Free Flow of Information Act of 2007

Mr. President, have the Republicans yielded back their time?

Mr. President, not long ago I had a meeting with representatives from the San Francisco Chronicle. Among those at the meeting was a sportswriter named Lance Williams. Lance Williams covered football games and baseball games and basketball games. Some of them were high school level. He was not an investigative reporter. But one day this young reporter was contacted by a man who said: I can give you one of the biggest stories this country has seen in a long time, but you have to give me your word that you are not going to give them my name. I can give you a lot of places to go, I can even give you some grand jury testimony, but you have to protect me because I could be in danger, my physical well-being.

So Lance Williams talked to his people at the paper, his bosses, because that was his obligation, and overnight Lance Williams became an investigative reporter, not a sports reporter. In his investigation he found that these leads took him down a very disturbing road, a road that ended with evidence and a book that was published, ``The Game of Shadows,'' which exposed the rampant use of steroids in sports that we now know so much about, including such sports names as Barry Bonds.

After he released this information, he was subpoenaed by the Government to release the identity of his informant who had leaked to him a lot of things, including, as I mentioned, grand jury testimony. Well, this was an interesting day for him because Lance had never been in a predicament like this before. Again, as I said, he had covered ball games. Nothing like this before. He suddenly was faced with the knowledge that he may have to go to jail for stories he had written and information he had released. But he decided not to release the name. He thought it was the right thing to do. He had given his word. He said he would sooner go to prison than release the name of that confidential informant.

On the same day I met him, I met with his lawyer, the lawyer for the San Francisco Chronicle. The lawyer told me that although the Lance Williams controversy had been the most famous in recent cases she had dealt with, in the last 3 years that newspaper had been served with 207 subpoenas by Federal, State, and local prosecutors requiring confidential information about sources. That uncertainty--207 subpoenas to the Hearst Communications Company--puts the media in a very difficult position and places a burden on them and reduces the likelihood that whistleblowers will come forward with information.

Forty-nine States and the District of Columbia already have laws to protect the relationship between journalists and their sources, so it is long past the age when the Federal Government should follow suit.

The first amendment we have in our constitution, the right to a free press, a press able to pursue charges of wrongdoing in our government and society and basically to write whatever they want to write, is a critical pillar of our democracy. The first amendment separates us from other nations and governments. The State attorneys general of 41 States called upon Congress to pass a national media shield law, and today we have the opportunity to proceed to act in that regard by voting to proceed to the Free Flow of Information Act.

Mr. President, the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter, which says, among other things, in the last paragraph:

By exposing confidences protected under State law to

discovery in Federal courts, the lack of a corresponding

Federal reporter's privilege law frustrates the purposes of

the State recognized privileges and undercuts the benefit to

the public that the States have sought to bestow through

their shield laws. As the States' chief legal officers,

attorneys general have had significant experience with the

operation of these State law privileges; that experience

demonstrates that recognition of such a privilege does not

unduly impair the task of law enforcement or unnecessarily

interfere with the truth-seeking function of the courts. The

sponsors of S. 2035 have sensibly sought to strike a

reasonable balance between these important interests, as the

States have done, and we are confident that the legitimate

concerns for national security and law enforcement can be

addressed in the court procedures for evaluating a claim of

privilege. We urge you to support the Flee Flow of

Information Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the full content of the letter from which I have just quoted.

Mr. President, for all of those who are, as I am, concerned with providing law enforcement with the tools they need to keep us safe, it is important to note that this legislation strikes the appropriate balance between the public's right to know and law enforcement's need for information. It is based largely upon existing internal Department of Justice guidelines and provides for a qualified privilege for journalists who are subpoenaed to testify about their confidential sources, unless the government can show there is no reasonable alternative source of the information and the information is critical to the case.

This legislation includes exceptions for harm to national security, acts of terrorism, death, kidnapping, or other bodily harm. This is a balanced piece of legislation, and it carefully considers the needs of the media and law enforcement. It is bipartisan and provides what both sides want most of all: clear guidelines and certainty.

In doing so, it offers us the opportunity to strengthen our public safety and national security while firmly defending the right to a free and open press.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 3268, energy speculation, not be displaced and that it remain the pending business notwithstanding the Senate adopting the motion to proceed to a calendar item.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the media shield bill.

For the knowledge of all Members here now, we are now still on the motion to proceed to the media shield bill; the one that cloture was not invoked on. So that is what we are going to be on for the foreseeable future.

We have a couple matters that are possible that we can move forward on. That will be up to the minority as to when and where we will do that. We have the consumer product safety bill, we have also the work that has been done on the higher education bill.

I am going to file cloture before we leave on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. As I told the distinguished Republican leader today, if there is some serious negotiations on the extenders, Senator Baucus is ready to do this.

But as a notice to everyone, as I said in my statement before the vote, there is a new sheriff in town by the name of Pelosi. The House will not allow matters to be passed without being paid for. I agree with her. We have far too long not paid for things.

We have a situation now where we have had 8 years of buying red ink by the trainload. We have now a situation where the deficit this year will be about half a trillion dollars. The only thing we have heard, and Senator Baucus heard yesterday on the tax extenders, is what the Republicans want to do: We want to have some more things, but we do not want to pay for any of it.

The Speaker has sent a letter to me signed by 220 Members of the House of Representatives, saying these matters have to be paid for. What we did in this work done by Senator Baucus, there were matters that rightfully should not be paid for, such as disaster assistance.

As we have indicated in the past, even though the House does not like it, and we do not particularly like it, the AMT in this bill is not paid for. So other than that, things are paid for and paid for in a very responsible way.

The tax extender package includes some things that would change energy in this country as we have known it for 100 years.

It would change from a situation now where everything is done with fossil fuel to a situation that T. Boone Pickens and others envision, where we would be depending on the Sun, the wind, geothermal, biomass. This is real. There are people during the last 4 months who have been laid off, working on these alternative energy projects, renewable energy projects. There are people who could go to work tomorrow on these projects. Remember, these are all American jobs, jobs that can't be exported anyplace else.

As I said to the Republican leader today, the August schedule is in his hands. I have told those assembled here

today what we have to do. I told Senators what we have to do. I am tremendously disappointed that the tax extenders were not passed. I was just given a note by the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee about something that also is in this bill that would create lots of jobs, at least 150,000 high-paying jobs, and that is to replenish the money from the highway trust funds. Those moneys are not going to be there, which will cause people not only to not have jobs, but it will stop projects from going forward that are already in progress.

The schedule in August is up to the Republican leader. As I have said before on a number of occasions, we basically have finished what we have to do this work period. We have tried mightily during the last 18, 19 months to get things done. We have had to deal with about 90 filibusters. Whatever the number is, we increased it by one today. We will see what happens on the legislation dealing with higher education and see what is going to happen with the Republicans as it relates to the consumer product safety legislation. That may add two more filibusters. Of course, we have the Defense authorization bill to which we wish to proceed. We will have a vote on that on Friday. It is up to the minority to determine what we will do on that.

As I have indicated on a number of occasions, we have the conventions coming up in August, which is important to every Senator. We have other important items we have been working on that need to be done at home. We can't do them in Washington. But we await word from Republicans, if they are going to negotiate seriously on the tax extenders. Other than that, I have stated, I believe pretty clearly, where we are.

Understand, though, that is the whole problem. They don't want to pay for anything. The bill that is before the Senate is paid for. What he is talking about is the flimflam where you pass all these things and don't pay for them. That is why we have a staggering deficit that during this administration has gone up more than $3 trillion. When George Bush took office, over 10 years there was a surplus of about $10 trillion. That is long since gone. I appreciate very much the statement of my friend from Arizona, but the fact is, that is what we are talking about here. They don't want to pay for anything. The tax extenders in our package are paid for, as they should be. The American people should not be burdened and leave a legacy looking forward of their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren buried by Bush deficits.

I appreciate the statement of my friend from Arizona. I believe in these extenders so strongly that even though I would much rather have them paid for, we all know the debt has to stop someplace. As I indicated, the House of Representatives, to their credit, will not accept these not being paid for. That is the way it should be. We should not be running up massive deficits that the Bush administration--first year, second year, third year, fourth year, fifth year, seventh year, and now in the eighth year--is willing to accept. The war in Iraq, $5,000 a second; it doesn't matter.

We are where we are, but I am very disappointed that we are where we are. As I said, my Senators are waiting to hear from the Republican leader what he wants to do the rest of this week and into the future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our half-hour be divided equally, with the first 15 minutes for myself, and Senator Nelson of Florida the other 15 minutes.

Mr. President, the Doha Round of World Trade Organization--the WTO--talks broke down yesterday. Given the tremendous problem with this Nation's trade policy, I don't know of many Ohioans who are going to be very upset, and I don't know of many of my colleagues who will be too troubled about World Trade Organization trade talks breaking down either.

The impasse at the WTO is no different from the pause we are in right now when it comes to trade. Americans are rightly skeptical about the course we are on when it comes to trade policy, and Congress reflects that skepticism. In the 2006 elections, voters all across the country told those of us in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, that they wanted a timeout on trade; that they wanted to see us go back and look at the success and failures of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement--so-called CAFTA and NAFTA--and they want us to look at what PNTR--Permanent Normal Trade Relations--with China has meant. They want us to look at Colombia, and Peru, and Panama, and South Korea, and what those agreements might mean to our country.

It is pretty clear that Americans are not satisfied with the status quo of NAFTA, CAFTA, and WTO-modeled policies. One reason is our severely unbalanced trade relationship with the People's Republic of China. When it comes to competing with China, Ohio workers and manufacturers are playing with one hand tied behind their back. We shouldn't be playing under these rules.

Athletes at next week's Olympics will not be playing by these rules. Maybe there is a lesson there for the Chinese Government, for the United States Government, and for our trade policy. Workers, like athletes, can compete with anyone--good athletes and certainly American workers can compete with anyone where there is a level playing field and the rules are not rigged. But manufacturers and workers in Ohio are struggling to compete while our Government too often stands idly by while China games the system over and over and over.

