Gasoline Free Market Competition Act of 2003

Mr. President, last week I took the floor of the Senate to note the decision which has been made by National Public Radio concerning the host of Morning Edition with Bob Edwards. It was announced in the Washington Post that National Public Radio management had decided after some 24 years to relieve Mr. Edwards of his responsibility as host of the morning show. There was not much given by way of explanation, and it was clear from comments by Bob Edwards that it wasn't his decision.

It has been interesting since I took the floor and noted my disappointment over that decision the response which I received from my colleagues in Congress. It turns out Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle feel as I do--that this decision by National Public Radio is the wrong decision; that Bob Edwards, who has been not only a host of this program but the most successful morning voice in America, is being moved away from this assignment in a situation and in a circumstance that is almost impossible to understand.

Many of my colleagues have come to me and asked, What can we do? Can we go after the appropriations of NPR? I don't recommend that at all. I think National Public Radio is such an important institution more than any single individual that we should do this in a positive and constructive fashion.

What I encourage my colleagues to do is to remember that National Public Radio is, in fact, public radio; that all of us who enjoy it so much, who rely on it so much, and who contribute to it from our own individual finances, have a responsibility if we disagree with this decision by the management. I have encouraged my friends and those who feel as I do to get onto their Internet and e-mail, and to e-mail NPR.org, to do it immediately and let them know that their decision to remove Bob Edwards at the end of this month of April is the wrong decision. I have done it myself.

I have received a reply from Mr. Kernis which, frankly, I find very troubling. When asked why they think this man who has become such an institution in America should be removed, the response is nothing short of gobbledygook. They talk about bringing someone who has depth and experience. But who else would you turn to rather than Bob Edwards?

I would like to make part of the Record at the end of my statement a series of columns and editorials from across the United States from those who enjoy Bob Edwards in the morning and can't imagine public radio without him. Some of these, starting with the Chicago Tribune, were published recently as the news reached that city of the decision by National Public Radio.

As they said in this editorial in the Chicago Tribune, people do not understand why this decision was made. Here is what they concluded in the Tribune editorial about Bob Edwards:

In contrast to their audience, though, NPR executives seem

to have forgotten about the public part of their title. In

commercial broadcasting, a beloved host who had presided over

huge ratings gains would almost never be nudged aside. Public

broadcasting is valuable precisely because it is relatively

free from such worldly concerns. But it is also, effectively,

a public trust, and for the public to continue to trust it,

this institution needs to do a better job of explaining its

momentous decisions. This is not the only newspaper, by far.

In the St. Louis area, Linda Ellerbee, known to many of us because of her news reporting and posting of programs wrote: ``Time and Age: NPR Tossing Out Bob Edwards.'' Linda Ellerbee should know. She was moved away from a television network position because they thought for a woman she was too old. She says:

But we're not aging the way our parents did. We're

reinventing the process. Besides, there are a lot of us out

here.

The point she made in her article about Bob Edwards is at his advanced age of 56--which I still consider very young--he speaks not only to people of my generation but so many older and younger. If it is the marketing belief of NPR they need to have a new, fresh voice, they are missing the big picture.

For 24 years every morning when my clock radio goes on, I hear Bob Edwards. I know whether times are bad, dangerous, or peaceful. I can count on him. I have done it this morning. I have done it so many mornings. I cannot imagine ``Morning Edition'' without him.

There is also a comment from the Washington Post, Richard Cohen. He tells about the same experience.

Now the news from NPR is that Edwards will soon be gone.

He talked about the fact he may just decide to start listening to Mozart on disk, rather than turning on ``Morning Edition.'' He says:

NPR Executive Vice President Ken Stern told the Washington

Post that the firing of Edwards was part of a ``natural

evolution,'' that had ``to do with the changing needs of our

listeners.'' What ``natural evolution''? What does that mean?

And what is ``changing needs''?

Mr. Cohen goes on to say to the Washington Post:

Listen, Ken, my needs haven't changed. I still want news in

the morning. I still want smart features. I do not want

interviews with airheaded celebrities a la Matt and Katie or,

worse, interviews with the latest humorousless person Donald

Trump has just fired from ``The Apprentice.''

He concludes:

But the firing-cum-transfer of Edwards (he may become a

senior correspondent) is nonetheless disquieting. Maybe my

fear is misplaced and maybe the end of the Edwards era will

turn out not to be a bad thing. Still, it will be jarring to

wake up in the morning with a stranger.

He closes by saying:

Goodbye, Bob. Get some sleep. You've earned it.

Mr. Cohen may have given up, but I haven't. I still believe the people across America should be contacting National Public Radio, npr.org. Send them your e-mail that Bob Edwards, ``Morning Edition'' is important to you. As a Senator, as a citizen, he is important to me.

The San Diego Union-Tribune in an editorial entitled ``NPR Show Is a Big Hit, So It Must Need Fixing?'' by Robert Laurence:

This story makes no sense.

As such, it's the kind of story that can only happen in the

topsy-turvy Orwellian world of public broadcasting.

It's this: The host of a hugely successful morning radio

show, a show where ratings have done nothing but climb for

years, a man whose skill as an interviewer is unexcelled

in the world of broadcasting, whose very voice helps

millions of Americans get their day grounded, is being

evicted from a seat in the studio.

Mr. Laurence goes on to say:

That's Bob Edwards, since November 1979 the host of

National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition . . . ''

He goes on to talk about the explanations from NPR management, explanations he and I both find wanting. And Scripps Howard, Bill Maxwell and the St. Petersburg Times, entitled ``A Morning Voice That Will Be Missed:''

All good things must come to an end.

And so it is with the ouster of Bob Edwards . . .

To say that Edwards is the end of an era is an

understatement.

He continues:

Thanks in large part to ``Morning Edition,'' when I report

to the St. Petersburg Times editorial board each morning at

9:30, I know what's going on in the Nation and the rest of

the world.

Millions of us would say the same thing.

Columbus Dispatch, Tim Feran: ``Shame On NPR For Axing Edwards Before Big Date.''

The big date, of course, is the 25th anniversary on the air. I agree with Mr. Feran.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer: ``Not a Good Way To Start The Day,'' a title from Connie Schultz, a columnist. She writes:

The man I've been waking up with is leaving me.

She talks about her disappointment and how hard it is to understand why NPR is making this decision.

Turning to the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Bill Radke, a columnist, writes: ``Mornings Without NPR's Colonel Bob.''

He starts:

Bob Edwards has been canned, and there seem to be two types

of people in the world: The ones saying, ``You've ruined my

life, Bob's life, and the lives of everyone I know,'' and the

ones saying, ``Who is Bob Edwards?'' Those who did not listen

to Bob Edwards may now never know. Those who do, understand

full well.

The Hartford Courant, in Connecticut, by Jim Shea:

It's not often that you can use the words National Public

Radio and stupid in the same sentence but such an occasion

has arisen:

National Public Radio's decision to replace ``Morning

Edition'' host Bob Edwards is just plain stupid. What are you

bozos who run NPR thinking? You know, we've really got to do

something about the fabulous ratings we have.

Bob Edwards is not just the bright, witty, urbane,

insightful and immensely likable host of ``Morning Edition,''

he is for the program's 13 million weekly listeners the voice

of the morning.

There is something soothing, something comforting,

something reassuring about stumbling from slumber into the

gentle embrace of Edwards' mellifluous baritone that makes

morning bearable.

He speaks for many people when he writes that.

Finally, on salon.com, Alexandra Marshall makes many of the same points about the importance of Bob Edwards' ``Morning Edition.''

Those who are following this debate may be puzzled as to why a Senator would stand up in this Chamber to make an issue over the replacement of a man who is, by all measures, just another voice in the morning. But Bob Edwards is not another voice in the morning. He is the voice we have counted on and the voice we rely on.

If he is as important to you as he is to so many of us, please, understand National Public Radio exists because of people like us who listen to it and contribute to it out of our own pockets, love it, and want it to continue to be the great institution which it is today. Those who are shareholders of National Public Radio by virtue of our contributions, if we disagree with this decision, have an obligation to tell the management right now.

I encourage those who feel as I do that the replacement of Bob Edwards is wrong, to do two things: First, go to your Internet, e-mail npr.org and let them know what you think; and second, call your local affiliate of the National Public Radio system and let them know this is a sad and sorry decision.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership on this and so many issues. He expresses the feelings I have heard from soldiers returning from Iraq who are in Walter Reed Hospital recuperating, who are still strong in spirit and still dedicated to our country and hoping that we will help them win this battle and let them come home safely. There is a lot more we can and should do. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his leadership in this area.

Dietary Supplements

Mr. President, there has been an issue I have worked on now for almost 2 years relative to dietary supplements in America. We passed a law called the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act in 1994. In passage of that legislation, we attempted to establish a standard for the legal treatment and regulation of dietary supplements. They are known to many Americans. It is a multibillion-dollar industry.

There are many of us who take vitamins and minerals and believe they are good for our health. I took one this morning. I hope it helps me. I don't think it will hurt me. For a lot of Americans, it is something they rely on.

