Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I join with the other Senators in expressing my sadness tonight as to Senator Dan Inouye's loss. I think all of us see Senator Inouye as the gold standard of caring. He has always cared about his constituents. He has always cared about his colleagues. But, most of all, he has cared about his family, and he threw himself with every ounce of his energy and strength into caring for his spouse who has passed today. It is important for the Senate to note that in addition to his caring, what Senator Inouye is best known for is his quiet sense of dignity. This is a place where it can get loud and clamorous at times, and what Dan Inouye has always done is to try to always take the quiet path, to lower the decibel level, to try to get Senators to keep a perspective. That is why he always put his family first. There are many fine people in the Senate, but when we think about our colleague Dan Inouye tonight and all he did for his spouse in those last few months, there is no better person, no better colleague, no better friend all of us could have than Dan Inouye. I just wanted to, along with my colleagues, let him know he is in my thoughts and prayers tonight.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just to wrap this up, that is a very fair procedure that the Senator from Mississippi has outlined and we will be happy to accept that.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Mississippi. I particularly thank him for his extraordinarily supportive statement and for all the help he has given me over this decade. It probably would be my preference to have a recorded vote at this time, particularly since I have had the good fortune to have had such a supportive statement from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. Is there a problem with having a recorded vote on the Wyden-Grassley- Inhofe amendment at this time?

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is absolutely right.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my intent at this point to wrap up. I particularly thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who has had a longstanding interest in this subject, for working with Senator Grassley and myself. We do have a bipartisan effort. The Senator from Oklahoma has highlighted another problem with it, and a lot of Members who served in the other body bumped into this. A lot of these holds over the years have not even been placed by Senators themselves. They have been placed by staff, and Senators go up to each other and try to ask about a matter and it ends up a Senator may not even know about it. I also see the Senator from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. He spent a lot of hours with me talking about this over the years. Senator Lott, to show his commitment to the cause of openness, has tried repeatedly to get Senators to do this voluntarily. I recall on a number of instances Senator Lott and Senator Daschle met with Senator Grassley and me. We put together a variety of letters and directives to Senators. It still would not come together. We think you have to make this a permanent change in the Senate procedures, put the burden on the objector rather than on the leadership, as we have done so often in the past, and the leaders would then have to make phone calls. Senator Lott has a wonderful story that he has told me over the years about sitting in phone booths at airports calling Members, trying to figure out who in the world had a hold on something. I say to colleagues, we have now reached that moment where the Senate has had it up to here with all of the secrecy and practice of doing business in the shadows. To wrap this up, we are going to have a vote in a few minutes. The Intelligence Authorization bill, a bill that is vital to America's national security, is subject to a secret hold. I don't think anything could make the case for our bipartisan amendment more clearly than the need to move ahead with this country's vital business in intelligence. I have talked to Chairman Roberts about this. He wants that bill to move. It is a bipartisan bill. We have not had a situation since 1978 when we could not move forward on an intelligence bill. I hope colleagues will finally bring the Senate into the sunshine. This enormous power that each Senator has is one that will continue, but if we can prevail on this vote, it will be one that will be exercised in the sunlight. Each Senator will be held accountable when they assert this particular power. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment. I yield back the balance of my time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at this point, after the Senator from Oklahoma has spoken, it would be my intention to very briefly wrap up the case for the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment. We would yield our time at that point, and we are going to ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as usual, the distinguished Chair of the subcommittee has put her finger on an important distinction. I want to take a second to describe how the legislation addresses it. I think we are of like mind on it. Subsequently, a lot of time was spent by the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee and Senator Dodd and Senator Byrd on this matter. What the distinguished Chair of the Homeland Security Committee is describing is essentially a consult. For example, a Senator wants to be notified about a bill that is headed for the floor. Very often that comes up, say, when a Senator is in his or her home State and frequently needs to be able to come back, and it takes a day, and they need to be able to review it. Under the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment we make very clear it is not our intention to bar those consults. We like to use the word ``consult,'' which is a protected tool for a Senator as opposed to the question of a hold. I think perhaps another way to clarify it is a consult is sort of like a yellow light. You put up a little bit of caution--that we need a bit of time to take a look at it. A hold is a red light when you are not supposed to go forward. We don't want people to be able to exercise those holds in secret. We think it is fine to have the kind of consult that the distinguished Chair of the Homeland Security Committee has described. In fact, to ensure that we have this kind of procedure that the Senator seeks, we call for 3 days before an individual has to put in the Congressional Record that they have a hold on a matter. I think we are clearly in agreement--that the consult is protected, but the secret hold and forcing the Senate to do its business in public is what is going to change.