This problem is urgent, as a new report from the Economic Policy Institute shows. This report finds that the United States is hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs at an alarming pace. Nothing new there. More than 366,000 jobs were lost last year alone because of our trade deficit with China--366,000 jobs in 1 year because of our trade relationship with one country. In all, EPI counts 2.3 million jobs lost to the China trade deficit since China joined the World Trade Organization less than a decade ago.

Unless China raises the real value of its currency--the yuan--by at least an additional 30 percent, and lets it float on the international currency exchanges, as most countries do, the United States trade deficit and job losses will continue to grow.

Labor rights are also a factor. The AFL-CIO estimates that repression of labor rights by the Chinese Government has lowered manufacturing rates by as much as 80 percent. To put it in perspective, my office receives at least two or three TAA certifications a week--trade adjustments from the Trade Adjustment Act on workers losing their jobs because of international trade. We receive from the Labor Department at least two or three TAA certifications a week for Ohio manufacturers. Each of these certifications represents, in most cases, hundreds of workers and their families.

What happens to a community when there is job loss? Think about a community. I was speaking to a gentleman from Tiffin in the last hour. Think about the town of Tiffin, or Chillicothe or Wilmington or Finley or Mansfield--towns of 15,000, 20,000, 30,000, or 50,000 people. When they lose a plant, a manufacturing installation--or what is

happening with DHL in Wilmington, which is way beyond that--even if they lose a plant with 300 or 400 workers, think about what it does, not just to a worker and his or her family, but what it does to the community at large, with the layoffs of police officers and teachers and firefighters, because there are significantly fewer jobs in a community of that size.

Last week, it was Ceva Logistics in Miamisburg that we got a TAA certification about--near Dayton; Acuity Lighting in Newark, and more Delphi workers. The same old story with Delphi and what has happened in the last year in Moraine, OH--again, near Dayton.

Yesterday, we got a TAA notice about Acklin Stamping Company in Toledo. The Labor Department certified that an increase in imports caused Acklin to lay off workers.

That was last week and yesterday. But how about today and how about tomorrow? Probably more TAA notices, because we get two or three almost every week. Probably more today, tomorrow, and next week, again because of a failed trade policy.

On my desk, I have a stack of auction notices from small tool and die manufacturers going out of business in my State and across the country. These notices are going-out-of-business sales. They are notices offering the sale of equipment from machine shops not just in my State but all over the country.

This week, I spoke with the CEO and the family owners of Norwalk Furniture in Norwalk, OH, a community between Cleveland and Toledo. We are trying to keep this 105-year-old company in business. Norwalk workers are represented by the Teamsters and United Steelworkers. It is a company playing by the rules, paying good wages in a small town in Ohio, with good benefits, trying to stay competitive despite having the deck stacked against it because of our trade policy with China.

Again, American companies are playing with one hand tied behind their back. China's undervalued currency and weak safety and environmental standards put American furniture manufacturers such as Norwalk at a huge disadvantage. Like many Ohio businesses, Norwalk Furniture can compete with China. It can and has competed with foreign competition. That is not the complaint. The reason manufacturers such as Norwalk Furniture are struggling and pleading for a change in trade policy is that they can't compete while the U.S. Government--the Bush Commerce Department, the Bush U.S. Trade Representative--stands by and allows China to game the system.

We see what these plant closings do to communities, which is why not only Norwalk Furniture is fighting back, but Mayor Lesch and others in Norwalk are joining them in this struggle. The trade deficit with China costs manufacturing jobs, and not just low-skilled jobs, as is commonly thought.

One very salient point from the EPI report is that it is not only apparel jobs we are talking about, and not only relatively low-wage jobs. We are getting into high-tech products, many integral to our defense industrial base. The report finds that more than a quarter of last year's record trade deficit with China was due to advanced technology products.

Last year, a $68 billion deficit in advanced technology products was responsible for more than 25 percent of the total United States-China trade deficit. Since 2001, the flood of advanced technology imports from China eliminated 561,000 United States jobs in computer and electronic products. So we are not just talking about textile and apparel jobs.

EPI also counts more than $8,000 in lost income for displaced workers. People who support U.S. trade policy--President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the Republican leadership in this body--say: Well, yes, prices are low as a result of U.S. trade policy, but when companies such as shoe manufacturers move out of the United States or a steel manufacturer moves out of the United States, I don't see steel or shoe prices dropping necessarily. So I don't know if that argument holds water.

Even if you concede it might affect prices some, EPI counts more than $8,000 in lost income per displaced worker. So what does that mean? It means someone working at American Standard in Tiffin, OH, or someone at the old Westinghouse plant in Mansfield, where I grew up, or a GM worker in Dayton or a DHL worker or ABX or ASTAR in Wilmington, when they lose a good-paying job making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, or $60,000 a year, the next job they have on the average makes $8,000--if they can find a job--makes $8,000 less than they were used to making. And lower prices don't give you much of a break when you have a new job at $8,000 less than your old job.

Proponents of China PNTR or NAFTA like to say that the jobs displaced from China are replaced with export-oriented jobs that pay better, or jobs in the service sector that pay better. Again, not true. The truth is that wages earned in United States export heavy industry paid 4 percent less than the jobs displaced by Chinese imports. So when we lose these jobs to Chinese imports, it is costing our workers that $8,000 we were talking about. Even if we are exporting some to China, the amount we are exporting to China versus the amount we are bringing in obviously is a huge chasm. It is the better paying jobs that are moving offshore or closing because of a flood of Chinese imports.

The failure of the WTO talks could, in fact, be a blessing. The DOHA talks long ago became more of a threat than an opportunity to American farmers and to American workers and long ago represented more of a threat than an opportunity for sustainable development abroad for our trading partners.

We have an opportunity now, because of the failure of DOHA, to step away, to evaluate what is working and what is not working and start again with a new trade model--for New Jersey, the State of the Presiding Officer, and for my State. I have introduced legislation, S. 3083, the TRADE Act, which evaluates our Trade Agreements Program, which allows for renegotiation and which sets forth principles for future trade deals.

In my State, in the last year and a half, I have held about 110 roundtables in 75 of Ohio's 88 counties where I gather a group of 20 or 25 people, a cross-section of the community, and listen to them talk about their hopes and dreams and what they wish and hope for in their community and what they are fighting for, for their families and their communities. Few issues in these roundtables get workers and businesses, Democrats and Republicans--and I don't know people's party affiliations at these roundtables--few issues get them as worked up as our unfair trading relationship with China in deals such as NAFTA and CAFTA that protect Wall Street investors but don't protect labor, don't protect safety, don't protect the environment.

We have an opportunity, in the coming months and especially next year with the new President, to renew a consensus on trade. I look forward to working in my caucus and across the aisle on a better approach to trade policy for our workers, for their families, for our communities, and for our country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority control the time until 12:30, the Republicans control the next 30 minutes, the majority control the next 30 minutes, and the time until 6 p.m. be controlled in 30 minute blocks in an alternating fashion.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleagues, our assistant majority leader from Illinois

and the Senator from California, for speaking today, because we are quite astounded, I have to tell my colleagues. Coming from the great State of Michigan where we care about jobs--and I know the Presiding Officer does, coming from the great State of Pennsylvania--our folks are desperate for good-paying jobs, middle-class jobs that allow them to pay that mortgage and pay those outrageous gas prices and to be able to keep their families afloat and put food on the table.

What we had happen in front of us today was an effort to once again block the future of alternative energy jobs and block today, by stopping it, an investment in the highway trust fund that would keep 400,000 jobs going in our country. That is a lot of jobs--400,000 jobs.

Now, why would they do that? When you look around, since this President and Vice President have taken office, gas prices have tripled. Oil prices are four times higher. Families and businesses are being squeezed on every side. Why can't we get action? Who benefits? I wonder who would like this picture.

Well, let's look at who would like this picture. I only pick on one company because they happen to be the ones showing the highest profits. During this time that families and truckers on the road are trying to make a living, and businesses, small and large, are trying to hold it together, during this time of crisis, $185 billion profit since our President and the Vice President--two oilmen from Texas--took office. Mr. President, $185 billion in profits. What we have here is an oil agenda. We have had an oil company agenda since they took office on every step of the way.

The bill that was turned down today--it wasn't just turned down today; it was, in fact, turned down on June 10 of this year, June 17 of this year, July 29, and today. This isn't the only time. We have gone back as far as last year, a year ago. Tax incentives in the Energy bill were blocked twice by Republican colleagues on behalf of big oil on June 21, 2007, and December 13, 2007. We can go on. February 7 of this year, Republicans blocked adding critical energy production tax incentives to the stimulus that was passed. They are willing to give everybody a little bit of a check, a little bit of a rebate check, but when we are talking about creating jobs and investing in competition with the oil companies, oh, no. Oh, no.

Who wouldn't want that competition? Let me see. Maybe these folks wouldn't want that competition. Maybe they were the ones who said: No, no, we don't want to be focusing on electric vehicles and investing in battery technology or consumer credits for new vehicles. No, no, we don't want to be investing in solar and wind and geothermal. No, no. Getting off of oil? No, no, no, no. This is the oil administration. We don't want to get off of oil; we want to embrace it. We want to continue it.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened.

Record profits. The total combined net profits of the big five oil companies since our President took office are upwards of $556 billion. If I sound a little upset, I am because I have folks in my State who are just struggling to try to make it. Are they investing here at home with that $556 billion? The oil companies spent $188 billion buying back their own stock in the last 5 years. Exporting. A record 1.6 million barrels a day were exported, 33 percent higher than before.

We are in a global economy. Unfortunately, even though I think it is important to have a domestic oil supply, it is in a global economy. It is not necessarily going to stay here. The drill-only, the drill- forever crowd, that is the oil agenda. It is the oil profits agenda in a global economy.

Let me share for a moment some folks who are suffering under the oil agenda of this President and Vice President and the Republicans who have been in charge.

In South Haven, MI, a beautiful little town along Lake Michigan, this was in the paper. Early last month, Jeanne Fair, who is 62 years old, got her first hot meals delivered to her home in this little lake community in the rural southwestern part of the State. After two deliveries of meals, they stopped because the volunteers couldn't afford the gas to get her the food. ``They called and said I was outside of the delivery area,'' said Mrs. Fair, who is homebound and hasn't been able to use her left arm since a stroke in 1997.

