Free Flow of Information Act of 2007

Madam President, I rise to speak about a matter that I very much regret being here to discuss, but events have driven me to this point and, with me, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mrs. Boxer, Senator Klobuchar, and others as well.

For most of its nearly four-decade history, Americans could look to the Environmental Protection Agency for independent leadership, grounded in science and the rule of law. It was an agency whose clear mission was to protect our environment and health.

At its very founding, EPA's first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, stated unequivocally:

EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to

promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation

to protect and enhance the environment.

During the tenure of Administrator Stephen Johnson, we have seen that clear mission darkened by the shadowy handiwork of the Bush White House, trampling on science, ignoring the facts, flouting the law, defying Congress and the courts, while kneeling before industry polluters, and all for rank and venal purposes. Under Administrator Johnson, EPA is an agency in distress, in dishonor, and in bad hands.

Events last week have shed new light on the extent of the damage done to this great agency, but the evidence of Mr. Johnson's dismal record has been growing for many months. The charges are serious and fall in three separate categories: his repeated decisions putting the interests of corporate polluters before science and the law, even when it puts at risk our environment and the health of American people; his deliberate actions to degrade the procedures and institutional safeguards that sustain the agency; and his apparent dishonesty to us in testimony before Congress.

The particulars are these. Count 1: On pollution from ozone, the EPA, under Administrator Johnson, departed from the consistent recommendations of agency scientists, public health officials, and the agency's own scientific advisory committees and instead set an ozone standard that favored polluters. The standard he set was inadequate to protect the public, especially children and the elderly, from the harmful effects of ozone pollution, from asthma and lung disease.

Indeed, it was so inadequate that EPA's own Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee took the unique step of writing to the Administrator to state that they ``do not endorse the new primary ozone standard as being sufficiently protective of the public health'' and that the EPA's decision ``fail[ed] to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act that you ensure an adequate margin of safety for all individuals, including sensitive populations.''

Setting this inadequate ozone standard against the evidence was a dereliction of Administrator Johnson's duty to the Agency he leads and of EPA's duty to protect the health of the American people.

Count 2: On pollution from lead, Administrator Johnson has proposed a standard that fails to sufficiently strengthen the regulation aimed at limiting exposure to lead pollution.

Lead has poisoned tens of thousands of children in Rhode Island and many more all over the country. Both an independent scientific review panel and EPA's own scientific staff recommended a lead standard of no greater than 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter. Yet Administrator Johnson proposed a range of 0.1 up to .05 micrograms--2\1/2\ times.

Mr. Johnson further diluted even that lax standard by using what public health advocates have labeled ``statistical trickery''-- statistical trickery--allowing polluters a longer period of time over which to average the amount of lead they discharge into the air.

Again, by not adequately protecting children from lead, Administrator Johnson was derelict in his duty to his Agency.

Count 3: On pollution from soot, technically called ``particulate matter,'' Administrator Johnson bowed to pressure from industry and failed to strengthen a decade-old standard limiting particulate matter pollution from smokestacks.

Again, the Agency's own scientific advisory committees had called for a tougher standard to protect public health. Again, Administrator Johnson yielded to polluters. Again, Administrator Johnson failed in his duty to the Agency he leads.

Count 4: On vehicle tailpipe emissions, Administrator Johnson denied a waiver that would have allowed the State of California, my State of Rhode Island, and many other States to enact strict restrictions on global warming pollution from automobiles.

EPA staff indicated in briefing materials that ``we don't believe there are any good arguments against granting the waiver.'' EPA lawyers cautioned the Administrator that all of the arguments against granting the waiver were ``likely to lose in court.'' Yet Administrator Johnson issued an unprecedented denial of that waiver.

I will separately discuss my grave concerns about the Administrator's testimony on this matter. I believe he has lied to us. But for this purpose now, looking only at the substantive outcome, in ignoring the law, the dictates of science, the recommendations of his regulatory and legal staff, the role of Congress, the wishes of the States, and the welfare of the American people, Administrator Johnson failed again in his duty to the Agency he leads.

Count 5: On global warming pollution, in defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, Administrator Johnson has failed to take action after the Court's ruling that EPA has the authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that pollute our air and warm our planet.

It is now nearly 18 months since the Court's decision, and the EPA has shown no indication it will act before President Bush leaves office. In ignoring a ruling of this Nation's highest Court empowering him to act on a matter important to the public health of Americans, Administrator Johnson again failed in his duty to the Agency he leads.

But it was not enough for Administrator Johnson to rule for the polluters on pollutant after pollutant.

Administrator Johnson has also systematically dismantled institutional safeguards and processes that protect his Agency's integrity and guide its mission.

Jonathan Cannon served at EPA during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations. He warns of ``extreme friction within the agency and institutional damage . . . demoralizing the legal staff, and . . . further separating staff from the political leadership at the agency.'' We saw similar sabotage of institutional safeguards in the Gonzales Department of Justice, and this institutional damage raises four further charges, taking us to count six.

On the question of the Agency's legal integrity, under Administrator Johnson, the EPA offered legal arguments for its insufficient pollutant standards so shallow they provoked ridicule by the courts that heard them. When EPA tried to defend its weak mercury cap-and-trade system, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--which, as we know, is hardly a liberal bench--accused the Agency

of employing the ``logic of the Queen of Hearts'' in attempting to evade the intent of Congress and the clear meaning of the Clean Air Act.

The same court said EPA's argument under the Clean Air Act allowing power companies to avoid upgrading their pollution control technologies made sense only in ``a Humpty Dumpty world.'' In adopting ``Wonderland'' legal analysis that contravenes the clear will of Congress and embarrasses his Agency before the courts, Administrator Johnson failed again in his duty to uphold the mission of the Agency he leads.

Count 7: On the integrity of EPA's scientific advisory boards, Administrator Johnson did not just ignore these boards' recommendations, he willingly allowed those panels to be infiltrated by the very industries they are meant to regulate and control.

For example, an employee of ExxonMobil served on the panel to assess the carcinogenicity of ethyl oxide--a chemical manufactured by ExxonMobil.

Another scientist received research support from Dow Agro and served on that panel, even though ethyl oxide is also manufactured by Dow Agro.

A scientist whose research was funded by American Cyanamid and CYTEC sits on the EPA panel on acrylamide, which is manufactured by American Cyanamid and marketed by CYTEC. EPA did not see any conflict of interest.

But at the beck and call of the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobby group, Administrator Johnson removed Dr. Deborah Rice, a prominent toxicologist, from a scientific review board investigating chemicals used in common plastic goods.

The industry argued that she had a conflict of interest. Incredibly, the conflict of interest was that, at a public hearing in the State of Maine, as a representative of the State's Government, Dr. Rice had stated her professional opinion regarding the dangers associated with these chemicals. The industry did not like her professional opinion. Not only was Dr. Rice removed from the panel, but in a particularly Orwellian maneuver, the fact that she had ever been on the panel was stricken from the advisory committee's records.

In packing EPA's scientific panels to please industry polluters, Administrator Johnson is guilty of a particularly chilling dereliction of his duty to the Agency he leads.

Count 8: A report issued on April 23 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, entitled ``Interference at the EPA,'' uncovered widespread political influence in EPA decisions. The report found that 60 percent of EPA career scientists surveyed had personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past 5 years--60 percent of the career scientists. It is a plague over there.

The report documented, among other things, that many EPA scientists have been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter information from EPA science documents, or have had their work edited in a manner that resulted in changes to their scientific findings.

The survey also revealed that EPA scientists have often objected to or resigned or removed themselves from EPA projects because of that pressure to change scientific findings.

Allowing this corrosive political influence to persist among the career scientists at EPA is yet another dereliction of Administrator Johnson's duty to the Agency he leads.

Count 9: Administrator Johnson has twisted the very administrative procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency to allow the White House Office of Management and Budget secret influence over Agency decisionmaking.

For example, the IRIS process for determining the toxicity of chemicals that all of us are exposed to allows OMB three separate chances to exert its dark influence: at the beginning, in the middle, and again at the end of the Agency's process. In the words of the GAO, this process is ``inconsistent with the principle of sound science that relies on, among other things, transparency.''

This is not just a potential concern. The current chair of EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Panel has testified that the ozone standard was ``[set] . . . by fiat behind closed doors,'' has testified that the entire Agency's scientific process was ``for naught,'' and testified that ``the OMB and the White House set the standard, even though theoretically it was set by the EPA Administrator.'' She testified that as a result, ``willful ignorance triumphed over sound science.'' That is her testimony.

In manipulating his Agency's processes to let willful ignorance triumph over sound science, Administrator Johnson has again been derelict in his duties to this once proud Agency.

