Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator from Iowa, but I simply want to set the record straight with respect to a couple of points. The distinguished Senator from Iowa was talking about the House bill to a great extent. We are not dealing with the House bill. I want to be very clear what the Senate bill does. All the Senate bill does is lift this restriction which bars the Secretary from ever having a role in negotiation. This bill--the measure that is before the Senate--does not take over the role of the private plans. The private plans would continue as they have since the program's inception: to sign the contracts, to conduct the various activities to make sure that seniors can purchase that coverage. There is no takeover of private plans, despite what has been suggested. Point No. 2: In no way does the measure now before the Senate limit access to drugs for seniors. We have been told that under this particular measure, there would be huge restrictions with respect to seniors being able to get drugs, that there would be formularies established, a variety of prescriptive arrangements that would deny choice. That is not the case in this legislation. Let's be clear. One, this is not the bill that is before the House. It is not the bill the House has acted on. Two, it simply lifts the restriction. Three, it doesn't take over the role of the private plans. The Secretary is simply complementing the role of the private plans. Four, under this particular measure, the Government would not limit access to drugs. There would be no restriction on drugs that seniors could get under this bill. I only come back to the point I made earlier. This is about patients who are hurting. This is about those cancer patients, for example, who are taking drugs for which there is no competitive alternative, where there is no therapeutic alternative. Should we simply sit by and say that when they have to spend thousands and thousands for those cancer drugs--cancer drugs that are essential to their survival--are we going to say that we should give up any and every opportunity for the Secretary to try to negotiate a good price? I think we understand this is a straightforward issue. This is about whether we are going to have a real debate on one of the most important consumer issues of our time. There are groups such as the AARP that have brought to the attention of every Senator what this means for their members. This is what people are talking about in coffee shops. They are talking about it in community centers. They are talking about it all across the country because they think when you have a program that has 43 million people, be the smartest shopper you possibly can. We have the private plans out there already. The Baucus proposal--and I want to emphasize this--does not restrict the role of those private plans. It is going to go forward. The question is, Should we make it possible for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to complement that role, to go beyond it and to say there may be some instances where we ought to negotiate? I voted for the Medicare prescription drug program. I do not support the idea of Government running everything in American health care, but it is time to right a wrong. This particular provision, which restricts the Secretary from ever negotiating, is an example of special interest overreaching. The Senate ought to say today: We want to proceed to a real debate, not this abridged version where only a handful of Senators could participate. I am glad I could correct the record so that as we go to the vote, Senators understand that this bill is not the House bill, that this bill will not restrict the private plans, and it will not restrict access for seniors to medications. I urge our colleagues to vote for the motion to proceed.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does our side have remaining?

