Floor Statements

Mr. President, the legislation before us today is labeled as an ethics and lobbying reform measure. Unfortunately, legislative labels don't guarantee performance. Just calling a bill ``reform'' doesn't guarantee it will improve the transparency of legislative operations so that the American people can better see what Congress is doing and hold its representatives accountable for their actions.

In this case, I am troubled by the bill we are being asked to support today--a bill prepared without input from Republicans and outside the normal bipartisan, consensus-building legislative procedures of the Congress.

While it contains a number of worthwhile provisions, I cannot agree that it makes the kind of fundamental improvements that its label promises in a number of critical areas.

For example, there has been significant focus on how this bill would change Senate rules concerning ``earmarks''--that is, congressionally directed funding. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I have been asked about earmarks and have talked frankly with my Idaho constituents and others about this practice. I don't believe in secret earmarks and, in fact, on my Web site I have published a list of all the earmarks I have secured in appropriations legislation since I have been a member of the committee, so that anybody can review them.

In my opinion, the so-called ``earmark reforms'' in this bill are more likely to result in misleading people and gaming the process, rather than opening it up to public scrutiny.

There is more to the bill than its earmark provisions--there are other

flawed provisions as well as worthwhile provisions. It is not unusual for us to be asked to vote on a package including both provisions we agree with and those we don't. Sometimes we overlook the bad, if the package on balance does more good than harm.

But it would be perverse indeed for me to sanction, with my vote, a measure that I believe will frustrate the very goal of ethics reform that it is supposed to accomplish. I cannot pretend that the earmark provisions or other flaws in this bill are unimportant. I cannot ignore the real harm that some provisions of this bill will likely do. For these reasons, I cannot support this legislation.

Senator Lincoln is already under an operative unanimous consent agreement, as I understand it. There is simply a unanimous consent agreement to bring it up. I have been waiting to speak to an issue I think is

critical, and I am happy to accommodate, but I wish to be in that mix, if at all possible, for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to take 10 minutes to talk about a situation that is happening in the West. I thank my colleagues for giving me that opportunity.

I spoke last week, and the background of my speech was this graph called a Budget Inferno. I was en route to Idaho to look at a fire complex known as the Murphy Fire Complex. That is now under control. In other words, a perimeter is around the fire. It happens to be 1,038 square miles of fire, nearly 700,000 acres, and $6.6 million spent. Type 1 teams, 2 of them; 24 crews, 1,230 personnel; 120 engines, 5 helicopters, 27 water tenders, and 10 dozers.

The firefighters who went in harm's way to work and stop this fire were gallant and I honor them. As I speak, there are literally thousands of young men and women out on the fire line in Idaho and Montana and parts of Nevada and elsewhere standing in harm's way to stop raging wildfires that are devastating the West.

This was the largest fire Idaho has had in literally decades. It is now the largest single fire this year in total acreage. Why did it happen? Is there a reason? Was it simply the hot weather or are there other reasons that are creating these huge infernos of wildfire across the West as we speak?

Last year, 10 million acres burned. This year, it appears we are on schedule to have an even greater fire season than we had last year. A month ago, I put a half a billion more dollars in the Interior appropriations budget to fight fire. My guess is when we get back in September, I and others will be on the floor asking for supplemental spending to pay for more wildfire devastation.

The good news, in the great tragedy of the Murphy Fire, was that no one was killed. There were four firefighters injured, there were hundreds of cattle burned up, hundreds of sheep, probably hundreds of wildlife that we simply do not know about.

But we have this huge area, some 600,000 acres that will be of no use to anyone, including cattle grazing, including wildlife, for a period of several years. It is totally burned out. I flew over it in a helicopter with our Governor and Senator Crapo. None of us has ever experienced anything like that. You fly for half an hour at 100-plus miles an hour across a firescape, and all of it is black, the hilltops, the valleys, no trees, nothing left.

Here is what happened a few years ago. Here is what is happening now in the West. We ought to be doing something about it. Two years ago, there was a fire out there, 200,000 acres right in the same area. We rehabbed it. We grassed it, and the BLM said you cannot graze it for a couple of years now. Cattle might damage it.

Then there was another fire last year, 60,000 acres right beside it. We rehabbed it. We seeded it. You cannot graze it. At least that is what the scientists say. That is not what those who have lived out there for a hundred years say. We left it alone and the fuel built up.

Then we had someone sue us to protect the sage grouse habitat and the slickspot peppergrass, and a judge ruled. So we stopped grazing on half of that area, and the fuel built up.

Now, we are in a fire scenario, with temperatures in the West that we have never seen. So we had 3 weeks of 100-degree temperatures in the Boise Valley, and the dewpoint dropped to nearly zero. You know the rest of the story because I told you that story.

An unprecedented fuel buildup because a judge, and what I now call ecoterrorists, are destroying the landscape by not allowing reasonably managed, multiple-use approaches to our management. That is why the fire destroyed what it destroyed.

An unprecedented fuel loading is on the grasslands of our country. Now, because it is a little hotter, it is a little further into the summer, our timberlands are starting to burn. They, too, are loaded with fuel, and they will burn at unprecedented rates as they did last year and the year before and the year before that.

Here we are spending billions of dollars and destroying millions of acres of wildlife, watershed, wildlife habitat, all of those things combined. Our courts are saying: Get the people off the land, get the livestock off the land, rule in the favor of single-use management, here, there, and everywhere, tying the hands of our managers at the BLM and the Forest Service level, denying them the right to use their knowledge, use their scientific understanding for reasonable flexibility in the management we so desperately need.

That is the story of the Murphy Complex; that is the story of nearly 700,000 acres of total destruction; $6.6 million, and by the time we are done rehabilitating it, it could go to nearly $8 million.

Is there something we can do about it? Well, there will be interest groups who will rush back here, and in the name of the environment say do nothing--in the name of the environment.

Please, let us do something. Because the habitat the judge and the ecoactivists argued for to save the sage grouse and the slickspot peppergrass is no longer there. The enemy, some were the cattle that were grazing, they are no longer the enemy. The fire has become the enemy and that which they who ruled sought to save is now gone.

That story that I have related to you, whether it is played out in the Murphy Complex in Idaho and Nevada, or whether it is in Northern California, or whether it was in the Tahoe Basin this year, or whether it is in Eastern Oregon, or whether it is in the mountains of Idaho, will be played out and millions of acres will burn and billions of dollars will be spent and homes will be destroyed and we will say: Gee, I think we got a problem.

Congress will fail to respond and act to give our managers the flexibility, and we will continue to allow judges in the Ninth Circuit and environmental interests to game us and create these single, unique special kinds of management units that are impossible in any way to manage.