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if you walked down the Main Streets of this country and asked people what a hold was in the U.S. Senate, I think it is fair to say nobody would have any idea what it is you were talking about. In fact, they might hear the world ``hold,'' and they would think it was part of the wrestling championships that are going on across this country right now. But the reason I am on the floor of the Senate today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, and Senator Inhofe, is that the hold in the Senate, which is the ability to object to a bill or nomination coming before the Senate, is an extraordinary power that a United States Senator has, and a power that can be exercised in secret. At the end of a congressional session, legislation involving vast sums of money or the very freedoms on which our country relies can die just because of a secret hold in the Senate. At any point in the legislative process, an objection can delay or derail an issue to the point where it can't be effectively considered. What is particularly unjust about all of this is that it prevents a Senator from being held accountable. I think Members would be incredulous to learn this afternoon that the Intelligence reauthorization bill, a piece of legislation which is vital to our national security, has now been held up for months as a result of a secret hold. I am going to talk a little bit about the consequences of holding up an Intelligence authorization bill in a moment. But I want to first be clear on what the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment would do. It would force the Senate to do its business in public, and it would bring the secret holds out of the shadows of the Senate and into the sunshine. Our bipartisan amendment would make a permanent change to the procedures of the Senate to require openness and accountability. We want to emphasize that we are not going to bar Senators from exercising their power to put a hold on a bill or nomination. All we are saying is, a Senator who wants that right should also have a responsibility to the people he or she represents and to the country at large. Now, to the hold on the Intelligence bill that has been in place for more than 3 months, I think every Member of the Senate would agree that authorizing the intelligence programs of this country is a critical priority for America. Striking the balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting our civil liberties is one of the most important functions of this Senate. The bill that is now being held up as a result of a secret hold, the Intelligence reauthorization bill, has been reviewed by a number of Senate committees. It was reported by the Intelligence Committee late last September, by the Armed Services Committee last October, and by the Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee last November. I particularly commend Chairman Roberts who worked with me on a number of amendments, amendments that I felt strongly about, because this legislation does ensure that there will be accountability and oversight in the Intelligence Committee by establishing a strong inspector general, by requiring that the committees get the documents they need to perform effective oversight over the intelligence community, and by making the heads of the key agencies subject to Senate confirmation. I think the Senate would particularly want to know if this legislation, the Intelligence reauthorization bill that is held up by a secret hold, does not move forward, it will be the first time since the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was established in 1978 that the Senate has failed to act on an Intelligence reauthorization bill. What we have is a situation where a single, anonymous Senator has invoked a practice that cannot be found anywhere in the Senate rules and has lodged an objection to a piece of legislation that is critically important to the well-being of America. Senators have often asked Senator Grassley and myself and Senator Inhofe: Where are the examples of these secret holds? Exactly why do you believe your legislation is important? We now have a textbook case of a secret hold that is injurious to America. For all the talk about earmarks--we have been discussing that here on the Senate floor, as well as the scope of conference, line-item vetoes and the like--I would wager that no weapon is more important and more powerful to each Senator than the ability to stop amendments, legislation, and nominations through secret holds. I believe as U.S. Senators we occupy a position of public trust and that the exercise of the power that has been vested in each of us should be accompanied by public accountability. I have no quarrel with the use of a hold. I have used them myself on several occasions. But what is offensive to the democratic process is the anonymity, the secrecy, the lack of accountability when a Senator tries to exercise this extraordinary power in secret. Let me just wrap up, because I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here, with a quick minute on the history of these efforts. Senator Grassley and I have been at this for almost a decade. The Rules Committee held a hearing on our proposal in the summer of 2003. We worked with Chairman Lott and with the ranking minority member, Senator Dodd, extensively. This is a matter that has been considered at length by colleagues. Senator Lott knows firsthand about this issue because he has personally spent many hours with me as he has wrestled with it, and in fact tried to set in place some voluntary procedures that would curtail the abuses of the secret hold. These secret holds have been an embarrassment to the Senate in my view, and they have been an embarrassment for a long time. But I cannot recall an instance where we had a hold, a secret hold on the Intelligence authorization bill at a time when our country is at war. This is a practice that needs to end. I yield now for the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I propose the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment, No. 2944, which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking minority member.

