Oil Independence, Limiting Subsidies, and Accelerating Vehicle Efficiency (OILSAVE) Act

Mr. President, for more than 3 years, this Congress, which has been given the name of the ``do-nothing Congress,'' has turned a blind eye to the intractable war in Iraq, ignoring the administration's many mistakes and allowing it to stay on a failed course.

Here we are, with 6 days left in the 109th Congress, and the Republicans, who control the House and Senate and the White House, have not held one hearing--not one--into the President's wartime failures. During the Civil War, President Lincoln was faced continually with oversight hearings by his Congress. Of course, we know during World War II, there were a number of commissions. The most famous was that conducted by Senator Harry Truman of Missouri, which led to his becoming Vice President. Some say, but for that he would not have been chosen as Vice President. What was the Truman Commission? It was to determine what was going on with World War II. Was money being wasted? Were troop levels right? Korean war hearings were also held, and the same for the Vietnam war. But for this war, none--even though this war has taken longer than it took to settle the differences in the European theater in World War II. Soon it will be the same amount of time that we were able to beat Japan.

This Republican Congress has wasted 20 months on horse slaughtering; the Schiavo case, dealing with someone's personal relationship, which should not even have been before this body; gay marriage; the nuclear option; flag burning; repealing the estate tax. But they could not find a day for some time to look at the President's mistakes, missteps, and misconduct, which have hurt American security and plunged Iraq into a civil war--not a day.

Yesterday's Washington Post newspaper brought the latest indictment of the Bush incompetence in Iraq, in a front-page story entitled ``Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq.'' Mr. President, this article says a lot of things, but here is some of it:

. . . applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle

East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most

important was loyalty to the Bush administration.

It is interesting to note that the person selected to do this is a man by the name of O'Beirne. I saw that name and it flashed because I have been on programs with a woman by the name of Kate O'Beirne. And I'll be darned, it happened to be her husband who was chosen to find the people to take care of postwar Iraq.

Here are some of the questions that were asked of the applicants: ``Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000?'' They even asked questions about how the applicant felt about Roe v. Wade. People being interviewed for purposes of helping rebuild war-damaged Iraq were asked questions on Roe v. Wade. The questions had nothing to do with one's competence, their educational background, or their experience. The article says that

. . . from April 2003 to June 2004 [it was clear that

O'Beirne] lacked vital skills and experience

to do what he was required to do. It says:

A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance--but had

applied for a White House job--was sent to reopen Baghdad's

stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative

commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical

university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage

Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a

background in accounting.

The article also says:

Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the

past two years depict an organization that was dominated--and

ultimately hobbled--by administration ideologues.

``We didn't tap--and it should have started from the White

House on down--just didn't tap the right people to do this

job,'' said Frederick Smith, who served as deputy director of

the DPA's Washington office. ``It was a tough, tough job.

Instead we got people who went out there because of their

political leanings.''

But many CPA staff members were more interested in other

things: in instituting a flat tax--

People were sent there with no background, no education, no academic experience, and set out to create a flat tax in Iraq.

They were interested ``in selling off government assets, in ending food rations and otherwise fashioning a new nation that looked a lot like the United States. Many of them spent their days cloistered in the Green Zone, a walled-off enclave in central Baghdad with towering palms, posh villas, well-stocked bars and resort-size swimming pools.''

Mr. President, this picture says it all. Here is Paul Bremmer. They dumped General Garner after a few weeks and brought Bremmer in. Here he is, on his throne--on his throne. He is on a throne surrounded by Iraqis.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

The answer is, yes, he received that. I assume one would expect that from somebody who had a throne while he was over there.

That is true.

I don't think he did. Even though he was doing a heck of a job, I don't think he obtained a medal from the White House.

The article goes on to say--and I say to my friend and anyone within the sound of my voice:

To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought resumes

from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative

think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from

those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the

applicants possessed Arab language skills or postwar

rebuilding experience.

Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's resume

and pronounced him ``an ideal candidate.'' His chief

qualification was that had he worked for the Republican Party

in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000.

I am not making this up. This is hard to comprehend.

I will be happy to.

It started out at $18 billion. But as the Senator from Illinois will remember, part of that money, stacks of one-hundred- dollar bills, was used by some of the contractors who were sent over there to play football games--some of these same people.