The third and final category of charges relates to Johnson's relationship to Congress. In defiance of his charge under the Constitution of the United States, Administrator Johnson has personally repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congress in our efforts to conduct proper oversight over the executive branch.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has repeatedly requested documents in connection with EPA's denial of the California waiver and its failure to adequately regulate ozone pollution in our efforts to determine whether the White House improperly influenced these decisions.

Administrator Johnson has rebuffed these proper requests. He has repeatedly declined to appear before the EPW Committee to explain his Agency's policies. And when he has appeared, he has resorted to canned, stock, evasive answers in response to legitimate questions about political influence infiltrating his Agency.

Just last week, he refused to appear before the Judiciary Committee on which I also serve for a hearing to look further into his failure to cooperate with Congress and provide documents and other information we have sought.

In what is perhaps the gravest matter of all, I believe the Administrator deliberately and repeatedly lied to Congress, creating a false picture of the process that led to EPA's denial of the California waiver, in order to obscure the role of the White House in influencing his decision.

Today, Senator Boxer and I have sent a letter to Attorney General Mukasey--along with Senator Klobuchar--asking him to investigate whether Administrator Johnson gave false and misleading statements, whether he committed perjury, and whether he obstructed Congress's investigation into the process that led to the denial of the California waiver request.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter and its attached recitations be printed in the Record as an exhibit to these remarks.

There is more. These are not isolated counts but signs of an agency corrupted in every place the shadowy influence of the Bush White House can reach.

Administrator Johnson forced the resignation of EPA's Regional Administrator for the Midwest, Mary Gade, who was locked in a struggle with corporate polluter Dow Chemical Company. The circumstances are highly suspicious. Administrator Johnson has replaced Ms. Gade with a former attorney for the automobile industry, whose record on behalf of the environment has been described as ``horrible.''

The EPA, under Administrator Johnson, has reduced the reporting burdens on industries that release toxic chemicals into our land, sea, and air. It has weakened enforcement and monitoring by opening fewer criminal investigations, filing fewer lawsuits, and levying fewer fines against corporate polluters.

It has failed to protect agency employees who pointed out problems or reported legal violations or attempted to correct factual misrepresentations made by their superiors and created an atmosphere where employees fear reprisals.

In the face of widespread criticism that his agency is in crisis and that he is a pawn of the White House and its allies in polluting industries, Administrator Johnson's response was to label all those concerned, many of whom are dedicated career employees of his agency, as ``yammering critics,'' clearly a man after Spiro Agnew's own heart.

The EPA has a vital mission. When this great agency is weakened and its work subverted by political interference, there is a great cost to this country. When EPA scientists and career employees become discouraged as their voices go unheard, there is a great cost to this country. When the

people of America lose faith that the Environmental Protection Agency actually lives up to its name, there is a great cost to this country. When those who were chosen to serve this country instead serve themselves, their political allies, and their patrons, there is a great and lasting cost to this country. It is a failure of integrity, and that is a failure we can no longer afford.

We demand integrity--democracy demands integrity--of our public officials, not just because integrity is an abstract moral good but because democracy fails without it.

Integrity sustains our democracy in such important ways. The first is integrity to the truth. In Government, when the facts are clear enough for responsible people to act, it is a failure of integrity to fail to confront those facts. As the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, famously said: ``You are entitled to your own opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.''

America has traditionally been characterized by candid and practical assessment of the facts, a can-do attitude about responding to those facts, and bold decisionmaking to find our way through those facts. Practical, can-do, optimistic, realistic--that is the American way. When Government doesn't face the truth about the facts, it will almost certainly fail to meet the demands of the moment and fail to serve the interests of our people. That is what is happening at EPA. They simply will not face facts plain to any responsible person.

However, facts are stubborn things. They do not yield to ideology or influence. They do not care about your politics. Unanswered they stand, getting worse, and eventually the piper must be paid. If facts aren't candidly, realistically, and responsibly faced, not only will the problem get worse but the very capacity of the Government to address problems candidly, realistically, and responsibly, that capacity will itself degrade when not put to use. So there are ugly, lasting consequences when Government officials fail at their obligation to meet the truth head on.

Another integrity is to honesty. As failures of truth have a harsh cost in Government, so do failures in honesty. I have sworn in new assistant U.S. attorneys. I have sworn in new State assistant attorneys general. I have presided at nomination hearings. Every time I have seen the same thing: a little spark of fire, a moral fire sparked when someone makes a choice to earn less money than they would otherwise, to work a lot harder than they would otherwise, to dare greater challenges than they might otherwise, all in order to serve the larger purpose, to serve an ideal, to serve America.

This spark of fire inspires young men and women to tackle problems that may seem unmanageable. This spark of fire keeps people at their desks late into the night when others have gone home to their families. This spark of fire brings idealism and principle to decisions and illuminates a moral path through the complexities of Government.

The value in Government of that spark of fire burning in the hearts of a thousand men and women--our real thousand points of light--is immeasurable. EPA is sustained by that spark of fire.

But this spark of fire is quenched in the toxic atmosphere of dishonesty whose guiding principles are help your friends, please your patron, dodge your responsibilities, and fudge the truth. Dishonesty and idealisms do not cohabit.

The third integrity is competence, a vital integrity. If we are to address the present and looming problems a new administration will have to face--a war without end in Iraq, an economy on a sickening slide, a broken health care system, a country divided into two increasingly separate Americas, a public education system that is failing, the dangerous weight of an alarming national debt, foreign policies that have unhinged us from responsible world opinion, bickering and irresolution on problems such as immigration and global warming--we must see competence as a core integrity. We must demand competence of Government officials as a bare minimum, a core necessity.

Unfortunately, as one discouraged official has complained: ``In the Bush administration, loyalty is the new competence.''

Administrator Stephen Johnson is a failure in all these dimensions. From everything we have seen, Administrator Johnson has done the bidding of the Bush administration and its political allies without hesitation or question and in violation of his clear duty. He has tried to cover up his dereliction of duty with evasive and discreditable testimony. He has acted without regard for the law or the determinations of the courts. He has damaged the mission, the morale, and the integrity of his great institution--the Environmental Protection Agency--and he has betrayed his solemn duty to Americans who depend on him to protect their health, particularly our very youngest and our very oldest whose vulnerability is greatest.

Administrator Johnson suggests a man who has every intention of driving his agency onto the rocks, of undermining and despoiling it, of leaving America's environment and America's people without an honest advocate in their Federal Government. This behavior not only degrades his once great agency, it drives the dagger of dishonesty deep into the very vitals of American democracy. The American people cannot accept such a person in a position of great responsibility.

I am truly sorry it has come to this, but that is why this afternoon I called on Administrator Johnson to resign his position. I encourage my colleagues to look closely at these concerns. Look at the reasons. Look at what I have prepared. Whatever decision colleagues may come to, I hope all understand I come to this decision sincerely and after much review and reflection and with no pleasure.

I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2008.

Hon. Michael Mukasey,

Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,

Washington, DC.

Dear Attorney General Mukasey: As members of the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), we are

writing to ask that you open an investigation into whether

the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Stephen L. Johnson, has made false or misleading

statements before the EPW Committee.

We do not make this request lightly. However, we believe

that there is significant evidence to suggest that Mr.

Johnson has provided statements that are inconsistent with

sworn testimony and documents provided in connection with an

investigation conducted by this Committee. These false,

misleading, or intentionally incomplete statements relate to

the decision announced by EPA on December 19, 2007, to deny

the request by California for a waiver under Section 209 of

the Clean Air Act. After Mr. Johnson's testimony, a former

senior aide to Mr. Johnson at EPA, Jason Burnett, provided

sworn testimony before the EPW Committee on July 22, 2008,

that appears to contradict Mr. Johnson's testimony on key

factual matters.

For example, Mr. Johnson stated under oath before the EPW

Committee on January 24, 2008 that he based his denial of the

California waiver request on California's failure to meet the

``compelling and extraordinary'' circumstances criterion

under Section 209, and that he reached this decision

independently. However, Mr. Burnett testified that Mr.

Johnson had in fact determined that California met this

criterion and the other Clean Air Act criteria necessary for

approval of the waiver, and that the Administration's

decision to deny the waiver was based on the President's

policy preferences, rather than the lack of compelling and

extraordinary circumstances.

In addition, Mr. Johnson testified before the EPW Committee

that the decision to deny that waiver was solely his

decision. However, Mr. Burnett testified that Mr. Johnson had

a plan to grant the waiver and had concluded that the

statutory criteria for granting it were met, until it was

``clearly articulated'' by the White House that the

President's ``policy preference'' was to deny the waiver.

We also are concerned about Mr. Johnson's testimony that

the energy legislation enacted by Congress and signed by the

President on December 19, 2007, was not substantively related

to his decision announced on the same day to deny the

California waiver, which he asserted was based upon his

finding that the waiver did not meet the Clean Air Act

statutory criteria. Mr. Burnett testified, however, that Mr.