There is another category that goes beyond ordinary vitamins and minerals, which are products known as dietary supplements. In many respects,

what they consist of are herbal extracts, so-called natural products that are put in combination and sold in stores with many claims about whether they can help you from a health viewpoint.

Most Americans who walk into a drugstore, pharmacy, or nutritional supplement store believe the products on the shelf being sold to them are, in fact, safe. They may believe they have been tested. They may believe the proper clinical evaluation has been done. They may believe the Government is monitoring whether there is something wrong with the drug that causes a bad health event. Those beliefs are right and true and accurate, when it comes to prescription drugs. They have to go through extensive testing before they are ever put on the market. The FDA and many agencies look at them carefully to make certain they are both safe and effective--in other words, that they will not harm you and, in fact, will do what they are supposed to do and help you. That happens for prescription drugs, and it is what happens to the key ingredients in over-the-counter drugs.

When you walk into a dietary supplement store, a health store, that is not the case at all. What you see on the shelves there are products which, by and large, have never, ever been tested. Never tested. The law we passed said the makers of those products, unlike the pharmaceutical companies that make prescription drugs and some over- the-counter drugs, have no responsibility to test their products for safety before they are sold to the public. In fact, the burden is shifted 180 degrees. The Food and Drug Administration of the Government has the burden to prove that what is sold on the shelf is unsafe.

Think about that for a moment. Think of the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or more dietary supplements for sale in the U.S., and you come to the obvious conclusion that there is no Government agency large enough to test every possible combination that can be included in a dietary supplement. So the simple fact is very few are tested.

This week, Consumer Reports magazine reported on the issue of dietary supplements. I think a lot of this magazine. I have subscribed to it over the years. I think what they present is done in a very dispassionate and objective fashion. In this issue, they identify the problem we face in America with dietary supplements. They note the fact that U.S. consumers, since passage of the law I mentioned earlier, have literally spent billions of dollars on dietary supplements. They say it is interesting that for 10 years, although the FDA had the authority to remove an unsafe dietary supplement from the shelf, they never did. I will quote:

Yet, until very recently, the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration had not managed to remove a single dietary

supplement from the market for safety reasons.

After seven years of trying, the agency announced a ban on

the weight-loss aid ephedra in December of 2003. And in March

2004 it warned 23 companies to stop marketing the body-

building supplement androstenedione (andro).

That is a steroid precursor. Here we have it on the books for 10 years, with thousands of products that fall under its purview, and only two have been removed. Frankly, what it comes down to is described later by Bruce Silverglade, legal director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington, DC, consumer advocate group:

The standards for demonstrating a supplement is hazardous

are so high that it can take the FDA years to build a case.

Years--while the product is still being sold. How many people at the FDA are responsible for monitoring dietary supplements, a multibillion- dollar industry, with thousands of products? Their supplement division consists of about 60 people with a budget of only $10 million to police a $19.4 billion-a-year industry.

Consumer Reports goes on to draw this comparison:

To regulate drugs, annual sales of which are 12 times the

amount of supplement sales, the FDA has almost 43 times as

much money and almost 48 times as many people.

So it is very clear this agency is not prepared and staffed and, frankly, doesn't have the authority to protect the American consumer. So what happens? People unsuspectingly go into these health food stores, vitamin stores, and see the dietary supplements with all sorts of claims on them; they buy them, they use them, and the consumers of America become the guinea pigs.

We are the ones who are testing these products to see if they are dangerous. You might say, if they are dangerous, if they hurt someone, clearly then the Government will take them off the shelf, right? No, I am sorry, that is not right because understand that the law we passed at the request of the industry does not require dietary supplement manufacturers to report to the Government when people are literally dying from the products they sell.

I am sure many people listening to this debate say that cannot be true. It is true.

Let me give a specific example. Metabolife International, a leading ephedra manufacturer, did not let the Food and Drug Administration know it had received 14,684 complaints of adverse events associated with ephedra products. But Metabolife 356, which you may remember, in the previous 5 years had received notice of 18 heart attacks, 26 strokes, 43 seizures, and 5 deaths. Under the law of the United States of America, Metabolife had no legal responsibility to tell the Government a product it was selling was killing people.

People listen to that and say that cannot be true, but it is. It is a fact.

When a Harris poll surveyed 1,000 Americans about what they thought the law was, they found 59 percent of them said they believe supplements must be approved by a Government agency before they can be sold. They went on to say 68 percent said the Government requires warning labels on a supplement's potential side effects or dangers, and 55 percent said supplement manufacturers cannot make safety claims without solid scientific support.

Sadly, every single response by the overwhelming majority of Americans was plain wrong. There is no Government regulation of the products, there is no requirement for warning labels, and these companies can make safety claims without solid scientific support. That is a fact.

It seems the Institute of Medicine has decided it is time for a change, a change I believe is long overdue. Today the Institute of Medicine released this report. It is a framework for evaluating the safety of dietary supplements. In the fall of 2000, the Food and Drug Administration contracted with the Institute of Medicine to develop a scientific framework for safety evaluation of dietary supplements within the confines of the law. They also asked them to test their framework on six commonly used dietary supplements. The report took more than a year longer to complete than was expected, but it is comprehensive and thorough. It contains many observations we need to scrutinize closely.

First, their framework depends on the collection of data that is not required to be turned over to the FDA by supplement manufacturers, namely adverse event reports.

The IOM report states that the first step in the process for reviewing safety is to look for signals of safety problems, including adverse events. What do I mean by an ``adverse event''? Does it mean if you have an upset stomach from a vitamin you have to report it to the Food and Drug Administration? Does it mean if you get dizzy from taking any kind of supplement, from garlic to fish oil, you have to call the Food and Drug Administration? No.

What I believe the standard should be is serious adverse health events. If you pass out, have a stroke, or heart attack, or die-- serious things that can occur.

Lest you think this is something that does not happen, let me tell you the story of a young man, 16 years old, who lived a few miles from my home in Springfield, IL. Sean Riggins of Lincoln, IL, a 16-year-old high school student, played on the football team. He had a big game coming up. He went over to the local gas station--gas station, mind you--and saw a product on the shelf called Yellow Jackets. It was an ephedra product. Yellow Jackets were supposed to give him energy. This man thought: I need energy; I am going to play football. He purchased this product over the counter at a gas station in Lincoln, IL, washed it down with a Mountain Dew, which happens

to be loaded with caffeine, and started feeling sick. When he got to the football game, he didn't feel good at all. The next day, his mom and dad took him to the hospital, and later that morning he died from a dietary supplement with ephedra. Under the law as it is written, if the parents of Sean Riggins called the company that made Yellow Jackets and said, ``Your product just killed my son,'' that company would not be required under law to even report that to the Government. That is not right.

The Institute of Medicine report we are looking at today recommends that that change. Metabolife misled the Government. Companies that make products such as Yellow Jacket sadly are not much better.

Let me tell you about another company called Rexall Sundown. It marketed an ephedra product called Metab-o-lite described by the Government as having adverse event reports. In other words, people were getting sick who took this product. We heard about it and requested the company provide us with information about the adverse reports, about people getting sick after they took this product.

The response I received was truly astonishing. The company said Rexall Sundown was a new company and had never sold ephedra products. Therefore, it never had any adverse event reports in their possession. They used the oldest trick in the book to shield themselves from liability for the dangerous products they sold. They had dissolved their old company, started a new one with the same name, and tried to escape any liability for the life-threatening products they had been selling. We tried to get more information from them and failed, but we will continue that effort.

Let me also say to people who said, ``Thank goodness, ephedra is off the market, so you can stop worrying,'' that is not the case. The same Consumer Reports magazine that is coming out has a table which I commend to everyone who takes dietary supplements. It is impossible to read this chart, I am sure, on television. I will summarize a few points of it for those who would like to understand what Consumer Reports, an objective magazine, says about 12 supplements. They said you should avoid these supplements.

A supplement that is ``definitely hazardous'' is aristolochic acid. This is something that is sold under a variety of names. They say it is a potent human carcinogen. It can cause cancer potentially, kidney failure, sometimes requiring transplant. The Food and Drug Administration warned consumers and the industry in April 2001. It has been banned in seven European countries and Egypt, Japan, and Venezuela. But it is still being sold in the United States. Aristolochic acid is also known as birthwort, snakeroot, snakeweed, sangree root, and so forth.

Then they list another group of ``very likely hazardous'' products banned in other countries where we have a warning from the FDA: Comfrey, which includes blackwort, bruisewort, and so many other herbal names.

Incidentally, let me say at this moment how difficult it is for consumers to follow this because they change the names on these bottles in the dietary supplement store, and you have no idea what you are buying. The Food and Drug Administration advised the industry take it off the market in July 2001, but it is still being sold. It creates abnormal liver function or damage, often irreversible, causing death.

Androstenedione, I mentioned this earlier. The FDA finally banned it in supplements.

Chaparral is another product which is sold under a variety of names. It causes abnormal liver function or damage, often irreversible. FDA warned consumers in December 1992.

