal the individual income tax, the corporate income tax, capital gains tax, all payroll taxes, self-employment tax, and the estate and gift taxes in lieu of a 23-percent tax on the final sale of all goods and services.

Elimination of these inefficient taxing mechanisms would bring about equality and simplicity to our overly complex tax system. Moreover, the Fair Tax Act would abrogate any double taxation that occurs under our current tax system because it would provide tax relief for business-to- business transactions. These transactions, including used-product transactions that have already been taxed, are not subject to the sales tax.

More importantly, under the Fair Tax Act, the Federal Government's revenue would go unchanged. Social Security and Medicare benefits would remain untouched under the Fair Tax bill, and there would be no financial reductions to either one of these vital programs. Instead, the source of the trust fund revenue for these two programs would be replaced simply by consumption tax revenue instead of payroll tax revenue.

Finally, under the Fair Tax Act, every American would receive a monthly rebate check equal to spending, up to the Federal poverty level according to the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines. This rebate would ensure that no American pays taxes on the purchase of necessities. This is a critical component.

Invest in America Act

Mr. President, I also rise today as an original cosponsor of the Invest in America Act. While I firmly believe significant overhaul of the Tax Code is the best way to achieve absolute fairness and transparency in our tax system, until we actually get to that point, we simply cannot allow the current rate reductions and other provisions of the 2001-2003 tax relief packages to expire, which is what the Democrats have proposed in their budget for the 2008 fiscal year. This would be a drastic blow to the economy and a misguided step in the wrong direction. The Invest in America Act would make the individual tax rates permanent. The lower rates have been essential to our continued economic growth over the past several years, and have encouraged Americans to work harder, be more productive, and retain more of their hard-earned money.

Additionally, this bill corrects current wrongs in our tax codes, such as the death tax and the AMT. It would make the repeal of the death tax permanent, and would save more than 130,000 families each year from confronting a loss of the family farms, ranches, or family- owned businesses. It would permanently repeal the AMT which, while designed to ensure every American pays some minimum tax, is in fact now hitting more and more middle-income families, and this it was not designed to do.

Most significant to the growth of our economy, this bill would also make the current reduced capital gains and dividend rates permanent. Since the reduction of these investment rates in 2003, it has become easier for new businesses, and existing ones, to attract the capital they need to start, succeed, and expand.

Moreover, with greater than half of all Americans owning stock, middle-class families, seniors, and other Americans are greatly benefitting from these lower rates, including the 5-percent rate, which drops to zero percent in 2008.

The proposals in this bill would also help American families by making permanent the increased child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, the adoption tax credit, the tuition deduction, and the teacher deduction. These provisions, along with other proposals in the Invest in America Act, make permanent the R&D tax credit and the increased small business expensing rates, enabling both the taxpayer and the American economy to grow.

Most importantly, the Invest in America Act sets forth a tax system that would gave back to those who invest in the strengthening of the American economy. We need to overhaul our tax system, impose fairness, and implement policies that encourage economic growth rather than stifle it. That is what Georgians want and deserve, and that is what Americans want and deserve.

Virginia Tech Tragedy

I rise today with a very heavy heart to extend my condolences to the families who lost loved ones as a result of yesterday's tragic shootings on the Virginia Tech campus. One of those victims includes a young man, 22-year-old Ryan Clark of Martinez, GA, who served as a resident adviser at West Ambler Johnston dormitory where the first shooting occurred. Ryan was set to graduate this spring with a degree in biology and English, and he hoped to pursue a Ph.D., a pretty amazing young man from an academic standpoint. In his spare time, he also helped out the disadvantaged children in the area, as well as disabled children. On this particular day, he came to the rescue of the first victim and, as a result, became a victim himself.

I wish to convey my extreme sorrow to his family as they try to grasp the reality and gain a better understanding of what has happened. While he was still in his very young years, it is clear that he had already impacted so many lives and in so many different ways. While I know that words may be of little comfort at this time, the Clark family and all of the families involved and the Virginia Tech community will remain in my prayers as we try to find peace in the coming days.

It is difficult to fathom how something like this could happen. Words can't fully describe the grief we all feel as the weight of this tragedy settles over our Nation. My prayer is that through faith and resolve, our country will emerge from this disaster in unity and strength as together we find healing. While I know that we are still learning the facts surrounding these despicable acts, it is my hope that we can all work together and renew our commitment to ensure that our communities and schools are safe from similar future events.