I say to my friend, this war is approaching 3\1/2\ years, and there has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the conduct of the war. This war has now cost us, the American taxpayers, about $325 billion. There has not been a single congressional oversight hearing on the war.

I say to my friend, I spent the weekend reading a book. I did other things. I spent a lot of time on an airplane. The book is called ``Fiasco,'' written by a man named Thomas Ricks who has spent his life covering the military. He has written books on the military. I don't know his political persuasion. This book is on the best seller's list of the New York Times.

In this book, he talks in such detail about what has happened as a result of the incompetence of this administration to our valiant fighting men and women over there. I recommend the book to anyone. It is a searing indictment of this administration. It is in keeping with what this article is all about.

Another paragraph:

One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's

wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment

process: ``I watched resumes of immensely talented

individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown

in the trash because their adherence to `the President's

vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was

`uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like

Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions

in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC

(Republican National Committee) contributors.''

One staffer said:

I'm not here for the Iraqis, I'm here for George Bush.''

Mr. President, this is really a sad commentary. Important jobs, such as rebuilding the Iraq stock exchange, were given to applicants who agreed with the President on Roe v. Wade. Qualified individuals were turned down for jobs if they didn't vote for Bush in 2000. The children of the President's conservative friends were given authority over the country's $13 billion budget.

Today in Iraq we are witnessing the terrible consequences of Bush cronyism, and it is our troops, the Iraqi people, and the American people who are paying the price.

Reconstruction has been a failure. The economy is a mess. Thousands are dying. Whole provinces have been lost. One province, Anbar Province, makes up a third of the country. The military people said it is gone. And the political solution necessary to bring Americans home is nowhere to be found.

The testimony we hear from people such as the people in this newspaper article is unbelievable. We have heard it time and again. The only people who aren't listening are George Bush and this do-nothing Congress.

If the Iraq war has taught us anything, it is that Congress must take seriously its responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable, and it has not happened. For 2 years, Democrats have offered constructive solutions to change course in Iraq and give our troops and the Iraqi people the chance for some type of stability and success. We have said there must be a redeployment of forces this year to transition the mission, to change the mission.

We have said we must resolve the sectarian differences through a political settlement. That is called diplomacy. They need to amend their constitution.

We said they must regionalize the conflict with a contact group or conference to bring in those countries that said they will help.

We need to revitalize, and we can do that as I have indicated: get the countries that said they would help to come in and help. There needs to be a regional solution. We need to rebuild our badly strained U.S. military. There is not a single undeployed Army unit today that is battle ready. That says it all.

A number of generals have witnessed this administration's flawed Iraq policy firsthand, and they have repeatedly called for new civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

I say this with all due respect: I bet if those military personnel weren't working for Government defense contracts, we would have a few more speaking out. But we have had plenty.

In each instance, when the generals speak out, the Republican Congress blocks their efforts and puts their political interests ahead of America's safety.

The war in Iraq has been a diversion from the real war on terror. But this administration and this do-nothing Congress are content to stay the course, even as it makes America less safe and Iraq less stable.

We need a new direction. This Congress has failed.

I yield the floor.

(The remarks of Mr. Wyden and Mr. Bennett pertaining to the introduction of S. 3908 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, after years and years of congressional gridlock on the issue of automobile efficiency, I and Senator Bennett of Utah are today bringing to the Senate legislation that is market oriented, bipartisan, and a bill that we believe will bring millions and millions of fuel-efficient automobiles, cars, and trucks to the streets of our country.

We put our Nation on the road to energy independence by rewarding drivers who buy more fuel-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs. These rewards, under the legislation I have drafted with the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, are available on a sliding scale. The more fuel-efficient the vehicle, the greater the reward that the consumer would receive.

We also put the brakes on a needless subsidy to the major oil companies and use the savings that are derived from stopping that windfall to reward consumers in their wallets for helping to end our country's oil dependence. To his credit, the President of the United States has said: You don't need these incentives when oil is over $55 a barrel, as it is today.

I asked the CEOs when the major oil companies came before a joint hearing--I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska in the chair. He will recall at our hearing, the joint Commerce and Energy hearing that was held, I asked the oil company executives of the major companies whether they needed the various tax breaks that were currently offered, and to a person, they said they did not.