Mr. WYDEN. Would it be acceptable to the distinguished chair of the committee and ranking minority member that I could ask unanimous consent that after you all have completed the bipartisan amendment of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Pennsylvania, that when you all have completed your business, the Wyden-Grassley amendment come next?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. As the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee knows, Senator Grassley and I have worked for a decade to bring some openness and accountability to the Senate by requiring that when a Senator puts a hold on a major piece of legislation, they would have to disclose it publicly. Senator Grassley and I are ready to go with that bipartisan amendment which we have worked on for a decade. I would simply ask the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking minority member what the process is so that Senator Grassley and I can bring forward this bipartisan amendment. I pose my question to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to be recognized for the purpose of having a colloquy with the chairman and ranking minority member, Senator Lott and Senator Dodd.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a headline in today's Wall Street Journal warns consumers that they will soon face a ``pay to play'' Internet where those businesses and consumers who want to continue to see equal content get equal treatment will have to pay more. Rather than let them continue to have the freedom to choose whatever content, applications and services they want, the big network operators want to control the content consumers can access. Allowing the big network operators to discriminate on the Net is bad news for consumers, small businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofits and any other user who enjoys their freedom of access. That is why today I am proposing legislation that will codify the principle of network neutrality. I want consumers, small businesses and every other Internet user to continue to enjoy tomorrow the full array of content, service and applications they enjoy today. My legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, will establish the principle of network neutrality by requiring the operators of the network to treat all content on the Internet equally. It will ensure transparency so that everyone can easily determine all rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications. Transparency coupled with a complaint process before the Federal Communications Commission will encourage compliance. This legislation has been developed in consultation with a number of consumer groups and businesses, and I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a headline in today's Wall Street Journal warns consumers that they will soon face a ``pay to play'' Internet where those businesses and consumers who want to continue to see equal content get equal treatment will have to pay more. Rather than let them continue to have the freedom to choose whatever content, applications and services they want, the big network operators want to control the content consumers can access. Allowing the big network operators to discriminate on the Net is bad news for consumers, small businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofits and any other user who enjoys their freedom of access. That is why today I am proposing legislation that will codify the principle of network neutrality. I want consumers, small businesses and every other Internet user to continue to enjoy tomorrow the full array of content, service and applications they enjoy today. My legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, will establish the principle of network neutrality by requiring the operators of the network to treat all content on the Internet equally. It will ensure transparency so that everyone can easily determine all rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications. Transparency coupled with a complaint process before the Federal Communications Commission will encourage compliance. This legislation has been developed in consultation with a number of consumer groups and businesses, and I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator asks a good question. First, a quick word on my proposal, which is available from the Congressional Research Service and Jane Gravell, the top economist who is there to discuss it with Senators. It would actually reduce the deficit by about $100 billion over 5 years, making downpayments in terms of deficit reduction. But here is what the distribution profile looks like in terms of our legislation. We believe that upwards of 70 percent of the people in this country would get a solid tax cut. These are middle-class folks making $60,000, $70,000, $80,000, and $90,000. Essentially, what the Congressional Research Service has shown is that millions of middle- class people would get relief. It is upwards of 70 percent. We have calculated that about 15 percent of the people in this country would be treated about the same. For example--and it is matter of public record, and I can discuss it--I have a Senate wage of about $160,000, and I have a bit of investment income. I come out about the same under my proposal as under the status quo. We have to make 6 or 7 percent of the people in this country who make virtually all their income from capital gains and dividends--not from wages--pay a bit more. So that is what the distributional effect of one actual proposal looked like. That was again very similar to what happened in 1986 when Ronald Reagan, after having started his Presidency with a set of tax changes--and my colleague will remember they were largely for investment--did an about-face and passed a reform proposal that gave real relief to middle-class people. I want to close by thanking the Senator from Illinois, who I know has a great interest in this subject and has been a strong champion of the middle class.