Johnson had required extensive analysis of the impact of this

energy bill in evaluating whether to grant the waiver, and

that it was the President's policy preference that led to the

denial of California's waiver request, because granting the

waiver or a partial grant of the waiver would have led to two

standards, not one, as the President desired. The energy bill

established a single standard for vehicle fuel efficiency, as

the President desired.

It appears that Mr. Johnson's account of the California

waiver decision is factually inaccurate or misleading. We

take the inconsistency between Mr. Johnson's testimony and

other evidence very seriously. False testimony by any witness

is serious and undermines our ability to fulfill our

constitutional duties on behalf of the American people. Our

concern is heightened because this decision by the EPA

Administrator affects the health and wellbeing of the

American people. For these reasons, we have no choice but to

refer the matter to you for appropriate investigation and

prosecutorial action.

We look forward to your prompt response on this matter.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer,

Chairman.

Sheldon Whitehouse,

U.S. Senator.

Amy Klobuchar,

U.S. Senator.

Frank R. Lautenberg,

U.S. Senator.

Madam President, 2 days ago, I came to the floor to talk about tax policy and the history of tax policy. I have come to follow up on that speech of 2 days ago to talk about the recent history of speeches that were made in past Presidential elections and the tax policy that was associated with those speeches and in another day or two, come to the floor to speak about the different tax policies between Senator Obama on the one hand and Senator McCain on the other hand.

History is very important. Elections have consequences. Policy coming out of an election has consequences and eventually affects real people. The impact upon the voter of past elections, what people said in those elections, what happened after the election in policy, ought to be things people are taking into consideration for the upcoming Presidential election. As to that speech I gave 2 days ago, I want to go back and remind my colleagues of a couple of comments I made at that particular time.

At various times during the past 25 years, we have had times when Democrats have controlled both the Presidency and the Congress. There have been times when the Democrats have controlled Congress and we had a Republican President. And there have been times when we have had both a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Tax cuts or tax increases have resulted from that. And you find a pretty good pattern of when you have both a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President that you have big tax increases, as is the case in 1993--if you remember the big tax increase of 1993.

Then there are periods of time when we have had a Republican President and a Republican Congress and you can see tax decreases--very deep decreases in taxes. Then you have a period of time in here where there was a little flurry--some tax cuts, some tax increases--when we had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.

So elections do have consequences. Another chart that would show it a little better and more specifically would be this thermometer chart, where we have it very clear that when you have times when you have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, you have some of the biggest tax increases in history. And that would be this figure. There are times we have had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress with some tax increases but a little bit less. There are times we have had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress with slight tax decreases.

When you have a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House, you have some tax decreases but not very much. Then you have times when you have a Republican President, a Democratic Senate, and a Republican House, and you have tax decreases but not by very much. Then you have times when you have a Republican President and a Republican Congress and you have deep tax cuts.

So what this chart shows--this thermometer--over the last 25 years, is that if you have Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses you have deep tax cuts. When you have Democrats controlling both the Presidency and the Congress, you have very rapid tax increases. So elections do have consequences.

I want to go now to a period of time of a specific election and the tax consequences that came as a result of that election. But I think you have to realize that the relationship is clear from the past 25 years: the more relative power Democrats have, the higher the probability of a tax increase. So Americans will need to think long and hard about campaign promises of tax relief as they consider their choices in this Presidential election. The reason is that history shows very clearly, if Democrats obtain the White House and control of Congress, taxes are certain to go up. And not just go up on the wealthy but across the board.

Today, I would like to follow up last week's discussion. This week, I want to focus on a campaign season most like this one and take a look at how the victors in that campaign used their taxing power once sworn in. The period I am thinking about is 16 years ago. Well, in 16 years you can learn a lot from history, and I think people ought to be reminded of it.

But before I get into details, I would like to say that I hope this election doesn't go the same way that it did 16 years ago because President Bill Clinton was elected. I want people to be clear that I am pulling for a Republican colleague, Senator McCain, to defeat another one of our Senate colleagues, Senator Obama.

So let's turn the clock back to this time 16 years ago, and I have another chart. This chart considers the story of Rip Van Winkle, which I think is very appropriate during this period of time. You know the story about Rip Van Winkle. He was a person who slept for 20 years. Here is the chart showing Rip Van Winkle.

If you round up just a little bit, it is almost 20 years since that 1992 campaign, and you will see from this chart those events from a while ago might have led to a form of tax hike amnesia.

If we go back to the 1992 campaign--and I will show you eventually how this is pretty appropriate to the campaign coming up--in 1992, you find a very charismatic, a very likable, a very articulate young Governor from Arkansas barnstorming across the country. Bill Clinton was 46 years old, facing a 47th birthday in mid-August. He was widely acknowledged as the most talented public speaker on the Presidential scene since Ronald Reagan.

America had been in a recession at that time. Although it was not reported until after the election, which is something you might expect from our liberal media, the American economy had recovered in the latter half of 1992, but it was not officially announced until the day after the 1992 election, when all of a sudden the recession was over, just because of the election. But all during that election, reading the media, you would always be reminded about the recession we were in. But magically, election day 1992, 1 day later, and the recession was over.

The charismatic Democratic Presidential candidate promised to focus, in his words, ``like a laser beam'' on the economic ills that Americans worried about. In a key speech on June 21, 1992,

this ``different kind of a Democrat'' laid out his economic plan. He called the plan ``Putting People First.'' I am going to focus in a laser-like way on then-Governor Clinton's tax agenda that he announced for that 1992 campaign.

In that speech, candidate Clinton was very critical of the marginal tax rate relief that President Reagan had put into effect. To quote candidate Clinton:

For more than a decade, this country has been rigged in

favor of the rich and the special interests.

And we still hear that today.

While the very wealthiest Americans get richer, middle-

class Americans pay more to their government and get less in

return. For 12 years, the driving idea behind American

economic policy has been cutting taxes on the richest

individuals and corporations and hoping their new wealth

would ``trickle down'' to the rest of us.

That is a quote from his speech of June 21, 1992.

As a relief from this version of the middle-class squeeze, candidate Clinton proposed middle-income tax relief, and here is what he said:

Middle class tax fairness. Virtually every industrialized

nation recognizes the importance of strong families in its

Tax Code. We should too. We will lower the tax burden on

middle class Americans by forcing the rich to pay their fair

share. Middle class taxpayers will have a choice between a

children's tax credit and a significant reduction in income

tax rate.

Now, doesn't all of this sound very familiar to speeches that are going on this year? I have quoted from a June 21, 1992, speech given by candidate Clinton, but you would think that you are hearing exactly the same thing this year.

Now, let's get down to basic facts. The definitions of rich and middle class are always open. They probably vary from candidate to candidate and everything with intellectual honesty and where you might set rich and where you might set middle class. A person who is rich in Mason City, IA, might be middle class in New York City.

An irony I continue to notice around here relates to this point. It seems as if the politicians from the highest income, highest cost of living, highest taxed States seem to be the most obsessed with raising taxes on their Presidential candidate's definition of the rich. In this case, I am referring to a single person who makes $125,000, or double it for a married couple to $250,000. That seems to be the dividing line between the rich and other people, according to the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate.

Now, is $250,000 a rich family in Manhattan? Is $250,000 a rich family in San Francisco? Is $250,000 a rich family in Chicago? Is $250,000 a rich family in Boston? By the definition of Senators from those areas, I guess I would have to say it is. Do those families in those cities know they are rich and that their Senators think they pay too little tax?

But I digress. In candidate Clinton's economic plan that was announced on June 21, 1992, the rich were--put another way--the top 2 percent income earners in the United States. On September 8, 1992, candidate Bill Clinton said:

The only people who will pay more income taxes are the

wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making more

than $200,000 per year.

By definition, you would think under candidate Clinton's plan that everybody below that level of 2 percent, or $200,000, is either middle class or low income. Now, remember what I said that he said--the only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent-- because I am going to show you, after being sworn in, how that turned out to be a heck of a lot more people than the wealthiest 2 percent.

On January 20, 1993, President Clinton was inaugurated. Democrats retained their solid majority, 56 to 44, in this body. Although losing 9 seats in the U.S. House, the Democrats retained a heavy majority of 258 to 176. Once elected, the Democratic White House and the Democratic Congress converted the campaign economic plan, as you would expect them to, into a legislative blueprint. A key feature of the program, the middle-class tax cut, was thrown to the side.

On January 14, 2003, at a press conference, President-elect Clinton stated:

From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely

mystify me, the press thought the most important issue in the

race was a middle-class tax cut. I never did meet any voter

who thought that.

Now, how do you reconcile the contents of the economic plan and the shift in position after the election? Pulitzer Prize winning author Bob Woodward--who I think has a great deal of respect among most people of the Senate--wrote a comprehensive book about the first part of the Clinton administration. It was titled ``The Agenda.'' Mr. Woodward, of the Washington Post, described it this way:

While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut

publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers

that it was intellectually dishonest.