Germander is another product banned in France and Germany.

Kava is an ingredient in a variety of products. FDA warned consumers in March 2002 to avoid it. It is banned in Canada, Germany, Singapore, South Africa, and Switzerland, but it can still be sold legally in the United States because the Food and Drug Administration does not have the power and the authority to police this kind of dangerous product.

Under ``likely hazardous'' products there is one I would like to speak to, bitter orange, citrus aurantium. You will find this in Metabolife Ultra. When they took ephedra out, they put bitter orange in, and there are a lot of other products, diet products, energy products. It can cause high blood pressure and increased risk of heart arythmia.

We wrote to seven companies that make supplements that contain citrus aurantium and asked them: What kind of tests did you engage in to determine whether citrus aurantium, which is now replacing ephedra, is safe? One of the CEOs wrote back and said: We have a scientific study to prove our product is safe. So we looked at the study. The study did not have anything to do with citrus aurantium or bitter orange. It was about the safety of using orange juice--orange juice--in drug metabolism studies.

We then contacted one of the scientists involved in this study and asked: Do you realize this company that is selling thousands of products worth millions of dollars is claiming your scientific study says citrus aurantium is safe?

This scientist came back to us and said: That is an improper use of that study to justify the sale of that product.

So there is no scientific basis for the safety that CEO asserted. These manufacturers are literally putting together dangerous and sometimes lethal combinations of chemicals and selling them under the banner of dietary supplements to unsuspecting American consumers.

For some consumers, it is a waste of money. For others, it is much more dangerous.

There are other products that are mentioned here. I am probably going to fail to pronounce many of them properly: organ/glandular extracts, Lobelia, Pennyroyal oil, Scullcap and Yohimbe. When one goes through these, they will find many of these have been banned in other countries.

One of the conclusions from the Institute of Medicine, after looking at dietary supplements, is unreasonable risk does not mean the Food and Drug Administration has to prove the supplement is harmful.

The report concludes, given the limited amount of data available, definitive statements judging safety of these products may be difficult to completely substantiate scientifically.

The committee determined that concluding a supplement presents an unreasonable risk does not require complete evidence a dietary supplement causes a serious adverse event. In other words, the unreasonable risk standard that is written in the DSHEA law is a standard which frankly is going to be a very difficult one for the FDA or others to prove.

So what they are suggesting at the Institute of Medicine is we look to a different and more reasonable standard. They also talk about premarket review of some of these products, which I think is something that needs to be done.

I particularly believe stimulants should be subject to premarket review so we have some testing to make sure they are safe so many of these products here, such as bitter orange, citrus aurantium, which cause an increase in blood pressure--and, frankly, I believe what they are suggesting in the Institute of Medicine report kind of parallels legislation which I have introduced--to try to bring some sanity to this industry.

This has been a battle which I have been engaged in for almost 2 years now. I know what happens when one takes on a giant industry in America, a multibillion-dollar dietary supplement industry. If one walks into most vitamin stores around America, they will find my name, not in a praiseworthy fashion. They are passing out leaflets saying: Write to Durbin and tell him to stop taking away your vitamins and minerals.

It is a scare tactic. It is a scare tactic from an industry that should be running scared. There are good actors in this industry and there are bad actors, but unfortunately the bad actors are being protected by the good ones.

Right now I believe Americans should be able to buy vitamins and minerals which have been tested and proven, make their own choices about their own health, but I also believe this industry has a responsibility when it sells products that can be dangerous to Americans to do two things.

First, if they are selling stimulants they should be tested in advance so we

do not have another ephedra which is going to take the life of an innocent young boy in Lincoln, IL, or a major league baseball player like Steve Bechler of the Baltimore Orioles.

Second, I believe all of these dietary supplement manufacturers should have a legal obligation to report to the Food and Drug Administration when people get seriously ill or die as a result of taking their products. I think that is the least we should demand.

I am happy to see the Institute of Medicine creating momentum for Congress to finally make a decision. I am happy to see the administration, after more than a year of urging, finally banning ephedra, but more has to be done. Today as we speak, innocent children and consumers across America are buying products which they presume to be safe and they are not.

We have an obligation to American consumers to set a standard of care so they know when they make a purchase, whether it is in a drugstore or in a vitamin store, they are buying a product that is more likely to help them than hurt them. Sadly, the DSHEA law which currently exists does not meet that standard.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, in the last couple of hours since we had our vote today, I have been asked by a couple of press people who are lingering in the hallways about the issue of obstructionism. Apparently, there are some who suggest there is obstruction going on in the Senate.

It is interesting to me that there are charges of obstructionism to the Senate's business. We are not voting today, really. We voted once on a cloture vote. We did not vote yesterday. Apparently, we are not voting now until next Wednesday.

Why is that the case? Because there was an amendment offered to increase the minimum wage, and the majority party did not want to vote on the amendment.

It seems to me if there is obstruction around here, it is obstructing the ability to have a vote on an amendment to

increase the minimum wage. The people at the bottom of the economic ladder in this country have not had an increase in the minimum wage for years. It is perfectly appropriate for us to consider that in the context of welfare reform.

So an amendment is offered; but because the majority does not want it to be voted on, business essentially is stopped dead on the floor, and there are no votes, and we are at parade rest for 4 or 5 days. If anybody is obstructing, I would say it is those who brought the welfare reform bill to the floor and then decided they did not want to vote on anything, and we go, day after day, with no votes. And those who create that situation now accuse others of obstructing.

I think it is a curious thing to do, but maybe there is a language here I have not yet learned and do not yet understand. But there is certainly no obstruction on the part of those of us who want to have a vote on the amendments we offered.

Outsourcing of American Jobs

Mr. President, we are going to be turning, we think, in the next week or two back to a piece of legislation that was on the floor of the Senate that was also pulled from consideration because they did not want a vote on an amendment that was pending. When that bill comes back that deals with the issue of tax incentives for foreign sales--when that bill comes back to the floor, I intend to offer an amendment dealing with an issue that has been discussed recently, and that is the movement of jobs from this country to overseas.

We talk a lot about the concern of the outsourcing of jobs. This country, as you know, has lost over 3 million jobs in recent years, the last 3 years or so, 3\1/2\ years, and we are now down a net roughly 2.5 million jobs. We gained a few jobs back, but we are about 2.5 million jobs less than we were 3\1/2\ years ago.

So the question is, will this economy create new jobs? We need them desperately. The other question is, why are we having policies in place that remain in place that actually incentivize the movement of jobs overseas?

Let me describe one of them I intend to fix with an amendment as soon as I have the ability to offer the amendment on the floor of the Senate.

Assume, for a moment, there are two businesses. Both produce garage door openers. They are both located in the United States. They both manufacture garage door openers, and they sell them in the United States. One of them decides they will move to China, so they move their plant to China. They fire their American workers. They hire workers in China. They make the same garage door opener in China and ship it back to our country.

There is one substantial difference now between those two firms, and that is the taxes they will pay on the profits they earn. The company that has moved to China to produce the product to ship back into this country will pay a lower U.S. income tax. In fact, they will largely pay no U.S. income tax.

We have a tax incentive in our law books that says: If you move your plant overseas and produce there for the purpose of shipping back into our country, we will give you a tax cut.

You talk about perversity, this is it. Our country says: We will reward you if you shut down your American company, your American business, move it to China, move it to another country, and ship the product back into our country.

Well, at a time when we are losing jobs and desperately need jobs in our country, the very least we should do--at least the baby step we ought to take--is to shut down the perverse incentive in our Tax Code that says: Ship your jobs overseas and we will give you a big break.

We will have an opportunity to vote on that. The Senate voted on that, actually, in an amendment I offered some years ago, and my amendment came up short. Perhaps having lost now 2.5 million net jobs in the last 3\1/2\ years, the Senate will come to a different conclusion. I hope that is the case because this issue of jobs is critically important.

Trade Agreements

Mr. President, I have spoken often on the floor of the Senate about the subject of international trade. I will do so again briefly, just to say we have recently negotiated two free trade agreements, negotiated by the trade ambassador. I do not expect either, frankly, to come to the floor of the Senate this year. Why? Because I do not expect the administration, which negotiated these trade agreements, will want to have a debate on them: the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Australian Free Trade Agreement. Why don't they want to have a debate on them? Because, like most recent trade agreements, they are not mutually beneficial; that is, beneficial to us and those with whom we negotiated the treaty. In most cases, they will end up costing this country lost jobs and large trade deficits.

I will not go into great discussion about the so-called CAFTA, Central American Free Trade Agreement, or to go back and talk about NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, both of which are terrible agreements, or the recent bilateral agreement we did with China, which is an awful agreement, or the agreement with Australia that really shortchanges us in terms of what we should have required to have happen with state trading enterprises. I will not do that. But suffice it to say, I do not expect there to be brought to this floor a debate on this trade agreement by the administration because that is the last thing they want between now and this election, because it will be a significant debate about jobs and whether these trade agreements cost us jobs or gain jobs. The record is quite clear, we are losing jobs as a result of these many trade agreements.