I see my good friend from Utah, and I thank him for his efforts to make this legislation bipartisan. What I will do, now that the Senator from Utah has arrived, is briefly describe how our bipartisan legislation works and why we think this will be a major transformation in terms of the cars, trucks, and SUVs on the roads of our country.

Under our bipartisan, market-oriented bill, consumers who buy vehicles that are at least 25 percent more fuel efficient than the applicable standards, called CAFE, would get a rebate of at least $630 and as much as $1,860 for the most fuel-efficient cars. We have separate standards for cars and trucks so the consumers can choose the type of vehicle they want and still get the rebate or the credit as long as they choose a fuel-efficient model.

In the past, the automobile industry has said that fuel economy standards are hard to achieve because car buyers place little value on fuel economy. The new program created by our bill directly addresses that concern by providing rebates to consumers for purchasing fuel- efficient vehicles.

Many in the automobile industry have also said that car buyers don't fully appreciate the value of lifetime fuel savings at the time of purchase. I and Senator Bennett believe this will change that by providing the rebates or the credits through focusing consumer attention on fuel efficiency at the time of purchase.

It will be possible for consumers at the time of purchase to see the type of notice I am holding as a sticker on the window of the automobile. So right at the time of purchase, because of this sticker-- I am holding a copy of it--it will be possible for purchasers to see the real value of fuel-efficient purchases in the automotive sector.

For vehicles that qualify, the rebate or credit amount would be printed on the window sticker, as I have described, and the consumer could claim the rebate as a tax credit on his or her tax return. Alternatively, I and Senator Bennett conceived that the rebate could be transferred to automobile dealers, allowing dealers to provide the rebates to consumers as cash back at the time of purchase.

In our view, the legislation also builds on the incentives that were provided in the Energy bill specifically for hybrid gasoline/electric- powered cars. We believe the approach that we are advocating will be especially popular because it is simpler and fairer. For example, unlike the hybrid credit that is in the energy bill, there is no phaseout of the incentives we propose, based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. Because our legislation eliminates the truly complicated phaseout of the credit that now exists, it is our view that consumers will not be confused as they are today about when they can get a credit and how much it will be. Also, unlike the approach taken in the energy legislation, our bipartisan bill does not pick winners and losers among competitive technology. It takes a technology-neutral approach that allows any vehicle that has superior fuel efficiency to qualify for a rebate, whether it uses hybrid or conventional technologies.

I also want to emphasize why I think it is important that we take bolder action to jumpstart the markets for fuel-efficient vehicles. As I mentioned, there is a phaseout for the incentives today based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. We have tried to get our arms around exactly how many of these alternative-fuel vehicles are going to be purchased this year. Many estimates seem to be just a bit over 100,000. But compare those 100,000 hybrids to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased with the kind of incentives that I and Senator Bennett are proposing. We are significantly increasing, through a marketplace approach, the chance to multiply many times over the number of fuel-efficient vehicles on the streets of our country. The distinguished Senator from Alaska who is in the chair has sat in on many of the debates with me on the Energy Committee where we have heard views expressed about what could be done through a regulatory approach. Those approaches have been fought to gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

What I and Senator Bennett want to do is something very different. We want to use a marketplace approach to significantly jumpstart the market for these fuel-efficient vehicles over the next 5 years. Compare 100,000 hybrid vehicles that are likely to be purchased this year to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased for each of the next 5 years under the legislation we are advocating and we get a sense of the difference in approach and why we think ours is very much needed and can make a break with the policies that have produced gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

Finally, I would wrap up by saying that the legislation I and Senator Bennett are proposing is fully paid for. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, our bill saves $6.8 billion by limiting just one of the tax breaks that the major oil companies have said they no longer need. It is known as the expensing of intangible drilling costs, which includes land acquisition costs, development costs, and the costs of leasing equipment. The Congressional Research Service has called this special break economically inefficient. I looked very carefully at it after the hearing attended by myself and the distinguished Senator from Alaska and others, when I asked the major oil executives if they needed all of the tax breaks that were currently allowed under the code. They said they did not. The President, to his credit, said the major oil companies do not need tax

breaks when the price of oil is over $55 a barrel.