That is Woodward saying that, not Chuck Grassley. The late journalist, Michael Kelly, in an article in the New York Times, explained how the newly elected President planned to ``escape'' from his middle-class tax cut campaign promise. Here is what Mr. Kelly wrote, in part:

[T]he President built himself an escape hatch a little less

than a month before Election Day. Every time Clinton said

``I'm not going to raise taxes on the middle class,'' he

always added the phrase ``to pay for my programs,'' said a

chief political adviser to the President, who spoke on

condition of anonymity. He never, never, said just, ``I will

not raise taxes on the middle class.'' He always said ``I

will not raise middle-class taxes to pay for my

programs.''

Madam President, I want to have Mr. Kelly's article printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

While the middle-class tax cut was discarded, the definition of the group subject to a tax increase, ``the rich,'' expanded. According to a distribution analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the taxpayers above $20,000 in income received a tax increase. So no longer was it just taxing the top 2 percent richest people in America. That was when you were campaigning for President. When you get to be President, it is $20,000.

It was true that taxpayers above $200,000 go up far more than other groups. But generally taxpayers above $20,000 saw their taxes rise.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of the joint tax distribution analysis of the 1993 tax bill.

That comprehensive tax increase went into effect on the strength of Democratic votes only. I was here and I remember that. You could look at it as the consequences of the confidence in the large Democratic majorities in Congress, and a newly elected Democratic President. Basically, however, there was no check on one political party's agenda. If that agenda is to raise taxes and increase spending, then it is not a surprise.

Mr. Kelly's article notes the adverse reaction of a prominent player of the leftwing in this town. This is a Mr. Robert S. McIntyre, who was very active in causes that you consider liberal. Quoting from Mr. Kelly's article, this is what Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research group, had to say.

They campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and then four

days into a new Administration the chief economic spokesman

is talking about a middle-class tax increase. That's a flip-

flop.

That is the end of the quote of Mr. McIntyre, quoting from Mr. Kelly's article.

Most folks are unhappy about flip-flopping politicians. Fishermen may like a flip-flopping fish that they brought into the boat. This photo is the best fish I could find to demonstrate that. That is about the only kind of flip-flopper that would be received positively. If a politician flips from a tax cut promise to a tax hike, you can bet most folks will consider that move a flop in more ways than one.

All of this happened almost 16 years ago, but it is relevant for this year as we go into a debate on taxes for this campaign. During almost 14 years since Republicans have held either the White House or the Congress or both--and this chart shows, as I pointed out once before, Congress and the President have generally reduced the tax burden. That is during this period of time, when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

It has been a long time, almost 15 years since the American people have seen a large tax increase, going back to the period of time when the Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Congress.

Then I remember right here on the floor, because I was here when he said it, the then-Finance Committee chairman Pat Moynihan termed the 1993 tax bill:

. . . the largest tax increase in the history of public

finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

Philosopher George Santayana said words to the effect that history repeats itself, and if you do not learn from history, you are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. A risk Americans face, if we hand over all the reins of power to the Democratic Party, is to repeat the history of 15 years ago.

I am a Republican. I know what polls show. They show right now that the

electorate trusts Democrats more than Republicans on tax policy. But the 1992 campaign shows that if you listen too much to what is said in the campaign, it doesn't necessarily come out that way in the election. So I raise the question, during the debate of 2008, in the Presidential campaign, are we headed in the same direction? Are we going to hear all the talk about taxing nobody but the rich but end up doing as we did in 1993, taxing the middle class?

Our tax increase amnesia may lead us in that direction. We could find ourselves then being like Rip van Winkle. We will hear dreamy rhetoric about hope and about change. It will be clothed in a slumber of middle- class tax relief and tax increases on only the rich, as it was in the campaign of 1992. We could awaken from that slumber, our tax increase amnesia would probably fade, we could wake up to another world record tax increase.

I know what the folks who put in place that world record tax increase will say. They will defend it by arguing that it cut the deficit. They will argue that by cutting the deficit and moving to a surplus, that interest rates dropped. While it is true the fiscal situation went from deficit in 1992 to surplus in 1999, there were many other factors involved and a tax increase was not the biggest reason for it.

First, supporters of the 1993 bill touted it as a dollar of spending cuts matched by a dollar of tax increase. If you were a taxpayer, wouldn't you buy that? Pay one more dollar and get a dollar decrease in expenditures? But, you know, it doesn't work out that way. A close look at the numbers shows the bill contained $4 of tax increase to every $1 of spending cuts.

I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the Senate Finance Committee Republican staff analysis dated June 28, 1993, printed in the Record.

I have another chart to back up what I say, that the tax increase was not responsible for the deficit going down. The chart shows the source of deficit reduction from 1990 through the year 2000. The tax increase represented only 13 percent, just 13 percent of the deficit reduction during that period. Other revenue, mainly from economic growth and defense spending cuts, made the deficit decline.

Even with the 1993 bill in effect, 2 years later the Congressional Budget Office projected President Clinton's budget as producing significant deficits as far as the eye could see.

But several events not related at all to the 1993 tax increase pushed the budget toward surplus until 1999. First, Republicans attained control of Congress in 1994 and made a deficit reduction a priority. Year after year, Republican Congresses resisted Democratic efforts to spend over tight budget caps placed in the Republican budget. Most often, President Clinton would extract additional spending in the end deal. Republican resistance, however, to popular Democratic spending proposals often had political consequences for Republican Members.

Second, revenues, especially capital gains revenues, grew after the bipartisan Tax Relief Act of 1997. The centerpiece of that bill was, ironically, a middle-class tax cut in the form of a $500-per-child tax credit. The child tax credit was a fundamental part of the Republican Contract With America.

Another key component of that bill was a reduction in the top capital gains rate from 28 percent down to 20 percent. It is down to 15 percent now, as a result of the 2003 tax bill, but then it went from 28 down to 20 in 1997.

As I said, there was a widely documented significant growth in capital gains revenue after that rate reduction in 1997, as there was with the rate reduction in 2003. Indeed, even the Clinton Treasury scored the reduction as a revenue raiser and was more than vindicated.

Finally, external factors aside from tax policy led to revenue growth. Free trade opened more markets to American goods and services. The Internet bubble started to form. It was burst in 2000 with the collapse of the NASDAQ and the business cycle yielded an economic expansion after the 1991 recession ended.

Economist J.D. Foster has documented this data. I commend to my colleagues WebMemo dated March 5, 2008, available on the Internet at www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm.

At the end of the day, the justification for the tax flip-flop in 1993 mattered not one whit. Supporters of the 1993 tax hike can offer whatever reason they want for the record tax increase. A flip-flop of that size is, in fact, a flip-flop.

What they cannot dispute is their Presidential candidate promised a middle-class tax cut. Once they had the White House and congressional control, the other side abandoned the tax cut promise, raised taxes on Americans--not just above $200,000 a year but from $20,000 up.

That is not a tax cut. That is a middle-class tax increase. So, once again, like Rip Van Winkle, taxpayers do not want to wake up to that tax increase.

As a minimum, as the Presidential campaign unfolds, Americans need to keep this very clear history in mind. We need to probe the candidates in 2008 on where they want to go on tax policy so what they say in 2008 is done in 2009, not a repeat of what was said in 1992 and what was done in 1993. We need to be careful not to leave escape hatches on favorable sounding tax cut campaign promises.

In that vein, I will follow up on this discussion and the prior discussion with a later speech that concentrates on where each Presidential candidate stands this year on tax issues. I will examine these positions in the light of this history I have discussed--of the likelihood of each side, whether they will deliver on campaign tax policy positions.

To sum up, we are hearing from a very articulate and attractive Democratic Presidential candidate. On tax issues, as we heard 16 years ago from the soon-to-be President at that time, Bill Clinton, we are hearing a proposal to tax the rich this year to provide tax cuts for the middle class. We are hearing that this year.

The Presidential candidate on the Republican side has a different message. We need to explore that as well. His message, consistent with a Republican position for almost 30 years, has

been to continue progrowth, low levels of taxation. In light of history I look forward to discussing the two competing visions of tax policy in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I would like to say to my colleagues that beginning last night in the early evening and continuing and extending to this morning, a number of us have been in touch with each other about the provisions of this bill with the hope and expectation that we might be able to resolve our differences. I have been in touch with the White House. I have been in touch with the principal sponsors of the legislation; and I think we had engaged in some good-faith efforts to try to, as I say, resolve our differences.

