Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, would up to 5 minutes be acceptable?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the letter says, and I will read a bit of it: AARP supports your amendment to the Senate fiscal year 2006 Budget Reconciliation bill to provide for the ability of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to participate in the negotiations between pharmaceutical manufacturers and prescription drug plans under the Medicare Part D program. Prescription drug prices continue to rise much faster than the rate of inflation. AARP's latest Rx Watchdog report released this week found that prices for nearly 200 of the most commonly used brand name medications rose 6.1 percent during the 12 month period from July 2004-June 2005. At the same time, the rate of general inflation was 3 percent. These drug price increases particularly hit older Americans, who use prescription drugs more than any other segment of the U.S. population. In two weeks, millions of older and disabled Americans will have the opportunity to choose prescription drug coverage as part of their 2006 Medicare benefit options. The new Medicare prescription drug benefit will help millions of beneficiaries afford needed medications. Improvements to the Medicare Modernization Act are necessary to strengthen the benefit and the Medicare program. We believe the first step is to keep the drug benefit affordable for beneficiaries as well as taxpayers. While the competitive structure already existing in the MMA may help to bring prescription drug prices down, we believe that giving the Secretary the authority to participate in negotiations may also help to make prescription drugs more affordable for Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, there is a bit more to the letter, but I think the Senate can get the general drift. The AARP, the organization that represents millions of older people, explicitly tonight endorses our bipartisan amendment. They have pointed out that the cost of these medications, the ones that are so important to older people, are going up double the rate of inflation. Let me emphasize that to the Senate. The drugs that seniors use, the prices are going up double the rate of inflation. So we need some serious tools to contain these costs. At a time when the Federal Government ought to be using more effective tools to hold down the costs of medicine, we have locked into law a restriction on the ability of the Government to do what smart shoppers in America do every single day, and that is to use their marketplace clout, bulk purchasing power, to get the best value for them and their families. It is time to lift this outrageous, offensive restriction that is now in Medicare law that prevents the Federal Government from being a smart shopper. It is now time to stand up for taxpayers and stand up for the older people in this country. The Senate will have a chance to do that when it votes on the bipartisan amendment tomorrow that has been filed tonight, will be offered tomorrow, by Senator Snowe, a bipartisan group. I hope my colleagues will support it resoundingly. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this bipartisan measure will be voted on tomorrow. My sense is that because the day will be very hectic, having to vote on many amendments, that there will not be much time for explanation of this measure. Senator Snowe, Senator Stabenow, and others who spent so much time on this issue are going to want to speak. I will tell the Senate tonight this is one of the most important issues to come up in a long time. This program will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, expansions of Federal entitlement policy we have ever seen. Why we wouldn't want to go about this right and make the Government a smart shopper, a savvy shopper, why we wouldn't want to do that is beyond me. What we have is an error of commission. What you saw is, in this legislation, very powerful special interests said we want a unique set of rules to apply to us: We shouldn't have to negotiate, even though everybody else negotiates with the Government and the private sector; give us a free ride; restrict, as a matter of law, the ability of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure that seniors and taxpayers got a square deal. That is not right. This is about common sense. This is about the Federal Government being a smart shopper. This is about standing up for taxpayers and seniors. I would like to wrap up tonight by reading a bit from the AARP letter of endorsement for the legislation. Mr. President, I am going to read briefly from this letter, but I ask unanimous consent that the AARP letter endorsing the bipartisan measure to contain the cost of medicine be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object--I do not intend to object-- I ask to modify the unanimous consent request to speak for up to 20 minutes, and I would also like to ask, with the leave of the Chair and the ranking minority Member, that Senator Nelson be allowed up to 2 minutes. I think he had one additional comment that he wanted to make about his proposal.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, America can do better than making a policeman walking the beat pay a higher Federal tax rate than someone who makes their money on capital gains and dividends. Unfortunately, the Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform today sent to the President a recommendation that will widen the gap between our middle class workers and the fortunate few. I am a Democrat who believes in markets, I believe in wealth creation, I believe in entrepreneurship, but I also believe in what Henry Ford said. He, of course, was the great industrialist. He made it clear that he wanted to make money and he wanted to do well but he said: For me to make money, my workers have to have enough money to be able to buy my cars. What concerns me tonight is that the middle class, the folks who are hurting, have gotten short shrift once again from the special advisory panel on tax reform. These are the folks, the middle class folks, who are walking an economic tightrope, balancing their medical bills against their energy bills, trying to set aside money to save for retirement and health. They are the ones who deserve a break. I heard mention tonight that Democrats, Senators on my side of the aisle, were not interested in cutting taxes. Well, I proposed last week to cut taxes for millions of middle class people and folks with incomes up to $150,000 by eliminating scores of exemptions, deductions and special interest breaks that exist on both the individual side of the code and the corporate side of the code. What we saw today is the special advisory panel on tax reform wanted none of that. They did not want to make those kinds of tough choices that step on the toes of special interests, powerful interests with big lobbies. Instead, what they did is take it once again out of the hide of middle income people who would be asked to give up tax breaks and support for concerns such as child care. When we already have a big gap between those who work for wages and those who make their income on capital gains and dividends, how can it be that it is now proposed to widen that gap? I think we would be well advised to look back to 1986, when the late President Reagan worked in a bipartisan way with Democrats, both with the Senate and the other body, to come up with a proposal that I think--certainly its foundation would be very appealing now. It makes sure that all income is treated equally. That is what this country has always been about. I do not want to soak anybody. I do not want to discriminate against anybody. But I do not think it is right for workers to have to pay a higher effective tax rate than those who make their money on capital gains and dividends. Income ought to be treated the same. That is what the country is all about. It seems to me that the advisory panel on tax reform missed a big opportunity today when they widened the gap between those who work for wages and those who make their income from wealth. If one looks at the tax panel's recommendations, in effect, they throw three strikes at the middle class and they lob softballs to the special interests. The first pitch is a slider that shifts a sizable tax burden away from those at the top to the middle income taxpayers. That is followed by a fast ball that takes away many of the deductions and credits such as those for child care and medical needs that middle income Americans have come to rely on. The third pitch is a change-up. The plan may look revenue neutral, but when it flies across the plate, it adds billions of dollars to the budget deficit and will force middle class Americans and their children to pay for tax cuts for the fortunate few. Under this special advisory panel plan that was proposed today, the middle class simply strikes out. Certainly, those who are at the top are going to enjoy the grand slam that is offered by the panel's plan. The panel would cut their tax rates, those at the very top, once again and there is not the kind of massive housecleaning of the tax system either. I proposed in my legislation, S. 1927, the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, that everybody pays their fair share, not just cutting the tax rates for the fortunate, making up for it by having the middle class subsidize those tax breaks, but mine would treat all income equally. To carry out our proposal, we include a new, simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines, for every individual taxpayer. There are three brackets rather than the current system. Under my proposal the brackets are 15, 25, and 35, and we create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent. This plan is more fair because it would no longer disproportionately favor the most affluent at the expense of the middle class. Certainly, the tax breaks that my legislation calls for step on toes. I pay for those middle class tax cuts. The proposal has been scored by the experts at the Congressional Research Service. I pay for the middle class tax cut by eliminating scores of tax breaks that are now in the Code for individuals and businesses. Certainly, some of them are going to object, already have. It seems to me that it is worth it to make a radical statement about tax laws, and that is that America can do better than a two-tiered tax system which forces a policeman to pay a higher effective tax rate than an investor who makes his income on capital gains dividends. What is fair about taxing a firefighter's hard-earned wages at a higher percentage than a corporate executive? Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not created equal, and under what the panel proposed today to the President of the United States, the equality gap between the middle class and the fortunate few is going to grow. Under the proposal that was sent to the President today, Americans who work for wages would further subsidize the cuts, credits, and deferrals of those who make their money from investments such as capital gains and dividends. Personally, I think there were other opportunities for innovations that the panel missed. For example, I proposed in my legislation to end favoritism for itemizers. We do that by tripling the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raise the deduction from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. I eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which could snare as many as 21 million Americans in 2006. But instead of forcing middle-class people to pay for that, I go after some of those breaks and exemptions and special interest favors that have made their way into the Tax Code. I will also say that the panel should have moved to correct a glaring inequity in the current tax system, which is regressive State and local taxes. They were advised about how regressive the State and local taxes have become, but unfortunately they took a pass on dealing with this issue as well. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to the fortunate few, 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 most affluent pay much less, only about half that. 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 deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000. Under my legislation, the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time the Federal Tax Code would look at an individual's entire tax situation. My legislation would look at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden and give credit to low- and middle-income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes. By contrast, the advisory panel that reported to the President today proposes to eliminate the current State and local tax deduction with no credit or other mechanism to address the total tax burden that is paid by individuals in this country. So once again, the panel's approach further skews the overall tax burden toward low- and middle-income taxpayers, with the fortunate few benefiting and the middle class getting hammered again. The proposal I have made keeps in place the deductions most important for our middle-class citizens and particularly the investments they make--the investments they make in their home, in their retirement, in education--those concerns that are so important to maintaining a middle class in our country. In contrast to the proposal made by the advisory panel today, my legislation means that the vast majority of American taxpayers will see a cut, particularly the middle class in our country. The Congressional Research Service has indicated that all Americans, particularly the middle class and those with incomes up to $150,000, will see tax relief. The President's panel, the advisory panel that reported today, itself said that most taxpayers under its plan will not see much difference in their taxes. We are going to have a battle of ideas. We hear often that there ought to be a debate about specific proposals. Now we have one. The advisory panel that reported to the President of the United States said, by their own analysis, that most taxpayers under their proposal will not see much difference in their taxes. Under the proposal I have made for a fair, flat tax rate, what is going to happen in this country, according to the independent analysts at the Congressional Research Service, is that millions of middle-class people will get a tax cut, and all Americans with incomes up to $150,000 will see tax relief. Where the panel throws strikes at the middle class, I say it is time to give the middle class a break. I certainly question the fairness of the President further cutting tax rates for those who are the most affluent in this country while the gap widens between those who depend on their wages to support their families. Finally, to illustrate the contrast, the proposal made by the panel today does nothing to deal with the hemorrhage that we have in the Federal budget. My proposal, on the other hand, according to the Congressional Research Service, makes a real start at reducing the budget deficit and would actually whittle down these budget deficits approximately $100 billion over the next 5 years. In summary, I am very troubled by the recommendations coming from the advisory panel today because they continue to twist the Tax Code away from equal treatment of all income, widening the chasm between people who get wages and people who collect dividends. I am troubled that it hits middle-class Americans especially hard, but it treats the special interests and the affluent with kid gloves. And I simply cannot find a sound rationale for adding massively to the country's deficit the way the advisory panel would do. Making the Tax Code simpler and flatter is going to help make it fairer. What is really needed is to provide actual, concrete tax relief to the middle class and to treat work and wealth equally. That was what was done in 1986. I have been asked several times since introducing this legislation, How is anything going to happen now? The advisory panel's proposal probably goes off to the Federal agency on collecting dust, where they send these commission reports that do not get a lot of attention. But I will tell you that I think there is a chance to strike a chord out across the country with the middle class. That was what was done in 1986 when, on a bipartisan basis, President Reagan and several leading Democrats said, as I am suggesting tonight: America can do better than to tax the middle-class person's wages at a higher rate than it does the people who make their money on capital gains and dividends. If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan in 1986, I think it ought to be pretty appealing to this Congress tonight and in the days ahead. Now that the debate has been joined, we have the advisory panel's proposal which shows again what their priorities are, which I have outlined tonight. I think they are unfortunate. The legislation I have authored would give significant tax cuts to middle-class folks by eliminating scores of exemptions and deductions and would reduce the Federal deficit at a time when these budget books are hemorrhaging. The debate is joined. There are two clear alternatives, two clear approaches to this issue of how to approach tax reform now on the table. I look forward to the debate. It is my hope that the Congress, as was done in 1986, can decide this is time to cleanse the Tax Code. Ever since 1986, one break, one exemption, one deduction after another has been added to the Code. Unfortunately, not many of those breaks went to the middle class. They did go to the fortunate few. Now we have a budget deficit that is hemorrhaging and a middle class that is hurting. Folks want to know what the difference is between the various parties with respect to tax reform. The difference could not be clearer tonight between what I have proposed, a Fair Flat Tax Act, and what the advisory panel proposed this afternoon. I hope the Senate can come together, as was done in 1986, and cleanse the tax system again, since that exercise has not been pursued in 20 years. It can be done on a bipartisan basis as was done in 1986. I look forward to working with colleagues. I serve on the Finance Committee where such a debate will start. I look forward to working with colleagues on a bipartisan basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proposing a Fair Flat Tax Act that will finally provide real tax relief to America's hurting middle class. It will do so by making the tax system simpler, flatter and fairer. And at the same time, it will begin to reduce the deficit that is destabilizing our economy, our security and our future. This tax reform proposal is simpler because it's easier to understand and use. My legislation will include a new, simplified 1040 form that is one page, 30 lines, for every individual taxpayer. This plan is flatter because it collapses the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three--15, 25 and 35 percent--and creates a flat corporate rate of 35 percent. Ultimately, this plan is fairer because it changes the laws that disproportionately favor the most affluent Americans and corporations at the expense of the middle class. Instead, it provides a major middle-class tax cut--paid for by the elimination of scores of tax breaks in the individual and corporate income tax breaks, and by repealing the Bush tax cuts that favored the most fortunate few at the expense of the many. This plan is fairer for American taxpayers because it treats work and wealth equally. This is a radical statement about tax law: America can do better than a two-tier system which forces a policeman to pay a higher effective tax rate than an investor who makes his income on capital gains and dividends. Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not created equal in this country. Americans who work for wages, in effect, subsidize the tax cuts and credits and deferrals of those who make money through unearned income--the dividends from investments. It's time to treat all taxpayers the same. Let me be clear: I am not interested in soaking investors. I am a Democrat who believes in markets, and creating wealth. But what our country is all about is equality, and our Tax Code should treat everyone's income more equally too. My legislation, The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, adapts the flat tax idea to help reduce the deficit instead, through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions, deferrals, credits and special rates for certain businesses and activities, and through the setting of a single, flat corporate rate of 35 percent. On the individual side, it ends favoritism for itemizers while improving deductions across the board: The standard deduction would be tripled for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raised from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. Six individual rates are collapsed into three progressive rates of 15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent, and income from all sources is taxed the same. Several deductions used most frequently by individuals, those for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and the credits for children, education and earned income are retained. No one would have to calculate their taxes twice: this proposal eliminates the individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which could snare as many as 21 million American taxpayers in 2006. This proposal would eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for corporations, and direct the Treasury Secretary to identify and report to Congress an additional $10 billion in savings from tax expenditures that subsidize inefficiencies in the health care system. Eliminating these breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans and the elderly and disabled--as well as breaks that promote savings and help families pay for health care and education. What makes the Fair Flat Tax Act truly unique is that it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system: regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low and middle income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy: compared to wealthy Americans, 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 wealthier taxpayers only pay five percent. And because many low and middle income taxpayers don't itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act for the first time the Federal code would look at the entire picture, at an individual's combined Federal, State and local tax burden, and give 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 some serious changes to the corporate Tax Code-- enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief. The deductions most important to most Americans remain in place: the home mortgage deduction stays, as do child credits and charitable contributions, higher education and health savings. What all this means for American taxpayers is--the vast majority of taxpayers will see a cut, particularly the middle class. Congressional Research Service experts tell us that middle class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 will see tax relief. On the corporate side--this plan does something that may not be popular, but it's right. Each of us, including America's corporations, need to pay our fair share. Corporations that have used tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes are going to see those loopholes close and they're going to contribute. This legislation makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. There's a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a real start by whittling the deficit down approximately $100 billion over five years. Some may wonder if what I am proposing today is a response to the President's Tax Reform Advisory Panel. To date, the Panel hasn't officially released its recommendations. I can't respond to something that hasn't been introduced yet. But I am troubled by the fact that the recommendations trickling out from the Panel would continue to twist the Tax Code away from equal treatment of all income, widening the chasm between people who get wages and people who collect dividends. I am introducing The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005 today to provide Americans a plan based on common-sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. Making the Tax Code simpler and flatter is going to make it fairer. My legislation is going to provide real relief to the middle class. It will treat work and wealth equally. It will make a start at reducing the deficit. I am ready to get to work with my colleagues and move it forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am proposing a Fair Flat Tax Act that will finally provide real tax relief to America's hurting middle class. It will do so by making the tax system simpler, flatter and fairer. And at the same time, it will begin to reduce the deficit that is destabilizing our economy, our security and our future. This tax reform proposal is simpler because it's easier to understand and use. My legislation will include a new, simplified 1040 form that is one page, 30 lines, for every individual taxpayer. This plan is flatter because it collapses the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three--15, 25 and 35 percent--and creates a flat corporate rate of 35 percent. Ultimately, this plan is fairer because it changes the laws that disproportionately favor the most affluent Americans and corporations at the expense of the middle class. Instead, it provides a major middle-class tax cut--paid for by the elimination of scores of tax breaks in the individual and corporate income tax breaks, and by repealing the Bush tax cuts that favored the most fortunate few at the expense of the many. This plan is fairer for American taxpayers because it treats work and wealth equally. This is a radical statement about tax law: America can do better than a two-tier system which forces a policeman to pay a higher effective tax rate than an investor who makes his income on capital gains and dividends. Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not created equal in this country. Americans who work for wages, in effect, subsidize the tax cuts and credits and deferrals of those who make money through unearned income--the dividends from investments. It's time to treat all taxpayers the same. Let me be clear: I am not interested in soaking investors. I am a Democrat who believes in markets, and creating wealth. But what our country is all about is equality, and our Tax Code should treat everyone's income more equally too. My legislation, The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005, adapts the flat tax idea to help reduce the deficit instead, through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions, deferrals, credits and special rates for certain businesses and activities, and through the setting of a single, flat corporate rate of 35 percent. On the individual side, it ends favoritism for itemizers while improving deductions across the board: The standard deduction would be tripled for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raised from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. Six individual rates are collapsed into three progressive rates of 15 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent, and income from all sources is taxed the same. Several deductions used most frequently by individuals, those for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, and the credits for children, education and earned income are retained. No one would have to calculate their taxes twice: this proposal eliminates the individual Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which could snare as many as 21 million American taxpayers in 2006. This proposal would eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for corporations, and direct the Treasury Secretary to identify and report to Congress an additional $10 billion in savings from tax expenditures that subsidize inefficiencies in the health care system. Eliminating these breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans and the elderly and disabled--as well as breaks that promote savings and help families pay for health care and education. What makes the Fair Flat Tax Act truly unique is that it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system: regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low and middle income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy: compared to wealthy Americans, 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 wealthier taxpayers only pay five percent. And because many low and middle income taxpayers don't itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act for the first time the Federal code would look at the entire picture, at an individual's combined Federal, State and local tax burden, and give 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 some serious changes to the corporate Tax Code-- enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief. The deductions most important to most Americans remain in place: the home mortgage deduction stays, as do child credits and charitable contributions, higher education and health savings. What all this means for American taxpayers is--the vast majority of taxpayers will see a cut, particularly the middle class. Congressional Research Service experts tell us that middle class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 will see tax relief. On the corporate side--this plan does something that may not be popular, but it's right. Each of us, including America's corporations, need to pay our fair share. Corporations that have used tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes are going to see those loopholes close and they're going to contribute. This legislation makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. There's a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a real start by whittling the deficit down approximately $100 billion over five years. Some may wonder if what I am proposing today is a response to the President's Tax Reform Advisory Panel. To date, the Panel hasn't officially released its recommendations. I can't respond to something that hasn't been introduced yet. But I am troubled by the fact that the recommendations trickling out from the Panel would continue to twist the Tax Code away from equal treatment of all income, widening the chasm between people who get wages and people who collect dividends. I am introducing The Fair Flat Tax Act of 2005 today to provide Americans a plan based on common-sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. Making the Tax Code simpler and flatter is going to make it fairer. My legislation is going to provide real relief to the middle class. It will treat work and wealth equally. It will make a start at reducing the deficit. I am ready to get to work with my colleagues and move it forward. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and 2005 marks more than 20 years that National Breast Cancer Awareness Month has educated women about early breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Yet, more than three million women currently live with breast cancer and the causes of this disease are still mostly unknown. While we have made significant advances in treatment, so much more needs to be done when it comes to prevention of this often fatal disease. The Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act, S. 757, would enhance breast cancer environmental research across the country. This bill which is modeled after the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, would over 5 years, invest $30 million through a peer-reviewed grant process to establish a multi-disciplinary approach. At this time, four research centers study prenatal-adult environmental exposures that may cause breast cancer. And while this is a good start, we need a nationally focused, collaborative and comprehensive strategy to approach this and the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act would do just that. This country has great resources when it comes to medical and scientific research. I believe this bill would provide an efficient and effective strategy for developing research in the environmental causes of this tragic disease.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a few months ago, the President signed into law an Energy bill that did virtually nothing to prepare America for any kind of crisis for a disruption in the oil supply. Now, a few months after that new law was signed, a scavenger hunt is underway to come up with yet another bill to address the issues that Congress ignored in the 2005 Energy bill. The problem is that much of the new legislation tracks the troublesome trends of the bill that was signed. What I want to do this morning is spend a few minutes talking about why I think that is the case, why I think this legislation is misguided, and then to suggest some alternatives. The central problem, in my view, is that this new legislation essentially says to these well-stuffed, well-oiled energy lobbies: We will give you more than you got. This is on top of the fact that oil refiners have seen their profits skyrocket by 255 percent over the last year, an extraordinary fact--a 255-percent increase in profits for the oil-refining sector. And now we are talking about another piece of legislation to subsidize these folks and others who are literally swimming in cash today. I do not believe that one of Congress's top priorities, after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, should be to help these special interest lobbies that already are swimming in cash. There are too many Americans who are far from swimming in those kinds of funds. They are still trying to clean up the flood waters. They are mucking out their homes in the State of the Presiding Officer, Louisiana. They are trying to rebuild from the rubble of south Mississippi. Many of them do not have a dime to their name. I believe it would be shameful if Congress returns to business as usual writing blank checks for these powerful energy lobbies, using the storms in the wake of these hurricanes as an excuse, as a Trojan horse, for handouts to the powerful energy lobbies in this country. Let me outline the exact status of the subsidies that are on the books now and what was added in the bill in 2005. Under the laws already on the books before the Energy bill was enacted, oil and gas industries were on tap to get about $1.4 billion in tax breaks and other subsidies for a total of $6 billion in taxpayer subsidies over the next 5 years. With the Energy bill signed into law, the oil and gas interests will get another $2.6 billion of additional tax breaks and subsidies on top of what they were already slated to receive. That includes an ability to write off up to 50 percent of their costs in the first year, to name just one of the special interest breaks that was in the legislation. But now we are talking about letting those who have received these huge subsidies get another opportunity at the all-you-can-eat buffet. So the taxpayers and consumers who are footing the bill for hurricane cleanup, paying for tax cuts for some who are extremely affluent, are now going to be faced with the prospect of paying for additional subsidies for these energy interests. Two weeks ago, the House passed legislation to provide additional financial subsidies to benefit the oil refining industry. Under the House legislation, refineries would get a regulatory risk insurance program to cover all the refineries' costs if their production is reduced because of a delay in the permitting process. There is no limit on the amount of these subsidies for refineries, while the refineries get essentially guaranteed cost protection. What the Federal Government is essentially doing is privatizing the gains of these refineries and socializing the risks. There is absolutely nothing in the legislation to require refineries to protect consumers from the soaring costs they face today. In my view, there is no need for these refiners, whose profits increased more than 250 percent in the last year, to get even greater financial rewards on top of the subsidies they are already getting in the brandnew energy law. In effect, what we are talking about is the prospect that these energy lobbies will become triple-dippers. They already received big subsidies in the old law. Then they received additional subsidies in the just-signed legislation. We are talking about a third dip, a third round of subsidies, and I happen to think that is too much. Even the President said when oil is trading at upwards of $55 a barrel the oil companies do not need incentives to produce more. When the President, who certainly is not hostile to oil interests, says the oil companies do not need a deal from the Government, that ought to tell us something. With oil selling for what is getting to be close to $70 a barrel, Congress should not be giving more taxpayer money away to these energy interests. What I suggest is two practical steps that Congress ought to look at as we consider energy legislation in the days ahead. First, I think the Congress should freeze the new subsidies that Congress lavished on the oil interests that are now earning record profits from record high prices. Nobody is talking about taking away what was there before the 2005 law was passed. What was there before the 2005 law was passed would remain in place. What I am talking about this morning is freezing the new subsidies, the new dollars that Congress just passed, despite the fact that the President of the United States said it was not even needed. What I would propose by freezing those new subsidies is that the Congress redirect those dollars to help low-income Americans who are at risk, literally, of freezing in their homes this winter. For example, the $2.6 billion in new subsidies for oil interests could be used to pay for weatherization assistance to more than 1 million low-income homes, taking basic steps to improve energy conservation. Adding insulation and sealing energy-leaking windows and doors can help these families reduce their heating bills substantially. Congress could help consumers further by using the Federal Government's purchasing power to make taxpayer energy dollars go further. The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the country. The Federal Government could use its substantial purchasing power to get some real discounts in the marketplace for the Government's energy purchases. These cost savings could be achieved not only for direct energy purchases for Federal agencies' power needs but especially for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Instead of reimbursing consumers for their sky high energy bills when they come due, the billions of dollars spent each year under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program could be used up front to acquire lower cost energy to help low-income Americans. So the question is, Is the Federal Government going to be a smart shopper? Is the Federal Government going to use its marketplace clout for programs such as the one that serves low-income people to make sure that the Government gets more for its money? Everybody in the private sector shops that way. They are in a position to make volume purchases. They go to the people with whom they contract, and they say: We are going to buy a lot of your product, give us a deal. This is essentially what I am proposing be done for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program: the Federal Government use its clout in the marketplace, the Federal Government use its purchasing power to get discounts for this program and to acquire lower cost energy to help low-income Americans. The bottom line is our country can do better. I believe we could have done better in the Energy bill that was just passed. It seems incredible that just a few months after that law was passed and there were great celebrations about what a difference it would make, now the Congress is back on a scavenger hunt to try to come up with legislation that does what should have been done