Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess and convene for pro forma sessions with no business conducted on the following days and times and that following each pro forma session, the Senate recess until the following pro forma session: Tuesday, August 5, at 10 a.m.; Friday, August 8, at 11 a.m.; Tuesday, August 12, at 2 p.m.; Friday, August 15, at 10 a.m.; Tuesday, August 19, at 9 a.m.; Friday, August 22, at 10 a.m.; Tuesday, August 26, at 2 p.m.; Friday, August 29, at 2 p.m.; Tuesday, September 2, at 12 p.m.; Friday, September 5, at 9:30 a.m.; and further that when the Senate completes its pro forma session on Friday, September 5, the Senate stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, September 8; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 732, S. 3001, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, Senators should be prepared for a rollcall vote at about 5:30 p.m., on Monday, September 8. That vote would be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, I see no one on the floor seeking recognition. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, if any, there will be a period of morning business until 10:30, for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. The majority will control the first half, the Republicans the second half. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3001, the Department of Defense authorization bill. The time from 10:30 until 12:30 will be controlled in alternating 30-minute blocks of time between the majority and Republican sides, with the Republicans controlling the first 30 minutes. We hope to be able, later today, to turn to the Consumer Product Safety Commission conference report and the higher education conference report. We assume there could be votes throughout the day.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the floor at 2 o'clock for the purpose of a colloquy between Senators Durbin, Murray, Schumer, Dorgan, and Senator Reid.

I don't think it will--we will have that happen at the half hour. I don't think we will use all the time. That is the Democratic time. We will just work the Republican time at 2:30 or 3 o'clock and thereafter.

Is there an order in effect now as to what will happen after lunches as to the allocation of time?

I ask unanimous consent--if I could have the attention of the distinguished Republican leader, the time has been allocated until 12:30 today. So 11:30 is Republican time, from 12:30 to 1:00 would be the Republican time again; is that right?

So I ask that the time be allocated every half hour until 5 o'clock tonight, and that I be recognized at 2 o'clock for the half hour of Democratic time under the conditions I mentioned.

Mr. President, I would also say that if we have any conference reports that we can agree on, whoever's time it is, we will interrupt and try to do that--if, in fact, we get an agreement.

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

Mr. President, 92 times this session, which is now in its 19th month, Senate Republicans have filibustered critical legislation, everything and anything to maintain the status quo. Of course, it is an all-time record, 92 filibusters. It is more than 100 percent of what has been done in a full Congress--that is 2 years--and this has been done in a year and a half.

For those unfamiliar with the language of the Senate, a filibuster is a stall tactic to give a Senator more time, but it prevents the Senate from debating legislation. A filibuster is not a ``no'' vote in the true sense of the word. It is an objection to even having a vote. A filibuster cuts off debate before there can even be a vote. Most importantly, it cuts off negotiation and compromise.

Ninety-two times and more than 100 percent than has ever been done before, Republicans have filibustered America's priorities. Republicans have shown no favoritism on whom their filibusters harm the most. They have filibustered our troops, veterans, children, working families, small businesses, elderly, disabled, and recently stroke victims, those suffering from paralysis, those suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. The list is endless. Not a single American has escaped the harm of a Republican filibuster in this, the 110th Congress.

Perhaps our country has been most damaged by Republicans blocking us from addressing the energy crisis. CNN issued the results of a poll they took over a couple days very recently. Here is how the American people feel about major causes of high gas prices:

No. 1, U.S. oil companies. Is that any surprise with the record profits being reported today by Exxon?

No. 2, foreign oil producers, OPEC mainly.

And, of course, speculators.

One, oil companies; two, oil producers; three, speculators, and new demand from other countries, and the American people are very perceptive. We know there is a tremendous demand from India and China.

No. 5, a major cause of higher gas prices, the Bush administration.

No. 6, the war in Iraq.

So if you only heard the faint outrage of our Republican colleagues, you might think it is the Democrats who spent the past 2 years blocking every effort to lower gas prices and reduce our dependence on oil. But the exact opposite is true. Republicans may talk about high gas prices and oil prices today, but they are late to the party and they have shown up empty-handed.

The one idea they have come up with lately is more coastline drilling. But we all know it won't have any significant impact on prices, and some say in more than 20 years. That is according to the Bush-Cheney administration, which says the change in price will be in the year 2027.

Yesterday, in the New York Times and in newspapers all over America, the most syndicated columnist in America, Tom Friedman, wrote as follows:

Republicans have become so obsessed with the notion that we

can drill our way out of the current energy crisis that

reopening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become

their answer for every energy question.

Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the

world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus

the dangers of the climate change driven by our addiction to

fossil fuels, can see clean renewable energy--wind, solar,

nuclear, and stuff we haven't yet invented--is going to be

the next great global industry. It has to be if we are going

to grow in a stable way.

Friedman went on to say:

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power

industry is going to most own the next great technological

breakthrough--the ET revolution, the energy technology

revolution--and create millions of jobs and thousands of new

businesses, just like the IT revolution did.

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-

drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me

of someone back in 1980 arguing we should be putting all our

money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric

typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''

and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a

second-rate power and economy.

He is not only the most well-read and the most well-spread columnist in America today but a man who is a prize winner for his best selling books, and his books are so tremendous because they see the world as it is going to be, not as it now is.