Faced with soaring gasoline prices, agencies around the country that provide services to the elderly say they are having to cut back on programs such as Meals on Wheels, transportation assistance, and home care, especially in rural areas that depend on volunteers to provide their own gas. In a recent survey by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, more than half said they already cut back on programs because of gas prices. Ninety percent say they are expected to cut them back in 2009.

This is the United States of America, and we have volunteers who have to stop giving meals to people in rural Michigan so these folks can keep up this agenda here: $185 billion profit since George Bush took office. And our folks can't afford gas.

Let me share something else, a letter from a gentleman:

As my family's only breadwinner, I drive over an hour each

day to my job at LifeWays in Jackson . . . The reason I drive

over an hour each way is because jobs for professionals are

extremely rare in Hillsdale County where I live. Over 16 car

industry-related plants have closed in Hillsdale County in

the past 10 years, leaving the unemployment rate sky high and

wages extremely low. The newest hit is the high prices for

energy which are hurting me and my family. Not even looking

at the 55-cent increase per gallon of propane we were just

notified of, my commute costs me $28 a day and I drive a

midsized car. I urge Congress to act immediately.

Mr. President, we had a chance to act immediately today to do something that would make a difference, a real difference, and Congress didn't do it.

I also have one other letter from a 17-year-old high school student who has a job. She says: I make $7.15 an hour and put in about 20 hours a week. My job sometimes interferes with my education because I am trying to make money that I need. My job affects school because I need to work. It makes it difficult for me. I am paid every 2 weeks and spend about $100 a week on gas to get back and forth to school and work. She says: Even during school time, I ride the bus to try to save money, but now I probably won't be riding the bus because school districts are cutting back on transportation to school. They are doing this because they don't have enough money to fill up the buses' gas tanks.

What is going on? What is going on here? We are fighting for the people of this country who expect to be able to put gas in the schoolbus, who expect to be able to have seniors get Meals on Wheels, who expect to be able to drive to work. That is what this is about. It is about time we change the agenda of this country and who decisions are being made for. The reality is--I think it is, unfortunately, way too simple, but it is true--we have had 8 years of two oilmen in the White House and it has gotten us paying $4-a-gallon gasoline, maybe a little less, maybe a little more. That is the reality. We have seen over and over not only efforts on this floor to block what we are doing but on top of that, to add insult to injury, a free ride for the oil companies.

In January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration was allowing oil and gas companies to forgo royalty payments--forgo royalty payments--on leases in Federal waters, public waters in the Gulf of Mexico. It would cost American taxpayers more than $60 billion. Sixty billion dollars would equal 38 days of free gas for every American. How about that. So not only are they blocking us from creating alternatives, not only are they blocking us from taking taxpayer money--the same people I just read about are subsidizing the oil companies because we can't stop these subsidies going to the most profitable companies in the world--the world. We can't get that stopped when we are trying to say: Take those dollars and move them over to the future, which is alternative energy that will allow gas prices to go down, that will free us from foreign oil, get us off of a policy that depends on those around the world who aren't exactly our friends, and make us stronger in terms of national security. We can't get that done. Then, to add insult to injury, they waive oil and gas leases--$60 billion. I would love to have been able to waive some house payments. I would love to have been able to say to folks who were trying to

make it and not lose their house in foreclosure: We will give you 90 days, don't worry about it, because we care about families and we want to make sure you keep your house.

We finally have a housing bill. It is too late for many people, but we finally have one, thank goodness, that the President would sign.

Where are the priorities of this country? Who are we making decisions for? That is the question. Who are we making decisions for?

So I have extreme concern about the direction in which we are going. I have to tell my colleagues, as somebody who comes from a State where there is such a little bit of support right now, it would give us a whole lot more impact in the short run if we were to invest--and I know that. I am so grateful to our Senate leadership for supporting our efforts to retool our auto plants, to keep jobs in America for new vehicles. We are now focusing our talk so many times on this floor on what we are doing to support the advanced battery research and development so we are making those new batteries in America, not only for automobiles but for energy storage, and making sure we are the energy producers and creating the jobs of the future. A few investments we can do immediately within the next couple of years would tremendously impact us.

I know my time is up. Let me just indicate that it is time to change the agenda. The American people have had enough. This big-oil agenda which has been driving the train here on the Senate floor and which has been driving the train in the White House has to stop.

We have to take away their track and turn this thing around, so that we are focusing on what the American people want us to focus on to help them and their families in this country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on S. 3335, the tax extender package, for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, folks across our country feel as if they are drowning as wave after wave of bad economic news hits them.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation because at times like this, when so many people feel they are close to going under, they look to their Government to toss them a life preserver, not burden them with a 2-ton cement block of bills to pay and then wish them luck. Congress has shown a willingness to shore up Wall Street. This legislation gives us an opportunity to shore up the folks who are on Main Street.

People across our country want to see the Senate address the issues that are most important to them, and at the top of that list is energy. Obviously, our country is now at a crossroads. The country can continue to keep going on the road we are on, living on high-priced fuel and spewing carbon dioxide into the air from fossil fuels that choke the planet, or we can take a different road. With this legislation, we can start down that route.

This legislation put the country on a path toward real energy independence. It would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it would extend tax credits for renewable energy technologies--solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectricity, geothermal heat pumps, and fuel cells. These new energy choices will help stem the devastating effects of global warming.

On the other hand, the failure to extend existing renewable energy credits sends the wrong signals to renewable energy companies and investors. It will literally cut off the pipeline of promising renewable energy projects at a time when many of these technologies are just getting off the ground.

How often is it possible to point to legislation and say that this bill will actually lead to a more promising future? In this case, businesses, workers, consumers, and homeowners all have an opportunity to be part of a brighter energy future. Truckers would get an exemption from the highway excise tax so they could install fuel-saving anti- idling equipment. Consumers would get a new tax credit when they buy the plug-in hybrids. There would be a tax break for the bicycle commuters. For the first time, wave, tidal energy, and small wind turbines would be eligible for renewable energy tax credits. The bill also extends production tax credits for biodiesel. Consumers and businesses would be encouraged to live on less energy but in a fashion that does not compromise our economy or our quality of life. There would be tax credits for energy-efficient homes, commercial buildings, energy-efficient appliances, and also recycling equipment.

It is my view that the tax provisions of this legislation make sense for taxpayers and they make sense for the environment and our businesses, and in that sense, we have an opportunity to act for America's future. I hope this legislation will pass.

I would like to touch quickly on several other parts of the legislation that I think are particularly important, and especially the county payments legislation.

If you live in a big city in this country, you may not know a whole lot about this legislation, but the county payments program keeps rural communities throughout the country--particularly in my home State-- alive. The legislation includes more than $3.7 billion in funds that are desperately needed for rural schools, counties, and communities. Without the safety net funding included in the bill, rural communities across the country will face a future without schools and without vital services such as law enforcement and essential road repair. Pink slips have already been sent out to teachers and county workers, and unless the Congress acts quickly, these devastating losses to the very fabric of rural communities would become permanent.

There are counties in my home State that now literally face dissolution. Folks who live there don't know what to expect, but they are bracing for the worst. I am just not going to let that happen.

This energy tax package contains the last best hope to help these counties, and the Senate should not turn its back on rural America now.

Specifically, the package contains a 4-year extension of the Secure Rural Schools Program that I authored in 2000 and 5 years of full funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.

This proposal closely mirrors the legislative proposal I put together last year with Senators Baucus, Bingaman, and Majority Leader Reid--a proposal that overwhelmingly passed with bipartisan support by a vote of 74 to 23. Senator Craig and Senator Domenici also helped with critical efforts to move the legislation forward and to give it strong, bipartisan support.

When folks in rural America are losing their jobs, their homes, and the chance to educate their kids, the Federal Government should not break its promise to rural communities. When Federal forests were created in Oregon and around the country, rural communities were promised they would get a share of the revenue from those forests. This revenue sharing was intended to make up for the loss of Federal forest land from the local tax base. As the benefits from forest management changes with the times, Congress can't walk away from its responsibility to provide funding to the counties for their contribution in creating the Nation's forests. Since that original effort, it has been clear that local communities needed some measure of support.

By providing funds through 2011, this bill gets our rural counties off the fiscal roller coaster they have been on, particularly during these difficult economic times. It gives them stable funding so they can concentrate on the real work of planning for the future. Nationally, this would mean $3.7 billion, and in my home State of Oregon, it would mean hundreds of millions of dollars for schools, public safety, roads, and other essential county services.

In the midst of an energy crisis, our schools face big challenges. An Energy Department study reported that schools spend about $8 billion on energy each year, second only to spending on books and computers. The same study estimated that 61 percent of public school districts had insufficient energy budgets. As a result, the schools--especially our rural schools--are forced to make difficult decisions about whether they can fully afford to heat or cool their buildings or whether they are going to have to cut some essential service, such as the school bus service in rural areas. Reauthorizing the county payments program would keep the lights on in the classrooms and make sure our youngsters have the basics they need in order to be able to learn.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 has worked. It has built collaboration between counties, forest product firms, and environmentalists in communities in over 700 counties in 41 States across the Nation. A key part of that collaboration has included funding projects to restore the national forests, and those would include providing renewable woody biomass that is part of the renewable energy solution this legislation would provide.

Finally, on this point, these funds are a critical lifeline to rural areas. I point out that rural schools and counties would not be the only ones who suffer if this bill isn't passed. But I want to highlight the county payments legislation tonight particularly.

I am going to be going home this weekend for townhall meetings in the rural part of my State. I will hear again and again this weekend how, without this program, without the essential program for rural communities that, in effect, built on something that started a century ago, we will see some of those rural communities dissolve before our eyes. I cannot allow that to happen on my watch.

Finally, a quick comment on one other section of the legislation. I see that my friend from Arizona is here, and I want him to know that I will wrap up very briefly.