in the first bill. The reality is we now have a second chance to do better. I am of the view that lives depend on the Congress doing better not just in homes where heat is going to be scarce this winter but for generations to come. When I came to the Senate floor to speak in opposition to the Energy bill a few months ago, I was sorry because that legislation failed to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil by one drop. It failed to reduce the prospects that America would again go to war in the Persian Gulf. After 9/11, it became clear that the energy policy was a national security issue and reducing our dependence on foreign oil had to be a national security priority. I am of the view that the great tragedy in the 2005 Energy bill is that it essentially ratified pre-9/11 energy priorities. For the longer term, Congress should look at smart, probusiness, and proconsumer initiatives. I am willing, for example, to look at a limited antitrust exemption to let oil companies coordinate the refinery shutdowns expressly to keep supplies up and prices down. So there can be plenty of opportunities to put together a business and consumer coalition to meet the needs of our public. I just suggested something that I suspect in the southern part of the United States, in the State of Louisiana, would be something that would be well received by oil refiners, but I am also saying that at a time when refiner profits are up more than 250 percent that we ought to be looking at other ideas that really help the consumer. When gas prices are topping $3 a gallon and we are seeing these increases in home heating prices, we know the public is prepared for change. I have laid out a number of areas this morning where change would be in the interest of the consuming public and be smart probusiness policy, but I think there ought to be more to an energy policy than just ladling out tax subsidies. We have done that again and again. The Congress just poured on more subsidies in the 2005 bill and did absolutely nothing to deal with the crisis that we have seen in the last few months. So at this crucial time, with the eyes of the country upon us, let us look at a fresh energy policy, one that will meet this country's national security needs, one that will meet the needs of our consumers this winter at a time when they are so vulnerable. And let us learn that just handing out subsidies willy-nilly is not going to make the real energy problems of this country go away. It is no time to further sate the appetites of the entrenched energy interests. It is time, and there is a chance now, for a fresh start on energy policy. This time, with the next Energy bill, let us do right by the people of this country. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristen Averyt, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize and give thanks to the Jewish community's tremendous relief efforts in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Countless Jewish individuals and organizations have stepped up to combat this national crisis, providing the victims of Hurricane Katrina with money, supplies and volunteers, while opening the doors of their homes, schools and synagogues. I would like to highlight a few of these efforts. Millions of dollars haven been raised in the name of the Katrina victims. The United Jewish Communities, local federations throughout the United States and Canada, and their partners have raised at least $14 million, including a $500,000 donation given by the Baltimore-based Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation Inc. The Weinberg Foundation gave another $500,000 to Catholic Relief Charities. A smaller, but no less inspiring, fund was raised by students of the Sacramento, CA Shalom School, which donated proceeds from sales of their Rosh Hashanah honey pots. Educational aid for displaced students has come from Jewish organizations such as the Avi Chai Foundation, a group sending emergency grant money to the dozens of Jewish day schools that are admitting evacuees into their classrooms. And the Jewish Agency for Israel, MASA--the Gateway to Long-Term Israel Programs and Hillel are coordinating efforts to allow displaced students to take classes at Israeli universities. I would also like to recognize the synagogues that are contributing their resources to the effort by providing housing, schooling and free synagogue memberships--even adopting other synagogues in impacted states damaged by the storm. But the Jewish assistance provided to the victims of Hurricane Katrina does not stop at our borders. The State of Israel has been incredibly generous as well, donating 80 tons of supplies including 15 tons of bottled water, 4 tons of rations, 4 tons of diapers, 1 ton of baby food, Medical supplies including adult and children's wheelchairs and crutches, thousands of first-aid kits and thousands of blankets and cots. They have also sent teams of professionals trained in disaster relief to assist victims of this terrible disaster, including doctors, paramedics, mental health professionals, search and rescue teams and disaster relief planning and operations specialists. In times such as these, it is critical that people of all faiths come together to help those in need and I am proud to see that the Jewish community has stepped up and met the challenge head on.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it seems to me that the bottom line is we want Federal workers in the hurricane zone to have all the tools they need to get the job done. But a month after the hurricane hit, we do not need $250,000 worth of authority on a credit card. One needs permission to spend that kind of money. The fact is, under the current rules one can have it when they need it, just not on a credit card where they do not even have to ask. This is a commonsense step. Senator Dorgan indicated if somebody needs to spend more than $15,000 a shot, there are already streamlined, simplified acquisition procedures in place to let them do that. Those procedures at least have some oversight. The two of us supported the Katrina bills that came through the Congress. We support the rule that was already in place that increases the spending power of these cards by a reasonable amount in an emergency from $2,500 to $15,000. What the two of us feel strongly about and what we do not support is how can one support excessive spending without any safeguards at all? We heard from a Dr. Yukins at George Washington that there is extraordinary potential for abuse here. Dr. Yukins said it was staggering. In looking at Government waste at a variety of agencies, Senator Dorgan and I have come to the conclusion that when one is talking about the Department of Homeland Security, when one is talking about the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and when one is talking about the Department of Defense, what one needs is more accountability and more oversight rather than less. In Homeland Security, we have seen massive outlays for ineffective programs to hire the TSA screeners. At FEMA, it is hard to know where to start there, but folks may have heard on public radio yesterday that a Government Accountability Office audit more than a year ago said that only one in several dozen FEMA employees could prove that they had done the proper paperwork for procurement authority. When it comes to Iraq, all one needs to do there is talk about Iraqi contracts. Senator Dorgan and I have tried to put in place some oversight and some accountability there, and we will continue on that as well. So this is not the only avenue for abuse of taxpayer dollars. If one wants to come to the floor and talk about no-bid contracts and the like, there is plenty to dig into in terms of more oversight and more accountability for our taxpayers. This is a commonsense step that the Senate can take. I have listened to Senator Collins on this issue, as well as Senator Grassley. A number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about this in effect blank check to use credit cards, and use them on some pretty high ticket items. I am going to yield the floor back to Senator Dorgan, but given the fact that there is a catalog of abuses--this happened outside the hurricane zone before anybody knew about Katrina--let us now deal with an emergency, let us recognize that there are different spending needs given that emergency, but let us also make sure that there are some safeguards in place to make sure the taxpayers' interests at a critical time when costs in Government are exploding, let us make sure there are some safeguards in place to protect the public. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague yielding to me and particularly highlighting the need for some real accountability and protection for the taxpayers at this time. We are seeing expenses for the Government-- the war in Iraq, the various disasters that have hit--exploding to the point where people are saying, well, let us hold off on giving senior citizens some help with their prescription drugs. I think what the Senator is saying is, before one takes those kinds of steps, put the brakes on the opportunity for ripping off taxpayers. I want to ask the Senator a question that really stunned me. There are now about 392,000 Federal employees who have these credit cards across the country. We have been trying to figure out how many folks have them on the gulf coast and how many of the folks have this $250,000 authority. The two of us feel very strongly that there are a lot of dedicated people down there who are working very hard and nobody is suggesting otherwise, but what possible argument would there be for not having something along the lines of some guardrails to try to make sure that people did not abuse these credit cards? That strikes me as a pretty modest step, just have some guardrails rather than saying, look, go out and take $250,000 worth of authority and we will see what happens.