Specifically, I had been hopeful that the other side would accept some of the provisions that had been in an amendment that I had hoped to offer today. Unfortunately, that amendment was not allowed by the Rules Committee. So Members of the House are not going to be able to vote on that amendment, which, in my judgment, would have improved the bill. There were a couple of provisions in that amendment, though, that I thought would be of interest to the sponsors of the bill and to the other side, and I regret that we were not able to come to a meeting of the minds, because I think that would have improved the bill and also yielded a better result when the bill perhaps becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say to my colleagues that, if anything, I have a sympathy for the media, for the press. Long ago and far away, I was a newspaper reporter and spent 2 years writing articles, and so I have stood in the shoes of those who are reporters today. After being a reporter for a couple of years, I went to law school; and while in law school I actually wrote an article for the Texas Bar Journal called ``Politicians Versus the Press: Libel in Texas,'' and I actually came down on the side of the press. So that is where my sympathies lie.

However, in the case of this bill, I am afraid I cannot support it. And because we were not able to reach a compromise on the bill, I remain opposed to the bill, the White House remains opposed to the bill, the Director of National Intelligence remains opposed to the bill, and the Department of Justice remains opposed to the bill. Unfortunately, it is still so flawed that we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, a free press strengthens democracy. In our Nation the first amendment of the Constitution guarantees the press their freedom to report. And for 200 years in this Nation, the press, in fact, has flourished. Information has flowed freely. And that is why I believe this bill is simply a solution in search of a real problem.

Members of the private sector and law enforcement officials believe H.R. 2102 diminishes legal rights, public safety, and our national security. We must ensure that whistleblowers can expose crimes, waste, and wrongdoing. But we should not create a protection so broad that those who would destroy people's reputations, businesses, and privacy can hide behind it.

The Federal Government defends our national security; so we must weigh the benefits of a reporter's privilege with the problems it may cause for those who protect our country.

I thank the primary authors of H.R. 2102, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Pence, for working with the Department of Justice, interested groups, and Members to develop alternative language to address legitimate concerns of industry and law enforcement authorities. Despite efforts to accommodate their concerns, the Justice Department and the acting Director of National Intelligence, as I mentioned a while ago, still oppose this bill for very good reasons. The White House also opposes the bill and a veto is likely. The President's senior advisers, in fact, have recommended a veto of this bill. They believe the stakes are too high in a post-9/11 world to support the Free Flow of Information Act.

For example, they have pointed out that the exceptions language fails to address misconduct that the Justice Department confronts on a daily basis. To illustrate, neither the bill nor the manager's amendment that will be offered contains exceptions language allowing DOJ to obtain the identity of a new source with the knowledge of a child prostitution ring, an online purveyor of pornography, gang violence, or alien smuggling, all examples.

And the text governing source disclosure exceptions only addresses prospective events, not past events. For example, the Department may be able to acquire information about a source's identity to prevent a terrorist attack like September 11; but if al Qaeda decides to tell a media outlet on September 12 how it planned and carried out the attack, DOJ could not compel that media outlet to reveal its terrorist sources while conducting an investigation.

If a child molester spoke to a journalist and revealed that he molested a child yesterday, under this bill Justice officials could not compel that journalist to reveal his sources and cooperate in the investigation. The Department of Justice will be hamstrung as it goes about the business of conducting investigations and prosecuting criminals.

Yes, numerous States have shield laws, but they run the gamut; and many are not near as broad as the Federal shield law proposed today. But the key difference is that the States are not entrusted with the responsibility of defending our country; the Federal Government is. Under the bill, DOJ carries the burden of trying to establish a national security imperative which can still be negated by a judge's subjective notion of what constitutes the public interest in news gathering. The bill's terms will be subject to the different opinions of hundreds of Federal judges across the country.

The bill is simply a solution in search of a problem. It has been 35 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the first amendment does not shield journalists in grand jury proceedings. The Justice Department has issued only 19 subpoenas to reporters seeking confidential source information since 1991. Only 19 subpoenas since 1991. The system is not broken. So why are we trying to fix it?

I simply believe we must err on the side of caution and not support legislation that could make it harder to apprehend criminals and terrorists or to deter their activities.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to a colleague, I want to yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to do is read an excerpt from the Statement of Administration Policy that might respond to some of the points that have been made.

The administration said that if H.R. 2102 were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill, and here's one of the reasons why:

``The bill would impose an unreasonable and unjustified evidentiary burden on prosecutors seeking to issue a subpoena to a member of the news media, placing authorities in an untenable position.

``In order to satisfy the bill's requirements, prosecutors essentially must prove the existence of specific criminal activity in a hearing before a judge, with notice to the subjects of the investigation, before they will be able to undertake the necessary investigative steps to determine whether a crime has occurred. Thus, in many cases, prosecutors will have to conduct a minitrial before their investigation has concluded, and in some cases, even before their investigation has gotten off the ground.''

Mr. Speaker, I am now happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri, the minority whip (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and one of the original sponsors of the legislation we are debating today.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and the ranking member of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a diligent member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from the Department of Justice's letter in opposition to the bill we are discussing: ``Given the extensive safeguards already in place, the Department strongly opposes H.R. 2102 and similar legislative efforts to provide a `journalist's privilege' that would prevent the disclosure of relevant testimony and evidence critical to the fair disposition of investigations and trials.

``H.R. 2102 would make it virtually impossible to enforce certain Federal criminal laws, particularly those pertaining to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, and would seriously impede other national security investigations and prosecutions, including terrorism prosecutions.

``H.R. 2102 would undermine national security and other law enforcement investigations by permitting compelled disclosure of a media source only when necessary to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States and only when the bill's other burdensome prerequisites are satisfied.''

But the problem here is that it would not allow us to get to the information after the fact. You could not force a journalist to disclose information, for instance, after a terrorist attack when you want to find out who was involved

in that attack. For that reason, we should oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read for my colleagues an excerpt of a letter we received from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

``We are joining the Department of Justice in opposing H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007. We share the Department's strong opposition to H.R. 2102 articulated in its letter of July 31, 2007.

``The government must retain the ability to obtain information from the press that would both prevent harm to the United States and its citizens and to identify and bring to justice those who cause such harm. Unfortunately, press reports on U.S. intelligence activities have been a valuable source of intelligence to our adversaries. Former Russian military intelligence Colonel Stanislav Lunev wrote: `I was amazed, and Moscow was very appreciative, at how many times I found very sensitive information in American newspapers. In my view, Americans tend to care more about scooping their competition than about national security, which made my job easier.''

What an indictment.

Finally, and I am quoting from the letter: ``The bill, as drafted, would require that identification of the source be necessary to prevent an act of terrorism or other significant and specified harm to the national security. It would not, however, allow the government to compel the identification of a source if it was necessary to identify the perpetrators of a completed act of terrorism or an act that harmed the national security. Similarly, the bill could authorize the government to compel the identification of a source in order to prevent imminent death or bodily harm, but would not allow the government to compel disclosure of a source in order to identify a murderer.

``For these reasons and for the reasons set out in the letter from the Department of Justice, we urge the Congress to reject this bill.''

Mr. Speaker, that is a letter from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with my friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence). I have a question I would like to ask him.

The bill states that the determination as to whether the testimony or document is critical to the underlying matter is to be made ``based on information obtained from a person other than the covered person,'' the covered person being the journalist. There has been some confusion as to what is meant by ``information from the covered person.''

In the Washington Post on October 4, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the U.S. Attorney in the Scooter Libby case, wrote, ``The bill puzzlingly requires that agents prove that the leak occurred without relying on the newspaper article.''

Is Mr. Fitzgerald right? Does this provision mean that the party seeking the subpoena cannot use the very newspaper article at issue in the lawsuit to show why the reporter's testimony is needed?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his answer to my question. That is much appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, and I know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has the right to close. I wonder if he has any additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize the objections to this legislation. The White House, the Justice Department, the Acting Director of National Intelligence and many law enforcement officials oppose H.R. 2102 because they believe it diminishes legal rights, public safety and endangers national security. The Department of Justice is concerned that this legislation will impede its efforts to conduct investigations and prosecute criminals.

For 200 years, information has flowed freely to the press. Congress need not enact H.R. 2102, when the status quo is working and the legislation's potential harm to our national security is so significant.

Our Founders created a legal system where no one is above the law. But if the media shield bill passes, we will be carving out a special exception to that rule for reporters, tabloids and bloggers.

This is not what our Founders intended when they created a free press. No one should be above the law, not even the press. We must err on the side of caution and not support legislation that could make it harder to apprehend criminals and terrorists or deter their activities. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, although I am not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I support the manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). The provisions of the amendment do improve the bill by addressing some of the Justice Department's concerns. Despite this, it still does not cure the bill's fundamental flaws.

The legislation will still make it impossible to enforce certain criminal laws and will impede national security investigation. While I commend the sponsors of the amendment for trying to address the Justice Department's concern, even if the amendment is adopted, the bill should still be opposed. So I urge Members to support the amendment and oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am opposed in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2102 presumes that a journalist is entitled to a reporter's privilege unless the government can show a court otherwise. The government can only do this by meeting certain threshold requirements set forth in the bill.