Their one idea, more coastline drilling, is not the answer. It is no wonder Senator McCain said the plan was purely psychological, the Republican plan for more coastal drilling is psychological.

This morning we came to the Senate floor. We were going to offer some consent agreements, but the time was inconvenient. I did not want to use leader time and throw off the sequence of time we had. So we are here this afternoon to offer Republicans yet another chance to end their obstruction and do the right thing. We will offer unanimous consent requests on seven Energy bills, each one of which is extremely important, a package of bills that would lower the price we pay at the pump while applying for the long-time transition away from oil and toward clean renewable fuels of the future Tom Friedman talked about.

If past is prolog, Republicans will object to each of these proposals. If they do, and they probably will, it will be clear again for all Americans to see which party wants to only talk about our energy crisis and which party wants to solve it.

The first I would like to offer is S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act. This is a very thoughtful piece of legislation which ends billions of dollars of tax breaks for big oil companies, and if there is ever an opportunity to recognize why they are unnecessary, look at those profits today and what they do with those profits. Do they do new energy exploration? No. Do they invest in renewables? No. They buy back their stock.

It was announced today they made last quarter, Exxon alone, about $12 billion. S. 3044 would force oil companies to invest some of their massive profits in clean, alternative affordable fuels rather than buying back their stock. S. 3044 would protect the American people from price gouging and profiteering. It would also stand up to OPEC countries that are colluding to keep prices high.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 743, S. 3044, the Consumer- First Energy Act; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record, as if given.

Mr. President, we have a few minutes left until 2:30. I would, rather than take leader time, ask unanimous consent to take another few minutes past 2:30. I would say to my two Republican colleagues on the floor, what we would do is run over, and the next 30 minutes in the next block of Democratic time would be cut by whatever time I use at this time. It will only be a few minutes; otherwise, I will use leader time.

Mr. President, Senator Kohl and Senator Specter have been talking quite a bit. They both have visited with me on more than one occasion because they believe they have one of the answers to the problems we have with oil, and that is let's do something about OPEC. It is a cartel, it is a monopoly, and they have no concern for the American people, and they are obviously in violation of antitrust laws. But it is a question of whether American law can take them into consideration.

The legislation introduced by Senator Kohl and Senator Specter in the form of S. 879, the No Oil Producing Exporting Cartels Act of 2007, would make OPEC subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why shouldn't they? At the present time, we only have two entities that are exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act: baseball and insurance companies.

We know how we all feel about insurance companies, and how the American people feel about them, because they violate what would be antitrust laws all the time, but they are not subject to it.

Mr. President, what this legislation is all about is let's have OPEC be subject to the antitrust laws. I agree with Senator Specter. I agree with Senator Kohl. This should be something the Senate does.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2264

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 169, H.R. 2264, that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the last half hour or so has been a microcosm of the 18 months of this Congress. Time and time again, Democrats have offered solutions to our energy crisis. Each time Republicans have objected. They have not come up with answers to specific objections to try to reach any sort of compromise. Basically, they said no. After 18 months of ignoring our energy crisis, and rejecting every Democratic effort--and we have talked about some of them today--they now claim to have seen the light. After a year and a half, all they want to talk about is gas prices. But as we have seen, all they want to do is, as I refer to part of what Thomas Friedman said:

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-

drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th century fuel, remind me

of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all

of our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric

typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''

and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a

second-rate power and economy.

I did not hear John McCain say drilling was psychological. All I did was

read it in the press. It has been repeated time and time again.

I would finally say, we believe in domestic production. We Democrats, all 51 of us, believe there should be more American production. There are ways of accomplishing that. We know we cannot drill our way out of the problems we have, but there are things we can do and we want to work to have that accomplished. We have seen that set forth in legislation that Senator Bingaman has offered. Of course we talk about the 68 million acres--that was, of course, talked about here during this half hour--but we also are aware of the ability the President has today to offer leases to oil-rich areas in Alaska, onshore and offshore.

We believe in more domestic production. We call it American production. Hopefully the August recess will bring some ability of our friends on the other side of the aisle to start working with us. I hope we are going to see, a bit later today or tomorrow, a vote on a motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill. That would be too bad, to have Republicans vote against that. That is the way we pay our troops and we refine what we do for our troops. It is a very important bill, led by two of the Senate's fine Senators, Senator Levin and Senator Warner, chairman and ranking member of the committee.

We are 5 minutes over. I express my appreciation to my friends for being patient. If you care to, you can go over 5 minutes and we will take 25 minutes in our half hour. OK?

Madam President, I have had the good fortune of working with Senator Bingaman now for 26 years. He is such a wonderful man. His academic record is as good as anyone's in the Senate. His ability to do legislation is as good as anyone's in the Senate. Everybody knows what an easy man he is to deal with. He is now chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is so important to what goes on in our country. New Mexico is so fortunate to have his service in the Senate. He does so much for New Mexico and, of course, for our country.

The reason I mention his name is that one reason Senator Bingaman does such a good job is he has a wonderful staff. I have worked very closely with them. At least 70 percent of Nevada is public lands--land owned by the Federal Government. Only 13 percent isn't private lands. Over 40 percent of the State of Nevada is restricted air space. You cannot fly an airplane over most of the State of Nevada. It is restricted to the military. So we have lots of dependence on the Federal Government. We are the most public land State in the country.