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it seems to me that the bottom line is we want Federal workers in the hurricane zone to have all the tools they need to get the job done. But a month after the hurricane hit, we do not need $250,000 worth of authority on a credit card. One needs permission to spend that kind of money. The fact is, under the current rules one can have it when they need it, just not on a credit card where they do not even have to ask. This is a commonsense step. Senator Dorgan indicated if somebody needs to spend more than $15,000 a shot, there are already streamlined, simplified acquisition procedures in place to let them do that. Those procedures at least have some oversight. The two of us supported the Katrina bills that came through the Congress. We support the rule that was already in place that increases the spending power of these cards by a reasonable amount in an emergency from $2,500 to $15,000. What the two of us feel strongly about and what we do not support is how can one support excessive spending without any safeguards at all? We heard from a Dr. Yukins at George Washington that there is extraordinary potential for abuse here. Dr. Yukins said it was staggering. In looking at Government waste at a variety of agencies, Senator Dorgan and I have come to the conclusion that when one is talking about the Department of Homeland Security, when one is talking about the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and when one is talking about the Department of Defense, what one needs is more accountability and more oversight rather than less. In Homeland Security, we have seen massive outlays for ineffective programs to hire the TSA screeners. At FEMA, it is hard to know where to start there, but folks may have heard on public radio yesterday that a Government Accountability Office audit more than a year ago said that only one in several dozen FEMA employees could prove that they had done the proper paperwork for procurement authority. When it comes to Iraq, all one needs to do there is talk about Iraqi contracts. Senator Dorgan and I have tried to put in place some oversight and some accountability there, and we will continue on that as well. So this is not the only avenue for abuse of taxpayer dollars. If one wants to come to the floor and talk about no-bid contracts and the like, there is plenty to dig into in terms of more oversight and more accountability for our taxpayers. This is a commonsense step that the Senate can take. I have listened to Senator Collins on this issue, as well as Senator Grassley. A number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about this in effect blank check to use credit cards, and use them on some pretty high ticket items. I am going to yield the floor back to Senator Dorgan, but given the fact that there is a catalog of abuses--this happened outside the hurricane zone before anybody knew about Katrina--let us now deal with an emergency, let us recognize that there are different spending needs given that emergency, but let us also make sure that there are some safeguards in place to make sure the taxpayers' interests at a critical time when costs in Government are exploding, let us make sure there are some safeguards in place to protect the public. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague yielding to me and particularly highlighting the need for some real accountability and protection for the taxpayers at this time. We are seeing expenses for the Government-- the war in Iraq, the various disasters that have hit--exploding to the point where people are saying, well, let us hold off on giving senior citizens some help with their prescription drugs. I think what the Senator is saying is, before one takes those kinds of steps, put the brakes on the opportunity for ripping off taxpayers. I want to ask the Senator a question that really stunned me. There are now about 392,000 Federal employees who have these credit cards across the country. We have been trying to figure out how many folks have them on the gulf coast and how many of the folks have this $250,000 authority. The two of us feel very strongly that there are a lot of dedicated people down there who are working very hard and nobody is suggesting otherwise, but what possible argument would there be for not having something along the lines of some guardrails to try to make sure that people did not abuse these credit cards? That strikes me as a pretty modest step, just have some guardrails rather than saying, look, go out and take $250,000 worth of authority and we will see what happens.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 5 years have passed since the Presidential election of 2000, and legitimate questions about the outcome of that campaign have left too much of America too divided. Legitimate questions about the outcome of that election have given rise to an ever-growing polarization between so-called red and blue States, between liberals and conservatives, and between Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. Despite a somewhat more convincing outcome in the 2004 Presidential election, the divisions caused by the events of 2000 show little sign of abating. Having closely observed this widening divide, I now wonder whether Judge Roberts' confirmation will add to the bitterness and distrust of the Federal Government or whether it may serve to remind the people and the lawmakers they elect that we cannot move forward as a nation if we remain dedicated to tearing each other down. This is my first vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States, and my obligation as articulated in the Constitution is to either consent or not consent to a choice specifically entrusted to the elected President of the United States. Some of the policy watchdogs that I respect the most and agree with on so many issues have asked whether I oppose Judge Roberts because he is not one of us, because he is too conservative, because he is too young, because he may prove effective. He is not whom we would choose, they say. And on that point, I am in full agreement. Should the test to confirm a Chief Justice be, he is not one we would choose? I ask my friends to imagine the mess we will have left for our country if the Senate uses this test and votes solely on the basis of a nominee's political beliefs. Friends who a year ago said, We don't want ideologues appointed to the Supreme Court, now want John Roberts and the next nominee to show up at the witness table to submit to an ideological litmus test. Here is my message to those friends: A sword forged in ideology in 2005 can be used against a progressive nominee in 2009 with an equal disregard for the Constitution and the individual. In 2008, I fully intend to work harder than ever before to elect a President who rejects the dangerous priorities that have led us to war in Iraq and an energy policy that is folly, that assures our continued dependence on foreign oil. Should this new Democratic President have to contend with a Republican Senate majority, he or she better hope that the judicial nominations in 2005 did not become purely ideology- driven contests. If these debates are purely partisan, our future will include constitutional bedlam whenever a Supreme Court opening occurs while the Senate is controlled by the opposition party. I reject the suggestion that a Republican nominee is, per se, objectionable. A number of certainly moderate justices nominated by Republican Presidents certainly belie this claim. The decision each Senator must make should be based on the judicial nominee that is before the Senate, not the one that we wish was before the Senate. To put this into historial perspective under the advice and consent responsibility assigned to the President, the President's judicial nominees to the Court have traditionally been given a large degree of deference. For example, in spite of the divisive national debate surrounding gays in the military, universal health care, Travelgate, Filegate, and the Whitewater investigation, this deference translated into 96 votes for Justice Ginsburg and 87 votes for Justice Breyer when their nominations came to a vote before the Senate. Yet these are two of the most progressive voices in the over 200-year history of the Court. When I had the opportunity to meet with John Roberts in my office this past August, I pressed him to tell me how he viewed some of the issues that have most divided our country. The answers Judge Roberts gave me during the hour we spent together left me with the impression that he will be his own man on the Court. Here are my judgments about the individual before the Senate now: One, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see Judge Roberts as a man who will walk into the white pillard building across the street and set about tearing apart the fabric of our society; two, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see Judge Roberts as a judicial activist who would place ideological purity or a particular agenda above or ahead of the need for thoughtful reason; three, on the basis of his public testimony, it is hard to see Judge Roberts as a divisive, confrontational extremist who would try to further exploit the divisions in our country. What I saw in his public testimony and in our private meeting is an intelligent, thoughtful man, certainly a deeply conservative man with a tempered view of the role of Government. At his Judiciary Committee hearings, nothing he said in public conflicted with what he had told me in private. In addition to meeting with him, I have scrutinized Judge Roberts and his record closely, considering his Reagan-era documents, reading the news analysis printed in papers across our country and listened to the hearings and reviewed the transcripts of them as well. No one disputes that Judge Roberts has a brilliant legal mind. My analysis of his record leads me to conclude that he is not cut from the same originalist cloth as Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. He does not seem to believe that the words of the Constitution are fossilized, leaving only a one-size-fits-all, 18th century remedy for every problem that our society