Mr. President, with respect to the tax extenders provisions of this legislation, I can only say that businesses are calling for this. Typical taxpayers are calling for it. Teachers are saying they need it. Once again, we have to look at the consequences of not passing an important domestic initiative. This bill includes help for folks who are hurting right now. It includes help with relief to people in the Midwest who are still hurting from this year's floods. It helps businesses by renewing the business research and development tax credit. This is very important because our fast-growing technology companies say it is critical for their plans to grow and hire new staff. High-tech companies are some of the best employers in my home State and around the country, and they offer family-wage jobs that Americans can depend on.

Both parties agree that the research and development credit should be extended and that it will be--some day. That is what they say, Mr. President--some day. That doesn't do much good for struggling manufacturers now. They have to plan their investments in order to be able to grow. They say that R&D credits are critical to doing that. By holding it up, the Congress is pushing our companies to outsource the important work. Clearly, no Member of the Senate could want that to happen, but without these credits, we are not having the proper incentive to keep jobs in the United States. I want to see high-skill, high-wage jobs here in our communities. We are the world leaders in research and development, and it is moments like this that will either keep us in that position or will start us heading down the path of becoming followers.

I want to finally express my appreciation to the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his fine work on this legislation. I particularly appreciate the many times in which he has assisted me with the Secure Rural Schools Program. A host of other colleagues: Leader Reid, Chairman Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, among others. I also express my appreciation to Senator Tester, our new Senator from the State of Montana, who has been a champion of rural schools and this program as well for all of his assistance.

I urge the support of the critical Baucus legislation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to begin by noting that, again, it is fire season in Montana.

Right now, major wildfires are threatening homes in a small town called Red Lodge. The Cascade fire has been burning and has burned about 6,000 acres. It is burning uncomfortably close to the Red Lodge Mountain ski area.

The hot, dry weather forecast over the next week means there are likely to be more fires and more acres of rangeland and forest lost.

Fire season in Montana officially runs from August until the first snow in fall. So, once again, we are off to an early start.

Wildfires are becoming a fact of the West. We accept it. We deal with it.

The good news is Montana is blessed with outstanding firefighters from the U.S. Forest Service, Tribal Nations, and the State Department of Natural Resources, as well as first responders from local volunteer and paid fire departments.

When they need reinforcements, they turn to the Montana National Guard. Last year, more than 200 guardsmen were mobilized to help fight wildfires in Montana. While no guardsmen have been mobilized yet this year, it will happen at some point--just as they are mobilized every year to protect people and homes, dig out fire lines, smother embers, and provide all manner of hands-on support to this team effort.

There are not too many jobs in this country where the work is as varied as service in our National Guard. This summer we can expect that hundreds of National Guardsmen in Montana and throughout the West will be mobilized to help fight wildfires. It has already happened in California, where the Governor called up 200 Guardsmen.

This is a vital role in our Nation's homeland security.

And just as the Guard answers the call for homeland security missions, they answer the bell when it comes to national security.

In 2004 and 2005, more than 1,500 of my State's National Guard deployed to Iraq. They did yeoman's work over there, and we can all be very proud of their service and grateful for it as well. Today, there are nearly 23,000 National Guardsmen serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another 3,000 Guardsmen from all over the country work hard to protect our southern border, helping the Border Patrol get a better handle on securing that border. Four hundred Montana Guardsmen were a proud part of that important effort earlier this year.

So as the National Guard in Montana prepares for the inevitable mobilization fight against wildfires here at home, I think it is appropriate we stop to thank the 3,500-strong members of our Montana National Guard for what they do both abroad and here at home.

As wildfires continue to threaten Montana's countryside and our communities, I wish to pay tribute to all the brave men and women who put it on the line to fight our fires.

Energy

Mr. President, I wish to comment on the energy debate we have been having in the Senate. Every Tuesday morning, for 2\1/2\ hours, I get to preside over this great body, and I get to hear folks from both sides of the aisle talk about issues of importance.

The energy debate has been particularly intriguing because I have seen folks on the other side of the aisle hold up signs that talk about drilling more and using less.

They are quick to support oil production. But on the other hand, they will not support alternative energies or conservation methods. They talk about drilling more as if it is going to change the price of gasoline tomorrow.

The fact is, the United States has less than 3 percent of the world's reserves of oil. We use 25 percent of the supply. As far as drilling goes, we are drilling now like there is no tomorrow. In fact, in Montana, you would be hard-pressed to find a drilling rig if you wanted to punch a hole.

In Montana, we have offered over 3 million acres of leasing since 2000. We have increased our oil production two and a half-fold. We have drilled 4,870 wells in the last 5 years. Yet we continually see the price of oil go up and up and up. Why? Well, a lot of it has to do with the fact that the major oil companies last year made hundreds of billions of dollars off the consumers' back.

What can we do? What can we do to help bring the price of oil down? Sure, we are going to continue to drill, and I support that effort. But we need additions to our energy portfolio. If we continue to rely on oil as our chief supplier of energy, we are going to be continuing to be beholden to Saudi Arabia and OPEC forever. That ought not be the direction we go.

My good friend, my comrade, Senator Baucus, put forth a tax extenders bill earlier today. Yesterday, we had a chance to vote on one from the House. They were both defeated. They were not allowed to move forward. There was a majority, but there was not 60 votes.

What was in that tax extenders bill? One of the things that was in it was a renewable energy tax credit extension, a continuation that would put more energy in the marketplace.

As shown on this chart, we can see what happens when we have the wind energy tax credit. The yellow bars indicate that. The orange bars indicate when it does not happen. If we have the wind energy tax credit, wind energy production goes up, and there is more

energy in the marketplace. When we don't, it does not.

Because of the vote that was taken earlier today, you will see a decrease in wind energy production--a big mistake for this country, not very visionary.

Because of the vote that took place earlier today, we not only will see wind energy grind to a halt, we will see geothermal--which we have a tremendous opportunity for throughout the country, particularly in Montana--we will see biomass, landfill gas--we have an electrical cooperative in northwestern Montana, Flathead Electric Cooperative, that is talking about capturing methane gas off the landfill to produce energy, getting something from nothing--we will not see any of that stuff go on because of the defeat of the tax extenders bill.

In that tax extenders bill, there were also long-term extensions of tax credits for solar energy and fuel cells. Solar energy: getting our energy from the Sun to help replace some of that oil from the Middle East--not going to happen. Folks talk about corn ethanol and how they don't like it. I am not one of them. But I do think we need to get the second generation of ethanol production, cellulosic ethanol. There was a credit for property in that tax extenders bill that was not agreed to earlier today. That will not happen; a biodiesel tax credit. I have talked about a camelina provision in the farm bill for biodiesel, and there are other opportunities in all sorts of oilseeds out there. The biodiesel tax credit does not happen because we did not pass that bill Senator Baucus offered earlier today.

Carbon capture and storage technology to make our coal burn cleaner. In Montana, we are the ``Saudi Arabia'' of coal. We have an incredible opportunity. But without good technology to capture carbon and store it, we will never be all we can be. It would make us more energy independent.

Talk about producing more here at home: Drilling is part of the equation. But an even bigger part of the equation could have been to pass that tax extenders bill earlier today.

Let's talk about using less.

In that tax extenders bill, there were energy efficiency tax credits to help make our homes more energy efficient. It is not going to happen. There was a credit to reduce idling for truckers--that we all see happen--to save transportation fuel. It is not going to happen.

You want to talk about using less? There was a bicycling tax credit for those folks who want to ride their bicycle to work rather than to drive. It will not happen.

There were incentives for geothermal heat pumps in our homes that use less energy with more consistency. It is not going to happen.

There were energy conservation bonds for States and local school districts. The list goes on and on and on.

I ask myself: Why? Why does it have to be this way? Why aren't we looking to the future? Why are we not talking about more than drilling? The fact is, we are drilling. We are drilling an incredible amount of land in this country. It needs to be a bridge. But it needs to be a bridge to somewhere this time. If we put forth the renewable energy components that are in the tax extenders bill, we will have a future. We will have a future of affordable energy.

I ask my comrades to pass that tax extenders bill. It is incredibly important. It is not just because of energy that it is important.

Secure Rural Schools

Finally, I wish to talk about the security of rural schools. These are payments to Montana's rural communities and forested counties that have an incredible amount of public lands.

The Secure Rural Schools dollars are important not only for the school but also for our roads and our rural counties. Montana is rich in public lands. Consequently, it puts more pressure on property taxes of private property in those counties. With the Secure Rural Schools money, it gives those rural and forested counties the opportunity to meet the needs of the kids in these rural districts and to meet the needs of the transportation industry in those rural districts. We all know that less money for rural schools means lower teacher pay, bigger classroom size, fewer activities, and students start to fall behind.

County road workers right now are being laid off. I spoke with the head of the Montana Association of Counties. He said to the counties: Take your budgets and utilize them as if this money is not going to happen because it is not until we pass the tax extenders programs.

We had the opportunity in this body today and yesterday to pass a good bill that meets the needs of America's families, small businesses, and the economy. It was not passed. There are all sorts of excuses for it, but they are simply that: excuses. We need to move forward with some proactive thinking in this body. I hope the next time this bill hits this floor, it is passed and passed by a large margin.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chair.

40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON NUTRITION AND HUMAN

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 40th anniversary of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. Today we recognize the contributions of two members of that original committee, the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Democratic Senator George McGovern of South Dakota and Republican Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. Both made and continue to make contributions in the war on hunger.

It was 40 years ago that CBS television aired a landmark documentary entitled, ``Hunger in America.'' This documentary exposed the magnitude of hunger that existed all across the Nation. For the first time, Americans got a closeup look at the true faces of hunger--pregnant women and children who were malnourished, infants dying of starvation, starving tenant farmers living just miles from this Nation's Capitol. Their stories and their faces moved the Congress to try to end hunger.

It was just last month that I was privileged to have the opportunity to sit down with Senator McGovern to talk about the challenge of combating hunger still today. As we were sitting talking, he related to me a story, 40 years later, that still has had a profound effect on him all these years later. The evening of that CBS television documentary broadcast I spoke of, the evening that was on, Senator

McGovern and his family were gathered around the television set watching the documentary. Senator McGovern still vividly remembers the effect one particular image from this documentary had on him at that time.