I wanted to relate to you this story. The State BLM director, our Governor, myself, and my colleague, Mike Crapo, flew over this devastation. In the terms of a cowboy who has lived out there all his life and his father before him and his father before him:

Senator, you ain't never seen anything like this one.

And, boy, we have not. The great tragedy is, more will come, and more is burning now. Several fires are burning in Idaho. We are already nearly over a million acres in my State alone. Yet our hands are tied by a bureaucracy that is strangled by court decision after court decision because Congress will not act in the name of the environment.

We have been scared into environmentalism instead of good and reasonable management. We are allowing our courts and our activist organizations to create the wildfire which has become a budget inferno.

So the reason I give this speech now is because we have entered the fire season. August is our fire season. September is our fire season. My guess is I will be returning as one of the members of the Appropriations Committee and the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee saying: Please, my colleagues, could we have a couple billion more dollars to fight these fires? Because we are burning up out there, and there is not much we seem to be able to do about it because we have decided to allow public land management to be turned over to the activists and the judges instead of the professionals.

Idaho burns tonight. Montana burns tonight. Nevada burns tonight, California, parts of Oregon, parts of Utah. I think it is important you hear this story and try to begin to understand that when we talk about balance and flexibility, you help us get there so we do not have to spend our budget in a useless and irresponsible way.

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to a great American who spent a little time in my home State of Idaho.

Today marks the 100th anniversary of Hall of Fame pitcher Walter Johnson's Major League debut for the Washington Senators. On this day-- August 2--in 1907, Walter ``Big Train'' Johnson took the field as the starting pitcher for the first time in what would be a 21-year career.

Interestingly enough, I actually have quite a bit in common with Walter Johnson. We both grew up in small towns; we share a connection to Washington County, ID. Johnson played semiprofessional ball in Weiser; I am a Republican, as was Johnson; and both of us are, or were, Senators--Johnson played for the Washington Senators.

Let me explain a little bit about our shared connection to Washington County. Walter Johnson was discovered while playing semiprofessional baseball in the Idaho State League. He played for the team in Weiser, ID; I could almost toss a baseball to Weiser from my hometown of Midvale. Johnson spent 2 years playing in Weiser from 1905 to 1907.

The Washington Senators tried to sign Johnson in 1906, but having grown up in small towns in Kansas and California, Johnson preferred the small-town life and was unsure about moving to Washington, DC.

The following year, the Senators sent their catcher, Cliff Blankenship, to scout Johnson and try to sign him. Blankenship was told to try to get a hit off of Johnson.

Blankenship tried but was unsuccessful. He sent a telegram to his manager back in Washington, saying, ``You can't hit what you can't see. I've signed him and he is on his way.''

For most of his career, Walter Johnson's pitches were considered to be practically un-hittable. Because the radar gun had not yet been invented, nobody knows for sure just how hard he could throw a baseball. But most experts estimate that he could top 100 miles per hour with ease.

His stature was equally intimidating. Johnson stood 6-foot-1 and weighed in at 200 pounds, earning him the nickname ``The Big Train.''

Hall of Famer Ty Cobb was arguably the best hitter ever to play the game. Cobb faced Walter Johnson in Johnson's debut game on August 2, 1907. Although Johnson and the Senators lost, 3 to 2, Cobb gave Johnson high praise, saying, ``The first time I faced him, I watched him take that easy windup, and then something went past me that made me flinch. I hardly saw the pitch, but I heard it. The thing just hissed with danger. Every one of us knew we'd met the most powerful arm ever turned loose in a ballpark.''

Despite playing for teams that were routinely awful, Johnson won 417 games in his career, second only to Cy Young, who won 511.

Johnson won 32 games in one season; compare that to today, where winning 20 games is considered a major accomplishment.

The Big Train also holds a record that will likely never be broken: In 1916, he pitched 369.2 innings without allowing a single home run.

Let me put this in perspective. Simply pitching that many innings in a season today would be a remarkable feat. Most pitchers never come close to 300 innings per season. It is truly phenomenal that Johnson was physically able to pitch that many innings and totally unthinkable that he could do it without allowing a single homerun. My colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, who is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame himself, could tell you what an extraordinary accomplishment this is.

Many credit Johnson with carrying the Washington Senators to their first and only World Series title in 1924. They defeated the New York Giants, four games to three.

It was truly a different era in America. Senators fans were so ecstatic that Johnson had carried them to the World Series that before the first game, they presented him with a Lincoln Town Car as an expression of their gratitude. At the time, it was the most expensive car made in America and cost $8,000. That wouldn't happen today.

In time, Johnson grew to love Washington, DC and even got involved in local politics after he retired from baseball, winning a seat as a county commissioner in Montgomery County, MD.

He frequently held rallies and political events at his home, and ran--unsuccessfully--for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Although Walter Johnson only spent a short time in Idaho--just over two seasons-we claim him as one of our own. We feel proud to have played an important role in launching the career of ``The Big Train,'' and I am honored today to mark the 100th anniversary of his Major League debut.

Reserving the right to object, I only want to speak to the division of the time between now and the proposed schedule of votes. I had come to the floor hoping to gain 10 minutes, and I wonder--the Senator obviously who is speaking now and the other Senator who has time reserved, if we could have some understanding in the allocation if it is possible for me to be able to speak for up to 10 minutes?

I would hope to have somewhere near 10 minutes, if possible.

Mr. President, I will not object. Let's get these Senators talking so we don't burn up any more slack time.

Mr. President, this week the Senate is engaged in an extremely important debate about the direction we as a Congress want to take in ensuring health care for all Americans.

I recognize that the bill we are debating this week is literally one that focuses on children's health. But, I believe the design of this legislation and who we are targeting tells us something about how the majority in the Senate believes we should provide health care for all of our citizens.

This bill lays out one way to provide health care coverage in this Nation. It says ``increase taxes, increase government spending, and have the Government provide all health care plans.''

That is a failing formula. And now we are going to use that tax-and- spend formula to move further down the road towards socialized medicine.

Under this bill, middle-class taxpayers in Idaho will be supporting health insurance for some families making more money than they are.

I strongly oppose the Finance Committee legislation. Instead, I will vote for the McConnell-Lott alternative bill.

Let me make it clear that I support reauthorizing the SCHIP program to ensure that low-income children have health insurance. No one should conclude that my vote against this bill is a vote against insuring poor children. My vote is a vote against massive tax increases and out-of- control spending. It is against a tax-and-spend policy that more than doubles the cost of a program for poor children so we can cover those with higher income. And it is against a budget gimmick that leaves an unfunded liability of $40 billion in just 5 years.

A little history and few facts are in order.

When a Republican Congress and a Democratic President set out in 1997 to insure low-income children, we talked about 10 million uninsured.