confronts. It is hard not to get the sense that he believes in limited government. Back in March, I led the effort in the Senate to block attempts to dictate a specific medical treatment in Terri Schiavo's tragic case because I believed the Constitution affords families the right to decide these matters privately. This is an area, in my view, in which the Federal Government has no business intruding. Involving itself in the Schiavo case, Congress was inappropriately meddling and blatantly ignoring the limits of its constitutional authority. I believe that the Terri Schiavo case is the first of many such end- of-life cases that will arrive at the Supreme Court's doorstep. In my view, most of these cases will involve one individual and passionately held views. Demographic trends and improvements in medical technology assure that there will be many of these cases. Given what is ahead, I felt I had an obligation to examine how Judge Roberts saw end-of-life issues in the context of the Constitution and whether he would be willing to manipulate its meaning to authorize Government intrusion in private family matters. When I met with Judge Roberts in August, we discussed end-of-life issues at length, not because this was a litmus test for me, and I certainly don't believe in litmus tests, but because I thought it was important to carefully consider Judge Roberts' judicial temperament on this critical issue. Judge Roberts did not say how he would have handled the Schiavo case or any case before the Court. However, Judge Roberts did say quite a bit that made a lot of sense to me and I think would make sense to the vast majority of Americans. Judge Roberts agreed that there is a constitutionally based privacy right and that while the scope of the privacy right is still being defined in the context of end-of-life care, he said that when he approached the issue, he starts with the proposition that each person has the right to be left alone and that their liberty interests should be factored in as well. At his hearing, Judge Roberts reiterated his position, stating that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. He stated that privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments, and he stated this liberty interest is protected substantively as well as procedurally. While discussing the Schiavo tragedy during our August meeting, I also asked him about Congress's authority to legislate a particular remedy in a particular case, and Judge Roberts expressed his concern about judicial independence. It was apparent to me Judge Roberts understands there are constitutional limits to the recent enthusiasm of Congress to prescribe particular remedies in a particular end-of-life case. Concerning States rights to regulate medical practice and the scope of the 10th amendment, Judge Roberts stated he believed the Framers expected States to do most of the regulating and that they expected most regulation to be State-based. In his view, the basic genius of the Federal system is that it affords different States the ability to approach problems in a way that is best suited to meet their different needs, and that imposing uniformity across the country would stifle the genius of our Founding Fathers. Judge Roberts also told me he attaches great importance to legislative history in interpreting law. He repeated this point several times during his public hearings. Those who have closely studied former Attorney General Ashcroft's challenge to the Oregon physician-assisted suicide law know there is not one word in the Controlled Substances Act, the law used to launch the case, indicating the Controlled Substances Act is aimed at or should be used to overturn or undermine the right of States to regulate medical practices within their borders. On the extremely important matter of a woman's right to choose, I asked Judge Roberts about Roe. He did not offer specific comments, but his response indicated he would not enter the Court with an ``agenda'' and he would respect the Court's precedents. In the public hearings, he also said he personally agreed with the conclusion of the Griswold and Eisenstat decisions, which held that the privacy right protects the right of individuals to use birth control. His opinions on the issues that matter indicate he is intelligent, thoughtful, and that he has a tempered view of the role of the Federal Government. Judge Roberts' combination of temperament and intelligence give him the potential to be a conciliatory voice at a divisive time in American history. He has the skills to reach across the divisions in America to show that justice can be a healing force for the wounds that cut our society so deeply. He can help to unify the country by building a record of well-reasoned opinions grounded in the rule of law, not ideology. He will receive my vote tomorrow to be the next Chief Justice of the United States. I want to make one final point, Mr. President, a point that is important to me. There is another vacancy on the Court, and the President is expected to send forth his nominee soon. My intention to vote for Judge Roberts tomorrow should in no way be construed as a ``weathervane'' for how I might vote on the next nominee. In the past, I have not hesitated to vote against several of the President's nominees to the courts of appeals when they carried the ideological and activist baggage I believed would be disruptive to our society. If the President puts forward a nominee to replace Justice O'Connor who is unlikely to ably and respectfully fill her shoes, I will vigorously oppose that nomination. I began by voicing my question about the impact of this nomination on the body politic of our country. Among the many awesome duties of the Chief Justice, no duty is of greater importance than the duty to unify our Nation when Americans find themselves in disagreement. Different Chief Justices have shouldered this burden with varying degrees of success. This ability to unify is what is most sorely needed at this moment in our Nation's history, and I am of the opinion that Judge Roberts possesses the nature and the desire to unify the Court and, with it, our Nation. I wish him wisdom, diplomacy, and moderation as he prepares to assume this critical role. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I want to draw attention to the 11th annual National Assisted Living Week, which begins on September 11 and continues through September 17. Created in 1995 by the National Center for Assisted Living, and being celebrated for the second time in conjunction with the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging and Assisted Living Federation of America, National Assisted Living Week emphasizes the importance of assisted living services to the more than 1 million seniors and persons with disabilities who rely on them every day. The theme for this week is ``A Fair to Remember.'' The theme encourages assisted living facilities to create their own ``Fair'' environment for the residents, families, staff, volunteers and local community and to celebrate their time together and share the fun with family and friends. Assisted living continues to grow in importance as our society's demographics change and as we live longer. Seniors and their families want a homelike setting and are seeking alternatives to nursing homes. Because assisted living has been able to develop to meet community needs, it can be very different in different States. However, the goal is the same: to provide quality care for those who need some help in caring for themselves but are not in need of the care provided by a nursing home. My home State of Oregon pioneered the concept of assisted living, and I am proud of my State's ability to continue to evolve the concept so that it meets the changing needs of seniors. All of us want to be in a safe environment and as independent as possible for as long as possible. Assisted living provides care while maintaining the dignity of the individuals they serve. Our Nation must continue to support those long-term care options that allow consumers the care setting that is appropriate for their needs.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment introduced by my colleague, Senator Harkin, from Iowa, which would increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $38.2 million to $363 million. If there was ever a time to provide adequate funding for legal services for the poor, that time is now. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, there will be thousands and thousands of Americans in desperate need of legal advice who lack the resources to hire their own attorneys or the skills necessary to meet the legal challenges they must confront. These are the same folks that didn't have the means to get out of harm's way when the hurricane struck. These are the same folks that waited for days on their rooftops, at the New Orleans Convention Center, the Superdome, and so many other places down on the Gulf Coast to be rescued. These are the same folks that now must rebuild their lives--often times from scratch. They will need legal assistance. Congress needs to step in and help make this a reality. And Congress needs to step and increase funding so that the thousands of other Americans--in addition to the victims of Katrina--who are unable to afford legal advice get the access to justice that they deserve. How can it be, in a country where we teach our children from an early age the Pledge of Allegiance and its closing words--``with liberty and justice for all''--so many children and their families cannot obtain equal access to justice? How can it be, in a country that saw an historic economic boom in the last decade, that 80 percent of low-income Americans still lack access to a lawyer when they're in serious legal situations? How can it be, in a country as strong and rich as this one, that tens of thousands of Americans who need legal representation are turned away every year because their Government won't support the very program designed to help them? This year, the House has appropriated only $324.5 