So according to the analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the savings derived by limiting one tax break for major oil companies more than covers the $1.3 billion-per-year cost of the marketplace- oriented rebate and credit program.

To finally sum up, I believe our legislation--we call it OILSAVE--is a winner for consumers, a winner for energy security, and a winner for taxpayers. It is a win for the consumer because it helps our Nation's energy security by the purchase of what could be millions of fuel- efficient cars and trucks and SUVs. It helps us kick our Nation's oil dependence by stimulating the purchase of a number of greener vehicles at home and by limiting a tax break the Congressional Research Service calls economically inefficient. Finally, it is a win for our taxpayers because after the major oil company executives said that they didn't need this break, and the President indicated that with oil at these prices you didn't need incentives, it is possible for us now to jumpstart the marketplace for these vehicles without any additional costs to the taxpayers.

So I hope my colleagues will reflect on the difference between this discussion and the ones we have had previously on the floor of the Senate. The decibel level got pretty high during those past debates. When Senator Bennett and I launched our discussion, it was a different kind of discussion. It was a discussion about how we can find common ground in the Senate, how we can be significantly bolder in the area of automobile efficiency. We have zeroed in on this area, an area I know has been of interest to the Presiding Officer over the years, because automobile efficiency is the ball game as it relates to the issue of energy security. That is where our oil is going.

So I hope our colleagues will be interested in the legislation that we are bringing to the Senate today. The OILSAVE legislation is a departure from the polarized debates we have had in this body.

I want to say, wrapping up, that I don't think I could have a better partner for this particular effort than the distinguished Senator from Utah. He is the chair, as our colleagues know, of the Joint Economic Committee. He has been interested in energy legislation as a member of the Republican leadership for quite some time. I would note that today is his birthday, and he has decided to use this special day, when his family is clamoring for his time, to be part of this bipartisan effort with me. I am very grateful for his involvement in this task, and I would like to yield the floor, if I might.

I also see our distinguished friend from West Virginia here, and if it is acceptable, perhaps Senator Bennett could wrap up for our legislation, and then I know the entire Senate wishes to here the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the OILSAVE bill introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, after years and years of congressional gridlock on the issue of automobile efficiency, I and Senator Bennett of Utah are today bringing to the Senate legislation that is market oriented, bipartisan, and a bill that we believe will bring millions and millions of fuel-efficient automobiles, cars, and trucks to the streets of our country.

We put our Nation on the road to energy independence by rewarding drivers who buy more fuel-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs. These rewards, under the legislation I have drafted with the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, are available on a sliding scale. The more fuel-efficient the vehicle, the greater the reward that the consumer would receive.

We also put the brakes on a needless subsidy to the major oil companies and use the savings that are derived from stopping that windfall to reward consumers in their wallets for helping to end our country's oil dependence. To his credit, the President of the United States has said: You don't need these incentives when oil is over $55 a barrel, as it is today.

I asked the CEOs when the major oil companies came before a joint hearing--I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska in the chair. He will recall at our hearing, the joint Commerce and Energy hearing that was held, I asked the oil company executives of the major companies whether they needed the various tax breaks that were currently offered, and to a person, they said they did not.

I see my good friend from Utah, and I thank him for his efforts to make this legislation bipartisan. What I will do, now that the Senator from Utah has arrived, is briefly describe how our bipartisan legislation works and why we think this will be a major transformation in terms of the cars, trucks, and SUVs on the roads of our country.

Under our bipartisan, market-oriented bill, consumers who buy vehicles that are at least 25 percent more fuel efficient than the applicable standards, called CAFE, would get a rebate of at least $630 and as much as $1,860 for the most fuel-efficient cars. We have separate standards for cars and trucks so the consumers can choose the type of vehicle they want and still get the rebate or the credit as long as they choose a fuel-efficient model.

In the past, the automobile industry has said that fuel economy standards are hard to achieve because car buyers place little value on fuel economy. The new program created by our bill directly addresses that concern by providing rebates to consumers for purchasing fuel- efficient vehicles.

Many in the automobile industry have also said that car buyers don't fully appreciate the value of lifetime fuel savings at the time of purchase. I and Senator Bennett believe this will change that by providing the rebates or the credits through focusing consumer attention on fuel efficiency at the time of purchase.