At that time, there were about 20 million children on Medicaid. So we needed to cover about 10 million kids with the SCHIP program or Medicaid.

Today, there are 36 million children enrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP. Sounds like we achieved our goal and more.

Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we are still 9 million short. Somehow, we insured 16 million more kids in the last 10 years and we have made no dent in the problem? Or have we moved the goal post? I think we have moved them.

That is why I am pleased that Senators McConnell, Lott, and others have offered an alternative that keeps this program focused on the group it was created to serve--low-income children.

The Republican alternative will reauthorize the SCHIP program for another 5 years. Again, all of us favor providing health insurance to low-income children. It will also correct some of the policy problems with the current program and make some changes to the Finance Committee approach.

First and foremost, the Republican alternative will provide, coverage for all children at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. That is the goal of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The Finance Committee bill will increase the coverage allowance to 300 percent of the poverty level and, in some cases, allow coverage of even higher incomes than that.

In addition, the Republican alternative will stop the waivers that have led to the current situation where a children's health insurance program covers about 700,000 adults.

Also, the Republican alternative will provide $400 million in outreach funding. This funding represents the key to the philosophical difference between the Republican bill and the Finance Committee bill.

Our bill demands that Government stay focused on the population in need. We shouldn't just raise the coverage ceiling. Let's go out and find the one's who are already eligible and have no insurance. And then let's enroll them.

Further, the Republican alternative would make sure that we have a consistent definition of income. No longer can States simply ``disregard'' all kinds of income in an effort to enroll higher income people. Frankly, the practice of disregarding income so that nonpoor citizens qualify for poverty programs is fairly offensive.

The other important aspect of the Republican alternative is that it addresses health care coverage in a larger context.

Let's face it, uninsured children are just the tip of the health insurance problem in this Nation.

We are once again tinkering around the edges rather than taking on systemic reform. The Democratic tinkering moves us in the direction they want for the Nation--socialized medicine.

Republicans have a better idea.

The bill will provide much needed relief to small business to allow them to provide health care benefits to their employees.

Nearly 60 percent of the 45 million uninsured Americans today are employed by, or reliant on, small business. In other words, if we can help small business insure their employees, then we can make a significant dent in the total number of uninsured Americans.

I just do not see how we can take up the issue of health care and health insurance and not talk about one way we can truly help insure Americans. Of course, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to do that because it doesn't take us further down their road towards socialized medicine.

I don't want to go down that road. So I will vote for the Republican alternative. It is fiscally responsible, it focuses the SCHIP program on those it was created to help, and it takes a larger look at the problem of health insurance for all Americans.

I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell-Lott amendment.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the McConnell-Lott alternative so we do not begin a progressive march down a road toward socialized medicine.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for no longer than 10 minutes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to comment on the passage of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act. The President's blue ribbon Wounded Warrior Commission met with the President to provide

him with recommendations as to how the Veterans' Administration, along with the Department of Defense, can best provide service to our dramatically injured veterans in a seamless fashion.

Our action, with passage of this legislation, is a step in the same direction. It fulfills the pledge we made a few months ago when the Veterans' Affairs Committee, along with the Armed Services Committee, held joint hearings to receive testimony on needed changes to transition programs and health care benefits.

At that time, many of us stated our intention to make a good-faith effort to work on issues under our respective committees' jurisdictions and then to merge our work back together again at the earliest possible time.

This bill not only contains the legislation that went through the Armed Services Committee earlier in the form of S. 1606, but it also includes title II of the bill, legislation sponsored by Senator Danny Akaka and me to address issues surrounding the treatment provided to those veterans with traumatic brain injuries.

Of course, I am proud of the comprehensive nature of the legislation Senator Akaka and I have put forward in this legislation and pleased to see its passage.

Under the provisions in this bill, injured veterans will benefit from new investments in research into mild, moderate, and serious traumatic brain injury. They and their families will be assured that care is provided in age-appropriate settings. We will explore whether assisted living services are the most appropriate and least restrictive settings to provide care for those with traumatic brain injury.

Most important to me is that our servicemembers, veterans, and their families will have peace of mind knowing the Secretary can provide traumatic brain injury care in a private, non-VA facility anytime the Secretary determines that doing so would be optimal to the recovery and the rehabilitation of that patient. In other words, with passage of this legislation, we are assuring that whenever it is in the best interest of the patient's recovery, then VA can purchase private care to treat traumatic brain injury.

These are a few of the very important provisions in title II of the legislation. Of course, there are many other notable pieces of the bill in title I, which, as I previously stated, was produced by my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee. I compliment them again for their work on this important bill.

We said we would do this as expeditiously as possible. The earliest time possible was, of course, the National Defense Authorization Act, which was on the floor a few weeks ago. There, we added the substance of the bill as an amendment to that act.

Unfortunately, the NDAA was pulled from the floor--a little premature, in my judgment, but it was. But I do wish to compliment both leaders for agreeing in a bipartisan way to bring this important part of that bill before us quickly so our troops and our injured veterans and their families can receive the care and benefits they deserve as quickly as it can be delivered.

I said on the floor a few weeks ago, during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, the legislation was very important because it demonstrated that Congress can break down the walls of jurisdiction and territory and do the right thing at the right time for our troops.

I and other Senators have been very critical of the bureaucratic roadblocks DOD and VA can put up against one another, when we all want to make sure they are working together in a seamless fashion. We now see those walls breaking apart. So I believe we are going to demand that these two agencies break down further those barriers of territory and jurisdiction. When we demonstrate we can do it, we then must ask them to do it. In this legislation, you saw two committees come together to make it possible. I am proud we have done so. It is the kind of work we ought to do.

I also think it is fitting we passed this bill yesterday because the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded Warriors is set to issue its final report. That happened. We have now had an opportunity to review it. I thank all of the Members of that Commission for their service and for all of the work they did in a short timeframe. Former Senator Bob Dole and Secretary Donna Shalala were great leaders on this issue for us and for our veterans and for our troops.

The passage of this bill is only the beginning of changes that we will make and must make for the health care and the benefit services offered to our veterans and offered through VA and DOD. I look forward to hearings on the panel's recommendations soon and to finalize the reading of the report. I now have it in hand. I am hopeful that with the passage of this legislation, which will soon be on its way to the President for signature, we in the Congress can focus on the recommendations of the Dole-Shalala panel.

With that, I again thank the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Akaka, for his work and support in the production of title II of this bill. I also want to thank and compliment Senator McCain and Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their work on title I, the Wounded Warrior legislation. I truly appreciate the coming together of these diverse but connected jurisdictions to show we can break down our walls and to once again demonstrate and encourage both the Department of Defense and VA to work in a progressive, seamless fashion for the benefit of our fighting men and women and for the benefit of those same men and women when they become veterans and the responsibility for them shifts to a different jurisdiction. It is important legislation and work of which we can be proud.