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois, who as usual is being a bit too logical. The fact is, if Members of the Congress had to go through this--because we will have a lot who are paying the AMT, many who have investments of a variety of sorts--I believe that alone could trigger a bit of a revolution around here. I think the challenge is for people to see just the kind of tax hole we have dug ourselves into over the last 20 years--14,000 changes, needless complications. I really do not see how a middle-class person can get ahead with a Tax Code that discriminates against work. The Senator from Illinois has been a champ for the middle-class kind of family. Here is the way it works. If a cop in Chicago gets a $500 pay raise, that cop pays 25 percent of his or her pay raise to the Federal Government in income taxes, and then they pay Social Security payroll taxes on top of that. If somebody in downtown Chicago makes all their money from capital gains and investment, they pay 15 percent on their capital gains and no Social Security payroll tax. Again, I have tried to emphasize that I am not for soaking anybody. I believe in markets, and I believe in creating wealth, as I believe Senators of both political parties do. But as the Senator from Illinois has pointed out, if Senators were really forced to deal with these kinds of situations themselves, starting with the Tax Code complications, when they fill it out on their own, that could start a revolution around here. I believe this is a bipartisan opportunity that comes along rarely. I will wrap up with one last point. I believe the Social Security reform showed a lot about what our citizens think about a vital American program. A lot of Americans love Social Security dearly, and there are a lot of rallies outside the offices of Members of Congress, with folks carrying signs saying, ``I love Social Security.'' I tell colleagues that there will be no rally outside your office with people carrying signs saying, ``We Love the IRS Code.'' This is something which could be reformed, could be changed on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, millions of Americans are now going through a paperwork nightmare, trying to complete their taxes. They are trying to find their 1099s and their W-2s and their schedule this and schedule that. They shout across the room: Honey, can you find the copy of the receipt for that copier we bought back in March? What I am going to do between now and April 15 is highlight some of the ways this Tax Code gratuitously complicates the lives of all our citizens--middle-income folks, low-income folks, and the affluent. I am going to be pointing out specific provisions in the Tax Code and try to describe how it does not have to be this way. We do not have to have a ``deadwood'' tax bureaucracy, where we now have had more than 14,000 changes. That comes to something akin to three for every working day in the last 20 years. Our citizens are going to spend more this year complying with the Tax Code than this country spends on higher education. We are going to spend $140 billion complying with the needless kind of bureaucracy that I am going to describe this morning. It is my intent between now and April 15 to discuss this. I am going to start today with the alternative minimum tax, which is true water torture for middle-class folks who basically have to figure out two taxes, their taxes and the alternative minimum tax. There is a whole set of complicated procedures here. After I complete this week's presentation on the alternative minimum tax, it is my intention to go next to the earned income tax, which is also mindlessly complicated. Then I intend to focus on a number of the provisions for those who are very affluent that strike me, again, as defying common sense in how they are written. Today, I want to begin by focusing on the alternative minimum tax. It is, of course, a crushing tax for millions of middle-income people, folks who definitely do not consider themselves fat cats. Across this country, 3.6 million taxpayers were impacted by the alternative minimum tax this year. The number is expected to rise to over 19 million by 2006 unless the Congress acts this year. The form that you use for the alternative minimum tax is form 6251. The first line sums up what all of this has come to. The first line says: If filing Schedule A (form 1040), line 41 (minus any amount on form 8914, line 2) and go to line 2. Otherwise enter the amount from form 1040, line 38 (minus any amount on form 8914, line 2) and go to line 7. (If less than zero, enter as a negative amount.) I think it is pretty obvious that what I have read is, for all practical purposes, incomprehensible. You would have to have a Ph.D. in economics. What it means is that in order to fill out form 6251 for your minimum tax you have to fill out not just form 1040 but also form 8914. How much time is that going to add to tax preparation? What