It will be possible for consumers at the time of purchase to see the type of notice I am holding as a sticker on the window of the automobile. So right at the time of purchase, because of this sticker-- I am holding a copy of it--it will be possible for purchasers to see the real value of fuel-efficient purchases in the automotive sector.

For vehicles that qualify, the rebate or credit amount would be printed on the window sticker, as I have described, and the consumer could claim the rebate as a tax credit on his or her tax return. Alternatively, I and Senator Bennett conceived that the rebate could be transferred to automobile dealers, allowing dealers to provide the rebates to consumers as cash back at the time of purchase.

In our view, the legislation also builds on the incentives that were provided in the Energy bill specifically for hybrid gasoline/electric- powered cars. We believe the approach that we are advocating will be especially popular because it is simpler and fairer. For example, unlike the hybrid credit that is in the energy bill, there is no phaseout of the incentives we propose, based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. Because our legislation eliminates the truly complicated phaseout of the credit that now exists, it is our view that consumers will not be confused as they are today about when they can get a credit and how much it will be. Also, unlike the approach taken in the energy legislation, our bipartisan bill does not pick winners and losers among competitive technology. It takes a technology-neutral approach that allows any vehicle that has superior fuel efficiency to qualify for a rebate, whether it uses hybrid or conventional technologies.

I also want to emphasize why I think it is important that we take bolder action to jumpstart the markets for fuel-efficient vehicles. As I mentioned, there is a phaseout for the incentives today based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. We have tried to get our arms around exactly how many of these alternative-fuel vehicles are going to be purchased this year. Many estimates seem to be just a bit over 100,000. But compare those 100,000 hybrids to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased with the kind of incentives that I and Senator Bennett are proposing. We are significantly increasing, through a marketplace approach, the chance to multiply many times over the number of fuel-efficient vehicles on the streets of our country. The distinguished Senator from Alaska who is in the chair has sat in on many of the debates with me on the Energy Committee where we have heard views expressed about what could be done through a regulatory approach. Those approaches have been fought to gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

What I and Senator Bennett want to do is something very different. We want to use a marketplace approach to significantly jumpstart the market for these fuel-efficient vehicles over the next 5 years. Compare 100,000 hybrid vehicles that are likely to be purchased this year to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased for each of the next 5 years under the legislation we are advocating and we get a sense of the difference in approach and why we think ours is very much needed and can make a break with the policies that have produced gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

Finally, I would wrap up by saying that the legislation I and Senator Bennett are proposing is fully paid for. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, our bill saves $6.8 billion by limiting just one of the tax breaks that the major oil companies have said they no longer need. It is known as the expensing of intangible drilling costs, which includes land acquisition costs, development costs, and the costs of leasing equipment. The Congressional Research Service has called this special break economically inefficient. I looked very carefully at it after the hearing attended by myself and the distinguished Senator from Alaska and others, when I asked the major oil executives if they needed all of the tax breaks that were currently allowed under the code. They said they did not. The President, to his credit, said the major oil companies do not need tax

breaks when the price of oil is over $55 a barrel.

So according to the analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the savings derived by limiting one tax break for major oil companies more than covers the $1.3 billion-per-year cost of the marketplace- oriented rebate and credit program.

To finally sum up, I believe our legislation--we call it OILSAVE--is a winner for consumers, a winner for energy security, and a winner for taxpayers. It is a win for the consumer because it helps our Nation's energy security by the purchase of what could be millions of fuel- efficient cars and trucks and SUVs. It helps us kick our Nation's oil dependence by stimulating the purchase of a number of greener vehicles at home and by limiting a tax break the Congressional Research Service calls economically inefficient. Finally, it is a win for our taxpayers because after the major oil company executives said that they didn't need this break, and the President indicated that with oil at these prices you didn't need incentives, it is possible for us now to jumpstart the marketplace for these vehicles without any additional costs to the taxpayers.

So I hope my colleagues will reflect on the difference between this discussion and the ones we have had previously on the floor of the Senate. The decibel level got pretty high during those past debates. When Senator Bennett and I launched our discussion, it was a different kind of discussion. It was a discussion about how we can find common ground in the Senate, how we can be significantly bolder in the area of automobile efficiency. We have zeroed in on this area, an area I know has been of interest to the Presiding Officer over the years, because automobile efficiency is the ball game as it relates to the issue of energy security. That is where our oil is going.