The image was that of a school-age boy leaning against a wall while most of his classmates ate lunch. The interviewer in the documentary asked the boy how he felt standing there, day after day, watching the other children eat.

His answer was not that he was angry or bitter but, rather, that he was ashamed.

At that moment, Senator McGovern recalls telling his family that he, George McGovern, as a Senator, and not that boy was the one who should have been ashamed. I think what that shows is the humility and decency of George McGovern, first of all. But I think what he tried to convey to me in our conversation was that young person's response in that documentary--a person who was a victim of not having enough to eat-- that response had such a profound effect on Senator George McGovern that he returned to the Senate the very next day and began working on a resolution to establish a committee to address hunger in this country. Forty years ago today, that resolution was, indeed, enacted, establishing the Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs.

Senator McGovern chaired the committee from the time of its inception in 1968 until 1977, when the committee was absorbed into the Agriculture Committee, the committee we know today as the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, chaired by Senator Tom Harkin.

Senator McGovern was committed to exposing the failure of Federal food assistance programs at that time and making reforms to ensure that these programs were reaching those most in need. But knowing this was a goal he could not achieve on his own, he reached across the aisle to form a key partnership with Senator Bob Dole, a partnership and an abiding friendship, I might add, that continues to this very day. Despite their differences, both these men share the conviction that ending hunger is a moral imperative. Working together, Senators McGovern and Dole set out to end hunger in America. Their work helped educate the Congress, the Federal Government, and the Nation at large about the sheer magnitude of hunger in the United States. Over the next decade, they and other members of this unique Senate committee developed a bipartisan response to hunger and laid the foundation of our current food assistance programs.

Among their chief successes was reforming the Food Stamp Program, culminating in the passage of the Food Stamp Reform Act of 1977. This act made the program more efficient and more accessible to those most in need by finally eliminating the requirement that Americans pay for a portion of their own food stamps.

They expanded the National School Lunch Program and made the School Breakfast Program, the Childcare Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program permanent programs in our Government; and they established the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known today by the acronym WIC.

Forty years later, the programs that Senators McGovern and Dole championed and shepherded through the Senate have succeeded in eliminating the most serious chronic malnutrition in the United States. Today, nearly 28 million Americans receive food stamps, more than 17.5 million low-income children receive free or reduced school meals, and more than 8 million women and children receive WIC benefits.

The legacy of Senators McGovern and Dole is truly a testament to what can be achieved when we work in a bipartisan fashion on shared priorities that address the basic needs of the American people.

These two men came from vastly different ends of the political spectrum and vehemently disagreed on many other issues, but they came together and both agreed that hunger was and is an issue that transcends partisan politics. The bipartisan spirit with which these two men collaborated to fight hunger has certainly served as a model and a inspiration to me and I know to many others in Congress.

Following their example of bipartisanship, this year on the farm bill we were able to provide a record level of nutrition funding to reform and strengthen Federal nutrition programs. We were able to make key improvements to the Food Stamp Program itself, and we were able to strengthen the domestic food assistance safety net by providing significant increased funding to increase commodity purchases for local area food banks.

But we all know the war on hunger requires constant vigilance and we must recognize that unmet needs still exist in America. Despite the existence of Federal food programs, hunger continues to be a serious problem plaguing more than 35.5 million Americans, including 12.6 million children.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of hunger. Even mild malnutrition can have adverse impacts on health, development, behavior, school attendance and performance and self-esteem as well. In the coming year, we will have an opportunity to have a direct impact on combating child hunger with reauthorization of the National School Lunch Act. This legislation, which is set to expire September 30, 2009, authorizes all Federal child nutrition programs.

One of the most important reforms that can be enacted is to expand the school breakfast program. With 30 million children a day participating in the school lunch program, only one-third or 10 million children receive a school breakfast. We must find innovative ways to reach more of these children to get them breakfast.

There is a direct link between school breakfast and academic achievement, and if the United States is going to compete effectively in a new world economy, we must educate our children and to do that we must provide the best possible nutrition at school.

We must also recognize that many low-income working parents with children are struggling to afford even the low fees charged for reduced-price school meals. According to the School Nutrition Association, approximately 1 million children in this country are eligible for reduced-price meals and yet are not participating in the program due to the cost barrier. We must devise ways to ensure these children, too, are receiving proper nutritional assistance at school and do not fall through the cracks.

But providing adequate nutrition to the children during the school year is only part of the answer. Congress also needs to implement changes to ensure that the millions of children who rely upon school meals are not left behind during the summer. Currently, only 2 in 10 children who benefit from school meals also receive meals during the summer months. We must find ways to make programs such as the Summer Food Service Program more accessible to children, not only in metro areas but in rural areas as well.

Data from the USDA's Economic Research Service shows that as far back as at least 1970, the percentage of children living in poverty in rural areas consistently exceeds that of children in metro or urban areas.

A bill I have introduced with Senator Specter, my colleague from Pennsylvania, S. 1755, the Summer Food Service Rural Explanation Act, would lower the threshold for feeding sites in rural areas to qualify for this program.

We hope to help to ensure the availability of summer meals for more of these children living in poverty who happen to live in rural areas. We know that hunger itself does not take a vacation, and we owe it to these children to ensure that the Food Assistance Program does not take a vacation either.

Finally, Congress must continue to improve the quality of all nutrition assistance programs. One of the great ironies of the current challenge is to recognize that hunger and obesity can exist at the same time.

While we recognize we are facing huge Federal deficits, we must refuse to let funding challenges serve as an impediment to these critical changes. There is not a more important domestic social objective facing us in the coming years than to provide adequate nutrition to children across America.

Finally, Senators Dole and McGovern blazed a path 40 years ago when they joined to help fight the war on hunger. They put aside partisanship to bring light to the darkness of hunger. Now is

time for a new generation of leaders to pick up that mantra on behalf of the more than 35.5 million faces of American hunger.

I therefore call upon my friends in Congress, both Chambers, both sides of the aisle, to join me and millions of advocates across this country in a mission to end hunger.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we are now in the final days of this session, and congressional Democrats have left an enormous amount of work undone. As we move into the final stretch, let's take stock of the unfinished business. On spending, we are 2 full months into fiscal 2008, and our friends across the aisle are still staring at 11 unfinished spending bills out of the 12 they were supposed to do. We need to work together to get those overdue spending bills signed into law.

On troop funding, thousands of American families will have sons and daughters fighting overseas this Christmas, and under the Constitution that falls on us to provide for them. We may disagree about the mission, but no one should disagree about getting those courageous men and women everything they need while they are fighting in the field. Congressional Democrats need to get serious about the troops and get them the funds they need without any more games and without any further delay.

We have heard some remarkable reports from Iraq in recent weeks. Sunni tribes and other militants who turned against al-Qaida are now working with coalition forces to secure Iraqi neighborhoods and towns. Refugees are returning to Iraq in droves. Shops are reopening, curfews are being relaxed. Al-Qaida in Iraq, we are told, has been pushed to the brink.

Americans like what they have heard, and even some congressional Democrats have acknowledged the positive reports. Congressman Murtha, a hero of the antiwar left, says the new strategy is a success. Congressman Dicks talked about a new feeling of normalcy in Iraq. Thanks to the increase in U.S. forces and a smart new strategy, we have seen a stunning reversal.

Unfortunately, talk of congratulations is scarce among the antiwar left. Rather than stop for a minute to acknowledge what we are hearing from the field, our friends on the other side now seem to be looking around for something that is not going well so they can blame that on Republicans.

According to press reports, they have settled on gas prices. And we do need to do something to lower energy costs. But the bill our Democratic friends are reportedly about to bring to the floor will not do that. In fact, the bill they are discussing would actually increase gas prices at the pump and electricity bills in States that do not have an abundance of windmills. An energy bill that raises the cost of energy is not what we need today.

Frankly, I am baffled by the congressional Democrats' position on the whole troop funding debate. Earlier in the year, they said sending more troops to Iraq would lead to failure. Then they approved the funds anyway. Now they say things are going well, and they want to cut off the funds that are needed to finish the job. So they funded the war when they thought it would fail, and now they want to defund it when they think it is succeeding.

Does this make any sense at all? Reasonable people could be able to agree that now is not the time to talk about walking away from our troops in Iraq. Yet this is exactly what Democrats are planning to do.

The senior Senator from Massachusetts has said he thinks the Democrats have an obligation, an obligation to cut off funds for the war. And now they are apparently following through with it. Just in time for the holidays, they are forcing the Pentagon to prepare pink slips for more than 250,000 employees as a way of getting around the threat.

I would urge the majority to rethink its position, to keep its word, and to send our troops the funds they need to finish their mission and return home in success. We have a solemn obligation to assure America's military families that their sons and daughters will get whatever they need. Let's not break that trust at this moment of optimism and hope and good news from the field at a time when even Congressman Murtha says the surge is working.

Congressional Democrats need to get serious about security at home too. It is no accident that we have not been hit here since 9/11. We passed the PATRIOT Act, set up the Department of Homeland Security, and made sure intelligence agents would have the tools they need to do their jobs.

One of those tools is the Protect America Act that we passed in August and expires on February 1. This essential terror-fighting tool recognizes that we need to be able to monitor terrorists overseas. And however the Senate deals with its expiration, we must protect its core strengths. But Democrats on the Judiciary Committee seem to disagree. They just voted for a revised version of this law that weakens it in dangerous ways. The experts tell us that under this new version, the Judiciary Committee version, U.S. commanders could be blocked from gathering critical intelligence on foreign targets.

Imagine: An American commander prepares to attack a city such as Fallujah. He gives orders for a blanket surveillance of the city to pinpoint terrorist activity. Then the lawyers step in and say: Sir, you cannot do that. You need to go to the FISA Court first.

Well, this is one vision of how to fight the war on terror. Republicans have a different view. We think we need to stop foreign terrorists who want to kill innocent Americans, not be paralyzed into inaction over their search and seizure rights.