We have the highest trade deficit in the history of this country, by far: a $470 billion trade deficit. Every single day--every single day-- almost $1.5 billion in trade deficit; that is, goods we are importing in excess of goods we are exporting. Someday, someone has to pay the cost of that trade deficit.

Now let me describe my concern about this trade. I am not concerned about expanding trade. I happen to believe it is largely beneficial to expand trade. I think countries that engage in activities because of natural resources, and other things, where they have a natural advantage, that it makes sense for us to trade with them, and for those countries to trade with us in circumstances that are the reverse.

But that is not the case with most trade agreements today. In fact, the case is we have not a doctrine of comparative advantage, as Ricardo used to talk about nearly 200 years ago. The doctrine of comparative advantage is irrelevant. It is a natural advantage that becomes a political advantage by countries that create circumstances of production that are fundamentally unfair with respect to free trade.

An example: A country says: We will not allow workers to organize. If they try to organize, we will fire them. And, oh, by the way, we will not require the payment of any kind of a minimum wage. You can hire workers for 16 cents an hour, if you wish. And, by the way, there is no age issue with respect to child labor, so if you want to pay 16 cents an hour, and hire a 12-year-old kid to do it, that is fine as well. And, also, we will not require the workplace be safe. If you want to hire 12-year-olds, pay them 12 cents an hour, and put them in an unsafe workplace, that is all right, too. By the way, when you do it, and you have a 12-year-old working in an unsafe plant, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, you can dump the chemicals into the air and the water from that plant, and that is just fine as well.

Now if countries decide that is the condition of production in their country, and plants move to those countries to hire those workers so they can produce a product to ship back into our country, is that what we should aspire to have American workers compete with? The answer is, no, of course not. Yet that is exactly what is happening today. You think I am wrong? Check the facts. I am not saying in every factory they are hiring 12-year-olds, but I am saying it is happening in many parts of the world. I will give you one example I have used on the floor of the Senate previously to describe in more specific terms the way this works.

This is a picture of a Huffy bicycle. Most people know about Huffy bicycles--20 percent of the American marketplace. You can buy them at K-Mart, you can buy them at Wal-Mart, and you can buy them at Sears. Huffy bicycles used to be made in Ohio. They

were made by workers who made $11 an hour. They would get up and go to their jobs. I am sure they were proud of their jobs. They worked $11- an-hour jobs in Ohio to make Huffy bicycles. Right between the handlebars and the front fender they had a little insignia, a little metal insignia of the American flag.

Well, Huffy bicycles are no longer made in America. They are now made in China. The workers who made Huffy bicycles in Ohio were fired because $11 an hour was too much to pay someone to make a bicycle. Huffy bicycles are now made in China by workers who work 7 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day, and are paid 33 cents an hour. In fact, Huffy bicycles no longer have the decal of the American flag between the handlebar and the front fender. They have a decal of the globe, descriptive, it seems to me, of what is happening to the elements of production and the manufacturing base in this country.

The question is this: Is it fair competition to ask workers in Ohio, making $11 an hour, to compete with workers in China who work 7 days a week, and make 33 cents an hour? Does that represent fair competition? Is that what we aspire to do? Or is this driving to the bottom the wages of American workers? And is it exporting the manufacturing expertise and base of the U.S. economy?

Globalization has happened quickly. The rules of globalization have not kept pace. We know that we don't want the product of Chinese prison labor to come in and hang on a store shelf in an American store and represent that as fair competition. Most all in the Chamber would probably agree the product of Chinese prison labor ought not be sold in this country because it is not fair competition. But then what about someone in Indonesia who works for 16 cents an hour? Is that fair competition for an American worker? Should we aspire to have an American worker compete in a circumstance where someone works 12 hours a day, sleeps in a bunker, 12 to a room, works 7 days a week in a plant that is unsafe?

The question of outsourcing of American jobs and the question of what is fair trade are questions that this Congress ultimately will have to answer because, if not, we will see a continued exodus from this country of jobs.

The economists, the so-called big thinkers who wear small glasses, tell us we are only talking about the outsourcing of low-tech, low- skill, low-wage jobs. That is absolutely untrue, flat out false. If those economists are still giving opinions and still making money, they should not be. I won't name the economists, but the economists who told us what would happen with the United States-Mexico trade agreement who were dead, flat out wrong. They said with that agreement we will import from Mexico the product of low-skilled, low-wage labor, and we will, therefore, benefit from that. It won't cost us high-skill, high-wage labor in the United States.

That is not true. The three largest exports from Mexico are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics--the product of high- skilled labor. It has cost dearly American jobs.

There are so many elements to this that almost defy description. Part of it is the start of this process, when we negotiate the trade agreement. Let me give you one of the most idiotic provisions in an agreement I have ever seen. It was done a couple years ago. I have no idea which unnamed and unseen negotiator negotiated this, but we negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with China. And we have with China a very large trade deficit, now nearly $130 billion a year. So this is what our side agreed to: we will put a 2.5-percent tariff on Chinese automobiles shipped to the United States, and the Chinese will impose a tariff 10 times higher on any U.S. cars that we aspire to sell in China.

How would one come to that agreement with a country with whom we have such a large trade deficit? I have no idea. It is fundamentally incompetent to negotiate treaties that so undermine the basic manufacturing interests of our country.

Another example of automobiles--I don't come from a State that produces automobiles--is the country of Korea. I have a chart that shows what is happening with Korea. We import a substantial number of cars from Korea. Most people know the names of those cars. They buy those cars. We have ships coming across the ocean loaded with Korean cars. In fact, in a recent year, we had 618,000 Korean cars shipped in the U.S. marketplace for sale. Do you know how many cars we sold in Korea? Two thousand eight hundred. So there were 618,000 cars coming from Korea to the United States and 2,800 cars from the United States to Korea.

Why is that the case? Is it because Korean consumers don't want to buy American cars? No. It is because the Korean government has put up barrier after barrier to try to stop such sales. That is why you have a ratio of 217 to 1 Korean cars sold in the United States to U.S. cars sold in Korea. Why do we put up with it? It is because this country lacks the backbone and the spine and the will to demand fair trade and stand up for our products. If our producers can't compete, shame on us. Then we lose. But requiring our producers to compete when the game is rigged, saying our producers ought to compete, when foreign markets are closed to us, is fundamentally wrong. Yet that is what is happening. Japan, Europe, Korea, China--you can go right down the list.

I have mentioned a number of times that we have a trade regime in this country and people who work in that area seem to lack the stiff backbone that is necessary to stand up for our own economic interests. There is no evidence that we ever get tough with anybody, no matter the circumstances, because most of our trade policy is mushy-headed, foreign policy rather than sound, sensible economic policy.

We had a dispute with Europe on about beef trade, because Europe will not allow U.S. beef into its market. The WTO, for a change, ruled that the United States was right, and that we could retaliate on Europe for blocking our exports. And what do we do? We put tariffs on Roquefort cheese, goose liver, and truffles. That is going to scare the devil out of somebody, scare them with tariffs on Roquefort cheese, goose liver, and truffles, won't it?

Our country's trade officials don't have the foggiest idea how to deal with trade problems, whether it is standing up for beef interests in this country or standing up for manufacturers or the interests of workers. Our trade officials simply have been AWOL.

There is much to talk about with respect to international trade and jobs. The discussion about all of this relates to whether we have a job base to allow those who aspire to go to work to find a job. We have seen 2.5 million fewer jobs now than 3\1/2\ years ago, and at least a part of that is because we are outsourcing and seeing jobs move from this country to other countries.

At least two of the reasons for that are, one, we have a perverse Tax Code that actually rewards companies that move their jobs out of this country, and we ought to do something about that. And, second, we have basically incompetent trade agreements that fail to stand up for this country's economic interests.

My hope is that we could have a debate on trade in the Senate this year. It appears to me we are going to have a debate on virtually nothing. The minute someone offers an amendment, the others pack up their duffel bags and leave town. I don't understand it. Day after day we have no votes. Why? Because someone dared come to the floor to say, after 6 or 8 years, maybe we should have an increase in the minimum wage.

What does that do? It fills up airplanes leaving Washington, DC, because nobody wants to vote. And while they are out of town, they tell the press that those who offered the amendment are obstructionists, forgetting, of course, that the obstruction is really the refusal to give a vote to those who offered a very sensible amendment to the bill.

Most of us came here because we want to do serious things about serious issues. It would be good if, in the interest of this country, we could, in a spirit of some cooperation, decide here is the legislation we want on the floor, offer your amendments, have reasonable time agreements, have votes, and move on. Whatever the will of the Senate is, that is what we ought to do.

But instead, especially recently, we have seen a regrettable situation of the Senate deciding, if there is a controversial amendment that is offered, the majority doesn't like it, we will just stop working.

There is a lot to do. This country has an economy that regrettably at this point, while producing some growth, is not producing jobs. I just finished reading an article by an economist from the Reagan administration, Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the architects of the economic strategy back in the 1980s. Paul Craig Roberts has it about right. He said this may well be an economic recovery without new jobs--a jobless recovery. And if that is the case, we are in trouble.