So I hope our colleagues will be interested in the legislation that we are bringing to the Senate today. The OILSAVE legislation is a departure from the polarized debates we have had in this body.

I want to say, wrapping up, that I don't think I could have a better partner for this particular effort than the distinguished Senator from Utah. He is the chair, as our colleagues know, of the Joint Economic Committee. He has been interested in energy legislation as a member of the Republican leadership for quite some time. I would note that today is his birthday, and he has decided to use this special day, when his family is clamoring for his time, to be part of this bipartisan effort with me. I am very grateful for his involvement in this task, and I would like to yield the floor, if I might.

I also see our distinguished friend from West Virginia here, and if it is acceptable, perhaps Senator Bennett could wrap up for our legislation, and then I know the entire Senate wishes to here the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the OILSAVE bill introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, above-average rainfall in New Mexico this summer has led many to turn a blind eye to the grim water situation faced by our State only 2 months ago. New Mexico was fast approaching a disaster due to drought. Many of our municipalities' wells were running dry and reservoirs were at dangerously low levels. Providence intervened; narrowly averting a crisis resulting from water scarcity.

The development of the centrifugal pump was an event of great significance in the history of the West. Windmill driven pumps provided enough water for a family and several livestock. The centrifugal pump, on the other hand, was capable of pumping 800 gallons of water a minute, making possible the habitation of what was previously barren desert. To a large extent, this invention provided the water for growing towns and agricultural industry. However, it also resulted in a great dependence on groundwater. As such, we need to fully understand the nature and extent of our groundwater resources. This bill will provide us with the information necessary to ensure that the water on which we have come to rely is available for years to come.

During times of drought, when surface water is scarce, we must be able to reliably turn to groundwater reserves. Approximately 90 percent of New Mexicans depend on groundwater for drinking water and 77 percent of New Mexicans obtain water exclusively from groundwater sources. While groundwater supplies throughout the State are coming under increasing competition, not enough is known about these resources in order to make sound decisions regarding their use.

Nearly 40 percent of the State's population resides in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. Once thought to contain vast quantities of water, we are now faced with the reality the Middle Rio Grande Basin contains far less water than originally thought. Between 1995 and 2001, the United States Geological Survey undertook a study of the basin which added greatly to our knowledge regarding the primary source of water for our largest population center. Had we proceeded with our water planning without the information provided by this study, I have little doubt that we would ultimately find ourselves in a dire situation. However, there is much more to be learned about this basin.

Roughly 65 percent of the State's population lives along the Rio Grande. Also located along the river are the four largest cities in New Mexico: Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Rio Rancho and Las Cruces. While the completion of the San Juan-Chama Diversion by the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority will allow the county of Bernalillo and city of Albuquerque to take advantage of their allocation of San Juan-Chama water, the remainder of the cities and counties located along the Rio Grande will continue to receive the majority of their water from aquifers beneath the Rio Grande. Aside from the Middle Rio Grande Basin, we have limited knowledge of the amount of water contained in the aquifers below the Rio Grande, the rate at which they recharge, aquifer contamination, and the interaction between surface flows and ground water.

Elsewhere in the State, even less is understood regarding groundwater resources. While there is limited unallocated surface water in the State, there are significant quantities of untapped underground water in the Tularosa and Salt Basins. The Tularosa Basin is approximately 60 miles wide and 200 miles long. Making the conservative estimate that 10 percent of the water contained in that aquifer is available for use through desalination, it would provide 100 years of water for a city the size of Albuquerque. With the development of desalination technology, I anticipate that even a greater amount of the brackish water contained in the Tularosa Basin will be available for human use.

Another untapped water supply is the Salt Basin located in southern New Mexico. The basin lies in a geologically complex area and our understanding of the total resource is incomplete. However, initial estimates predict sustainable withdrawals on the order of 100,000 acre- feet per year of potable water from the New Mexico portion of the aquifer. This is enough water to support a city the size of our largest municipal area. Additional brackish resources in that basin are highly likely. Because the basin is located near expanding metropolitan areas near the U.S.-Mexico Border, it is a resource of critical importance.