Mr. President, I think we are all concerned that we get border security right. The Graham amendment offered us that opportunity. It looks like we may get there tonight.

Let the Senate understand there is a Catch-22 to what we are doing. While Americans want their border security--my guess is what the majority leader is proposing we adjust to will pass by the unanimous support of this Senate. The Catch-22 is that American agriculture is now in crisis, in part because we have failed to pass an immigration bill that addresses their guest worker need problem and the border closes and the human labor flow stops. We want it stopped. We want the illegal movement to stop, but we need a legal system tied to this to solve a problem.

Last agricultural season, underemployed by 25 percent, $3 billion lost at the farm gate, the consumer picked up the bill. Then we struggled mightily to solve the problem, and we could not. Now we are heading into another harvest season, with 35 percent underemployment, with a projected $5 billion to $6 billion loss in American agriculture--fruit, vegetables, and nuts left hanging on the trees and oranges rotting in the orange groves.

The Senator from California and I have said, please, help us a little bit and reinstate a guest worker program with border security; give us a 5-year pilot temporary program to solve a near disastrous problem for American agriculture. We fumble through and we cannot do it. So what are America's farmers doing--the ones who can afford to? They are taking their capital and equipment and they are moving to Mexico and Argentina and Brazil and Chile. America's investment will move south of the border.

Here we are now, 60 percent dependent on foreign oil to fuel our cars. Are we going to become 60 or 70 percent dependent on foreign countries to produce our fruits and our vegetables? If this Senate cannot get it right within a decade, that is where we will be--maybe even less time than that.

So while we debate border security--and while we are all for it, and while I have been aggressive in moving legislation with Senator Byrd, starting 2 years ago, to tighten our borders--always in my mind tied to that was reform of the guest worker program and getting a workforce for American agriculture that was legal, that was transparent, that came and worked and went home. But we can't do that. We would not do it. We refuse to do it because of grounds of political intimidation.

Shame on us if we destroy American agriculture because we cannot get it right. So the Senator from California and I are left with no alternative. Do we object to unanimous consent to secure the border? Of course we would not. We cannot and we should not. But we will ask this Senate to vote time and time again and either say you are for American agriculture or you are against it.

Therein lies the question this Senate has yet to answer, and they must answer if we are to supply America with its fresh fruits and vegetables and the kind of abundant food supply that we have grown use to--but more important that we expect.

I yield the floor.

That is correct.

Madam President, I would like, for a moment, to react to the Senator from Georgia. It is oftentimes confused that AgJOBS was two bills that were merged together--two problems solved. One was to create a new, modern, guest worker--or I should say flexible guest worker program that fits the needs of American agriculture. That was over here. We reformed the H-2A program. But over here was, what do you do with 1.2 million illegals who are here and are now working in agriculture and have been here for 4 or 5 years? That was the other side of it.

We said: If you stayed here and worked and became legal and met these qualifications, there would be something at the end of the road because we believe if you don't do that, if you say: Oh, yeah, you can stay and you can work, but you have to stay in agriculture to do so--specific to agriculture--you have created indentured servitude. You and I do not want that, nor do we want to be accused of that in any respect.

So we have to look at the two realities. The two realities are an H- 2A program that does not meet the need of American agriculture today and a current workforce that is here and illegal.

How you bring legality to that workforce that is here and is illegal remains the question on which we differ. I think we have come awfully close to agreeing on a new guest worker program. And in that, the Senator from Georgia is right: It is very clear: They come, they work, they go home. That is a true guest worker program. Now, that is not today, that is tomorrow. Today is how do you meet the needs and solve the illegality problem of those currently here? Therein lies our struggle.

Somehow we have to be able to fix that and require compliance and not be accused or meet the test of not producing indentured servitude by saying the only way you can become legal is to stay in agriculture. That is not very fair either. So I guess they all have to go home. Some would like that, too.

You and I will never escape the definition of amnesty because anytime we touch an illegal and give them anything, we will be accused by the anti-immigration forces in this country of having morphed a new form of amnesty. At the same time, they are forcing us to refuse dealing with the real problem and solving it, or at least they are forcing some to run for cover in search of something that is impossible, and that is zero amnesty. You can't get there. I don't believe it is possible.

If you touch an illegal in any way, and in any way give them something that offers them some stability in the current environment, tomorrow morning Lou Dobbs will say: Amnesty. And it is a new creation he thought of overnight while in one of his 1932 labor dreams.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Utah in his comments. Many of the citizens of my State are members of the LDS Church and obviously strong leaders who have done exactly in Idaho what he said his forebears did in Utah. They made the deserts bloom, and they built a culture and a religious base that serves my State so very well today.

Western Wildfires

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak about something that is going on in the West as we speak, that is a tragedy in reality and something that certainly we all ought to be aware of. As I got on the plane Friday morning in Minneapolis in my commute to Idaho, a group of young men and women got on my plane: firefighters of the State of Missouri. They were flying to Idaho to help Idahoans extinguish the wildfires burning there. I thank them and all of the brave firefighters who have been battling these immense wildfires in a season that is dramatic as we speak.

I got on the plane yesterday morning in Boise to return to Washington. Another group of young men and women, bedraggled, tired, and smelling of smoke, got on the plane to fly back to Minneapolis. That was another group of firefighters who were flown in from the Eastern United States to help out in Idaho and the Great Basin West. They were simply tired and returning home.

We are, in Idaho and in the West, at this moment experiencing one of the most dramatic wildfire seasons in our history. I say that because the season in reality has just started. From a historic perspective, it is late July, August, and September that the fire season we think of on our public lands, both forested and grasslands, usually begins.

Last year, we went through the worst fire season in history based on total acreage burned. As I speak, we are now ahead of last year and burning even greater. Headlines in the local largest daily in Idaho yesterday said: more fires burning in Idaho than any other State in the Nation, well over 600,000 acres burned and many burning.

Yesterday morning, five counties in the State of Idaho were declared a state of emergency due to those wildfires burning. Currently, the largest fire burning in the United States is the Murphy complex, estimated to be 570,000 acres; 7,500 people were evacuated from the area. Evacuations were being ordered across the State due to the number of fires and the extreme of the fire behavior: 100-degree temperatures in an area where that extraordinary heat has reduced the dew point to such a situation that anything that grows becomes kindling for a wildfire.

Of the 72 large fires in the United States, half of those burning today are in the State of Nevada and in my State of Idaho. The weather outlook has gone from bad to horrible, as these temperatures continue and as the Great Basin of the United States progressively dries out. More hot and dry weather is expected along with dry lightning, fires, and wind storms. As these lightning storms sweep through, literally thousands of strikes occur, and hundreds of fires can be set in one evening across the public lands of the West.