As a result of that, I have worked closely with the Energy Committee all these many years. One of the people I have worked closely with over these years, for more than a decade, is the chief of staff of that committee, Bob Simon. He is a wonderful guy--quiet, intellectually very sound, a graduate of a small college in Pennsylvania called Ursinus College. He has a PhD from MIT in chemistry.

I have followed very closely the travails of Bob Simon these last few weeks because he has a son by the name of Gregory, 16 years old, who was struck with a very bad bleed on the brain and died today. He was in the hospital in a coma. We thought he would pull through, but he did not. He died. It is devastating to Bob Simon, his wife Karen, and, of course, Anne-Marie, his daughter, and Catherine. Catherine is not here today, of course. Her brother passed away. She is in charge of the Democratic pages. She works very hard in that capacity.

It is times such as these when you really understand that when we talk about a Senate family, we really mean it. Bob Simon is part of the family. He works with Democrats and Republicans. He is great for working on a bipartisan basis. When Senator Domenici was chairman of the committee, Bob Simon was the Democratic chief of staff. The committee with the two New Mexicans as the ranking member and chairman of that committee, one time as chairman, one time as ranking member-- one reason that committee functions so well is because of Bob Simon.

There is nothing I can do other than to recognize what a good man Bob Simon is. There is nothing I can do to ease the pain of the Simon family, their friends, and loved ones.

On behalf of the Senate, I extend my deepest condolences to Bob Simon and his wife Karen for their heartbreaking loss. Being the father of five children, I can only think how devastating this must be.

Madam President, I did not know my friend from New Mexico was on the floor, but as he knows, I did mention his name and the great relationship Bob Simon has had with the committee. As I mentioned, not knowing the Senator from New Mexico was on the floor, I will repeat what I said, that the committee has functioned very well. Two New Mexicans run that committee, either as chairman or ranking member, back and forth, and they work so well together. One reason they do is because of Bob Simon. He is a very quiet, brilliant man, and it is very nice that Senator Domenici would say what is in his heart because we join in his wishes that, as he has indicated, the Lord will look down on his family with understanding and compassion, and hopefully, as time goes by, there will be some good that comes from this tragedy.

Mr. President, last year, as Democrats took control of the Congress, we made college affordability and access one of our top priorities.

In the fall, we completed work on the first part of that promise--the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. This landmark legislation provided nearly $20 billion in new student aid and benefits, including a significant increase to the Pell grant and a reduction in student loan interest rates, which went into effect last month, providing a tangible benefit to college students across this country.

It's been a full decade since the Congress last reauthorized the Higher Education Act. Today, as a result of a strong bipartisan effort, we take up the final piece of our commitment to make a college education more affordable and accessible.

Among other key provisions, this conference report addresses the scandals that have tainted the student loan industry. Through increased disclosure requirements, a prohibition on payments and gifts from lenders to colleges and financial aid administrators, and new restrictions on preferred lender lists, we are finally putting an end to these unacceptable practices, and making sure that the student loan system works in the best interests of our students.

Just as importantly, the Higher Education Opportunity Act tackles the rising costs of college. Despite the billions in new student aid and benefits we approved last year, if college costs continue to rise at the rate they have been--nearly tripling over the past 20 years--higher education will continue to remain further and further out of reach for too many Americans.

I am pleased that students in Nevada have the good fortune of a state university system with some of the lowest tuition costs in the nation. But the same is not true everywhere and this bill will hold colleges and universities accountable if their costs increase too dramatically. It also ensures that students and parents have the information they need to make objective decisions based on the cost of college, and attempts to rein in the high cost of textbooks, by requiring greater disclosure of prices and purchasing information.

On the issue of costs, the Federal Government has raised the bar in its commitment to higher education. While statehouse budgets are undoubtedly strained in these difficult economic times, I am hopeful that these efforts will not result in a reduced State commitment to making sure that a college education is affordable. I am concerned, along with students and college administrators in my own State, about harmful budget cuts to colleges and universities in Nevada. The Federal Government is doing its part for students, and I hope State governments will continue to do the same.

To further assist students, the bill authorizes an increase in the maximum Pell grant to $6,000 in 2009 and $8,000 by 2014, and makes it available to college students year-round, instead of just during the traditional academic year. This is particularly important for low- income, nontraditional students in Nevada--those juggling college, jobs and a family--or for those students at community colleges taking summer courses so they can finish their degrees.

Additionally, to help low-income and first generation students, this legislation strengthens the GEAR UP and TRIO programs, programs which have helped thousands of young Nevadans achieve their dream of a college degree.

A final point I want to highlight is the simplification of the federal financial aid form--the FAFSA. Currently seven pages long and probably more complicated than filling out a tax return, the bill creates a two-page ``EZFAFSA'' for low-income kids, and phases out the current form within five years. This will help get federal aid to the students that need it most.

While Senator Kennedy and Enzi, and the entire HELP Committee deserve enormous credit for their work to move this legislation forward in a bipartisan way, I also want to thank my friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who stepped into some very big shoes with Senator Kennedy's absence, to help get this bill across the finish line.