The bill I introduce today would direct the United States Geological Survey, in collaboration with the State of New Mexico, to undertake a groundwater resources study in the State of New Mexico. A comprehensive study of the State's water resources is critical to effective water planning. Absent such a study, I fear that there is a significant likelihood that we may be depleting aquifers at an unsustainable rate.

I thank Senator Bingaman for being an original co-sponsor of this legislation. I also thank Representative Heather Wilson for introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives and I look forward to working with them to ensure the bill's passage.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon for his overly kind remarks. I have enjoyed working with him on this particular project. It is very clear he has the initiative on this legislation, but I am happy to respond to his initiative and lend what assistance I possibly can.

I want to make just a few additional comments about the presentation he has made. I have always been very nervous about CAFE standards. For those who are watching and don't know what CAFE standards mean, it has nothing to do with lunch, but it comes from the acronym CAFE, or corporate aggregate fleet emissions, having to do with automobiles.

I have always thought that whenever government gets in the way of the market, government tends to make mistakes with the market. I think we can look back over the years of the CAFE standards, and in an effort to get lower emissions and more efficiency out of our automobiles, we have had a situation where manufacturers have had to make cars people don't want to buy, just to make the CAFE standard requirements. I am always nervous about that. That is one of the reasons I have been hesitant to support CAFE standards.

Here is a solution that will create incentives for people to buy lower emission automobiles, or more efficient automobiles, without dictating what those automobiles will be and without dictating a Federal target. It simply says: If you buy a car that gets higher mileage than the CAFE standard average, to a certain extent, as the Senator from Oregon has explained, the Federal Government will give you a rebate. Now, it is a tax rebate. It is a tax credit. So that is cash in your pocket if you pay income taxes, and 50 percent of American wage earners do not pay income taxes. This is one of the things we have to understand. The income tax is so constructed that it applies only to the top 50 percent of Americans, and the majority is paid by the top 5 percent of Americans.

So you can say: Well, the tax credit isn't really fair because only the people at the top get to take advantage of it. So in the bill that the Senator from Oregon has crafted and what I am cosponsoring, a car buyer can say: Instead of the tax credit, once the whole deal has been made, the price negotiated, I want my $630 or my $1,000 or my $1,800 or whatever it might be on the deal to go against my responsibility for a downpayment.

Now, we very carefully have not put it in a situation where it can be part of a deal because we think the car dealer will say: Ok. I will simply raise the price by the amount of the rebate and do a little bait and switch and not give strong economic incentives for somebody who really understands what is going on to buy this particular car. The dealer doesn't know when the buyer comes in whether the buyer is going to take the amount as a tax rebate directly to the buyer or whether he is going to apply it to the downpayment. So the dealer cannot do any bait and switch or smoke and mirrors to try to take advantage of that. That is one of the talking points in favor of this particular approach.

But it means, as the Senator from Oregon has said, that the government now becomes technology neutral. The government says: We don't really care whether the increased mileage comes as a result of a hybrid or, as one auto manufacturer said, improved diesel, or some other technology that no one has thought of. This means that someone who is working on additional technology that needs a little bit of a nudge to have people buy it doesn't have to put that aside and say: Well, I can't compete with the subsidy that is created for hybrid. I have something that will get just as good mileage as a hybrid, but I can't put it on the marketplace because the present law says you get so much of an advantage for hybrid but not for this new one that I have come up with. So the government stays technology neutral and tax neutral in terms of the impact on the people who get the advantage of it, and the manufacturer deals directly with the customer in producing the kinds of automobiles people want to buy. And if people say: I really don't want to buy that automobile, if CAFE standards disappear, the manufacturer can say: OK, if you don't want to buy it, we won't produce it. Whereas, now there is pressure; we have to produce it in order to meet the CAFE average, whether people want to buy it or not.

Economics is all about incentives. This is the right kind of government intervention to create incentives that I think ultimately will correct some of the wrong kinds of government intervention, however well intentioned, that we have seen.

So I am delighted with the leadership shown by my friend from Oregon. I am happy to work with him on this issue, as I am working with him on other issues. I think it is an example of the kind of bipartisan approach to solve the Nation's problems that we all need to follow. I congratulate him, salute him for his leadership, and I am happy to be part of the team.