Republicans are ready to support the bipartisan, commonsense Senate Intelligence Committee bill. In addition to allowing our commanders greater freedoms in the field, this version recognizes that telecom companies should not be sued for doing their patriotic duty in helping intelligence officials to protect American lives.

It also recognizes if these companies are exposed to lawsuits, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill, which is exactly what Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are proposing. They want to make sure the trial lawyers are happy one way or another. We need to protect the telecom companies that did their duty and the taxpayers, not the trial lawyers, who want to bring these lawsuits.

Congressional Democrats have neglected their duty on the 12 spending bills. They are threatening to neglect their duty to the troops in the field and to our security at home. Now they are about to slap millions of Americans with a middle-class tax hike better known as the AMT.

Well, the American people have a right to know how Democrats found the time for 63 Iraq votes over the course of the past year, some of them at midnight, but somehow couldn't find an afternoon to fix a mistake in the Tax Code that is about to hit 50 million households. It is not as if they didn't see it coming. They have known about the problem all year. Treasury Secretary Paulson reminded us of its urgency in October. He sent us a letter, dated October 23, reminding us that the problem was before us. He warned that if Congress didn't act by early last month, about 25 million households would get mistakenly whacked with a major tax hike. He said if we didn't act by the middle of this month, 50 million would face delays in getting their refunds. Even if we acted today, millions of tax returns will still be delayed. We have already inconvenienced millions of American taxpayers by inaction.

The IRS oversight chairman reminded us about the problem again last month, saying the longer we wait, the longer the refund delays would be. Here is a letter from the IRS, dated November 26. This is a tax none of these people were ever intended to pay. Originally targeted at fewer than 200 families, it was never indexed for inflation. It is a mistake that has never been permanently fixed, and Republicans are not about to let Democrats impose a

new tax on a lot of other taxpayers to pay for its correction. Americans don't need to be giving Government an interest-free loan in April by letting the IRS hold on to their refunds. They need to get their refunds when they expect them. We need to fix the AMT without new taxes, and we need to do it now. The number of families affected is staggering: Democratic foot dragging on the AMT threatens 1.6 million taxpayers in New Jersey, more than 3 million in New York, and nearly 4.5 million in California. That is more people in California alone than we have in my State. We need to block this giant middle-class tax hike now before voters get stuck with it in April.

Senate Democrats need to act on executive nominations, including nominees to head the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Agriculture. The Judiciary Committee needs to do a much better job processing circuit court nominations. Christmas will be here before we know it, and we have only had one hearing--one--on one circuit court nomination since the summer recess. We have only had five hearings for five circuit court nominees the entire year of 2007. During a comparable period in President Clinton's last Congress, the Republican- controlled Senate held hearings on 10 of President Clinton's circuit court nominees, including five after the August recess.

We have had qualified circuit court nominees up here for months who satisfy the supposed criteria of the Democratic majority. There is no good reason for the Judiciary Committee to bring progress on circuit court nominations to a standstill. It is time our colleagues on the other side acted on nominations and on the other legislative duties I have listed.

They have spent nearly a year now focusing on politics rather than essentials. Now they are trying to distract the public by shifting the focus at the finish line. We need to pass the bills that keep the Government functioning. We need to stop taxes from being raised on the middle class. We need to strengthen the laws that help us catch terrorists before they strike, and we need to fund the troops in the field.

It is now December, the last month of the year. Senate Democrats have more to do in these last few weeks than they have already done all year. It is time to stop the political show. It is time to focus for once on the fundamentals.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today with much dismay over the fact that we were not able to pass the energy extenders, the tax extenders, the package of important provisions for our country's economy because of this obstructionism on the other side.

Let me tell my colleagues why this was so important to me. We only got four Republican votes for this package. I think it is outrageous when you look at what we are dealing with. This week we are going to be memorializing the tragic, tragic, tragic fall of the bridge in the middle of Minnesota. I am going to speak to that tomorrow and do a fitting tribute, along with Senator Coleman, to the victims of that bridge collapse and to the first responders who saved so many lives, and to the reconstruction work that has gone on thanks to the help of this Senate. I live six blocks from that bridge, so it means a lot to me.

I said the week the bridge fell down that in America, a bridge shouldn't fall down in the middle of the Mississippi River, especially not on an eight-lane highway, especially not on one of the most heavily traveled bridges in the State, especially not at rush hour in the heart of a major metropolitan area. Unfortunately, however, it took that disaster to put the issue of infrastructure funding squarely on the national agenda, and it is long overdue. That is why I was so disappointed that in this important bill was $8 billion to replenish the highway trust fund of this country, to replenish that fund. Mr. President, 400,000 jobs in this country are at stake in that bill that was voted down by the other side.

Look what is happening in this country with our infrastructure. Let's take the issue of bridges. Nationwide, bridges are deteriorating far faster than we can repair or replace them. About 78,000 bridges across the Nation are structurally deficient. What does structurally deficient mean? When inspectors evaluate a bridge, they examine the bridge's deck, superstructure, and substructure. Each of these components is ranked on a scale of 0 to 9, with 0 being failed and 9 being excellent. If the deck, superstructure, or substructure is given a 4 or less, the bridge is classified as structurally deficient.

In June of 2006, the I-35W bridge's superstructure--meaning the physical conditions of all structural members--was rated at a 4. The bridge's deck was rated at a 5, and the substructure, comprised of the piers, the footings, and other components, was rated as a 6. A bridge is shut down if any of its parts are rated at a 2.

Then we have another 80,000 bridges across the Nation which are functionally obsolete. What does functionally obsolete mean? That means they don't meet today's design standards, they don't conform to today's safety standards, and they are handling traffic far beyond their design. Fully one-quarter of America's 600,000 bridges have aged so much that their physical condition or their ability to withstand current traffic levels is simply inadequate. These bridges require immediate attention.

I can tell you since our bridge fell on that summer day on August 1, we have had a number of bridges shut down, close down in our State, including one

that handled a lot of traffic in St. Cloud, MN. There was one in Winona, MN, that was actually on the Federal stamp from our State that was temporarily closed down and is going to have to be rebuilt.

We are seeing this across the country. We are seeing a need for infrastructure funding. At a time when our economy is facing such difficult times, I see this as an investment, not only in the long-term viability for our country's transportation system but also in jobs. That is why I am so disappointed that the other side was willing to turn their backs on 400,000 existing jobs, much less add new ones, by turning down that $8 billion replenishment of the highway trust fund.

It was President Kennedy who once said that building a road or highway isn't pretty, but it is something our economy needs to have. I can tell you beyond the bridges in metropolitan areas, nowhere is that truer than in rural America. We are seeing a rejuvenation because of the energy economy right now in rural Minnesota as we are in so much of rural America. Senator Tester from Montana talked about this. We are seeing biofuels, whether it is biodiesel, ethanol, moving to cellulosic ethanol; whether it is wind or solar. We are third in the country in Minnesota with wind energy--third in the country.

I have seen jobs such as in Starbuck, MN, where a group of 10 people decided to quit their jobs and go work for a solar panel factory. They were so proud of their work they had me jump up and down on those solar panels to show that they can withstand hail damage, and they did.

I can tell you this: We are seeing these jobs and we need courage in Washington that matches the courage of these employees in Starbuck, MN, or in Pipestone--the courage of these employees who are willing to see a better energy future, while this body on the other side is willing to shoot it down by shooting down those tax extenders for energy. This is the wave of the future. This is the way we are going to be investing in homegrown energy and in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels in the Mideast.

So it is about the energy extenders for me in my State and across the country, but it is also about the transportation funding that came in replenishing that highway trust fund. When you start building this energy economy, with the wind turbines and with the biofuels in the trucks going across these roads, you are going to put more stress on the roads and the rail in rural America. If we are going to move to the next century's economic system, we can't be stuck in the last century's transportation system.

I will give some examples. The ethanol plant in Bentsen, MN, now has over 525 fully loaded semis hauling the ethanol from their plant every week. This is a 45-million gallon facility. Their production falls about in the middle of our biodiesel facilities in Minnesota.

SMI Hydraulics is a company in rural southwestern Minnesota that manufactures the bases for the wind towers you see all across our country. This is a company that started as a barn. The wind towers they manufacture actually come out of the side of the barn as they are employing dozens of people right in this little town. The heavy trucks that bring the steel to the company put a heavy burden on the road as they travel and are putting durability to a test. This truck travel and the need for more rail travel is part of our transportation future, but when the other side shoots down our ability to even replenish the highway trust fund, we are not going to be moving in the right direction for our economy. We are not going to help these rural people to develop the true energy economy they need to develop.

In his 1963 ``Memoir for Change,'' President Eisenhower famously said:

More than any single action by the government since the end

of the war, this one would change the face of America.

He was talking about the interstate highway system. Its impact on the American economy, the jobs it would produce in manufacturing and construction, the rural areas it would open up were beyond calculation. Well, he was right. Just as he was right back in 1963, we know he is still right in 2008. So the gall to turn down the replenishment of that highway trust fund and to stop America as we try to head to the new energy future--other countries are leapfrogging us because they have government policies in place that mandate these green jobs and move in the right direction--is plain wrong.

The one last thing I wish to say is there is one way--as we look to jump-starting the economy right now, as we look at solving our oil crisis and our dependency on foreign oil and our spending of $600,000 a minute on foreign oil--and that is the President. He doesn't need the Congress. He can complain about Congress all he wants, but the President of the United States can actually release barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He can do it right now. He could do it in the next hour. We can look at what has happened in the past: 1990 to 1991, 11 million barrels were released; 1996 to 1997, 28 million barrels were released to reduce the Federal debt. In 2005, 21 million barrels were released after Katrina. We can look at how full the petroleum reserve has been. In 1993, 79 percent full; in 2001, it was 74 percent full. Well, right now, in 2008, it is 97 percent full. So this President, on his own, could simply release the barrels of oil from that Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

We are the home of Northwest Airlines in Minnesota. The CEO there, Doug Steenland, has spoken with me many times. Tens of thousands of customers have sent e-mails saying we want to stop this speculation and we want to do something about helping Americans and helping these companies with oil prices. One way to do this immediately is to release some of the barrels of oil, 97 percent full, from that Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If you even go down to 90 percent, you could inject $6 billion into the American economy and help to bring those oil prices down. This is up to the President. He could do it with one signature on one document. He doesn't need us passing a bill to have to deal with these guys and their filibuster. He could do it himself.