Mr. WYDEN. It is my intention to go a little less than 10 minutes. I know the distinguished chairman of the committee is here as well, and I want him to be able to speak for our side. Mr. President, I have always tried to work in a bipartisan way on health care. I voted in favor of creating the Medicare prescription drug program. I do not favor the Government running everything in health care. In fact, I have introduced legislation that would ensure that the government would not run everything. I believe it is important that pharmaceutical companies be successful in developing new products and therapies for America's seniors and for patients who are suffering. I believe it is time for the Senate to right a wrong. Outlawing the Government from any and every opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices for millions of seniors and taxpayers is an instance of special interest overreaching. Everybody else in America negotiates. Employers negotiate. Labor unions negotiate. Individuals negotiate. Everybody tries to be a smart shopper. Certainly Medicare, with 43 million people's interest on the line, ought to do everything it possibly can to be a savvy shopper. It is especially important that the Government not give up the right to negotiate when single-source drugs are involved. These are drugs where there is no competition and no therapeutic equivalent. For many patients, a single-source drug is essentially the only drug available. Cancer drugs often fall into this particular category. What this means is, seniors who depend on these cancer drugs for their very survival often face bills of thousands and thousands of dollars. In my hometown, it can often cost something like $400 for a particular injection. We are talking about treatment with these single-source drugs for those who are suffering, say, from leukemia, from kidney disease. For the life of me, I don't see how it is common sense to say that we are going to give up every single opportunity for all time for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to try to negotiate a better deal for those seniors on drugs where there is no competition. Senator Snowe and I have worked for more than 3 years in a bipartisan way to address the most important concerns of our colleagues who have questioned this proposal. We believe strongly that we should not have price controls in any shape or form. Price controls clearly impede innovation and the development of new therapies. We should not do that. Chairman Baucus has ensured that price controls would not be allowed under the measure before the Senate today. Senator Snowe and I also believe strongly that there should not be restrictive formularies. These form- ularies--to use technical health care lingo--essentially involve a list of drugs to which seniors could get access. We should not restrict the access of seniors to medicines. Senator Snowe and I have made that a priority for more than 3 years. Chairman Baucus has addressed that as well. We don't have any one-size-fits-all, run-from-Washington kind of pricing regimes. All we have said is: Let's make sure we can negotiate when it is critically important. I submit, in every one of these budget letters--I know the history has been hard to follow; one said this, one said that--every one has indicated that there can be savings when there are single-source drugs involved in negotiation. I emphasize that. For certain cancer drugs, where seniors can be spending thousands and thousands of dollars, there is the potential for savings when the Secretary has a role there. Not a single person in the Congress today can imagine all of the scenarios possible that may come up in 10 or 20 years, what new drugs there may be that could cure or treat health problems. There can be situations in the future where, for example, a different Secretary of Health and Human Services would use negotiating authority to get savings that can't be anticipated for drugs that haven't even been contemplated today. It doesn't make sense for the Congress to preemptively outlaw future savings. It especially doesn't make sense when the American Association of Retired Persons, in an RX Watchdog Report that looked at nearly 200 drugs including the most commonly used brand-name medications, has found that seniors very often need medicines that carry price tags that have gone up twice the rate of inflation. So we have older people getting hit--almost clobbered--with these costs which are going up more than twice the rate of inflation. I and others have said we want to be sensitive to the question of innovation. That is why we have not supported price controls. But when you are talking about drugs, such as certain cancer drugs, and the interests of older people, let us not say, for all time, and in every instance, we are going to forsake the opportunity to negotiate. Given that is possible to negotiate savings for seniors, if you stand up at a town meeting anywhere in this country and say, well, gosh, that is no big deal, I think seniors and taxpayers would say, try to get us the most value out of this program. This is a program I voted for and that I have always tried to look at ways to improve. I think there are plenty of ways under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley we can improve this program. Certainly, it is still far too complicated. You almost have to be a legal wizard to sort through some of these forms and to be able to compare the possibilities you might have for your coverage. So there are other steps that can be taken in a bipartisan way. But we ought to have a real debate in the Senate on one of the most important pocketbook issues of our time. This is what people talk about in coffee shops, in senior centers, and in community halls all across the country. I think the proposal Chairman Baucus has developed in this area makes sense. It does not go over the line and impede pharmaceutical innovation. It ensures we are going to be on the side of trying to stand up for seniors when it comes to those drugs, such as the cancer drugs I have discussed this morning, when they have trouble affording them. I hope our colleagues will vote for the motion to proceed and a chance for the Senate to have a real debate rather than this abridged kind of discussion where only a handful of Senators can participate. I thank the chairman of the Finance Committee for making sure this gets to the floor and, particularly, my colleague, Senator Snowe, who has worked with me on this issue in a bipartisan way for more than 3 years. If we get a chance to proceed, she and I will be offering an amendment to strengthen the proposal still further. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on our side?

Mr. WYDEN

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.