Combined with our efforts last year, passage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act reaffirms our commitment to making sure higher education is affordable and accessible for students across America.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Republican leader and I have had a number of conversations today. We know the caucuses on his side and my side are tired. We have had a very difficult few weeks. We have a few more things to do this work period. That work period can be a matter of hours or it could be the next day.

Most would like to finish it tonight. If we could move up the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Defense authorization bill, we could do that tonight. The issue, it turns out now, is how long that debate would take. On our side we need 10 minutes. Senator Levin wanted a half-hour. He cut that back to 10 minutes.

If we could have some agreement on the other side that we could take 10, 5 minutes, whatever is appropriate, we could finish that tonight and basically finish the work of the Senate for this work period and come back, renew our struggles in September.

I ask unanimous consent that we move to the Defense authorization bill, that the motion to invoke cloture on that that was set for the morning, that we would do that following 10 minutes of debate controlled by the Senator from Michigan. The chairman of the committee would control 10 minutes, and whomever the Republican leader designates on his side would control whatever time they feel appropriate.

I do not know if the Senator took 10 minutes, but I think we heard the speech.

Mr. President, I think that is appropriate, and I ask consent from everyone here that Senator Warner have a few minutes.

Mr. President, there is a unanimous consent pending.

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H. Con. Res. 398, a conditional adjournment resolution, and that the Senate vote immediately on adoption of H. Con. Res. 398; that if the adjournment resolution is agreed to, then it be in order for the Senate to convene for pro forma sessions on the following days: Tuesday, August 5; Friday, August 8; Tuesday, August 12; Friday, August 15; Tuesday, August 19; Friday, August 22; Tuesday, August 26; Friday, August 29; Tuesday, September 2; and Friday, September 5; that at the close of each pro forma session, the Senate would stand in recess, except for the pro forma session of Friday, September 5, at which time the Senate would adjourn; and that no business be conducted during the pro forma sessions.

Mr. President, I also note to all Members, we will likely have a late vote on the day we get back at 5:30--a 5:30 vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend Senator Ensign to introduce the Carson City Vital Community Act of 2008.

The origins of this legislation can be found in Carson City's collaborative master planning effort, ``Envision Carson City.'' In 2004, the elected officials in Carson City started a dialogue with their citizens to determine how the city should grow and change over the next 20 years. At the end of a 2-year public process, city leaders had a clear message from their residents. The community wants to keep growth compact, maintain the integrity of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands surrounding the town, enhance open space opportunities and maintain easy access to public lands. The Carson City Vital Community Act of 2008 was developed in close partnership with Carson City and other key stakeholders to help fulfill these goals.

Before I describe this legislation and its importance, it might be helpful for me to explain that Carson City is both a city and a county. It wasn't always this way. For over a hundred years the town of Carson City was the county seat of Ormsby County. But in 1969 the county dissolved and the government functions were consolidated into what we now simply call Carson City.

Like all but one of our counties in Nevada, Carson City is mostly Federal land. The town of Carson City is bounded on the west by Forest Service lands that stretch to the shores of Lake Tahoe and by BLM lands on the east. These open landscapes create a dramatic western backdrop for Nevada's State capital but also mean that the Federal Government is intimately involved in what would normally be local community decisions.

This legislation makes much needed adjustments to the pattern of Federal land ownership in Carson City. We have strived to make changes that will improve the ability of the Federal land management agencies to focus on their core goals. All too often, the BLM and the Forest Service are distracted from proper forest and range management by urban encroachment issues. We have a unique situation in Carson City where the community has offered to take on the responsibilities of managing the wildland-urban interface, while also offering to convey a major inholding to the Forest Service for incorporation into the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest. This is a major step in the right direction and hopefully will serve as a model for other communities around the west.

Our legislation also provides lands to the Washoe Tribe, strengthening the Tribe's conservation and commercial efforts in Carson City. Additionally, nearly 20,000 acres of BLM lands surrounding Carson City will be permanently withdrawn from future develop to protect local viewsheds and public access. All of these actions will move Carson City one step closer to realizing the vision that it worked hard to develop through a public process that has now spanned over four years.

Title I of this legislation aims to create a sensible land ownership pattern in Carson City, aligned with the community's vision of keeping growth compact and maintaining the integrity of the surrounding public lands. It also addresses two serious concerns facing the community: wildfires in the foothills of the Sierras and flooding along the Carson River.

Under this title, roughly 2,200 acres of Carson City land will be transferred to the Forest Service. This prime, forested land is far removed from Carson City and is surrounded by state park lands and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Incorporating this large inholding into the Humboldt-Toiyabe will allow for improved management for wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and other important uses. It will also ensure that the land remains undeveloped and open for public access.

This title also makes important adjustments to the pattern of city and Federal lands on the west side of the town. Roughly 1,000 acres of Forest Service land bordering urban areas will be conveyed to Carson City as protected open space. This conveyance will let both Carson City and the Forest Service do what they do best. Carson City can more actively manage urban interface uses and the Forest Service can focus on their core responsibilities of resource protection and forest health.

Proper management of this buffer area between Carson City's neighborhoods and businesses and the broader public lands is an issue of great concern to the community. On July 14, 2004, thirty-one homes and three businesses were destroyed or damaged in the Waterfall Fire which spanned nearly 9,000 acres of public and private land. Through our legislation, the Forest Service land that currently borders neighborhoods will be conveyed to Carson City, allowing the city to take a more prominent role in managing fuel loads in this critical area.