As I mentioned, the 2006 fire season broke several records, including acreage. By the end of this week, we will have surpassed that increase as it relates to time and place of the fire season. We have obviously not yet burned the 10 million acres of last year, but by measurement this fire season is now worse.

Almost 100 years ago, the Forest Service started something. They started with a commitment and a philosophy to full fire suppression. Now I take you to a little bit of history as to what may be producing the very dramatic fire season we experienced last year and the year before, and we are now experiencing today. During that time, the Forest Service's aim was to extinguish every fire, man-made or lightning caused. With the exception of the last 15 years, the timber industry, on our public lands, enjoyed booming success during the same period. So while Mother Nature was not allowed to burn the forest, man was allowed to come in over the last 100 years and thin and clean. We called it logging. That produced the timber for the home and building industries. As a result, it is arguable that wildfires were kept somewhat under control. Not only did we put the fires out, but we were taking the fuels off the land.

In the 1990s, during the Clinton years, as a result of the impact of a variety of public policies, from the Endangered Species Act to the New Forest Management Act to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, and a lot of other combinations, we began to progressively reduce the overall cut of timber on public lands. In the 8 years of Bill Clinton, we reduced the allowable cut.

Here are the figures on this chart. It is patterned by revenue flow. We reduced the allowable cut of timber on our public lands by 80 percent--not 8 percent, by well over 80 percent. So if you follow the green line on this chart, you follow the revenue flow that was coming from our public lands through the U.S. Forest Service. Of course, it was during that time that the Forest Service had money. As a result, they had the money to fight the fires. Then you see the decline on the chart.

As we discontinued timber harvests on our public lands, the revenue no longer was produced. But something else was happening. We were leaving on our public lands dramatic increases in timber and brush and, in today's situation, fuel for the fires.

So in part, the West is burning today because of public policy, because of attitude, not because of Mother Nature. Mother Nature has ebbed and flowed over time. But when Mother Nature is taken out of balance by man's practices and policies, dramatic results can occur. As the revenues declined and they paralleled human activity on the public lands, dramatic increases in fire resulted.

What do we do about it? For the last several years I have stood on the Senate floor and participated in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and chaired the Forestry Subcommittee for many of these years and have said openly and publicly: We, by our public policy, have destroyed the U.S. Forest Service. We bankrupted it. It no longer has any money. In so doing, we keep putting greater burden on it, and we won't fund it.

We are not in the habit of funding it because timber sales historically funded the U.S. Forest Service. It not only funded all of their practices, both logging and trail clearing and wildlife

management and habitat control, it did something else: It put money into the U.S. Treasury. We created a unique balance over the last 100 years because you can't predict a fire season. You have the revenue flow coming in. So we simply borrowed the money to fight fires from the different accounts of the U.S. Forest Service and at the end of the year, when the fire season was over and all the bills were paid, we simply replenished all of the accounts of the U.S. Forest Service that it used to manage the different components of the Forest Service itself.

It no longer happens today. We are still borrowing money from accounts to fight fires, but there is no money in the accounts. At the end of the year, because of tight budgets, we don't replenish the money from the general fund of the U.S. Government. There is no money there. Timber receipts used to fund the money, used to create the balance, used to do a lot of things. They no longer exist, in large part because of public policy.

What is happening in Idaho and across the West at this moment, when you see the valleys full of smoke and the mountains full of smoke and the skies with dark bands of carbon-filled air across the West, our natural resources are literally going up in smoke. What is burning out there are trees. It is also watersheds and water quality and wildlife habitat. All of that is disappearing in a ball of fire, and it should not be that way.

What are the solutions? Throwing more money at fire suppression? Well, we have been doing that by ever increasing amounts every year for the last 5 or 6 years, to the tune of billions of dollars annually.

I am the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. I put in another half billion dollars to fight fires, and it will quickly go up in smoke at the rate the fires are burning in the West.

What is the solution? More active management? Yes. More active management on our public lands will help the fire situation because active management--if you look at the Healthy Forests Act we passed several years ago--means you are in there thinning, you are in there cleaning the underbrush, you are doing the kind of things that fire would have done naturally 100 years ago. But we changed the circumstance, and we changed the environment.

Fire is unique in that it can be beneficial if it is handled appropriately. If you have 100 trees per acre, and fire is allowed to amble through and burn out all of the underbrush, it does not kill the tree, in many instances. But if you have 400 trees per acre of the kind we have allowed to happen over the last good number of decades, then it burns everything because the fire is so intense by the volume of fuel on the forest floor. That is a circumstance the West is experiencing, as we speak.

Fire is a unique natural disaster because humankind has found a way to fight it. It can change the situation that breeds fire. How do you fight a tornado? Well, you cannot. Yet it is called a natural disaster. How do you fight a hurricane? Well, you cannot. You can predict them, and you get out of their way, because it is a natural disaster. How do you fight a wildfire? Give me a shovel, give me the tools, give me a better environment--a managed environment, if you will--and I can fight a wildfire. Do not allow Federal judges to be land managers. Allow foresters to be land managers in the right context of public policy and you can fight a wildfire. Give me the tools necessary in the local communities to do so, and you can fight a wildfire. Allow me to use a chain saw selectively in the forest to thin them and clean them, and you can fight a wildfire. But, all in the name of the environment, we have decided to do none of these. We have decided to simply preserve and allow it to be natural.

Let me conclude with these thoughts. The fires that are burning in the West today are not natural. They are hotter, they are more intense, they are more destructive than any forest fires we have seen in our forests literally within a century. The reason is quite simple. The 100 trees per acre I talked about that Lewis and Clark might have ambled through 200 years ago are the same acres in which there are now 400 trees. Because of the heat and the drought, they are dead or dying, and they have created a fuel load on our forest floor that is unprecedented. Yet, we, by public policy, have tied the hands of our land managers. As a result, literally millions of acres are now burning annually. For what reason? I believe it is because we, as a manager of public and natural resources, have failed.

There are reasonable ways to do so. There is an alternative besides simply locking it up and letting it burn. Yes, the skies of Idaho and the Great Basin West are full of smoke at this moment. That smoke is our natural resources going up in smoke, literally.

If we are worried about climate change, and we are worried about the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere, the fires on the public lands of this Nation this year will put more carbon in the atmosphere than any 1 year of automobile driving. Yet somehow there are those who are willing to ignore it only in the reality that it is nature and uncontrollable. I would argue that is not true because 30 years ago we did not have these kinds of fires, and 20 years ago we did not have them, even though we had peaks of drought and dryness and heat.

Our professionals told us some time ago if we did not become, once again, active managers of our public land resource it would go up in smoke--and it is.