about trying to understand form 8914, for those who may have to fill it out? Are people in this country going to have to become CPAs to fill out this tax requirement that affects millions of middle-class people? I bring this up because it does not have to be this way. I would like to now post the alternative that I have developed in my Fair Flat Tax Act, S. 1927. On line 1, instead of all the mumbo jumbo I read--it is real simple--all you have to state is whether you are single, married, head of a household, qualifying widower. I filled out my one-page 1040 form that my legislation mandates in about a half hour. That alone is a bit of a revolution in the Senate Finance Committee, or the tax-writing committee in the other body, because it has been a long time since anybody who wrote tax laws could fill out their own returns. I bring this up only by way of saying let's make sure people understand how much deadwood and legal mumbo jumbo and needless complication there is in the Tax Code. That is why I have started today with the burdensome requirements of the alternative minimum tax. But I am going to go on, in the weeks ahead, to a number of other kinds of provisions. As a result of what I read on the alternative minimum tax, lots of folks simply turn to tax preparers. This year we will spend $140 billion on tax preparation. That is more than the Government spends on higher education. It is pretty obvious why. There were 14,000 changes in the Tax Code since the last major overhaul, three significant changes for every working day in the last 20 years. What I do in my fair flat tax legislation is simply say to the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma: You take your income from all your sources, you subtract your deductions, you add your credits, add it all up, send it to the IRS, and say: Have a nice day, I am done. One page, 1040 form--somebody called me about it yesterday and we discussed how long it took me to do it. I mentioned I could do mine in half an hour. They said: Ron, it only took me 15 minutes. That is what this is all about. I am not sure the Congress understands how this body has permitted this mindless bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that only can be described as deadwood, a bureaucracy that has lost all kind of connection with what the middle class in this country is all about. And I want to change it. I believe we ought to start tax reform by simplifying the Code. Then let us change the tax system so that all Americans have the opportunity to climb the ladder of success. One way you do that is to change a set of rates that now have the second richest person in America, Warren Buffett, paying a lower tax rate than his receptionist. The Tax Code discriminates against work. I am not interested in soaking anybody. I believe in markets, and I believe in creating wealth, but as we saw today where we have very low rates in savings for the middle class, it is because they cannot keep up. Their wages aren't even keeping up with inflation. Their concerns are about those matters where the second word is ``bill''--the tax bill, the medical bill, the gas bill, the heating bill, and the education bill. We say with my legislation that we are going to end the discrimination against work. We will protect 90 percent of all interest income earned by our citizens--their house, the capital gains they may be able to enjoy if they sell it, their savings accounts, their life insurance. I want us to build a new savings ethic. I do that in this legislation as well. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why we can't get both political parties to get moving on this issue. The President has an advisory commission. They asked me what I thought about it. I said: Look, I have a one-page 1040 form which will simplify this code for everybody. The President's commission report is a bit longer, but for purposes of Government work, they are pretty close together. So why not start with simplification? Why not start with the rates I have proposed which I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate? The first bracket of rates in my legislation is 15 percent, the second bracket is 25 percent, and the third bracket is 35 percent. That is what Ronald Reagan proposed. Those are the exact brackets Ronald Reagan proposed in 1986. Now, much has changed. I would be the first to acknowledge that. Certainly the AMT hits much harder than anything that was anticipated in the 1980s. But I am interested in being flexible with respect to the rates. If the Senate, after bipartisan deliberation on a fair flat tax, wanted to have 13, 23, and 33, that would be fine with me. The principle is we ought to say marginal rates are important; they send a very significant message with respect to growth. But let us treat all income the same. Let us particularly get rid of some of this mindless kind of bureaucracy. We are having a hearing today on the tax gap, the money that is not collected that ought to be paid. We all realize that is a good opportunity to generate revenue to help the middle class. If we pick up some of that money, we will drive the rates down for everybody in this country even more than I am proposing. People ask me what I stand for. I stand for the proposition that every American ought to have the opportunity to climb the ladder of success. And let us start by changing the Tax Code, where the second wealthiest person in the United States, Warren Buffett, pays a lower tax