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. 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year. Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country. Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system. The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer. The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes. We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent. The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class. We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few. Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it. The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not. We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would be better off claiming the standard deduction than having to itemize their deductions, so their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income. Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests. Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education. I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their income in State and local taxes, while the wealthier pay only about 5 percent. Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes. Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief. What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break. The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit. I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do? If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this. I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system. I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America. It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially. I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor. I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way. I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days. There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission. But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead. That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork. So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again. The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort. I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better. I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year. Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country. Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system. The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer. The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes. We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent. The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class. We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few. Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it. The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not. We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would be better off claiming the standard deduction than having to itemize their deductions, so their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income. Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests. Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education. I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent and middle-income families pay about 10 percent of their income in State and local taxes, while the wealthier pay only about 5 percent. Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes. Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief. What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break. The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit. I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do? If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this. I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system. I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America. It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially. I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor. I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way. I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days. There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission. But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead. That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork. So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again. The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort. I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better. I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first, I see the distinguished chairman of the committee and the vice chairman of the committee on the floor. I commend both of them for their excellent work on this legislation. I particularly wish to commend Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond for the bipartisan approach the two of them have brought to tackling these important issues in this session of the Senate. It is extremely important that intelligence is conducted in a bipartisan fashion and the chairman and vice chairman have set a model in terms of approaching these issues in that fashion. In the 1970s, Members of Congress realized there was not nearly enough oversight of our Nation's spy agencies, and this lack of oversight led to a number of serious abuses. In response to the abuses, the Senate created the Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I am proud to serve. Each year, for 29 straight years, our committee has produced an intelligence authorization bill, and this annual legislation has given Congress a means by which to exercise oversight of the classified intelligence budget and provide guidance to the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and various other important intelligence agencies. In 2005 and 2006, regrettably, the Congress failed to pass the Intelligence authorization legislation. In my view, this is inexcusable. At a time when Americans were questioning our intelligence agencies' ability to keep them safe, the Congress failed to provide the necessary support. At a time when the intelligence community was undergoing major reorganization, Congress failed to provide sufficient guidance. At a time when our allies and our own citizens were raising serious questions about our detention policies, the Congress failed to conduct oversight. At a time when Americans were opening their morning papers and reading about the aggressive new forms of Government surveillance, such as the President's warrantless wiretapping program, the Congress failed to demand accountability. The committee did report Intelligence authorization bills for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, but they were blocked repeatedly by anonymous holds. Regrettably, the previous leadership failed to make passing this legislation a top priority. The new leadership of the Senate has decided that ensuring national security and protecting Americans' rights and values is a major concern and, as a result, we are now dealing with this year's Intelligence Authorization Act, and it comes, in my view, to a great extent because of the cooperation of Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond, who has also assisted me in a number of critical areas throughout this session of the Senate, for which I am very appreciative. This legislation contains a number of important provisions which I am proud to have worked on with my colleagues on the committee. It clarifies many of the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence, establishes a new national space intelligence center, and creates a strong independent inspector general for the intelligence community. It strengthens congressional oversight by clarifying the President's responsibility to keep the Congress informed of all intelligence activities. In addition, it contains three amendments that I offered and that I believe are going to improve the functioning of our intelligence agencies. The first of these amendments would make public the total amount of the national intelligence budget. In my view, it is ridiculous to suggest that Osama bin Laden is going to gain some sort of advantage from knowing that the national intelligence budget is one specific number or another. But declassifying this number would increase, in my view, transparency and public accountability. It would increase public accountability without sacrificing the national security needs of this country and also permit a more informed debate about funding for defense and national security. The second of these amendments which I offered with the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller, would increase resources to support the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. After investigating the proposed takeover of the management of several United States ports by Dubai Ports World, I became convinced that the process for approving these foreign purchases did not include sufficient due diligence. There ought to be more room in this process for input from the intelligence community, and these additional resources that have come about as a result of this amendment I developed with Chairman Rockefeller would support that. The last of these amendments would maximize the criminal penalty for knowingly and intentionally disclosing the identity of a covert agent. Like many Americans, I was shocked and disappointed to learn that members of the administration exposed the identity of an undercover CIA officer for partisan political purposes. Undercover officers perform a vital and demanding service for the Nation, and the very nature of their work prevents them from receiving public praise or recognition. Deliberately exposing an undercover officer for any reason, in my view, is unacceptable, and to do it for a political purpose is simply reprehensible. This provision will send a message to men and women of the CIA and other human intelligence services that the Congress values them and their work and takes any threat to them or to their identity very seriously. I also note that the version of this legislation that was reported by the Intelligence Committee also creates a new exemption to the Privacy Act. In the additional views to the committee report, Senator Feingold and I expressed our view that the impact of this provision had not been considered carefully enough. I am pleased the managers' amendment prepared by Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond removes this provision and, in my view, that is going to make our conference with the House of Representatives easier. In sum, I am pleased with the work--the bipartisan work--our committee put into this legislation, and I hope the Senate will support cloture this afternoon. This is extremely important legislation. It ought to be passed on a bipartisan basis. It should not be subject to a filibuster. Congress has surrendered its national security responsibilities for too long and too often, and it is time for the Congress to stand up and do its job. Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Bond have made it possible for the Senate Intelligence Committee to bring this legislation before the Senate. I am very hopeful this legislation will move forward today and that the Senate will support cloture. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Virginia Tech community is grieving this afternoon, and our country grieves with them. To see so many young people taken from us with their lives ahead of them is an unspeakable horror, one that words simply cannot capture. Oregonians saw a horrible school shooting in 1998, and I know that across my State, Oregonians this afternoon are sending their prayers to the Virginia Tech community. I join with those Oregonians in sending our prayers to the Virginia Tech family, and on behalf of the people of my State, I want those at Virginia Tech to know they are in our hearts and minds at this critical hour and during this time of unspeakable tragedy. (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. IIII are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to vote against the Burr amendment because it significantly undermines what the Senate just voted for. The Burr amendment purports to affect only the increase in funds, but, as was pointed out in this morning's debate, the Burr amendment would affect all funding, new and existing, and as a result, the Burr amendment would stand in direct conflict with numerous State laws. What the Burr amendment would do is disrupt funding decisions and local government operations around the country. In many localities, county governments and school districts operate separate and distinct budgets. Under the Burr amendment, local government decisions would, in effect, be overturned and we would go to a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate instead of local communities deciding about their future and their kids' education. Their hands would be tied in Washington, DC. I urge the Senate to reject this bureaucratic straightjacket and vote no on the Burr amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the bipartisan group of 19 Senators and vote for the Wyden amendment and reject the Burr amendment. In voting for the Wyden amendment and rejecting the Burr amendment, Senators will be standing with the National Association of Counties, the National Governors Association, the 1,500 member organizations of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition and labor groups from across the land. The Burr amendment purports to affect only the increase in funding but, as was pointed out in this morning's debate, the Burr amendment affects all funding, new and existing. As a result, the Burr amendment would stand in conflict with numerous State laws. The new formula in the bipartisan Wyden amendment is fair, fully paid for, and would ensure that America's rural communities can survive. I urge my colleagues to not walk away from the Federal Government's 100-year promise to rural America. Support the Wyden amendment and reject the Burr amendment. I yield the remainder of my time to my friend and cosponsor, Senator Craig.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Washington. When we go to the two amendments on the Secure Rural Schools Act under the order, I have a couple of minutes and the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Burr has a couple of minutes. But since there was this opportunity as a result of the graciousness of Senator Murray, I wish to mention a letter that came in from the sheriff of Douglas County, which is in southwestern Oregon. This is an area he is policing, the sheriff notes, that is slightly larger than Connecticut. In other words, his county is extraordinarily large. If this money is not forthcoming, funds that would be made available under the county payments, this is what the sheriff says will take place: There are no Troopers. We are running out of deputies. And, if we lose access to this Federal funding, the people will essentially be left to provide their own public safety. There is no fallback position for the citizens. The sheriff goes on to say: This is not a matter crying wolf or exaggerating our problems. This is quite simply the fork in the road where we make a choice. Does local government in rural Oregon cease to exist, or are we partially and temporarily spared in hopes of securing some means of providing for ourselves? I think the comments from Chris Brown, the Douglas County sheriff, which just came in, say it all. What the legislation we are going to be voting on in a few minutes is all about is ensuring the Federal Government keep its obligation to rural communities, where the Federal Government owns most of the land. This is not welfare. I have tried to go into how this came about several times in the course of the debate over the last couple of days. The reality is that when the Federal Forest System was created more than 100 years ago and these rural communities were in a position where they could not maximize their revenues from these lands, the Federal Government struck an agreement. The Federal Government said: We will be there to at least partially offer funding for the essential services such as those that Chris Brown, the Douglas County sheriff, has written to us about. The reality is, the distinguished Senator from Washington knows--and we are very pleased that she is a cosponsor with 18 other Senators in the bipartisan ``county amendments'' legislation--we have huge problems in our part of the world, with serious drugs, particularly methamphetamine. What Chris Brown is saying, this Douglas County sheriff, with respect to his area--which is, as he notes, as large as the State of Connecticut--is that he is going to be essentially defenseless in terms of protecting public safety for his folks in southwestern Oregon without this funding. He is not alone. The sheriff of Grants Pass told me recently that without this funding he is looking at the prospect of calling out the National Guard. We will have our debate for 2 minutes each when we go to this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, does our side have any additional time?