We need to search for ways to begin to create these jobs. If we have a recovery and no new jobs being created, we face some pretty difficult times. The American people want to go to work. These kids coming out of college want jobs. They want opportunity and hope. They want a good future. You do that by having an economy that produces jobs. There is no social program we discuss in the Congress that is as important or as productive as a good job that pays well.

That is what allows people to have a good life, provide for their family, and do the things they want to do. So the question for us is, what happened here? Why the disconnect? Why is an economy that is growing not producing jobs?

One answer is that we are seeing jobs moving to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, China, Mexico--you name it. They are leaving. As they leave, a part of that departure is to be rewarded with a reverse tax cut, a tax incentive that says we will reward you while you leave.

We ought to close that now. We ought to go back and look at some of these trade agreements and decide whether it is in this country's interests not to be protectionist but to demand that the rules of trade be fair. If we are unwilling to do that, we are not going to see the creation of the kind of jobs that are necessary to restore the 2\1/2\ millions jobs that were lost and provide the additional jobs an increase in population requires year by year.

Mr. President, there are no votes today, tomorrow, Monday, or Tuesday. I guess the Senate comes back with perhaps a vote on Wednesday. I hope that perhaps we can start over and decide to treat seriously those things that are serious. There is such a tendency here to treat lightly those things that are serious and treat seriously those things that should be treated lightly. We never get to where we should be with respect to the interests of this country.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, gasoline prices are soaring to the highest levels ever and once again the response of the Federal Government is to do nothing. I have come to the floor today because I believe the gasoline consumer is about to be hit by a perfect storm, a combination of refinery cutbacks that boost profits, the fact that oil is being moved into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no plan to protect the consumer from resulting shortages, and the prospect of even higher OPEC prices when OPEC cuts production possibly in June, just at the start of the high travel season. I want to discuss this today because inaction in the face of spiraling gas prices is the worst possible response Congress and the administration could have at this time.

Higher oil and gasoline prices act like attacks on our consumers, causing them to defer spending in order to pay for gasoline. Right now, consumer spending is the principal ingredient driving our economy. If consumer spending declines, economic recovery is going to be delayed and there is the chance of the economy sliding further into a recession.

I know gasoline prices are already as high as they have ever been, and the perfect storm I see coming in the days ahead is going to soak consumers for even more money at the pump with the prices already staggering.

According to the American Automobile Association, the national average price of gasoline is $1.72 per gallon. That is just 2 cents short of the alltime high set last August and, of course, it is not even the peak driving season. California prices are consistently way over $2 per gallon. The prices in my State are consistently in the ballpark of $1.80. I will outline this afternoon

why I believe it is likely to get even worse.

One major oil company, Shell, has announced it is deliberately shutting a 70,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Bakersfield, CA. This refinery is critical to the entire West Coast market. The fact is, when Shell permanently constricts gasoline supplies and drives up prices along the West Coast, our area, which already has staggeringly high unemployment, is going to be hit very hard.

Earlier this month, at a Senate Energy Committee hearing, I asked the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration whether the closing of Shell's Bakersfield refinery could boost West Coast prices even higher. That day he agreed that could be the result of that refinery shutting down. Yet, in the face of these kinds of problems, the response of the Federal Government is simply to sit on the sidelines.

Shell's announcement of its decision to close the Bakersfield refinery claimed in a statement that there is simply not enough crude supply to ensure the viability of the refinery in the long term. Recent news articles have reported that both Chevron/Texaco and State of California officials estimate that in that valley where the Bakersfield refinery is located, there is a 20- to 25-year supply of crude oil remaining. In fact, Bakersfield, CA, reported on January 8 of this year that Chevron/Texaco plans on drilling more than 800,000 new wells in the valley, which is 300 more new wells than last year. The fact that Texaco, Shell's former partner in the Bakersfield refinery, is increasing drilling in the area calls into question this claim by Shell that a lack of available oil supply is the real reason for closing the Bakersfield refinery.

Shell also claimed that its decision was not made to drive up profits, but the company admitted to the Wall Street Journal that there will be an impact on the market. Of course, the impact is going to be to drive up prices even higher. The question for the Senate, and why it is so important for us to act now, is, How much are these prices going to go up and when is the Senate going to finally stand with those who have to make these gasoline purchases?

In 2001, I revealed internal oil company documents that showed major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for stifling competition and boosting their profits. These documents raised significant questions about whether American oil companies are trying to pull off a financial triple play: Boosting profits by reducing refinery capacity, tagging consumers with higher pump prices, and then going out and arguing for environmental rollbacks and additional financial incentives.

I say, and I want to use this to make clear why I think it is important the Senate should act, that I believe these practices I described in 2001 are still ongoing today as gasoline prices rise even higher and consumers suffer even more. In memos detailed in a report I issued then, oil companies articulated a desire to reduce oil and gas supply.

One document from Texaco reads:

Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing

supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline in order

to increase prices and grow profit margins. Oil company

competitors also discussed--

Discussed with each other, Mr. President--

mutual opportunities to control oil and gas supply, thus

keeping markets tight.

In one case, they were trying specifically to prevent the restart of a closed refinery in southern California. One company document revealed if the refinery in question, Powerine, was restarted, the additional gasoline supply on the market could bring down gas prices and refinery prices by 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon and it called for a ``full court press'' to keep the refinery down. The Powerine refinery's capacity was 20,000 barrels per day. The Bakersfield company Shell wants to shut down has a capacity of 70,000 barrels a day. If oil companies in the mid-1990s thought a much smaller shutdown would raise the price of gas by 2 cents to 3 cents, you can't tell me the shutdown of a refinery with 3\1/2\ times the capacity will not have an even larger impact on prices at the pump.

What makes Shell's decision to close its Bakersfield refinery especially curious is it seems the company has done virtually nothing proactively to find a buyer. But, to date, in spite of my requests and the requests of others, the Federal Trade Commission has made no effort to stop or even slow plans for Shell's refinery closure. The Federal Trade Commission has been arguing they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out blatant collusion, setting out a standard that is virtually impossible to prove against these very savvy oil interests. But in this case the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to act because the Agency allowed two megamergers to go through that directly affect the refinery Shell now plans to shut down. The Federal Trade Commission had a chance to act when it allowed Shell to acquire full ownership of the Bakersfield refinery in 2001 from a Shell-Texaco partnership.

The Federal Trade Commission had another chance to act when it allowed Shell to acquire Pennzoil-Quaker State in 2002. Then last November, when Shell announced it was closing the Bakersfield refinery, the Federal Trade Commission had a third chance to act, using its continuing authority to reexamine these earlier mergers.

I say it is time to get the Federal Trade Commission off the sidelines and onto the side of the consumer who is getting shellacked at gasoline pumps all across America. Today I am calling on the Federal Trade Commission to exercise its continuing authority over these past mergers and to either block the shutdown of Shell's Bakersfield refinery or to otherwise keep refineries in that area viable. That set of decisions will affect the entire west coast gasoline market. At a time when our economy is being hit so hard, it is absolutely critical to the public interest.

The Energy Department ought to be doing more to address the problem of high gasoline prices, but at a minimum the Energy Department should not be making the problem worse. When Secretary Abraham was asked recently about the problem of rising gasoline prices, he told reporters he was extremely concerned but did not specify the Department would do anything. One thing that could be done by the Department that would help address the problem is the Energy Department could stop making the current supply situation worse by taking oil from the tight U.S. market to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without any protections for the consumer.

On February 12, as crude and gasoline prices were spiking up, the Bush administration awarded five new long-term contracts to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These new contracts will run from April through the summer, the very time period where prices typically shoot upward. If the Bush administration were concerned about high gasoline prices, the Energy Department could have either delayed awarding these long-term contracts or arranged to defer the delivery of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as was done last winter, to minimize the impact on the market and on the consumer. But now the administration is taking oil off the market and moving it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no concrete plan to protect consumers from the higher prices this action will cause.

Earlier this month, Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Agency told me OPEC would be making up the difference in supply for oil that is being moved into America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So you have a situation where the administration, through the Energy Information Agency, is telling people to not really sweat these OPEC decisions. But now OPEC is telling us they are going to cut production by 1 million barrels a day. This morning we hear they might hold off until June instead of making cuts in April. But even if they do that, the OPEC production cuts would come at the beginning of the summer travel season. So certainly OPEC is engaged in some doubletalk. For some time they have not kept their promise to hold oil prices within their own target price range. In fact, some members of OPEC just want the price range increased.

Some in OPEC say they are concerned prices are too high. Yet this cartel is taking oil off the market. Others are saying they see a glut of oil on the market, justifying the production cut. These are mixed signals, but the message for our consumers is clear: OPEC is certainly going to do what is

best for OPEC, not what is best for the American consumer.

My bottom line is the Federal Government certainly is challenged, in terms of stopping OPEC from cutting production. But certainly the Federal Government can take steps and take steps immediately to make sure there is competition in our gasoline markets so consumers are not getting ripped off at the pump.