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

Mr. President, I stand in front of a desk in which a former Idaho senator by the name of William E. Borah stood. He was renowned for a variety of things after the turn of the 19th into the 20th century. He was an outspoken isolationist and opposed Woodrow Wilson and led the battle to destroy the League of Nations. He was successful. We never joined the League of Nations. America came home from World War I, pulled up its bridges and it remained a relatively isolated island in a world until World War II.

We know times have changed. We also know that great debates about foreign policy have occurred on the floor of the Senate down through the centuries. We have had a very valuable debate over the last 24 hours in large part about foreign policy but in a surprising way about military tactics.

There is one role that we play here in the United States Senate and that role is a political role, it is not a military role. Not 535 generals. There are a few of us--I'm not one of those--who've had extensive military experience and who might have the kind of strategic knowledge necessary to make decisions that are general--that our generals could and are making on the field at this moment. But I am always suprised when we decide to become tacticians, when we decide to use the floor of the United States Senate as a command center, when we meet in secret rooms around the Capitol to decide how troop movements out to happen and what the rules of engagement ought to be. No, we shouldn't be playing that role. That's why when we confirmed General Petraeus unanimously in the Senate, we said to him very clearly, you go to Iraq in relation to a surge that is being implemented and you come back to us and give us your honest and fair assesement in September.

So why then the last 24 hours have we been deciding or trying to prejudge Petraeus, to jump in front of him acting like the general that he is and the general who is on the ground in Baghdad as we speak? It is raw politics. That's what it is all about. And that's what you have seen played out here in the last 24 hours. Now, I would be the first to tell you that good politics sometimes doesn't produce good policy, especially if you're reacting at the moment--if you are reacting at a snapshot of a polling data where the American people are reacting because they have been fed information instantly about something that may or may not be true in the broader perspective.

But that's what we're doing here, and that's what we do best. But let me suggest that sometimes good policy--so why then the last 24 hours have we been deciding or trying to prejudge Petraeus, to jump in front of him acting like the general that he is and the general who is on the ground in Baghdad as we speak? It is raw politics. That's what it is all about. And that's what you have seen played out here in the last 24 hours. Now, I would be the first to tell you that good politics sometimes doesn't produce good policy, especially if you're reacting at the moment--if you're reacting at a snapshot of a polling data where the American people are reacting because they have been fed information instantly about something that may or may not be true in the broader perspective.

But that is what we're doing here, and that is what we do best. But let me suggest that sometimes good policy--good politics does not in the long term produce good policy. It is with that point in mind that I hope that the Levin-Reed Amendment goes down that it doesn't gain the necessary votes to proceed to a final vote.

We ought to be focused on the content of the National Defense Authorization Act and all that it means to our country and to our veterans because of a variety of key amendments that have been placed in this very important document. And I think that America, if they've been watching C-SPAN for the last 24 hours have not heard one word or very few words about the embodiment of this bill and its value and what it will do to the long-term stability of our military and the care of our veterans.

I was once chair. I am now Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and Senator Akaka and I have put a very large and valuable amendment in there that deals with traumatic brain injury and the extension of eligibility of the eligibility of care as we work to create a seamless environment between men and women coming out of our armed services and becoming veterans and becoming eligible for the care that our Veterans Administration can provide for them. Mental health evaluations, trying to get ahead of traumatic brain injury that may not manifest itself for months and years after men and women come out of the armed services. Dental care for our returning service members and homeless programs and all other kinds of things are embodied in this very important legislation.

So, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have had your 24 hours of politics. Now I hope we can have a vote, move on, and get to the final passage of the Defense Authorization Act that is so important to our country in the short term and in the long term, and I would hope that this Senate shows some consistency in what we do, and that consistency would be to wait until September in what I think will be a fair and honest and factual evaluation by General Petraeus as to the situation, the current environment and the future in Iraq. And at that time, as a United States Senator representing the State of Idaho, I am prepared to make decisions that are different than those today as it relates to our involvement in Iraq, if the facts so demonstrate it.

General Petraeus has a lot of credibility, not only with this Congress but with the American people and the polls are showing that. While Americans are very frustrated over the war in Iraq, they don't want to cut and run at this moment, and that's what Levin-Reed is all about, cutting and running.

And what happens if we do that? What happens if we don't find a strategic way out? It is important that we put ourselves in perspective of the world that involves Iraq and its surrounding neighbors. You have heard a lot of rhetoric about the instability, about the role of Iran and certainly what's going on in the north here with the Kurdish population and what Turkey is doing, amassing troops along this border. You've heard about what's going on in Lebanon and certainly the traumatic reality that is happening there. Premature withdrawal from Iraq would risk, I believe, plunging this--that Nation into chaos which could spill over its borders into the gulf region that you see here.

Iran, which is a threat to vital U.S. interests and continues to provide lethal support to Shia militants who target and kill U.S. troops and innocent Iraqis, would exploit our premature departure to dominate and control much of -Iraq. Here they are, a very large nation with very powerful forces and resources, just waiting for the opportunity to fulfill their historic Persian vision of the region.

Tehran's terrorist proxy to Hezbollah continues to foment in instability in Lebanon. They've already leapfrogged Iraq. They're over here, creating tremendous influence in that region. Hamas, another Iran proxy, continues to kill and maim innocent Israelis and Palestinians and is attempting to establish a jihadist state in the Gaza.

Here we are--another leapfrog over Iraq. Iraq is simply in the way of Iran. It's quite plain. It's quite simple. And it is very visual when you look at the map. And without some stability in Iran--in Iraq, the ability of it to control itself and its borders, the ability to govern itself, the reality of what could happen in the region is in fact dramatic consequences, a collapse, a major war within the region, not only a civil war within Iraq but the ability of Iran and Syria to exploit the situation that would occur there. Tehran would extend its destabilizing activities to another very important part of the region-- Kuwait--and the oil-rich regions of eastern Saudi Arabia along this border here, one of the larger producing oilfields in the region and the kingdom could well fall. And those are the realities we face at this moment that I think few want to talk about. Let's talk about another consequence.

I will put the balance of my statement in the record. But the other consequence, Mr. President, that we've not

talked about is what happens when 54 percent of the world's oil supply goes to risk with a collapse of the region. And this is a reality check that we only talk about in hushed terms, because we don't like to talk about our dependency on a part of the world that is so unstable. With those thoughts, I yield the floor.

What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.

The facts are, Mr. President, that the war we are fighting in Iraq has serious and real national security implications and we cannot prejudge our best and brightest military commanders by playing politics with their duties and best judgement. We should not preempt General Petraeus's progress report coming in September and I hope that the Senate will go on record today as saying we are not a body of generals, we do not know best how to conduct a war and determine how many troops it will take to secure Iraq. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting down Levin-Reed.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, does money make the difference? Because if money had made the difference, Osama bin Laden would be in his grave. But it has not made the difference. Intelligence, human intelligence, relationships, the ongoing development of those kinds of relationships we build around the world makes the difference.