So in addition to passing these tax extenders, to getting our green energy economy going and doing something about that highway trust fund so another bridge doesn't fall down in the middle of America, this President, himself, without even one vote from Congress, could release barrels of oil into the American economy and help not only customers but also help the businesses in this country who are finding it harder and harder to compete as we see the price of oil escalate.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, to be followed by Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island for 30 minutes, to be followed by Senator Brownback for 10 minutes.

First and foremost, let me thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his courtesy. We have been moving back and forth throughout the last number of days of debate. My presence on the floor allowed him to offer the courtesy--and I greatly appreciate it--to speak for 10 minutes ahead of him. He would be entitled to be next. I thank him for that.

Let me speak to what Senator Grassley has spoken to briefly in saying that the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee has spoken very clearly on the critical nature of tax policy to the economy. While that is valid, there is a tax at this moment in time that is being charged every consumer in America who buys gasoline at the gas pump. It is the tax of nonproduction. It is the tax of public policy that has denied our great country its continued ability to produce the necessary supply of energy to the phenomenal economy we have.

As a result of our failure to continue public policy that allowed production over the last 20 years, Americans are paying a higher price, a higher energy tax today at the pump than ever in our history; $4.10, $4.15, $4.20 gas is at this moment the No. 1 issue in America, not only taxing the pocketbooks of the average consumer but taxing the average family in a way that they not only feel less secure today because their energy bill has gone up over 20 percent this year but because we have a Congress stalled out at this moment. We have a Senate that is denying its responsibility to the American people to pass public policy that will allow us to continue to produce and, hopefully, drive down the price of oil.

In the absence of that kind of policy, what has happened in the last 6 months as energy prices have gone through the roof? American consumers have driven 40 billion less miles. They are voting with their feet at this moment and voting to stay away from the gas pump. As they stay away from the gas pump, as they drive less, as they conserve, not only are they changing the economy of our country, they are changing their lifestyles. I don't think they are very happy about it. In fact, those I talk to back home in Idaho are very angry about it. But they are having to do something to avoid the phenomenal tax energy has placed on the American family.

What happened in the last 2 weeks? Oil prices, world oil prices have begun to drop. They are dropping not because of increased supply, not because the Senate has done anything, but because the American consumer has said: We can no longer afford this. They are backing away from the pump and changing their lifestyle. It is truly an issue of supply and demand. Supply hasn't gone up in the last several months but demand is dropping.

Not only is demand dropping in our economy, it is dropping in Western Europe. It is dropping in Spain and Denmark, where there are significant recessions or downturns in the economy underway. In China and India, which have become the new large consumers of oil, our economy's slowdown is going to situate a slowdown in the Chinese economy, which has become a major supplier of goods to the American economy. That is just around the corner.

So are we going to be lulled into a sense of false security if energy prices over the course of the next several months drop below $4 a gallon and into $3 a gallon? Will the American consumer heave a sigh of relief and say: Crisis over?

I hope they don't. Here is why I hope they don't. It is very clear from this graph. This is a graph from 1890 to 2030 about the overall supply of oil in this country. Starting in about 1950, a very interesting pattern emerged that grew rapidly until today, when we buy our oil, 70 percent of it, from some other country; in other words, we don't supply it. We could supply it. We have the oil reserve under the ground. But for political purposes, we have denied ourselves, our market, our producers the right to go there and get it. Here is what has happened. The dependency has grown so that we are now nearly 70 percent dependent on foreign sources of oil. We are less secure today. We get whipsawed in the world market because oil is priced as a world commodity and now, in the last decade, China and India have entered the market in ever greater demand.

What I want to show next is a bit of a complication but it is true in the oil markets of today. Why do I know about it? I have been in Congress 28 years. I have spent a fair amount of time dealing with energy. All during that time, I have argued that if you don't produce, someday something would happen--it is called a breakpoint--that breakpoint would occur, and American consumers would all of a sudden find a phenomenal ramp-up in the price of energy at the pump, that tax I am talking about, that 20 percent hike in the cost of energy that American public policy produced for the American consumer in the last year.

Here is the chart. The dark area is U.S. production from 1970 to 2005. That is what we were producing. I shouldn't say just U.S. production; it was overall world demand production. What is interesting about it, this little green margin at the top was surplus supply. In other words, it was available. The market wasn't demanding it, but if the market demanded it, you could turn on a pump, turn a valve on a well somewhere in Saudi Arabia, probably, or maybe Venezuela, and you had spare capacity in the market. But as you will notice, this green margin, this spare capacity margin in world supply began to rapidly narrow starting in about 2000 through 2005. That is when China and India were entering the market at ever greater capacity because their economies were growing. They were becoming more wealthy, and they were using oil as a part of the energy supply to produce the goods and services they were selling to the world market. During that time, we were not expanding world capacity. So the margin, if you will, the bumper wasn't there anymore. Come 2005, we were nearly at a breakpoint. Beyond that, here is the rest of the story, and we know it today. There is no spare capacity out there. There is no way we can offset increased demand. So consumers in America and all over the world are starting to compete for the substance of oil by higher prices.

That is why for the last 2 weeks we have been on the floor talking about the ability to increase supply against ever-growing demand. But the market forces are at work. That demand has slipped off a little bit. Why? Because of that high tax at the gas pump. That doesn't mean it will go away, not at all. China and India are still consuming at ever-higher rates. They are simply going to grab that which we are not using today in the world market. So when our consumers want to come back to the market, when prices drop a little bit, will there be more oil in the market? There is a strong possibility there may not be, unless this Congress recognizes the error of its ways and allows us to get into the business of production again.

We have put off limits all around the United States vast quantities of oil that I and the world believe we ought to be producing. Guess what the American consumer is saying. In the State of Florida, where maybe a year ago or 2 years ago, 70 percent of Floridians would have said: Don't drill off our shore, I am being told by legitimate polling today that 70-plus percent of them are saying: Drill, produce. In fact, we believe that by the end of the week or early next week, the American people will see credible polling data that says nearly 80 percent of the American people are saying: You go produce that oil. Why are you asking foreign nations to supply it? We have the oil. Why aren't we drilling it?

You hear the argument here on the floor: My goodness, it would take 4, 5, 6 years to bring that oil online. I suggest that it wouldn't take 4 or 5 or 6 years. We know the oil is there, maybe 2 billion barrels of oil and literally hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of

gas. Here are the pipelines. Here are refineries. Here is the infrastructure that could take this oil immediately out of what we call the eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Florida, and bring it into production within 2 to 3 years.

What does the marketplace say? What does that buffer out there, that green line on that other chart say, if, in fact, we were to do that? It would say: My goodness, there is now potentially spare capacity in the market, and prices begin to drop. No, we can't produce our way out of a crisis, but we can lessen the crisis while the American economy and technology are taking us to new forms of energy and to new ways to supply transportation.

I hope the Senate faces the reality that we have to get this country producing again. If we do, we can say to the American consumer: We will lower your tax burden at the gas pump, and we are going to create once again the kind of flexibility the American consumer has in their family budget. You lower the gas price, you lower the tax at the pump. That is the reality of what we are doing. It is a very real tax today. It has frightened the American consumer, and it has put our Nation in a state of insecurity.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a week from Friday we will see the start of the Olympics, held every 4 years, where people from all over this globe come together and compete on the athletic field. And with the start of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, I wish to talk for a moment about what is happening today in China.

I wish to be clear that I have great respect and admiration for the Chinese people. I have visited their country and enjoyed long conversations. I have had an opportunity to stand on the Great Wall of China and understand some of the history of this great country. But no one should confuse the Chinese people with their unelected Government. The differences I have are with the Government of China regarding human rights, the rule of law, and freedom of speech, and they are very significant.

The Government of China was awarded the Games by the International Olympic Committee only after it pledged to respect the Olympic Charter and to improve its human rights record. The charter of the Olympics states that the goal of the Olympic Games should be to promote ``a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.''

The world had high hopes that China's leaders would ensure that the Olympics took place in an atmosphere that advanced freedom and openness and reflected genuine progress on human rights. But those hopes have been sadly dashed. Human rights conditions, unfortunately, have worsened in China.

Individuals who have publicly spoken out about the Olympics, or who have spoken about abuses in China and Tibet, and have been punished or harassed as a result include lawyers, bloggers, journalists, community activists, NGO workers, Tibetans, Muslims, Christians, parents of children who died in earthquakes. The list goes on and on.

Now, every country that has ever hosted an Olympics has had critics, both at home and abroad. China has also had critics of it hosting the Games. But instead of being tolerant of dissent, what China has done is hit back hard with a combination punch of intimidation and, too often, imprisonment.

I am the cochairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, and we maintain the most complete database of China's political prisoners accessible and searchable by the public. We now have 4,400 records in that prison database, and I wish to discuss three of those prisoners today. I call them Olympic prisoners of conscience.

The first is Hu Jia. This is a picture of Hu Jia. Hu Jia is a courageous activist jailed last December by the Chinese for comments he made at a European Parliament hearing. He was invited to speak at the hearing, were he made some statements that were critical of his country hosting the Games. He was then detained and his wife and infant daughter were put under house arrest for several months. In April, Mr. Hu was sentenced to 3\1/2\ years in prison for ``inciting subversion of state power.'' Since then, his young family continues to be harassed and is still under surveillance. Hu Jia is quite ill in a Chinese prison, where he is being held for simply speaking his mind at a European Parliament hearing.

Here is a photograph of Mr. Yang Chunlin. He is a laid-off worker, an unemployed worker in China. He has been repeatedly detained for helping farmers trying to seek compensation for lost land. Last summer, he organized a petition titled ``We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics.'' He was subsequently arrested, and he was charged with inciting subversion of state power.