rate than his receptionist. How is the receptionist going to be in a position to be in the middle class if we don't treat them fairly? I also think it is worth noting that when you graduate from a college in Oklahoma or in Illinois, when you go out into the marketplace and in the first job with your new college degree, after all that hard work, you are going to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest person in this country. We need incentives for investment. I protect 90 percent of the interest income earned by people who are saving and showing the kind of financial discipline which is necessary to get ahead. But we can have a Tax Code that is simpler, flatter, and fairer. I wrap up by saying to both Democrats and Republicans, I believe this is really what you are all about. For Democrats, what could be more important than a message about giving the middle class a fair shake, the opportunity to climb the ladder of success and get out from under some of this bureaucracy? Our friend from Illinois is here, Senator Durbin. His colleague from the House, Congressman Emanuel, has tax clinics in Chicago for families who can't fill out the earned income tax credit because it is too complicated. I have outlined how absurd the requirements are for the alternative minimum tax and why it is difficult for folks to comply. But this is something which affects everybody--poor folks with the earned income tax credit and the middle-class folks with the alternative minimum tax. As far as I can tell, many of the affluent in this country are saying to themselves: What really counts is finding a better accountant to get me more tax dodges because that is the way you get ahead in this country, not by innovating but by finding an accountant to get you more tax dodges. It doesn't have to be this way. The Code doesn't have to be as complicated as it is. The Code doesn't have to discriminate against people who work for a living. The late President Reagan accepted that principle in the 1986 tax reform. We can do this. Certainly the administration, after talking about how they were interested in tax reform and forming a commission, is going to ask me and, I believe, other Members of Congress: Where are the deadlines? This is an opportunity for the administration to have a big second- term initiative. Ronald Reagan did this in the middle of his second term because he reached out to Senators such as Bill Bradley and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the other body, Congressman Rostenkowski. It is time to cleanse this Code. It has been 20 years since real reform, 14,000 changes, spending more on preparation than the Government spends on higher education. That is a disgrace. It is not right to working people. It is not right to all taxpayers, regardless of their income. It is my intention to come back to this Chamber again and again--but particularly between now and April 15--as I have done today with the alternative minimum tax. I would like to pose once more the language for folks who are middle income and trying to comply with the alternative minimum tax. If anybody who is not a CPA can figure out the first line of the AMT, I urge them to call me. My guess is they can't. They will have to call their accountant to sort it out. I also wish to point out for people trying to get help this morning that the IRS has an 800-number. We will post it on our Web site: 1-800- 829-1040. As I wrap up this presentation, let me contrast this, which is the dead wood in the tax bureaucracy today, with the legislation I have filed, the Fair Flat Tax Act, which replaces the legal mumbo-jumbo I have shown you with our section 1--just a handful of lines--describing whether you are single, married, head of household, or a widower. I know colleagues are waiting to speak.

Mr. WYDEN. Certainly.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to respond briefly, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I am interested in working with him on the Finance Committee. This discussion does need to be part of a longer debate. The Senator from Mississippi has drawn an important distinction that a number of us have talked about as to the difference between the small firms and the independents and the big firms. What we tried to do in this bipartisan amendment is to preserve it. Frankly, in a sense, we ought to do this just to prevent the embarrassment of the Senate. When you have these big oil companies show up in broad daylight and say they don't need these tax breaks, and the Congress has just been sending out billions of dollars, that ought to be a wake-up call for both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to work together to rethink this. I hope this will be the beginning of such an effort. It is a modest step. It will save $300 million over 10 years--clearly, not what we need to do to deal with the hemorrhaging of the Federal budget, but at least it is a step in the right direction. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. Right.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is correct. I am asking that we insist on what we did in the Finance Committee and what Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus have worked closely with me on. It is our feeling that we do need to have a broader and more comprehensive discussion about this down the road, but we took a modest step in the right direction in the Finance Committee. That is what I wish to preserve with this motion.