Today I am calling for Congress to take action on a specific, concrete package of procompetition initiatives to help consumers at the Nation's gas pumps. First, Congress needs to direct the Government regulators to act to eliminate anticompetitive practices that currently siphon competition out of gasoline markets. Scores of communities, including those in my home State, have few if any choices for the consumer. Nationwide, the gasoline markets in Oregon and in at least 27 other States are now considered to be tight oligopolies, with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gas supply. In California, where Shell's Bakersfield refinery is located, 4 oil companies control 70 percent of the market. In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices have driven independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called redlining, limits where independent distributors can sell gas. As a result, independent stations have to buy their gas directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand-name stations are paying. With these higher costs the independent stations can't compete.

Last year I sponsored legislation, S. 1732, that would give the Federal Trade Commission additional tools to promote competition in these areas that are essentially small monopolies. Under my bill, in these very highly concentrated markets you would have consumer watch zones. In these zones there would be greater monitoring of anticompetitive practices by the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission would also be empowered to issue cease-and-desist orders to prevent the companies from gouging the consumer, and Congress would stipulate certain anticompetitive practices like redlining and zone pricing are, per se, anticompetitive and oil companies engaging in these anticompetitive practices that manipulate supply or limit competition would have the burden of proof to show these anticompetitive practices are not harming consumers.

There is a vehicle right now. Right today there is a vehicle, S. 1737, Congress could use to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices, because the companies admit the market is not going to solve the problem on its own.

Last August, a report by the RAND Corporation revealed even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. This means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years.

Last November, the Energy Information Agency also issued a report on the causes of last summer's record high gas prices. The Energy Information Agency found, ``There is continuing vulnerability to future gasoline price hikes.'' The industry and the Bush administration both agree gasoline price spikes are going to be a continuing and significant problem. But neither, as of today, is willing to step in and work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to do anything about the problem. I am here to say the Congress needs to act now. This is legislation to act now before gasoline shoots up to $3 per gallon, as some oil industry analysts are predicting.

The reasons Congress ought to act are twofold. Aside from the obvious cost to the consumer at the pump, there are hidden costs to the price manipulation. There is a huge economic impact that will only worsen as prices rise. When gasoline costs more, the costs for our businesses in the transportation area go up. Our businesses see their profits go down. So we have one of two things--either the prices of the goods they sell to consumers have to go up or the number of people they employ is going to plummet. Higher gasoline prices either means bigger costs for consumer goods or fewer jobs in our economy. And certainly in our home State, we cannot afford to see that. This isn't high economic theory. This is basic math.

Just this month, the New York Times quoted a truck driver from Wisconsin saying eventually the added cost of transporting household goods and snacks and other items will once again come back and clobber the consumer. You have a double whammy. Consumers get socked at the pump in person, and then get hit again with higher prices for the goods they buy. That is not acceptable to me, and I don't believe it is acceptable to the American people.

The challenge now is for the Congress to stand up to the status quo in the oil industry. I understand--and certainly nobody would minimize this--this will be a hard row to hoe in terms of taking on these very powerful interests.

When I first introduced legislation that now can be used to protect the consumer from gasoline prices going up to $3 per gallon, various oil interests and Bush administration officials voiced great consternation and argued vociferously that the legislation I believed will protect the consumer was unacceptable to the oil industry and the administration.

I still believe the proposals which I have put forward in legislation and on which the Congress could move now would protect competition and free markets. My legislation doesn't involve big expenditures from Government. It doesn't involve setting up new agencies. It involves bringing some competition and free market forces back to this country and to the gasoline business--particularly in those States where we have these quasi-monopolies.

But for those who disagree with my legislation, S. 1737, which I believe would protect the consumer who is getting clobbered at the gasoline pumps, I issue a challenge. If they think they have a better approach than my legislation for bringing competition and free market forces back to the gasoline market, they have an obligation to come forward at a time when our consumers are being hit so hard at the pump. Unless people who are opposing my legislation are prepared to say the record high gasoline prices aren't a problem, they have an obligation to come forward with their proposals to promote competition. Put an alternative on the table and stand up for the consumer.

I also think Congress needs to address the growing gap between consumer demand for gas and what the oil companies can produce. When supplies are tight and there is no spare gasoline in inventories, consumers are especially vulnerable to supply shortages and price spikes. That frequently causes severe price spikes when refineries shut down unexpectedly or a pipeline breaks, as happened last summer. Congress should ensure consumers are not left stalled by the side of the road or being pounded at the pump by taking steps to keep supplies available in an emergency. One option would be to require major oil companies to maintain minimum inventories to address unexpected supply crunches.

Alternatively, the Federal Government can create a strategic gasoline reserve to provide supplies during refinery or pipeline shutdowns. This proposal would build on the strategic reserves that already exist for petroleum and heating oil supplies.

It seems to me what it all comes down to is the American people deserve better, and they deserve better than the Federal Government being AWOL when our consumers are facing skyrocketing gasoline prices across the country. With a new energy bill expected to come before the Senate in the next several weeks, this is an opportunity to put the Government on the side of the American consumer when they are filling their tanks at the pumps across the land.

I conclude by again commenting on the role of the Federal Trade Commission. This is the agency that is charged by Congress with promoting competition and free markets. Again and again in the energy field they have either sat on the sidelines or simply looked the other way in the face of increasing concentration in this critical sector of our economy. With gasoline prices already soaring at the highest level at this particular time, it seems to me it is absolutely critical for the Federal Trade Commission to reverse its present

course, get on the side of the consumer, and promote marketplace forces and competition in the gasoline business.

I intend to use my seat on the Senate Commerce Committee at every possible opportunity to force the Federal Trade Commission to do the job it has been charged by the Congress to do. It ought to start with looking seriously into the shutdown in Bakersfield, which is going to, in my view, have calamitous consequences for the entire west coast gasoline market. But it also should include a broader look at the implication of concentration in the gasoline business.

I am hopeful that ultimately the Federal Trade Commission will support my legislation, S. 1737, which would promote more competition in the gasoline business. And if they disagree with it, the head of that agency, Mr. Timothy Muris, ought to propose his own alternative.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts coming to the floor because he has done so much to help the consumer in this area. My concern--and I would be interested in the Senator's reaction--is I think the consumer is about to get hit by a perfect storm with the combination of failure to push OPEC, as the Senator has said, to try to help on the production issue, plus the refinery cutbacks that apparently are primarily to boost profits, plus filling the strategic petroleum reserve. With these factors coming together, it seems to me a perfect storm is going to push the consumers' gasoline price at the pump to $3 a gallon.

I would be interested in the Senator's reaction, and I am anxious to work with him in this effort to push the administration to go after

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hatch in introducing the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003, a bill to give law enforcement additional tools to fight the scourge of gang violence and to fund prevention programs to stop the cycle of gang violence.

I thank and commend my good friend and colleague, Chairman Hatch, for his hard work in helping to develop this legislation. Since 1996, he and I have worked together to address the problem of gang violence in this country.

We have now introduced legislation in each of the last four Congresses--the 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th. None of that legislation became law. But we have not given up.

The legislation we are introducing today addresses the many aspects of gang violence by focusing on new criminal offenses and increased penalties for individuals who engage in gang violence. Specifically, this legislation targets gang members who participate in criminal street gang by committing gang crimes like murder, sexual assault, robbery, and drug offenses to name a few, or by employing others to do so; recruit and use minors in gang crimes; commit violent crimes in furtherance of gang or drug trafficking activity; or travel in interstate commerce to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses.

This legislation also makes it easier to prosecute certain 16 and 17- year-olds as adults if they are engaging in violent gang activity.

We have also worked to provide for more cooperation between Federal and local law enforcement officials, and to make it easier for prosecutors to go after gang members who commit serious or violent crimes on behalf of their gangs.

We offer this comprehensive legislation because the problem of gang violence continues to get worse. I concur in the sentiments expressed by Los Angeles Police Department Chief William Bratton when he stated, ``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.''

In 2002, there were over 650 homicides in Los Angeles, half of which were gang related. This year the Los Angeles Police Department reports approximately 400 murders and almost one-half of those murders are the result of gang violence.

The United States Attorney in Los Angeles testified before the Judiciary Committee last month about the gang problem in her city. She stated that in Los Angeles County alone, conservative estimates put street gangs at about 1,000 in number. The number of individual gang members in those street gangs is 150,000.

In addition, there are approximately another 20,000 gang members in Orange County, Ventura and San Bernardino Counties.

I am often struck by how vicious gang crimes can be, and how damaging they are to the victims and to the surrounding community.

Let me give a couple of examples from my own home city of San Francisco.

In 2000, two rival gangs had a shoot out in San Francisco's Mission District. An innocent bystander was caught in the crossfire and shot through both legs.

A brave eyewitness gave law enforcement the name of the shooting suspect, who was then arrested. The gang then tracked down the witness, put a 9 millimeter automatic to his head, and threatened to kill him for cooperating with the police.