Mr. WYDEN. We continue to look at the language. I think it goes back to the reason the counties and the Governors were so troubled by it. Where in my friend's amendment does it say it applies only to increases in funding? Because, as we read it, it would apply to all of the funding in section (2) of the amendment, subsection (d) payments received by a State under subsection (a) and distributed to eligible counties shall be only for public schools----

Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator from North Carolina yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a cosponsor of the amendment, and I thank him for his many hours of support in putting this together.

Mr. WYDEN. My sense says the county folks had some difficulty following the Senator's amendment as it went through its evolution. But what we do know is our amendment clearly protects the PILT funding, and that is why it is preferable on all counts. Now, continuing with what the counties have had to say: We are also concerned that the Burr amendment interferes with the authority States have had since 1908 to allocate forest reserves funds, authority explicitly and deliberately retained by Congress in title 1 of the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act. This point from the counties is especially critical because it goes to the 100-year obligation with respect to county payments. We can debate who has better ideas about PILT. We think we do. That is why so many Senators have been attracted to our proposal, because of the additional support for PILT. But what the counties go on to say here is they are concerned about the 100-year precedent with respect to Federal forest systems. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has been very gracious. We are dividing the time. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. WYDEN. Does not.

Mr. WYDEN. My understanding is that the Senator's amendment does not affect it.

Mr. WYDEN. Of course.