After all those requirements are met, the judge must then apply a balancing test. The judge must find that ``the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information.''

My motion to recommit provides further guidance to the judge as to what criteria should be considered in weighing that decision.

The motion to recommit simply states that the judge may consider the extent of any harm to national security. It does not dictate any result.

The manager's amendment partly addresses this issue by creating an additional exception to the privilege that excludes from the privilege leaks of classified information that harm national security in criminal cases. I agree with that idea as far as it goes.

This motion to recommit, though, goes further. It allows the judge to consider this factor in any case, not just a criminal case. It allows a judge to consider any leak that harms national security, not just a leak in violation of the laws on classified information.

There are many kinds of information that can harm national security. One example is grand jury information. Suppose that the government is conducting a grand jury investigation of a suspected terrorist ring. If a grand juror were to reveal that to a reporter, it might allow the terrorist to escape to strike another day.

Another example is information covered by various common law privileges like the attorney/client privilege. Suppose that an attorney knew his client, a former terrorist, was cooperating with authorities to avoid prosecution. If he revealed this to the press, it could reveal to the terrorist's former compatriots that they needed to change their plans.

Another example is confidential business information that is protected by contractual relationships. Employees of a computer company might know and reveal without authorization that a certain new chip is coming to the market in a matter of months. This might allow a foreign enemy to stop their research on that type of chip and devote their resources to some other project.

The problem is that any of these kinds of information could harm national security. If they do, a judge ought to be able to consider that in deciding what the public interest requires.

In short, I think we are going in the same direction, but the manager's amendment does not go far enough. The motion to recommit protects national security against harmful leaks in all cases, not just criminal cases. When national security is threatened by leaks, we must protect ourselves in all cases, not just criminal cases.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this motion and protect our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I want the distinguished Presiding Officer to know the weather in our home State is much nicer today than it is here.

I support the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 2035, which the distinguished majority leader has moved to. I hope the minority will allow us to consider this important legislation.

I thank the majority leader for his willingness to bring this legislation before the Senate. I have worked with him on this matter to find an opportunity for Senate action since the Judiciary Committee reported this bill last October. I appreciate the support of the majority leader. He has offered a generous response to the bipartisan request Senator Specter and I made to him and the Republican leader earlier this year to proceed to this bill. In a bipartisan letter, we asked if he would proceed to the bill. He has done that. I applaud him for it.

Our bill has 20 Senate cosponsors, Members of both parties. I hope the Republican cosponsors will join us in moving to the bill and will bring along the seven or eight Republicans we will need to overcome yet another filibuster and make progress.

I have also supported and urged the Senate to proceed to the strong House-passed version of the Free Flow of Information Act, H.R. 2102. That bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 398 to 21-- so it obviously has overwhelming bipartisan support. The House bill has more than 70 cosponsors--both Republicans and Democrats alike.

Years ago, my mother and father owned a small daily newspaper in Waterbury, VT, the Waterbury Record. As a child, I grew up hearing, at the kitchen table, that a free and vibrant press is essential to a free society. That has been demonstrated again and again over the last eight years. That is why I cosponsored the Senate version of this bill and I have worked hard to enact a meaningful reporters' shield law this year.

That is why I made sure that for the first time ever--for the first time ever--the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a media shield law to protect the public's right to know. The Judiciary Committee reported a bill sponsored by Senators Lugar, Dodd, Specter, Schumer, Graham, and myself with a strong bipartisan 15-to-4 vote.

I wish to commend the leadership of Senator Lugar and Senator Dodd in connection with this matter. They began this quest for fairness when it seemed an impossibility several years ago. They have worked diligently to bring us to where we are today--at the cusp of achieving a Federal shield law--if only the Senate gets the support of a handful of Republican Senators to proceed to the bill.

All of us--whether Republican, Democratic or Independent--have an interest in enacting a balanced and meaningful shield bill to ensure a free flow of information to the American people. Forty-nine States and the District of Columbia currently have codified or common law protections for confidential source information. But even with these State law protections, the press remains the first stop, rather than the stop of last resort, for our Government and private litigants when it comes to seeking information. Time and time again--especially during the years when this Congress refused to do real oversight of the current administration--when there was waste in Government, when there were serious mistakes in Government, even when Government was breaking the law, we found out about it first and foremost because of the press in America.

Earlier this year, Toni Locy, a professor of journalism at West Virginia University, also a former USA TODAY reporter, was held in contempt of court for refusing to divulge her confidential sources. There are scores of other reporters who have been questioned by Federal prosecutors about their sources, notes, and reports in recent years. This is a dangerous trend that can have a chilling effect on the press, but even more so, on the public's right to know. If you don't have a free press,

then you don't have a free society. If you don't have a way for Americans to know what their Government is doing, then we will all hurt. To paraphrase Mark Twain, you should support your country all the time but question your government when it deserves it. We need a press willing and able to do that.

Enacting the Free Flow of Information Act--which carefully balances the need to protect confidential source information with the need to protect law enforcement and national security interests--would help to reverse this troubling trend and benefit all Americans. The bill creates a qualified privilege to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their confidential sources. The bill contains exceptions to the privilege for criminal conduct or national security. The legislation also requires that Federal courts weigh the need for the information with the public's interest in the free flow of information, before compelling reporters to disclose their confidential sources.

Although I strongly support the enactment of a Federal shield law, I have some reservations about possible revisions to the bill we passed out of Committee. I am pleased that language has been drafted to address my concerns about making sure that legitimate bloggers and freelance journalists are included in the definition of the persons covered by this bill.

However, I hope that any amendments to this legislation will include stronger protections for journalists and their sources with regard to matters of national security and classified information. No one would quibble with the notion that there are circumstances when the Government can and should have the right to compel information in order to keep us safe. But many newsworthy stories concerning national security, such as the exceptional reporting on the CIA's secret prisons and the warrantless--and many feel illegal--wiretapping by the National Security Agency were published with the help of confidential sources, to the great benefit of the general public and the accountability that ordinary Americans deserve from their Government.

I fear that proposals from some in this body do not go far enough to protect against Government abuse in this area or to protect the public's interest in the dissemination of newsworthy information.

Not all reporters will be as lucky as Bill Gertz of the Washington Times was when a judge recently upheld his claim in a case in a California Federal court. Even with this victory, however, the Government has responded by broadening its inquiries. To prevent further intrusions on our fundamental first amendment rights, we need some uniform standards. We need procedures to evaluate claims of privilege and protect the public's right to know. To do that, of course, the Congress must act.

In a much touted speech to the American Enterprise Institute last week, current Attorney General Mukasey, who still opposes a Federal shield law, articulated principles that argue for enacting one. Attorney General Mukasey endorsed congressional legislative action when there exists a ``serious risk of inconsistent rulings and considerable uncertainty.'' He noted that congressional action to provide procedures in national security cases is ``well within the historic role and competence of Congress.'' Although he was proposing action in another setting, the Attorney General's remarks likewise support congressional action to standardize and clarify the procedures governing a Federal statutory press shield law. In view of the disparate rulings and outcomes that have developed in the courts since the Supreme Court's Branzburg decision 36 years ago, it is now time for Congress to establish a framework for the courts to resolve press privilege assertions fairly and consistently, and we can do this while preserving our national security.

When he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the Federal shield law in 2005, William Safire told us that the essence of news gathering is this: If you do not have sources you trust and who trust you, then you don't have a solid story--and the public suffers for it. Well, Bill Safire is exactly right. We simply have no idea how many newsworthy stories have gone unwritten and unreported out of fear that a reporter would be forced to reveal a source or face jail time. We also do not know how many potential whistleblowers, or other confidential sources, have chosen to remain silent out of fear that journalists could be compelled to disclose their identity.

Just recently, investigative journalism and confidential sources have helped to uncover significant Government failures in Iraq, in New Orleans, as well as Government neglect at the Walter Reed Medical Center. We wouldn't have found out how poorly the returning soldiers were being treated--people who have lost limbs or have been paralyzed or blinded in the war in Iraq--by the Veterans' Administration and the problems and events at our Government facilities. We would not have found out about that if a confidential source hadn't told a reporter.

We have seen just in the past few days news articles about politicization at the Department of Justice. A lot of the spotlight on how politicized this administration's Justice Department has become came out of hearings we held in the Judiciary Committee. But much of what we found out about what was going on at the Justice Department came out of press reports based on confidential sources.

We learned from the press that the White House, afraid that they might find out the truth, avoided implementing the Environmental Protection Agency's recommendations on global warming by not opening the agency's e-mails. Again, we find out about that from confidential sources.

As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of making sure that the Government can effectively investigate criminal wrongdoing, combat terrorism, and preserve national security. The Federal shield legislation we are seeking to bring before the Senate strikes a balance among these important objectives. The bill addresses the legitimate need for law enforcement to obtain information from reporters to prevent a crime or a national security threat.