And just recently, on September 28, 2003, 7-week-old Glenn Timmy Maurice Molex was killed in his home during a drive-by shooting in a Bayview district neighborhood in San Francisco. Law enforcement believe that gang members may have been involved in the shooting.

But this problem is not limited to any one city, of course.

In 1980, there were gangs in 286 jurisdictions. Today, they are in over 1,500 jurisdictions.

In 1980, there were about 2,000 gangs. Today, there are over 26,000 gangs.

In 1980, there were about 100,000 gang members. Today, there are more than 750,000 gang members.

I would like to explain how this legislation will help deter and punish gang-related crimes, and why Congress should act quickly to pass it.

First, the bill includes tough 10-year sentences for gang recruitment. This will serve to punish anyone who recruits a member to join--or forces a member to stay in--a criminal street gang with the intent to have that person commit a serious violent crime or a drug crime.

Second, if the person who was recruited was a minor, the offender will serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 years.

The purpose of this provision is to deter criminal gang recruitment. It is also to punish those who use minors to commit their crimes. And gangs specifically do go after juveniles because they know that, if the child is caught, he or she will probably receive lighter punishment than an adult.

I believe that we need to punish gang recruitment of children very severely. This bill would do that.

This legislation would also make it a crime for three or more people who work together to commit predicate gang crimes which are listed in the bill. Gang members who commit two or more predicate gang crimes or employ another individual to commit a gang crime would be punished under this new statute by up to 30 years in prison. If the predicate gang crime carries a greater penalty, the maximum would increase. If the gang member has previously been convicted of a predicate gang crime, that gang member's sentence would also increase.

And because juveniles are being used to commit these gang crimes, if the gang member employs a minor to commit the gang crime, the gang member would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.

The predicate gang crimes are felony crimes and include murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, gambling, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, arson, obstruction of justice, tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim or informant, burglary, sexual assault, carjacking, or selling or possessing a controlled substance, firearm offenses, and illegal transportation of an alien.

The offenses that are listed as predicate gang crimes are those commonly pursued by gangs.

One study of gangs in various countries found that law enforcement reported that 55 percent of gang members were involved in aggravated assaults; 33 percent in robberies;

Fifty-eight percent in burglary and breaking and entering;

Fifty-two percent in motor vehicle theft; and

Seventy-two percent in drug sales.

Numerous gangs illegally launder their illicit drug profits. These include Russian and West African criminal gangs as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings.

This bill also allows property derived from gang crimes to be forfeited.

Third, the bill creates a new, RICO-like, anti-gang law to help prosecutors target the more serious gangs and gang members. In response to the problems of mafia-violence, the racketeering statute was created to punish violent crimes that are in furtherance of a racketeering enterprise. This legislation will do the same for violent crimes that are in furtherance of gang activity or drug activity.

The gang and drug crimes are those which I have described earlier-- murder, carjacking, drug distribution, robbery, firearms violations, and sexual assault. These crimes represent the heart of gang activity and those who commit them must be met with tough penalties.

The penalties range from a maximum of 10 years to the death penalty if death results from the crime.

This legislation also expands the Travel Act.

The Travel Act allows Federal prosecutors to charge certain interstate crimes such as extortion, bribery, and arson, and for business enterprises involving gambling, liquor, drugs, or prostitution.

This statute was passed in 1961 also with mafia-related criminal activity in mind.

Now criminal street gangs travel interstate for another purpose which strikes at the heart of our system of justice--intimidating and retaliating against witnesses, jurors, informants, and victims.

This bill would make it a crime to travel across state lines for that purpose and would allow for a sentence up to life imprisonment for someone who commits that crime.

Defendants who violate the Travel Act and kill someone will also face a possible death sentence for such actions.

This bill should ensure that prosecutors can use the Travel Act to act against crimes caused by the new Mafia: criminal street gangs.

The bill also amends several criminal statutes to address violent crimes frequently or typically committed by gangs.

These crimes include carjacking, assault, manslaughter, racketeering, illegal gun transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, the use of firearms in drug trafficking and violent crimes, and murder-for- hire.

These amendments make it easier for prosecutors to prove these crimes by eliminating or modifying the intent requirement for the crimes or by increasing the penalties for violations.

This legislation also changes the venue statute for capital cases so that capital cases can be brought where the murder occurs or where the racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, or criminal street gang operates. So, if the gang, commits the bulk of its crimes in one State but commits a capital crime in another State, all of the crimes can be tried in the same State where the gang focused its criminal activity and the government can seek the appropriate punishment for that crime. The jury will then get the whole picture of how the gang operated and what they did.

Where a 16-year-old or 17-year-old has committed a Federal serious violent felony, this legislation facilitates Federal prosecution of such offenders. Surveys in 1996 and 1999 showed that 37-50 percent of gang members were under the age of 18. This legislation also calls upon the United States Sentencing Commission to create new sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders who are charged as adults to address concerns specific to offenders of that age.

The bill permits the Attorney General to designate high intensity interstate gang activity areas, HIIGAs, and authorizes $100,000,000 for each of 5 years for these task forces.

These provisions are modeled after similar provisions creating high intensity drug trafficking areas, HIDTAs.

HIDTAs are joint efforts of local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies whose leaders work together to assess regional drug threats, design strategies to combat those threats, and develop initiatives to implement the strategies.

HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies.

HIDTAs are based on an equal partnership between different law enforcement agencies.

HIDTAs integrate and synchronize efforts to reduce drug trafficking.

They eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort and maximize resources.

And they improve intelligence and information sharing both within and between regions.

HIDTAs are necessary because drug trafficking tends to be ``head quartered'' in certain areas of the country, from which it spreads to other areas.

Moreover, drug traffickers have been highly organized and developed sophisticated interstate and international operations.

These points are also true for many criminal gangs. So we have erected a new program of cooperation between law enforcement agencies to attack the gang problem like we attack the drug problem.

This bill authorizes $75 million over the next 5 years for the hiring of Federal prosecutors to identify and prosecute significant gangs within their districts under the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Across the Nation, 94 Project Safe Neighborhoods Task Forces are working to implement the coordinated strategy to reduce gun violence, led by the U.S. Attorney in each of the Federal judicial districts. U.S. Attorneys have been working side by side with all law enforcement participants in their communities to identify the most pressing crime problems and attack those problems both through prevention and aggressive prosecution.

Finally, this legislation would authorize $100 million dollars over the next 5 years for States to update their technology, create and fund gang prevention and community prosecution programs, and create and expand witness protection programs.

Witness protection is a critical part of reducing gang violence. The president of the National District Attorneys Association, Robert McCulloch, who is also the district attorney in St. Louis, testified last month before the Judiciary Committee. He said that while his office is able to put witnesses in motels for a couple of days or a week or is able to send them on a bus ride to a relative's house, the solutions are not long-term. And as a result, the witnesses come back and are at risk. That is not acceptable. If witnesses are not confident that they will remain safe, they will not talk to law enforcement. It is as simple as that. We must give local and State law enforcement the tools to keep witnesses alive.

While criminal street gangs flourish in certain urban areas such as Los Angeles and Chicago, they typically use these cities as bases to invade more rural locales.

And the characteristics of a criminal street gang are extremely diverse. While some criminal street gangs are looser-affiliations of violent individuals who work together in furtherance of their gang, there are also some very highly disciplined, hierarchical ``corporations,'' often encompassing numerous jurisdictions.

MS-13, an international gang with roots in El Salvador's civil war has spread to at least 28 States and includes more than 8,000 members. In this gang there is no real command structure or national charter.

And in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, criminal street gangs are largely neighborhood-based associations of lifelong friends. They use no flashy names or symbols, but they bank together to commit crimes and sell drugs.

In the past three years, members of just three neighborhood-based gangs in Washington, D.C., called the 1-5 Mob, the K Street Crew and Murder Inc. by prosecutors, have been convicted of 57 murders and dozens of assaults and weapons offenses for gang crimes committed over the past ten years.

On the other hand, there are some very organized and structured ruthless gangs in this country.

The Gangster Disciples Nation, for example, has a chairman of the board, two boards of directors, one for prisons and one for streets), Governors, regents, area coordinators, enforcers, and ``shorties,'' youth who staff drug-selling sites and help with drug deals.

From 1987 to 1994, this gang was responsible for killing more than 200 people. Moreover, one-half of their arrests were for drug offenses and only one-third for nonlethal violence.

And just like MS-13, these gangs pop up all across the country.

In 1996, the Gangster Disciples Nation and other Chicago-based gangs were in 110 jurisdictions in 35 states.

Members of the Los-Angeles based 18th Street Gang have migrated outside of California into the southwest border up into the Pacific Northwest, out to New Jersey, Mexico, and El Salvador. Los Angeles gang members have been tracked to Indianapolis, Oklahoma, Omaha, Raleigh and St. Louis.

This bill is a necessary measure to target increasingly violent, increasingly sophisticated, and increasingly national gangs. This is not just a California problem, or a Chicago problem, or a District of Columbia problem--this problem is a nationwide in its scope, and we must craft a nationwide solution. This legislation will tackle that problem head-on. We simply cannot wait any longer.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2003.