There is a different threat on the east side of Carson Valley. The Carson River has a long history of dramatic flooding. Over the last 150 years the river has flooded over 30 times, with half of those floods causing extensive damage. Two 100-year flood events have struck just in the last decade, one of which caused over $5 million in damage. In a show of real vision and leadership, Carson City has started an aggressive campaign to acquire land along the Carson River, recognizing the value of protecting the natural function of the local floodplains.

Our legislation will enhance Carson City's efforts to acquire lands in the river corridor by conveying the 3,500-acre Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill area from BLM to the city. Transferring these properties to Carson City will help create a large regional park along the Carson River, support the community's flood control efforts and address the community's call for open space. The city has been a key partner in the management of the Silver Saddle Ranch for over a decade. Along with the Friends of Silver Saddle, Carson City has taken the lead on the day-to-day management of the property, including providing law enforcement patrols and caring for facilities.

It is important to note that when this land is conveyed to the city it will come with conditions. The Federal Government will hold a conservation easement on these parcels to ensure that the scenic and natural qualities of the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill are protected in perpetuity. The details of the conservation easement, which will focus on protecting the river corridor and the important wildlife habitat associated with the property, will be worked out by BLM, Carson City and key stakeholders like Friends of Silver Saddle and The Nature Conservancy.

In addition to supporting Carson City's forward-looking plans for the Carson River and its floodplain, conveying the Silver Saddle and Prison Hill area to Carson City also makes sense from a resource management perspective. BLM's Carson City District Office manages over 5 million acres of public land in western Nevada and eastern California. Their strength is managing Nevada's wide open spaces--not urban interface. Carson City, on the other hand, has far more resources to bring to bear in managing the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill area. Carson City has over 20 employees working on parks and open space, including two park rangers. They also have contracts in place with some of Nevada's most respected natural resource experts. The BLM will also keep a light hand in the management of this property by virtue of the conservation easement.

There is one unique provision related to the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill conveyance that deserves special mention. A small section of this land was once owned by Carson City. This 62-acre property, known as the Bernhard parcel, was slated to be subdivided into 35 home sites in 2001. The BLM and Carson City both recognized that the acquisition of this land was a priority for the protection of the Carson River corridor. Carson City responded quickly and acquired the parcel for open space before it could be developed. Their purchase price in 2001 was roughly $1 million. Later, in 2006, the BLM purchased the Bernhard parcel from Carson City for fair market value, which by that time had reached $2.5 million.

Under this legislation, we transfer the Bernhard parcel back to Carson City as part of the Silver Saddle Ranch and Carson River Area. We feel it is important that Carson City pay back 25 percent of the $1.5 million profit they made on their transaction with the

BLM. Why just 25 percent? The 25 percent reflects the remaining value of the land that is being conveyed back to Carson City after the conservation easement is taken into account. In western Nevada, conservation easements restricting development typically reduce property values by anywhere from 75 percent to 90 percent. We have required Carson City to come up with 25 percent, the most generous estimate of remaining value for the Bernhard parcel. When received, these funds will be placed into an endowment account for the BLM to use for the monitoring and enforcement of the conservation easement on the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill Area.

Our legislation also conveys roughly 1,700 acres of BLM land to Carson City for recreation and public purposes and open space. These are scattered parcels of BLM land in and around Carson City that would be used for primarily for parks, but also for flood control structures, municipal infrastructure like water tanks, and to give residents room to roam. Carson City already controls roughly a third of these acres through Recreation and Public Purpose Act leases. This bill would quickly and efficiently transfer these lands to the city.

Another provision of Title I deals with 53 acres of land that Carson City acquired from BLM years ago, under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The city now believes the land is better suited for commercial development. Although Carson City already owns these lands, by statute, if the city uses the land for something other than public purposes, the land reverts back to the BLM. Our legislation would remove the reversionary interest on these 50 acres so that Carson City can sell the land at an appropriate time. If the City decides to sell the land, we require that it be auctioned, with proceeds returning to the Carson City special account which provides funding for federal acquisition of sensitive lands and protection of noted cultural resources.

One of the parcels where the federal interest would be released is home to the Carson City Gun Club. Once on the edge of town, the shooting range is now surrounded by commercial development and the Eagle Valley Golf Course. Although our legislation would allow Carson City to sell this land, we have asked for and received a commitment that Carson City will not sell this property until the shooting facility has been relocated to another, more appropriate location.

The first title of our legislation also transfers 50 acres of Forest Service land to the BLM. The Forest Service is also authorized to develop and implement, in partnership with Carson City, a plan for managing its land in a way that minimizes the impact of flood events on nearby residential areas.

Under Title II, 150 acres of federal lands would be made available for sale through an open and competitive process. This includes the 50 acres transferred from the Forest Service to the BLM in Title 1. All of the lands identified for sale in our legislation are isolated or seriously impacted by nearby commercial or residential development. Both agencies have concluded that these parcels should be disposed of and that this action is consistent with their respective management plans.

Similar to past Nevada land bills, this legislation directs the Secretary of Interior to reinvest the proceeds of these limited land sales back into important public projects. Ninety-five percent of the proceeds will be used to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Carson City and to protect archaeological resources. The remaining five percent of the proceeds will go to Nevada's general education program.