million in funding for Legal Services. The current version of the Senate CJS Appropriations bill funds the program at about the same level. This is less than Legal Services received in FY 2005. It's almost $40 million less than the FY 2006 budget request made by the bipartisan Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors. In fact, the current level of funding is not much more than it was in 1981--in real dollars. The issues that Legal Aid works to address are not esoteric legal questions. They are issues of life and death and food and shelter. When folks who are already hurting can't get the legal representation they need, all too often it gets harder to put food on the table and harder to pay the rent and harder to get the medicine for the kids or for Grandma. In the State of Oregon, the need for legal aid is clear, and the choice to fund it should be obvious. Oregon's Legal Aid programs are the primary source of representation available to more than 500,000 low-income folks in my State, and they assist 20,000 of those low- income Oregonians every year. But because of Legal Aid funding shortfalls in recent years, the Oregon programs have had to layoff staff, cut salaries for remaining staff, slash their medical benefits, freeze vacancies, and close the Klamath Falls office. Less than 20 percent of low income Oregonians have access to an attorney who could make a critical difference in helping them deal with a legal issue--from a getting restraining order from an abusive boyfriend to helping a predatory lending victim. The idea that Legal Aid is the practice of political law is preposterous. It's simply making sure that legal services are available for the very people who need them most. Make no mistake--State, local and private resources are providing the vast majority of Legal Aid funding in Oregon and elsewhere. In 1980, Federal funding accounted for 80 percent of the total legal aid money in Oregon. In 2005, Federal funding accounts for 28 percent. Everyone else is doing their part to provide these folks with equal access to justice--it's time that the Federal Government did its part too. I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina and poor Americans throughout the United States, who, as children, stood in their classrooms with their hands over their hearts and recited the Pledge of Allegiance and the words ``with liberty and justice for all'' will not find out those words were a lie. I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina living in the Houston Astrodome will have legal help they need when applying for food stamps and other forms of assistance available to them. I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina relocated to San Antonio will get legal help they need to deal with their insurance companies. I am determined that the victims of Hurricane Katrina spread all across the country will get the legal assistance they need to rebuild their homes--and their lives. With Federal, State and local partners working together, we can ensure equal access to the law for all Americans, including the thousands and thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on July 30, 1965, legislation was signed into law that created two fundamental programs: Medicare and Medicaid. The creation of those programs was a landmark for this country. When signing the Medicare legislation 40 years ago, President Johnson remarked, ``We marvel not simply at the passage of this bill, what we marvel at is that it took so many years to pass it.'' At that time, senior citizens were identified as the group most likely to be living in poverty in the U.S. Many had no type of health insurance. Since 1965, and largely thanks to Medicare and the access it has afforded seniors, the poverty rate has dropped significantly and older Americans are enjoying longer and healthier lives. As John Gardner, Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary during President Johnson's administration, once stated, ``Medicare was a great turning point, but it has to be continually revised.'' And Medicare has changed. Since 1972, Medicare has also included Americans with disabilities and those with end stage renal disease bringing access and coverage to millions of Americans in need of it. In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act to add a prescription drug benefit. Medicare began with about 19 million seniors, but faces an estimated 77 million Americans, almost double the number of Americans enrolled in the program now in 2030. These Medicare beneficiaries will live longer, and face very different needs than the first 19 million. With the creation of Medicaid, our Nation affirmed that we wanted those who were poor to be able to have health care. Like Medicare, Medicaid has faced changes. Other categories of people in need have been added; States like my home State of Oregon have been able to experiment in creative ways to provide care to more people; and as more seniors need long-term care and do not have the funds to pay for it, Medicaid plays an important role in providing long-term care. Medicaid has uniquely borne the brunt of the failings of the health care system. For many, this program is a lifesaver and it must be maintained. Both Medicare and Medicaid are facing financial crises. Those who fought hard for the creation of these fundamental programs could not have foreseen the technology and scientific breakthroughs that would change health care delivery. Nor could they have foreseen the costs. We need to continually revise these programs to find better ways to provide affordable care and to assure that these programs are up to date with the best science and medicine but--that they keep their original purpose--to provide care to those who are aged, disabled, or poor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will safeguard and promote specialty crops and value-added agriculture in Oregon and in the United States. The great farmers and ranchers of Oregon produce over 200 commodities. This bill intends to improve their marketing opportunities, help Oregon farmers and processors get better prices for their products, and help Oregon farmers and processors compete in an increasingly global market. As it will help Oregon farmers so it will help specialty crop farmers from New York to Florida, Wisconsin to California. I introduce this bill as my colleague from Oregon, Congresswoman Hooley, introduces the same bill in the House of Representatives. In the increasingly technological world of microchips, products like potato chips and other agricultural commodities still remain a large part of Oregon's economy. In fact, agriculture is Oregon's second largest traded sector and Oregon's second largest export, behind the electronics industry. Oregon agriculture creates more than $8 billion of direct and indirect economic activity, in both urban and rural areas in the state. At the center of this bill is the expansion of a specialty crop grant program, authorized by Congress in 2001, of which Oregon producers have already made use. Oregon received about $3.2 million that was used for over 50 projects involving product development, marketing, research, and export promotion. The Oregon Department of Agriculture estimates that over 3000 producers benefited from these projects. They also estimate that enhanced sales resulting from these projects reached $20 million--about six times what was invested. The problem with this pilot program was the grants were only available once. Last year Congress passed legislation that reinstated these specialty crop grants but at funding level that would provide only around $500,000 to Oregon. This legislation raises the authorized level to $500 million and makes the grant program permanent. Under this expansion Oregon has the potential to receive $5 million a year in specialty crop grants. The bill I am introducing today also improves USDA's value added grant program. Right now this program is run by bureaucrats in Washington, DC who have probably never been to Oregon and probably couldn't name the top Oregon specialty crops. My office has heard numerous complaints that this program is unwieldy, bureaucratic, and difficult to navigate. Last year every applicant from Oregon was disqualified on a technicality. This bill would make one simple but very important change: instead of having the Federal Government distribute the money, each State would get a share of the money to hand out to their chosen priorities. Between these two grant programs each State in the union should have plenty of money to implement agricultural promotion strategies that match the needs of its individual growers, processors, and citizens. This bill also authorizes funds for farmers and processors to become ``certified.'' Certification comes in many forms like ``Good Agricultural Practices,'' ``Good Handling Practices,'' or ``Organic.'' Often getting certified is necessary before farmers or processors can effectively market products whether in local grocery stores or to foreign countries. Certified products often fetch premium prices. To encourage farmers to get these certifications and increase their market share this legislation would have the USDA reimburse half the cost of the certifications. Last, this legislation improves opportunities for specialty crop farmers to get crop insurance, increase loan availability, provide additional funding for export promotion, and make sure that American trade policy takes specialty crops into account. I know that Oregonians doing a great job growing some of the best quality crops in the world. There are a lot of challenges facing agriculture: cheap imports, low commodity prices, taxation, labor, and dozens of others. This bill won't solve everything, but I think it will make an important contribution to improving Oregon agriculture by making it more competitive on a global level and helping farmers get a decent price for what they produce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure the enactment of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.