In addition, by providing a qualified and not an absolute privilege to withhold the identity of confidential sources, the bill also advances other important law enforcement objectives, such as encouraging whistleblowers to disclose fraud, waste, and abuse that might otherwise go unreported.

The opposition to this carefully crafted bill by the Department of Justice and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, is simply misplaced. Although 49 States, the District of Columbia, and several Federal courts have recognized a reporter's privilege either by statute or common law for years, the Department of Justice and ODNI have not cited a single circumstance where the privilege caused any harm to national security or to law enforcement. In fact, the legitimate concerns about the need to effectively combat crime and protect national security have been satisfied by the bill and by amendments to this bill offered in a bipartisan fashion by Senators Feinstein, Brownback, and Kyl.

A free press in our country is what sets us apart from so many other nations in the world. The distinguished Presiding Officer, in his years in the House and in the Senate, can certainly point to examples where we have found out things that have been kept hidden from the Congress only because the press uncovered them. Certainly, that has been my experience in my years here in the Senate.

I also know that there is a temptation--when any administration has made a serious mistake or is trying to hide wrongdoing by their administration, the first thing they want to do is to make sure nobody in the press or the Congress or the public finds out what they have done. For every administration, it is easy to have all of their press people go out and tout the things they want us to know, the things they consider a success. None want us to hear about the embarrassments or the mistakes or, more recently, out-and-out wrongdoing. That is where you need a press willing to go in and uncover Government wrongdoing and protect the sources who help them to do so.

Do you think even with all of the hearings I and others have held we would have found out how law enforcement was manipulated and thwarted by this administration in the selection and manipulation of U.S. attorneys?

We found out about it first and foremost by the press, and then through witness testimony in hearings, and now by the Justice Department's Inspector General who had the willingness to stand up and point to the wrongdoing of this administration. And then there was Abu Ghraib--how did we find out about that? We learned about it in the press, not because the administration was willing to say: Look at this terrible thing we have done.

So after months and months of delaying tactics and opposition by the Bush administration, the time has come to pass a Federal shield law. I thank and commend the more than 60 news media and journalism organizations including ABC News, the Associated Press, CNN, the National Newspaper Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Vermont Press Association, that worked so hard to get us to this point.

I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of a support letter from the Media Coalition Supporting the Free Flow of Information Act printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. President, I will just leave with this: Let's make sure the Congress--especially this Senate--takes steps, as the other body did, to make it easier for the public to know not all the things the Government wants them to know but the times when our Government has made mistakes, the times when our Government has not followed the law, the times when our Government has tried to give disinformation. We are a stronger nation if we know the truth. We are a weaker nation if our laws allow the truth to be shielded from the American people. I trust the American people. I trust the American people to question our Government. I trust the American people to be able to handle the information. I do not trust those who would try to use every barrier to keep that information from the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Media Coalition Supporting the Free Flow of Information Act

July 21, 2008.

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Russell Bldg., U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Re: S. 2035--The Free Flow of Information Act.

Dear Chairman Leahy: On behalf of the men and women across

the country who work to bring the American people vital news

and information, we, the undersigned media companies and

organizations, thank you for your support and co-sponsorship

of S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act. Your leadership

in support of this bill has been invaluable in fighting to

ensure that the American public has access to news and

information about their government and the institutions that

affect their daily lives. Protecting confidential sources

through federal legislation has broad support on both sides

of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, and from state

attorneys general across the nation.

The legislation is vitally important to the national

interest, an informed citizenry, and a free and vibrant

press. As you know last October, S. 2035 was favorably

reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong

15-4 bipartisan vote and is supported by the presumptive

Republican and Democrat presidential nominees, Sens. John

McCain and Barack Obama. A similar shield bill (H.R. 2102)

passed by an overwhelming 398-21 vote.

Chairman Leahy, we appreciate your leadership and

respectfully request that you do whatever you can to make

sure that S. 2035 is approved by the Senate, without any

further amendments that would weaken the well-reasoned

protections in the bill.

Very truly yours,

ABC News, ABC Owned Television Stations, Advance

Publications, Inc., A. H. Belo Corporation, Allbritton

Communications Company, American Business Media, American

Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper

Editors, The Associated Press, The Associated Press Managing

Editors Association.

Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Association of

American Publishers, Association of Capitol Reporters and

Editors, Belo Corp., Bloomberg News, CBS Corporation, Clear

Channel, CNN, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government,

The Copley Press, Inc.

Cox Television, Cox Newspapers, Cox Enterprises, Inc.,

Daily News, L.P., First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc.,

Freedom Communications, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Gray

Television, Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc., Hearst

Corporation.

Lee Enterprises, Inc., Magazine Publishers of America, The

McClatchy Company, The McGraw-Hili Companies, Media Law

Resource Center, National Association of Broadcasters,

National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Federation

of Press Women, The National Geographic Society, National

Newspaper Association.

National Press Photographers Association, National Public

Radio, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Newspaper Association

of America, The Newspaper Guild-CWA, Newsweek, The New York

Times Company, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Online News

Association.

Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, Radio-Television News

Directors Association, Raycom Media, Inc., The Reporters

Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters America LLC, E.

W. Scripps, Society of Professional Journalists, Stephens

Media LLC, Time Inc.

Time Warner, Tribune Company, truTV, The Walt Disney

Company, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, White

House News Photographers Associations.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to talk about the subject that has to do with the energy legislation that has been pending before the Senate for I think 9\1/2\ days. I wish we would have had votes before this time because it is one of the most important, if not the most important, issues confronting the American people. I am going to speak about one of the amendments the majority has to offer with reference to the Energy bill.

First, I wish to say I have no doubt that both sides of the aisle-- because we do know what the public is thinking, so I would think both sides do know the public has changed its mind dramatically about drilling for American oil. It wasn't too long ago that you were afraid to use the word ``drill.'' You had to use the word ``explore'' because drilling had a bad connotation. But when the American people got around to thinking about this idea that if we had more oil available and the world knew it and it was American and we could develop it, they knew that would require drilling. No matter how sophisticated the drilling has become with these giant offshore drilling pads which, if anybody had a chance to see one, such as I have, you would see what we can do hundreds of miles underwater, without any degradation of the environment, and how men can go to work with that equipment and build these giant facilities, where people can sleep while they maintain them.

Underground, they can drill 10, 12, even 14 wells, and they all get piped into 1 pipe, and there isn't any seepage. When we had the great hurricane, they showed pictures of the pipes underground moving with the current but not breaking. That is what is going to happen under the ground off the coast--producing billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. It belongs to us. Eighty-five percent of our coast is now closed.

We can speak about the fact we are already producing and already leasing, but 85 percent is not leased. Whatever is being talked about, saying that leases are there and not producing--I don't have enough time today, but I am going to explain why one of the amendments the majority has that talks about producing doesn't produce anything because it is supposedly one of these amendments that talks about drilling--drill it or lose it. That is already governed by a ``drill it or lose it'' condition in every lease. So nobody is out there operating with leases they are not using, because if they do, they lose them. They paid big money to get them so they can go down there and produce energy for us.

I rise to speak on the status of the debate on this bill and on an amendment the majority has put forth under the pretext of increasing our energy supply. That is what we have been talking about--increasing our energy supply. For the most part, all the amendments we have talked about wanting to offer are increasing our energy supply. The current energy crisis is derived from many factors, but the bill the majority leader has called up attempts to deal with only one of them: speculation. There is no question that speculation is not the whole problem. In fact, four of the most prominent leaders we have in matters economic and matters that pertain to securities and matters that pertain to such things as speculation have indicated the oil and gas prices are not driven by that but, rather, by supply and demand.

As I have said before, never in my 36 years in the Senate have I seen a problem so big met with a proposed solution by the majority leader that is so

small. Speculation is adding to the severity of our energy crisis, but without question, an imbalance between supply and demand is at the root of the problems we face.

The Republican caucus has proposed a number of solutions that measure up to the present challenge. Despite this, as we begin the eighth day of debate on this bill, we have not had a single substantive vote on it. The American people certainly deserve better, and we ought to be able to come up with something better. But that is the way the process is--7 or 8 days without voting on an amendment. For most of that time, the contention was that we could offer amendments. The truth is we could not because we would have had to withdraw some amendments the majority leader had offered, and certainly he would not have relished that.

For the past week, the other side of the aisle has told the American people to believe that Republicans are up to no good, and we are obstructing progress. The truth is we merely want to complete the work our constituents sent us here to do.

We know what Republican amendments seek to do. My legislation was introduced more than 12 weeks ago, and the Republican leader's bill was filed nearly 5 weeks ago. The Republican proposals clearly answer the question of how to produce more energy here at home while, at the same time, reducing the amount we consume. Our motto has been abundantly clear: find more and use less. We will, perhaps, be voting and giving everybody in this body an approach to do that. I hope when we make such agreement, we will have a clear opportunity to have votes on that kind of proposition.