This title also permanently withdraws nearly 20,000 acres of BLM lands in Carson City from land sales and mineral development. These same lands, located north and east of Carson City are already administratively withdrawn by the BLM. This bill would make the withdrawal permanent, preserving foothill views, open space and access to public lands, in line with ``Envision Carson City.''

Our bill also provides guidance that Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use on BLM lands in Carson City should be restricted to existing roads and trails until the BLM completes their travel management planning process. The Pine Nut Mountains east of Carson City are a favorite destination for local and visiting OHV enthusiasts. This provision will better protect this area until routes can be designated.

Finally, the second title of the bill opens a new avenue for Carson City to continue their conservation efforts along the Carson River. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) will be amended to authorize funds for Carson City to acquire land for parks and trails along the Carson River and to authorize conservation initiatives, also along the Carson River. In addition, we make a small change to SNPLMA which will only affect Washoe County. In the White Pine County bill of 2006 (P. L. 109-432), Washoe County was given access to SNPLMA through 2011 to acquire part of the Ballardini Ranch. The county has made good progress towards this acquisition, but may not make the 2011 deadline. We are pleased to extend the authorization to 2015.

Title III addresses the Washoe Tribe's pressing need for more land for residential and commercial development. Tribal lands adjacent to both of the colonies in Carson City, Stewart and Carson, would be expanded by this legislation. Carson Colony tribal lands would grow by over 280 acres. On this parcel, the lands located below the 5,200-foot elevation contour would be available for residential or commercial development. The lands above the 5,200-foot contour would only be available for traditional tribal uses, like ceremonial gatherings, hunting and plant collecting. Tribal lands at the Stewart Colony would grow by only 5 acres, all of which would be available for commercial and residential development.

In 2003, Senator Ensign and I passed legislation that conveyed 25 acres of Forest Service land at Skunk Harbor, on the shores of Lake Tahoe, to the Washoe Tribe. Unfortunately, the parcel was not accurately described in the legislation and consequently the land that was conveyed did not fully reflect our commitment to the Tribe. This bill includes a technical correction that will provide a long overdue fix to the Washoe Indian Tribe Trust Land Conveyance (P. L. 108-67).

Lastly, this bill directs the Forest Service to develop a cooperative agreement with the Washoe Tribe to ensure the Tribe's access across Forest Service land for their traditional ``lifeway'' walk to Lake Tahoe. For centuries the Washoe people have moved from the Pine Nut Mountains east of Carson City in the fall to Lake Tahoe in the summer. Our legislation ensures that they are able to continue this important tradition.

This bill, is built on years of public input. We believe it is a model piece of legislation and appreciate the support of our colleagues in this effort. We look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici and the other distinguished members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this bill forward during the time we have remaining in this legislative session.

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

Mr. President, today I rise with my good friend Senator Ensign to introduce the Carson City Vital Community Act of 2008.

The origins of this legislation can be found in Carson City's collaborative master planning effort, ``Envision Carson City.'' In 2004, the elected officials in Carson City started a dialogue with their citizens to determine how the city should grow and change over the next 20 years. At the end of a 2-year public process, city leaders had a clear message from their residents. The community wants to keep growth compact, maintain the integrity of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands surrounding the town, enhance open space opportunities and maintain easy access to public lands. The Carson City Vital Community Act of 2008 was developed in close partnership with Carson City and other key stakeholders to help fulfill these goals.

Before I describe this legislation and its importance, it might be helpful for me to explain that Carson City is both a city and a county. It wasn't always this way. For over a hundred years the town of Carson City was the county seat of Ormsby County. But in 1969 the county dissolved and the government functions were consolidated into what we now simply call Carson City.

Like all but one of our counties in Nevada, Carson City is mostly Federal land. The town of Carson City is bounded on the west by Forest Service lands that stretch to the shores of Lake Tahoe and by BLM lands on the east. These open landscapes create a dramatic western backdrop for Nevada's State capital but also mean that the Federal Government is intimately involved in what would normally be local community decisions.

This legislation makes much needed adjustments to the pattern of Federal land ownership in Carson City. We have strived to make changes that will improve the ability of the Federal land management agencies to focus on their core goals. All too often, the BLM and the Forest Service are distracted from proper forest and range management by urban encroachment issues. We have a unique situation in Carson City where the community has offered to take on the responsibilities of managing the wildland-urban interface, while also offering to convey a major inholding to the Forest Service for incorporation into the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest. This is a major step in the right direction and hopefully will serve as a model for other communities around the west.

Our legislation also provides lands to the Washoe Tribe, strengthening the Tribe's conservation and commercial efforts in Carson City. Additionally, nearly 20,000 acres of BLM lands surrounding Carson City will be permanently withdrawn from future develop to protect local viewsheds and public access. All of these actions will move Carson City one step closer to realizing the vision that it worked hard to develop through a public process that has now spanned over four years.

Title I of this legislation aims to create a sensible land ownership pattern in Carson City, aligned with the community's vision of keeping growth compact and maintaining the integrity of the surrounding public lands. It also addresses two serious concerns facing the community: wildfires in the foothills of the Sierras and flooding along the Carson River.