Osama bin Laden is a phenomenal symbol today in a large constituency worldwide. We will add money, and all of us will support it. The intent of this amendment is good. But, as my colleagues have said, to suggest it is either/or, we cannot do both, nor should we--I suggest it is not that.

Are we going to melt the mountains of northern Pakistan? What, should we have tumbled the government of Musharraf in our pursuit of Osama bin Laden? I think that was not our choice, nor should it have been.

So we will add some money. We will add some intent. But, in the long haul, building back an intelligence organization, a human intelligence organization, that couples with and strengthens our technological capability to observe movement all over the world, ultimately, helps us pursue terrorist organizations, to go where they are and where they are training and to be able to topple them before they inflict injury upon us. That should be our goal. That is our goal. That is what has been our goal since 9/11. But we are so powerful, and we are all ``Nintendo warriors'' today. Remember that game, that electronic game, a few years ago, push buttons--zim, zam, boom--and it was all over with? That is not the way you fight war, although we as a society have grown to believe that.

When the human is involved, when the human intelligence decides to hide, to divert, to connive, to organize, and ultimately to break through the barriers we build, our vigilance must be constant. We have just heard of their capabilities. We now must rest on ours.

I will support the amendment. But let us not be fooled that money makes the difference. It is the constant vigilance, the building of systems and organizations, the human intelligence, matched with our electronic and our technological capability, that will continue to allow us to be a safer nation in what Americans have now recognized is a very unsafe world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me first of all thank the chairman and the ranking member for bringing this legislation to the floor and for including in it the wounded warrior amendment. Let me also thank the senior Senator from Arizona for his leadership on what has been a critical and important issue for our country and, at best and at worst, very divisive. I have not seen him step back one moment from the defense of our men and women in uniform and the mission they are conducting in Iraq, and I thank Senator McCain for that kind of leadership. It is tremendously important for our country that we have that quality of leadership, knowledge, and understanding; to be able not only to travel there and understand but to come back to this country and articulate it.

I must also say I was disappointed when the Senator from Missouri talked about lives squandered in Iraq. I am sorry, but every young Idahoan who has died in Iraq was not a life squandered. To me, that young man or woman was a hero in defense of their Nation, in defense of a nation trying to be free, and an expression from our Nation of that; for preserving for this generation of Americans a sense of freedom and independence in a very difficult world. Lives squandered? I am sorry, I choose other words. The difference between a life squandered and that of an American hero is a distinct difference.

Today, we are here to talk about wounded warriors. We are also here to talk about something my chairman of the VA Committee, Danny Akaka, and I have brought forward in an amendment that will be considered and, we hope, handled by the chairman and the ranking member and our whole Senate in a unanimous way to deal with traumatic brain injury improvements and transitional benefits that I and Senator Akaka and all our colleagues have worked on for those who are in the active service and about to become veterans.

Certainly, the Presiding Officer, now serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has openly participated with us in making sure the word ``seamless transition'' is not just something in our vocabulary, but it is a reality of moving men and women from active service into a veteran status; and for those who were injured and are eligible for benefits, to make sure that transition is, in fact, seamless.

I would like to speak for a moment on an amendment we are offering that deals with that. Senator Akaka a few days ago laid out a number of provisions that are in this amendment and was on the floor earlier to speak to it, and I wish to address some of those on the floor at this moment but not to travel that path again.

First, I am proud of the comprehensive nature of the language dealing with those suffering from traumatic brain injury in this amendment. Enactment of these provisions will ensure that injured servicemembers, veterans, and their families will receive a detailed plan from a VA treatment team

outlining their care and a rehabilitation program. They can be certain the plan will be reviewed and updated often, even at their request.

They will benefit from new investments in research into mild, moderate, and serious traumatic brain injury. Most important to me, they will have the comfort of knowing the Secretary can provide TBI care in a private, non-VA facility anytime the Secretary determines that doing so would be optimal to the recovery and rehabilitation of a patient.

Through time and hearings, we have discovered in the VA Committee that while the Veterans' Administration and their health care delivery systems are, by the nature of what they do, the best in the country, with some of the cutting-edge technology that is available in the private sector, we are not yet up to speed in the VA public sector. So giving the Secretary this flexibility and option says to our veteran, who may well be suffering from TBI: You are going to get the best that is available, private or public, at the time you need it. That is the way it ought to be.

In other words, whenever it is in the best interest of the patient's recovery, then the VA can purchase private care until that care may be available within the system itself.

These are a few of the very important provisions in this amendment that I believe will make the care and treatment of our wounded servicemembers and veterans even better.

I would also like to point out our actions with this amendment reflect a pledge we made a few months ago when the Veterans' Committee and the Armed Services Committee held a joint hearing to receive testimony on needed changes to the transition programs of health care benefits. At that time, many of us stated our intention to make a good- faith effort to work on these issues under our respective committees' jurisdictions and to merge them back together again at the earliest possible opportunity. Senator Akaka and Senator Levin certainly were good to their word as we worked to bring those together, and that is exactly what is reflected in these amendments that are currently before the Senate and will be when we bring the other amendment forward. So I am very proud to tell the Senate that both committees have done their work and lived up to their bargain.

I wish to compliment the Senators from Michigan and Arizona, as I did earlier, for the work they have done on the Armed Services Committee in producing the wounded warrior bill that is now pending to this authorization bill as amendment No. 2019. That bill, coupled with the amendment Senator Akaka and I are now offering, will provide a comprehensive approach to improving the benefits and services of those who are severely injured in service and those who need transitional assistance.

Finally, I also think this amendment is very important because it demonstrates Congress can break down the walls of jurisdiction and territory and do the right thing at the right time for the right people. In this case, it is America's brave young men and women who are standing in harm's way, and as a result of their bravery and their heroism may sustain some level of injury.

I and other Senators have been very critical of the bureaucratic roadblocks we oftentimes see in DOD or the VA. But I must tell you we see a merging now and a breaking down of those barriers and roadblocks that ought to be done when we find those difficulties arising. So I believe that if we are going to demand these two agencies break down their walls of territory and jurisdiction, then we can demonstrate the same. These amendments recognize and demonstrate that. I am proud we are doing so today.

I wish to thank, again, Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain for their support throughout the process, and I wish to thank Chairman Akaka for his leadership. I also wish to compliment the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee--Gary Leeling, Dick Walsh, and Diana Tabler--for working in a collegial way with our staffs on the Veterans' Affairs Committee to make all of this effort very possible in the way that it is being presented on the floor.