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

Madam President, the Presiding Officer and I are new Members of the Senate, but we learn our lessons pretty quickly. One of the things you learn here is if you want to have an impact in the Senate, you have to put a focus on something you care about and then keep after it.

The Senator from Louisiana has done that. In her first term here she focused on the great American outdoors. Working with others, she came pretty close to passing an important piece of legislation 3 years ago.

There were some problems in it for Members of the Senate. It is my goal, working with her this year, and we hope with many others of our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and others of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to solve those problems and come up with legislation that represents the conservation majority, the huge conservation majority that exists in the United States of America.

The conservation majority of this country does not have a line down the middle with chairs on each side. It exists on both sides of every aisle and has broad support. We are good legislators, and if we are as good as we hope we are, we will be able to work and represent what our constituents would like us to do. So it is a privilege for me to work with Senator Landrieu. We both serve on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are fortunate under Chairman Pete Domenici and ranking member Jeff Bingaman that we, most of the time, are able to work in a bipartisan way. So we are off to a good start in terms of fashioning a piece of legislation that will gain the support of our colleagues.

We are deliberately today not offering legislation. We want to discuss it first with members of our committee. We want to discuss it next with others, such as the Presiding Officer of the Senate, who has a long interest in conservation matters. We want her ideas and those of others. Then, perhaps in 3 weeks, after the recess, we will be able to come forward with a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support.

As the Senator from Louisiana said, this morning Congressman Young of Alaska and George Miller of California introduced the GO Act, the Get Outdoors Act of 2004. I believe they used it to emphasize we might do some work on this obesity problem that is really worrying us, in terms of health, if more of us spend a little more time walking outdoors, playing outdoors, and taking advantage of our country.

As the Senator from Louisiana said, the bill therefore will provide, I believe, about $3 billion in guaranteed annual funding for outdoor recreation purposes. It would be paid for, as she described, by what I think of as a conservation royalty. This is the way I think of it. It is a royalty on the revenues from oil and gas drilling on offshore Federal lands. After the royalties are paid to the landowner and after the royalties are paid to the State, this conservation royalty would be paid to a trust fund which would then spend the money for the benefit of conservation. Then, after that, the rest of the Federal revenues would go into the regular Federal appropriations process.

That is the way I like to think about it and I hope that is the way a majority of the Members of the Senate will want to think about it as well.

As the Senator said, we will be discussing these concepts that she so well outlined with our colleagues. And we hope they will join us as cosponsors. As she said, our bill will be similar to that which was introduced this morning in the House of Representatives, but it will not be the same.

In addition, it will be similar to the so-called CARA legislation that Senator Landrieu and many others worked hard on 3 years ago, but it will not be the same. There are some lessons that we need to learn from what happened 3 years ago.

For example, the cost of the Senate legislation may not be as much as the cost of the legislation offered in the House. That is yet to be determined.

In addition, as the Senator said, we intend to discuss with our colleagues whether States should have the option, for example, of spending the Federal share of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for maintenance of Federal lands rather than for acquisition.

I have learned over the years that there is a big difference of opinion between Senators from the West and Senators from the East about the acquisition of Federal lands. In North Carolina and Tennessee, we don't have much Federal land. So a lot of us--even many of us conservative Republicans--would be glad to have a little more. Out West there are a lot of people who think the Federal Government not only has enough but it has too much, and they don't want to see legislation that would acquire more.

We need to take that into account as we develop a piece of legislation that will represent the conservation majority but do it with respect for those States that are already largely owned by the Federal Government.

Our legislation, like that proposed in the House, will ensure that State and Federal parts of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will fulfill the intention that Congress originally envisioned. It will provide for wildlife conservation. That will benefit hunters and fishermen. There are more hunters and fish people with hunting and fishing licenses in Tennessee than there are people who vote. I am not sure that is a statistic to admire, but it is a fact, and it is one to which I pay attention. Bird watchers and all Americans who enjoy outdoor recreation will benefit from this legislation. It will provide funds to establish city parks so the children in and around our metropolitan areas can have decent, clean places to play; so families can have decent places to go; and so senior Americans can have decent, safe places to walk.

Someone once said Italy has its art, England has its history, and the United States has the Great American Outdoors. Walt Whitman wrote, ``If you would understand me, go to the heights or watershores.''

Our magnificent land, as much as our love for liberty, is at the core of the American character. It has inspired our pioneer spirit, our resourcefulness, and our generosity. Its greatness has fueled our individualism and optimism and has made us believe that anything is possible. It has influenced our music, literature, science, and language. It has served as the training ground of athletes and philosophers, of poets and defenders of American ideals.

That is why there is a conservation majority--a large conservation majority--in the United States of America.

That is why so many of us, as the Senator from Louisiana said, feel a responsibility in our generation to ensure to the next generation the inspiration of the dignity of the outdoors, its power, its elemental freedom; the opportunity to participate in the challenges of its discovery and personal involvement; and the fulfillment that is to be found in the endless opportunities for physical release and spiritual release.

Some of the words I just used came from the preamble of President Ronald Reagan's Commission on American Outdoors, which I chaired in 1985 and 1986.

In 1985, President Reagan asked a group of us--I was then the Governor of Tennessee--to look ahead for a generation and see what needed to be done for Americans to have appropriate places to go and what they wanted to do outdoors.

Our report, issued in 1987--very nearly a generation ago--recommended

that we light a prairie fire of action to protect what was important to us in the American outdoors and to build for the future. We focused on the importance of a higher outdoors ethic, suggested an ``outdoor corps'' to improve recreational facilities. We examined the role of voluntarism. We pointed out that the park most people like is the park closest to where they live and how important it is, therefore, to have urban parks as well as great national parks. We warned of how the liability crisis and runaway lawsuits threatened our outdoor activities and called for a new institution or set of institutions to train leadership for outdoor recreation.

We formed State commissions, such as Tennesseans Outdoors, which went to work with the same objectives in our own State that we had in our national Commission.

We envisioned a network of greenways, scenic byways, and shorelines. Most of the action we suggested was not from Washington, DC, but was community by community by community.

But we also acknowledged the important role the Federal Government has to play in providing outdoor recreation opportunities. Of course, we must have clean air and clean water, and we must protect and enhance recreation opportunities on Federal lands and waters.

Almost all of us on the Commission called for the creation of a $1 billion fund to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund--both the State share and the Federal share. This is a way of balancing our need for more oil and gas with our need for recreational opportunities in the outdoors.

As I mentioned earlier, I think of these annual payments from the revenues derived from offshore drilling for oil and gas on Federal land as a royalty payment. Pay the owner a royalty, pay the State its royalty, then pay a conservation royalty for the use of that resource. Then the rest of those revenues go into the Federal Treasury to be appropriated. Pay a $3 billion annual conservation royalty--that is the number that the House bill uses--before it ever gets to the Federal appropriations process. Then appropriate the rest.

I believe this legislation will have broad bipartisan support in the Senate.

I look forward to working with Senator Landrieu, Chairman Domenici, with our colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and with all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fashion legislation that is good legislation, that represents the overwhelming conservation majority in the United States of America, and which can pass the Senate and the House of Representatives this year.

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana.

Her comments make me think of this report. Let me hold this up. So staff will not worry, I will not ask to put this in the Congressional Record. There is a summary I will bring to the Senate when we introduce the bill. This is the report of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors, published in 1987. It is a very good resource and backup for many of the ideas we envision being part of this legislation.

I learned very quickly as Chairman of this Commission that most of the decisions we have to deal with in environmental and conservation matters involve balance. Senator Landrieu and I know, because of our service on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as we work hard to try to develop a national energy policy, that we are having a difficult time as a country compromising, creating balance between our need to produce and our need to conserve.

I certainly do not want to draw into this discussion all of those arguments. I will say very little more about it except it would be nice to find in this contentious Presidential year, in this time when we have so much disagreement about energy production and conservation, one area where we could show we are skilled enough as legislators to properly represent the huge conservation majority in the United States.

Most Americans, as President Reagan's Commission thought and almost all Members thought, of course, we have to drill for oil and gas; otherwise our natural gas prices are going through the roof; our jobs will be in Mexico; our lights will be out. Of course we have to do that.

Is that an insult to the environment? Yes, it is. What do we do about it? Shut down the wells? No, one thing we can do is take some of that money--actually a lot of this money--and pay a conservation royalty, compensate for that by creating a conservation benefit on the other side. This idea of the land and water conservation fund has been endorsed by politicians of both parties for a long time. What we are trying to do today is assure a steady stream of revenue to the State and Federal side of the conservation fund, plus a number of other conservation areas, in a way that respects each of our States. We can do it. There is enough of a majority; we can do that.

President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors from 1985, 1986, and 1987, and the work that Senator Landrieu and the majority in both Houses did, form a wonderful beginning. We will see in the next few weeks if we are wise enough to take that to a successful conclusion.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.