Under this title, roughly 2,200 acres of Carson City land will be transferred to the Forest Service. This prime, forested land is far removed from Carson City and is surrounded by state park lands and the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Incorporating this large inholding into the Humboldt-Toiyabe will allow for improved management for wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and other important uses. It will also ensure that the land remains undeveloped and open for public access.

This title also makes important adjustments to the pattern of city and Federal lands on the west side of the town. Roughly 1,000 acres of Forest Service land bordering urban areas will be conveyed to Carson City as protected open space. This conveyance will let both Carson City and the Forest Service do what they do best. Carson City can more actively manage urban interface uses and the Forest Service can focus on their core responsibilities of resource protection and forest health.

Proper management of this buffer area between Carson City's neighborhoods and businesses and the broader public lands is an issue of great concern to the community. On July 14, 2004, thirty-one homes and three businesses were destroyed or damaged in the Waterfall Fire which spanned nearly 9,000 acres of public and private land. Through our legislation, the Forest Service land that currently borders neighborhoods will be conveyed to Carson City, allowing the city to take a more prominent role in managing fuel loads in this critical area.

There is a different threat on the east side of Carson Valley. The Carson River has a long history of dramatic flooding. Over the last 150 years the river has flooded over 30 times, with half of those floods causing extensive damage. Two 100-year flood events have struck just in the last decade, one of which caused over $5 million in damage. In a show of real vision and leadership, Carson City has started an aggressive campaign to acquire land along the Carson River, recognizing the value of protecting the natural function of the local floodplains.

Our legislation will enhance Carson City's efforts to acquire lands in the river corridor by conveying the 3,500-acre Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill area from BLM to the city. Transferring these properties to Carson City will help create a large regional park along the Carson River, support the community's flood control efforts and address the community's call for open space. The city has been a key partner in the management of the Silver Saddle Ranch for over a decade. Along with the Friends of Silver Saddle, Carson City has taken the lead on the day-to-day management of the property, including providing law enforcement patrols and caring for facilities.

It is important to note that when this land is conveyed to the city it will come with conditions. The Federal Government will hold a conservation easement on these parcels to ensure that the scenic and natural qualities of the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill are protected in perpetuity. The details of the conservation easement, which will focus on protecting the river corridor and the important wildlife habitat associated with the property, will be worked out by BLM, Carson City and key stakeholders like Friends of Silver Saddle and The Nature Conservancy.

In addition to supporting Carson City's forward-looking plans for the Carson River and its floodplain, conveying the Silver Saddle and Prison Hill area to Carson City also makes sense from a resource management perspective. BLM's Carson City District Office manages over 5 million acres of public land in western Nevada and eastern California. Their strength is managing Nevada's wide open spaces--not urban interface. Carson City, on the other hand, has far more resources to bring to bear in managing the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill area. Carson City has over 20 employees working on parks and open space, including two park rangers. They also have contracts in place with some of Nevada's most respected natural resource experts. The BLM will also keep a light hand in the management of this property by virtue of the conservation easement.

There is one unique provision related to the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill conveyance that deserves special mention. A small section of this land was once owned by Carson City. This 62-acre property, known as the Bernhard parcel, was slated to be subdivided into 35 home sites in 2001. The BLM and Carson City both recognized that the acquisition of this land was a priority for the protection of the Carson River corridor. Carson City responded quickly and acquired the parcel for open space before it could be developed. Their purchase price in 2001 was roughly $1 million. Later, in 2006, the BLM purchased the Bernhard parcel from Carson City for fair market value, which by that time had reached $2.5 million.

Under this legislation, we transfer the Bernhard parcel back to Carson City as part of the Silver Saddle Ranch and Carson River Area. We feel it is important that Carson City pay back 25 percent of the $1.5 million profit they made on their transaction with the

BLM. Why just 25 percent? The 25 percent reflects the remaining value of the land that is being conveyed back to Carson City after the conservation easement is taken into account. In western Nevada, conservation easements restricting development typically reduce property values by anywhere from 75 percent to 90 percent. We have required Carson City to come up with 25 percent, the most generous estimate of remaining value for the Bernhard parcel. When received, these funds will be placed into an endowment account for the BLM to use for the monitoring and enforcement of the conservation easement on the Silver Saddle Ranch and Prison Hill Area.

Our legislation also conveys roughly 1,700 acres of BLM land to Carson City for recreation and public purposes and open space. These are scattered parcels of BLM land in and around Carson City that would be used for primarily for parks, but also for flood control structures, municipal infrastructure like water tanks, and to give residents room to roam. Carson City already controls roughly a third of these acres through Recreation and Public Purpose Act leases. This bill would quickly and efficiently transfer these lands to the city.

Another provision of Title I deals with 53 acres of land that Carson City acquired from BLM years ago, under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The city now believes the land is better suited for commercial development. Although Carson City already owns these lands, by statute, if the city uses the land for something other than public purposes, the land reverts back to the BLM. Our legislation would remove the reversionary interest on these 50 acres so that Carson City can sell the land at an appropriate time. If the City decides to sell the land, we require that it be auctioned, with proceeds returning to the Carson City special account which provides funding for federal acquisition of sensitive lands and protection of noted cultural resources.