Let me say that again. The charge was ``inciting subversion of state power.'' Now in prison, he has reportedly suffered severe beatings, which have caused damage to his eyesight.

Finally, I wish to mention Ye Guozhu. This courageous Chinese citizen is pictured in this photo alone, smiling. In 2003, three generations of his family have been evicted from their Beijing home to make way for the Olympics-related construction. In 2004, he applied for permission to organize a protest against other alleged forced evictions in Beijing in connection with preparations for the Olympics. Mr. Ye was arrested and sentenced to 4 years in prison for provoking and making trouble. The charge is ``provoking and making trouble.'' He has reportedly been tortured in prison. Having served his sentence, he was finally expected to be released from prison this week, but his release has now been further delayed, allegedly due to the concerns that he might speak to the foreign press during the Olympics.

The right to speak freely and the right to challenge the Government in China, all of these are enshrined in China's constitution. Yet all are being violated in the run up to the Olympic Games.

Now, here is list of 807 cases of political prisoners developed by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, CECC. I have shown the photographs of three Chinese prisoners, prisoners who have been sentenced to prison terms because they had a determination to speak out. They wanted the ability to criticize their Government. This list of 807 cases is part of 4,500 case records contained in our database. This document is published by the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. This particular document has 807 cases of political prisoners, all the detailed information on political prisoners known or believed to be detained in prison in China. The Commission notes that ``there are considerably more cases than these 807 cases. These represent a subset of 4,500 case records contained in the political prisoner database created by our commission.''

That database, if anyone is interested, is accessible and searchable by the public at www.cecc.gov. I have just described the CECC political prisoner database, as well as three of the prisoners contained in this document, for this reason: A week from Friday, President Bush will be attending the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. Today, President Bush met with four Chinese dissidents, including Rebiya Kadeer, Harry Wu and others. I commend the President for that meeting. I know he has an interest in this issue, the issue of liberty and of freedom of speech in China. But I hope and I implore the President not to miss the opportunity of while going to the opening ceremony of the games in China, at the same time providing the CECC list on political prisoners to the Chinese leaders. If the President is going to attend the opening of the Olympics, I believe there is a responsibility to make the trip genuinely count, and not just to celebrate the Olympics.

The Olympics are a wonderful way for people around the world to come together. All of us support the Olympics. I certainly do. But I believe very strongly that the 807 people in China now in prison, contained in these records must not be forgotten. I believe strongly the leaders of the Chinese Government should continually be confronted with the names of these individuals who are imprisoned merely for their belief and speech. The Olympic charter talks about respect and human dignity. The Chinese Government made representations to the international community if it was given the privilege of hosting the Olympics, it would meet the test of that charter. Regrettably, it has not.

Again, I commend President Bush for meeting with the four Chinese dissidents today at the White House. I think that was an important step. I hope when our President goes to the opening games in China a week from Friday, he will take this prisoner list with him--which we will send to him tomorrow at the White House--and that he will, when he meets with Chinese leaders show them the names of the 807 brave and courageous men and women contained in the list, who believe in the right of free speech, who desire freedom for themselves and their families, who in most cases are unfairly imprisoned for transgressions that are things we would take for granted in this country where we have such great freedom.

We will be sending this to the President in the hope that he will continue to raise these names with the Chinese Government. In conclusion, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China maintains the most significant publicly accessible database that exists in the world of those who now sit in prisons in China for having the courage to speak the truth, for having the courage to do and say the things we take for granted every single day in the United States.

My hope is looking at just one of these cases, and knowing there are many more than the 807 in this list, all of us will use the opportunity of the Olympcis to say to the Chinese Government: Stop the harassment and detention. Stop imprisoning innocent people. Live up to your own Constitution's protections for the Chinese people. My hope is our country, including our President, will continue to raise these subjects with the Chinese leaders.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on an important issue related to my responsibilities as chair of the Coast Guard and Fisheries Subcommittee in the Commerce Committee. I see some of my colleagues on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Dorgan be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Murray for 10 minutes, and Senator Salazar for 10 minutes. Knowing that my colleague, Senator Specter, is expected to show, when he shows up we will fit him in the sequence back and forth, depending on when he shows up.

Mr. President, last week over 400,000 gallons of fuel spilled into the Mississippi River near New Orleans after a chemical tanker collided with a fuel barge and literally split the barge in half.

This is a picture depicting the Coast Guard looking at the two halves of this barge that was split in half right in the heart of New Orleans, causing serious damage in the area from diesel and diesel fumes, even impacting the French Quarter.

Now, the second chart shows the impact of that spill on downtown and the seriousness of that spill in the region. This major spill has closed the Mississippi River from New Orleans to the river's mouth, choking off one of the Nation's most important major commercial arteries. Even now, a week later, only a few ships can get through on this 100-mile stretch of the lower Mississippi.

As the picture shows from the night of the accident, the mighty Mississippi was covered with this eerie sheen right in the downtown area of New Orleans. Now, a week later, some of the heavy fuel oil has turned into tar balls, bouncing and sticking and contaminating this waterway. The spill has slowed down New Orleans' normally thriving waterfront, and the economic impact is already being felt. To put this tragedy into perspective, the economic loss from a total shutdown of the port would cost our Nation's economy around $270 million a day.

While the Coast Guard has begun to allow limited essential vessel traffic back into this area, at one time point over 800 tugs and barges were impacted by the spill, and many ships are still waiting to return to this vital transportation corridor that needs to be reopened. We are only now beginning to understand fully the economic and environmental impacts this spill has caused.

Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues know, these sorts of spills are becoming all too frequent. Last November, the Cosco Busan cargo ship spilled 54,000 gallons of highly toxic bunker fuel into San Francisco Bay, costing well over $50 million in cleanup costs.

Hurricane Katrina and Rita caused spills totaling nearly 8 million gallons, released throughout the Gulf of Mexico region.

In December of 2004, the Selendang Ayu broke apart, pouring 350,000 gallons of oil into the waters off the Aleutian Islands, killing countless sea birds and marine mammals and sea otters.

In 2004, in my home State, the oil tanker, Polar Texas, spilled 1,000 gallons of crude oil into the Puget Sound. This spill in the Dalco Passage cost millions of dollars to clean up and was a real wake-up call to many of my Washington constituents.

As I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Lautenberg, is aware, because he has been a great champion over strengthening the oil spill prevention safety net, the oil tanker, Athos, spilled over a quarter- million gallons of crude oil into the Delaware River and its tributaries in November of 2004.

As chair of the Commerce Subcommittee with jurisdiction over oil spill issues and the Coast Guard, I want my colleagues to know the Commerce Committee has been working hard to try to give the Coast Guard the tools it needs to prevent these spills and to respond quickly and effectively when a spill happens. Over the last few years, the committee has held several hearings and has asked for and received information from the Coast Guard and Government Accountability Office, and worked to help understand and update the Nation's oil spill prevention safety net.

We worked hard to develop a thoughtful and balanced piece of legislation that would help prevent more of these tragic spills from happening again. Almost exactly 1 year ago, after months of bipartisan negotiations, the Commerce Committee unanimously reported the 2007 Coast Guard authorization bill, which contains many of these oil prevention provisions. I would like to thank Ranking Member Stevens for his thoughtful improvements and his strong support of these vital provisions, which would update the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

Even though we have this bipartisan bill before us that has come out of the Commerce Committee, and even though it is critical to our national security and emergency preparedness, it is still being subjected to the same kind of obstructionism from a handful of Senators who don't want to move forward on the legislation, a situation we are becoming all too familiar with on the Senate floor. In this case, the bill is being held hostage by one or two Senators who seem interested in stopping its progress. They do not seem to care that it has the support of the Bush administration's Department of Homeland Security, which stated it ``strongly supports'' this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Department of Homeland Security letter to the chairman, Daniel Inouye, and the vice chair, Ted Stevens, from Donald Kent, Assistant Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs.

Mr. President, I also want to make sure people understand the Coast Guard and its commandant, Admiral Thad Allen, have been working hard to see this legislation passed. In fact, Admiral Allen has made the statement: ``The swift enactment of these provisions would significantly improve safety, security, and stewardship in the maritime domain.''

But these Senators refuse to meet with the Coast Guard Commandant who wants to at least have a chance to explain why he needs this legislation to pass so the Coast Guard can do the critical job of securing our Nation's waterways.

Let me take a moment to describe why this bipartisan legislation is so important. First, it would require the Coast Guard to have rules in place for how it needs to respond to any kind of wreckage or salvage operation, such as the wreckage in the Mississippi River from the incident last week. Because no strict guidelines are in place as to the amount of time it takes to respond to oil spill wreckage, a barge, such as the one in the Mississippi, could be left for many days in the middle of the river.

Another section of the legislation addresses human error. We don't know what caused this spill yet, although we know there was not a properly licensed pilot in the tug pulling the barge, and we do know human error is the cause of many spills. In fact, the bill requires the Coast Guard to take into consideration human error causes of spills and how best to address them.

The Coast Guard would also benefit from the fact that NOAA's oil spill response program would get up to an additional $15 million per year from the oil spill liability trust fund. This program is currently on the ground helping with the oil spill in Louisiana, but they are limited in their ability because of severe budget constraints. So certainly having this bill passed would have helped in the response in New Orleans.

There are other significant measures that will help in improving our Nation's oil spill prevention safety net. So I hope my colleagues can help us get this legislation over the goal line because it is critically important we do so before we leave for the August recess.

It provides the Coast Guard with the critical resources and authority it needs in other areas as well--to fight terrorists, to capture drug runners, and to defend our homeland security. So isn't it time to help push the Coast Guard into the 21st century and begin planning for the challenges of tomorrow, rather than continuing to struggle with the challenges of today? And isn't it time we pass this legislation that might actually help prevent another oil spill from happening again, such as the one in Louisiana, and to give the Coast Guard the tools it needs?

Tomorrow, I will be asking my colleagues for unanimous consent to pass this legislation. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who believe in strong tools for the Coast Guard will talk to their colleagues and ask them to stop blocking this legislation so we can get on with preventing another incident such as this one from happening again.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.