What has been less clear, outside of the speculation-only bill now pending, is what exactly the Democrats are willing to do to reduce the energy prices. Despite stalling progress on a real energy bill, the other side has realized they must at least appear to support greater domestic production of energy. So late last week, 14 Democratic Senators introduced their own version of the Republican plan to find more and use less.

Now, finally, the text of that amendment is public. However, we know it falls short of its own goals. Gone from it are the windfall profits tax, price-gouging, and NOPEC provisions that were soundly discredited by energy experts and editorial pages of all ideological stripes. They were part of what was being tendered by the majority. They are gone from the proposal that 14 Senators from the other side of the aisle have offered.

In their place is a bill that would still bring no new energy to market. It does not open any new areas to exploration--or shall I say drilling? By increasing the fees applied to leases and preproduction requirements, it could actually drive up the cost of energy and lengthen the time it takes to get that energy to market. It would delay the development of one of America's most abundant energy reserves and increase our vulnerability to an interruption in oil supply.

In short, the majority party's new ``production'' proposal contains far more problems than it does solutions. It will not lower prices at the pump, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it will not help resolve our energy crisis. That is the amendment that has been touted by Senator Bingaman and about 12 or 13 other Senators. Our dependence upon foreign oil will in no way be ameliorated, and it will not help resolve our energy crisis.

It is worth taking time on the floor to examine the substance of the proposal. The amendment is No. 5135, and it claims to address a number of so-called supply side issues, including lease duration, lease rentals, lease sales, resource estimates, the Roan Plateau, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I would like to take a few moments to address these issues.

On the duration of leases, the amendment shortens the amount of available time to complete all the activity leading up to and including drilling for oil and natural gas. This approach would fail to increase supply for several different reasons. It ignores the reason why it takes so much time to get a lease into production in the first place. Oil companies are not just wasting time, they are mandated to use up that time. It actually adds to the central cause of those delays by creating new bureaucratic requirements for writing ``diligent development plans.'' In other words, all they are doing and all they plan to do and all this wonderful work offshore that is out there, no thanks to the Congress and the President, because we kept most of it closed--85 percent is still closed--but within that 15 percent you see terrific development and tremendous facilities. They are following rules. If you had them in a witness room and asked them what rules they are following, they would explain to you it takes a long time to go from the bid day--the day you get that lease--until you can actually drill. They do everything possible to expedite, but some of the reasons for delay they can do nothing about; they follow the rules. There are environmental rules--sometimes duplicated, but they are there. This amendment I am speaking of, in an effort to say we are going to get more and squeeze more out of what is there, I imagine these people who own it at $1.35 are not interested in squeezing out the oil for America. They are interested in lollygagging. They paid money for the lease and they have money invested, but they are not in a hurry. So we have to pass a new diligent development plan requirement.

There are already as many as 39 permits, documents, and analyses that have to be done in the development of a lease. It is unclear how adding the 40th step will move the process any faster.

Next, the amendment seeks to increase rental fees that leaseholders pay to occupy Federal land. The increased fees that have been proposed would discourage companies from bidding on and subsequently exploring leases that contain marginally attractive lands. Increasing the cost of doing business is not the answer. Once you think about it, most Senators overwhelmingly will agree that we don't need to add to the fees. We don't need to add to the regulatory requirements. We need the opposite if we want more production.

The leader on the other side has an amendment that also attempts to alter the frequency of lease sales. This is appealing in principle, but as drafted the amendment merely pretends to speed up a process for areas where lease sales are already scheduled to take place or where lease sales have already been held without any interest from industry. In effect, this bill is attempting to take credit for something that was going to happen anyway or, worse, has already occurred without success.

What the amendment does not do is open any new areas to leasing, which is the fundamental change that is so desperately needed in our management of Federal lands. Energy companies should not be forced to drill when and where it is politically convenient; they should be allowed to drill where resources are most concentrated and when conditions most warrant their development.

Something of a pattern is becoming evidence here. And not surprisingly, it carries over to the so-called resource estimate--more new words and new bureaucracy--called for by this amendment. Predictably, the inventory contemplated by this amendment is only for areas that are already leased or are already open for lease sale.

Instead of conducting an estimate of the resources within already open areas and already existing leases, we should authorize a full inventory of the Nation's entire resource potential, including areas that have historically been kept off-limits. Only then can Congress make an informed decision. We must fully understand what our past energy policies have kept off-limits and how those resources could be used to meet our future needs. Again, the Democratic amendment avoids this very pressing task.

Another troublesome provision is the amendment's proposed swap of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The sponsors would have 70 million barrels of light sweet crude--that is a specific type of oil that is very expensive and very versatile--they would have that released within 180 days and not replace it with fuel until as many as 5 years have gone. So had the Energy Committee not cancelled a hearing on this very topic last week, we might know if this proposal makes any sense at all. I suspect it does not.

Having watched the price of oil climb by $20 a barrel from around $127 to a

high of $147--and we are all grateful it has come down a little bit after deliveries of the SPR were suspended--it is highly unlikely that a short-term release of oil will reduce oil prices over any sort of time horizon.

I urge my colleagues to remember the purpose of SPR is to provide oil in the event of a supply disruption, not in the event of a price increase. In the event of an emergency, enactment of this provision would reduce our ability to cover import losses from 58 days to 52. Just imagine, the American people should know with all the troubles in the Middle East and the straits, with boats loaded with crude oil, many soon to be laden with natural gas, where they can pass--look at the danger that is there. Look at America's future in terms of what might happen there. Look at what might happen accidentally, much less intentionally.

We only have 58 days of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil in the repository underground that we could use. The American people ought to be grateful--and I think they are--that we did this. We have 58 days to pump out that oil and use it if we are in one of these problems that could come about from an oil shortage on the world market because of accidents, war, conflagration, or the like.

The other side would take that and say: Let's take 6 days of that reserve and put that oil out for sale and that might lower the price of oil on the market and thus lower the price of gasoline. Anybody who sees that--we will show them the numbers later what that means--will know that is not producing a new source of oil, drilling for it or exploring it. It is nothing but a short-term use of our petroleum reserves for price reasons when it should never be used for that, and it won't work anyway.

The amendment has many other shortcomings. The most damaging provision to our energy security deals with the Roan Plateau in Colorado.

The way the language is drafted speaks for itself.

On page 26:

The Secretary shall include in any mineral lease . . . a

stipulation prohibiting surface occupancy or surface

disturbance for purposes of exploration for or development of

oil and natural gas.

On page 29:

The Secretary may not permit through a lease or other means

any exploration for or development of oil shale resources.

And then on page 30:

The Secretary may not at any time issue mineral leases on

public land within more than one of the phased development

areas.

These restrictions are somehow fit for inclusion, even after a finding on page 20 which asserts that ``the Roan Plateau Planning Area likely contains significant energy resources.''

Why were these provisions included in a title called ``Oil Supply and Management''? A plain reading of this language clearly demonstrates that it is the sponsors' desire to manage that plateau in such a way that its abundant energy resources will never be produced. In short, this is a production amendment which prohibits production.

What my colleagues across the aisle don't want you to know is that a lease sale including parcels on the Roan Plateau is scheduled for August 14, a little over 2 weeks from now. If this section were enacted into law, it would likely require the land use plan or the entire area to be redone, generally taking 2 to 3 years or more.

Let us not forget that the current plan for the Roan Plateau took 9 years to develop and that this provision could require that the process begin again from scratch and will eliminate any revenue from the coming August 14 lease sale which is already assumed in the budget at $100 million.

For all the shortcomings in this amendment, most revealing are the measures not included in it. There is no repeal of the restriction on regulations for commercial oil shale leasing. The other side has decided to stand by a ban that they imposed last year on that resource. There is no lifting of the congressional moratorium on the development of deep sea energy resources, despite the President already taking action to do so.

There is no mention of our Nation's vast domestic coal reserves which could be used to provide secure, affordable energy for decades to come.

And there is no repeal of section 526 which impairs the Defense Department's efforts to develop resources of alternative domestic fuel.

Taken altogether, this amendment and the underlying speculation-only bill that is before the Senate suggests that the majority is content to move on without having done anything to address the energy crisis. Nothing. We were faced with an effort to proceed to another matter this past weekend, and the Senate rightly voted to reject it.

Yesterday afternoon, we were again faced with another attempt by the majority to change the topic from what we were on to another topic. Again, the Senate rightly defeated that effort. I hope we continue to defeat efforts to move away from the No. 1 domestic issue facing the American people.

This issue deserves our undivided attention. There is nothing to be afraid of. We have ample time to write a good bill that makes real progress and provides real relief at the pump for the American people.

I yield the floor.