One of the parcels where the federal interest would be released is home to the Carson City Gun Club. Once on the edge of town, the shooting range is now surrounded by commercial development and the Eagle Valley Golf Course. Although our legislation would allow Carson City to sell this land, we have asked for and received a commitment that Carson City will not sell this property until the shooting facility has been relocated to another, more appropriate location.

The first title of our legislation also transfers 50 acres of Forest Service land to the BLM. The Forest Service is also authorized to develop and implement, in partnership with Carson City, a plan for managing its land in a way that minimizes the impact of flood events on nearby residential areas.

Under Title II, 150 acres of federal lands would be made available for sale through an open and competitive process. This includes the 50 acres transferred from the Forest Service to the BLM in Title 1. All of the lands identified for sale in our legislation are isolated or seriously impacted by nearby commercial or residential development. Both agencies have concluded that these parcels should be disposed of and that this action is consistent with their respective management plans.

Similar to past Nevada land bills, this legislation directs the Secretary of Interior to reinvest the proceeds of these limited land sales back into important public projects. Ninety-five percent of the proceeds will be used to acquire environmentally sensitive lands in Carson City and to protect archaeological resources. The remaining five percent of the proceeds will go to Nevada's general education program.

This title also permanently withdraws nearly 20,000 acres of BLM lands in Carson City from land sales and mineral development. These same lands, located north and east of Carson City are already administratively withdrawn by the BLM. This bill would make the withdrawal permanent, preserving foothill views, open space and access to public lands, in line with ``Envision Carson City.''

Our bill also provides guidance that Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use on BLM lands in Carson City should be restricted to existing roads and trails until the BLM completes their travel management planning process. The Pine Nut Mountains east of Carson City are a favorite destination for local and visiting OHV enthusiasts. This provision will better protect this area until routes can be designated.

Finally, the second title of the bill opens a new avenue for Carson City to continue their conservation efforts along the Carson River. The Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) will be amended to authorize funds for Carson City to acquire land for parks and trails along the Carson River and to authorize conservation initiatives, also along the Carson River. In addition, we make a small change to SNPLMA which will only affect Washoe County. In the White Pine County bill of 2006 (P. L. 109-432), Washoe County was given access to SNPLMA through 2011 to acquire part of the Ballardini Ranch. The county has made good progress towards this acquisition, but may not make the 2011 deadline. We are pleased to extend the authorization to 2015.

Title III addresses the Washoe Tribe's pressing need for more land for residential and commercial development. Tribal lands adjacent to both of the colonies in Carson City, Stewart and Carson, would be expanded by this legislation. Carson Colony tribal lands would grow by over 280 acres. On this parcel, the lands located below the 5,200-foot elevation contour would be available for residential or commercial development. The lands above the 5,200-foot contour would only be available for traditional tribal uses, like ceremonial gatherings, hunting and plant collecting. Tribal lands at the Stewart Colony would grow by only 5 acres, all of which would be available for commercial and residential development.

In 2003, Senator Ensign and I passed legislation that conveyed 25 acres of Forest Service land at Skunk Harbor, on the shores of Lake Tahoe, to the Washoe Tribe. Unfortunately, the parcel was not accurately described in the legislation and consequently the land that was conveyed did not fully reflect our commitment to the Tribe. This bill includes a technical correction that will provide a long overdue fix to the Washoe Indian Tribe Trust Land Conveyance (P. L. 108-67).

Lastly, this bill directs the Forest Service to develop a cooperative agreement with the Washoe Tribe to ensure the Tribe's access across Forest Service land for their traditional ``lifeway'' walk to Lake Tahoe. For centuries the Washoe people have moved from the Pine Nut Mountains east of Carson City in the fall to Lake Tahoe in the summer. Our legislation ensures that they are able to continue this important tradition.

This bill, is built on years of public input. We believe it is a model piece of legislation and appreciate the support of our colleagues in this effort. We look forward to working with Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici and the other distinguished members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this bill forward during the time we have remaining in this legislative session.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 1 p.m. to conduct a joint hearing entitled ``Lessons Learned: Ensuring the Delivery of Donated Goods to Survivors of Catastrophes.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008 in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 31, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 30, 2008 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Consolidation in The Pennsylvania Health Insurance Industry: The Right Prescription?'' on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 2 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Offline and Off-budget: The Dismal State of Information Technology Planning in the Federal Government.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 31, 2008, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``A Reliance on Smart Power--Reforming the Foreign Assistance Bureaucracy.''

Mr. President, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has received requests from various law enforcement and regulatory agencies, seeking access to records that the Subcommittee obtained during its recent investigation into tax haven financial institutions, their formation and administration of offshore entities and accounts for use by U.S. clients, and the impact of those activities on tax compliance in the United States.

This resolution would authorize the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, acting jointly, to provide records, obtained by the Subcommittee in the course of its investigation, in response to these requests and any similar requests from government entities and officials with a legitimate need for the records.

Mr. President, following leader remarks, there will be an hour for debate, with the time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees. I will control the final 10 minutes and the Republican leader will control the 10 minutes prior to my statement. Senator Leahy will control 10 minutes of the majority time. At 11 a.m. the Senate will proceed to vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the media shield bill, S. 2035. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Senate tax extenders bill, S. 3335.

There are other matters we could turn to: the consumer product safety conference report, the higher education reauthorization conference report. They may be made available later in the week.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.