I join my colleagues in the Senate who have spoken so eloquently on this matter and our entire Nation in mourning the 32 lives lost yesterday, and I pray for the strength of our country during this time of grief and sorrow.

Mr. Craig: Mr. President, news of yesterday's tragic killings at Virginia Tech reached me piecemeal as I was traveling back to Washington.

We are still far from final answers and explanations. Even today, facts are still being confirmed, evidence is still being collected, and the impact of the tragedy is still reverberating.

Last night, the Senate formally reacted to these terrible events through a resolution of sympathy.

I rise today to personally express my sorrow and condolences to the family and friends of the victims, to the survivors, and to the Virginia Tech community at large. The magnitude of this tragedy is unimaginable. You are in my thoughts and prayers, and I hope you know that the hearts of millions of Americans go out to you in your time of grief.

As we come to understand more about the events that unfolded so tragically yesterday, there will be plenty of time for us to argue about policy and politics and how to distribute blame. Today we should be mourning the loss of these lives, and doing what we can to help the wounded and comfort the bereaved.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The majority leader is recognized.

Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I don't need to remind my colleagues that our country is at war. We face tremendous challenges in keeping America safe. On the other side of the aisle, in the last couple of days we have heard some talk about the Intelligence authorization bill which the Republican majority failed to pass in 2 separate years, the first time in 27 years this bill has not been passed, but it wasn't passed the last 2 years.

This year I thought it would be good if we passed an Intelligence authorization bill. We have 16 agencies that deal with the espionage, the security, the intelligence of our Nation. A bipartisan bill came out of the Intelligence Committee, the committee agreeing that something should be done. But it gets over here and word comes from the White House: Don't let that bill go. Like lemmings off a cliff, the Republicans do not allow this bill to go forward. The excuses, a fourth grade student could see through, maybe a second grade student.

They say: Democrats wouldn't allow us to offer amendments. That is absolutely false, untrue. From the very beginning, when they refused to let us proceed to the bill initially and we had to file cloture, cloture was invoked because it gave them 30 hours to stall doing nothing. I said that during that 30-hour period amendments could be offered. Not a single amendment was proffered.

So then we come to cloture on the bill itself. Even the vice chairman of the committee did not vote to go forward with this legislation. Again, I said: OK, cloture wasn't invoked. Let's go ahead and offer some amendments. They did. Guess what the first amendment was to show how serious they are about the intelligence operations of this country. An amendment was offered by a Republican 34 pages long dealing with immigration which shows how they want to solve the immigration problems of this country and the intelligence problems. This is no place for immigration. We are going to debate immigration the last 2 weeks of this work period.

It is beyond my ability to comprehend how Senators on this side of the aisle, looking over there, could vote this way, people whom I have always believed to be patriots. Why would they not vote on this? I will tell you why they didn't. Vice President Cheney wants to be the czar of intelligence of this country, as he has been for 6 years. He can rest well tonight because he is going to be able to continue, without this bill setting certain standards for interrogation with our intelligence agencies and other things that on a bipartisan basis were said to be important to improve the intelligence apparatus of our country.

The amendments offered this afternoon were not in good faith. A 34- page immigration amendment on an Intelligence authorization bill? They were nothing more than an effort to make the White House happy. It is no secret. Senators have told Senators on this side that is why they voted against cloture: they were told to do so by the White House.

Maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle think it is not important, that they can pull this one off and get away with it. We have a war on terror going on, and we have intelligence agencies--16 in number--that are working every day trying to keep ahead of the bad guys. The bipartisan bill that has been before the Senate for the last several days was drafted based upon what the intelligence agencies thought they needed to improve their ability to collect information. I don't think it is going to work. The credibility of the Vice President is not very high in this country. For reasons like this, it is apparent why that is.

The White House talks about the war on terror; let's work together to do something about it. Step back a minute. Is it political posturing to think that the intelligence agencies of this country that should have legislation that should be passed every year not be passed for 3 years?

I am very disappointed. I say this not in a mean or argumentative way. I am terribly disappointed. If the Presiding Officer, other Senators on this floor, if I ever as the leader came to one of you and said: We are not going to let the intelligence bill go forward this year, I think my caucus would tell me what to do with my suggestion. But apparently the White House has more sway than the American people to this group across the aisle. That is really too bad.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Ohio.