Mr. President, to my colleagues, the chairman and the ranking member, I appreciate the opportunity to come speak on these critical issues, and once again the cooperation between the VA Committee and their staffs, and the Armed Services Committee and their staffs, I think, is a model of how we get things done in the appropriate way and in the timely way necessary.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Felix Hernandez, a State Department Pearson Fellow with my office, be granted the privilege of the Floor during debate on H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, that is currently before us.

Madam President, I rise today to commend Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby on their work regarding the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, CFIUS.

Last year, a company called Dubai Ports World sought to purchase labor management rights to several U.S. ports, a proposal that was approved by CFIUS. However, numerous Members of Congress, the media and the American public quickly and loudly voiced concerns over the way in which the CFIUS process had occurred. Because of the enormous outcry, Senator Shelby, then Chairman of the Banking Committee, worked with then-Ranking Member Senator Sarbanes, to make the CFIUS process more transparent and much more effective.

I want to commend both Senators for their work on this legislation, and I believe that their hard work has produced legislation that will bolster American support for foreign investments.

Many different agencies within the Federal Government have the responsibility to investigate foreign investment proposals before they can be approved. Those agencies, including our intelligence community, have a serious responsibility to ensure that each proposed foreign investment in our country will not jeopardize national security. It is my understanding that currently, the Director of National Intelligence has the authority to tap any of the intelligence agencies within our Federal Government to conduct analysis of technology transfers and economic impacts of any foreign investment proposals. Senator Shelby, is that your understanding of the responsibilities held by the Director of National Intelligence?

I thank the Senator. Madam President, the reason I bring up that concern is that I do not believe that such analyses are occurring, or that very little economic analysis is being conducted by our intelligence communities.

I am hopeful that this legislation crafted by Senators Shelby and Dodd will pass the Senate quickly and that it can be signed into law, because America should be a country that welcomes foreign investment. However, we must be absolutely certain that any investment into our country will not have a negative economic impact or impair our national security. I sincerely hope that the Director of National Intelligence will participate fully in the CFIUS process and use all available resources to ensure that all foreign investment proposals receive very thorough and timely analysis to ensure congressional and public support for increased investment in our country, while at the same time ensure our national security is not placed in jeopardy.

Again, I would like to commend the chair and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee for their hard work and dedication to this legislation and I will strongly support its passage.

How much time remains?

I thank the Senator for yielding.

I come to the floor to oppose the tax that has been proposed and is now before us brought by the Finance Committee.

It is very easy politically to stick it to the big boys, and that is the political game which is being played out on the floor of the Senate as we speak. Stick it to the big boys. OK, we are going to stick it to the big boys, $32.1 billion worth of taxes. What will it do for us? Will it change the price at the gas pump today? No. In fact, we have just heard the Senator from New Mexico say it could possibly raise the price of gas in the long term. Hasn't this Senate heard the plea of the American consumer over the last 6 months about $3 gas? Don't we get it today or do we just want to play petrol politics? That is what the Finance Committee has done; they have played petrol politics. They are sticking it to the big boys, and they are going to put it in the green machine. The green machine may yield some energy in the future, but it sure isn't going to change the price at the gas pump tomorrow or the next day or next week or next year. If they argue in disagreement with me, my answer is simple: Prove it. Prove that you will change the price at the pump. Or will the big boys simply try to pass it through to the consumer? We will find out, won't we, if this bill passes. That is why I am going to have to oppose cloture on the Baucus provision of taxes, the petrol politics of this issue.

Let me show you the petrol politics of the real issue. Here is where the reserves in the world exist today. Here are the big boys of America--Exxon,

Chevron, Marathon. Do we really think if we stick it to these three and more we will change the world? No. The world today from the standpoint of energy is controlled over here on the left-hand side of the chart. It is controlled by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and so on down the line. They control the known reserves. They control the world's oil supply. They are the big boys. We are not sticking it to them. In fact, we are handing them a golden leaf. We are saying: You control the world oil supply, and we are dependent upon you for 60 percent of our supply. But we are going to penalize our producers because of the petrol politics of this issue.

There is another petrol game being played out. Petrol politics is being played out on the floor of the Senate, but petrol nationalism is being played out by these companies and countries of known reserve. Every one of these producers controls their supply; their nation's government and their nation's government's companies control the supply of oil. They can turn the valve on or off. Every time they do, the American consumer ultimately pays more. That is called petrol nationalism. I believe when we talk about the war of energy today, that is what we are involved in. We are involved in a war on who can produce energy and can we become energy secure so that we don't have to be dependent upon Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran.

We know what is happening in that area of the world today, the phenomenal instability. Not only do these nations play petrol nationalism, they also play with something else: They have the weapon of mass disruption. Let me repeat that. These nations hold the weapon of mass disruption. You change the price at the pump a couple of dollars because you turn the valve off in these countries, and you hit this economy like a freight train.

What are we going to do today? We are going to tax it a little more. That is all this Congress really knows how to do, is tax. They don't know how to produce. We don't produce. We get out of the way of production. We encourage production, but this bill will not produce one barrel of oil. ExxonMobil will produce a barrel of oil. Chevron will. Marathon will. The rest of these countries will. But we don't. We are now stepping in the way of that production. We are now penalizing that production.

The senior Senator from New Mexico talked about where the greatest reserves of America lie today--offshore. Yet we are saying: If you want to play out there, if you want to go out, find it, drill, we are going to tax you. We are going to penalize you instead of encourage you and incentivize you to discover, to bring it to the wellhead and to bring it to America's shores and to refine it for the American consumer.

Anybody in a reasonable way who doesn't want to play the political game being played out on the floor as we speak--petrol politics--needs to vote no on cloture.

If the American consumer thinks these companies are going to pay the $32.1 billion in taxes, they have it wrong. They are going to pay it at the pump. The Baucus bill pumps tax dollars out of the back pocket of the American consumer. It does not allow oil to be pumped out of the ground. It does not allow us to hold a stronger political position in the world of petrol nationalism. That is the debate we are going through right now. It is about windmills. It is about cellulosic. It is about all the things I like. But it really isn't. It is antiproduction. It is anticonsumer. It is anti-American to deny our Nation's economy access to the world energy supply. That is what we are doing. Let's allow Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran to grab us by the gas nozzle and jerk us around every time they choose. This tax package suggests that could start again tomorrow because we are not going to get ourselves back into the business of production.

I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.

Will the leader yield?

Mr. President, on behalf of our colleagues, is it possible at this time for the leader to give us some timeframe as it relates to the packaging and possible activity this evening and into tomorrow?

I thank the leader.

Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from North Dakota for a very succinct presentation about the reality of why we have spent the last couple of weeks debating energy in the Senate.

There is another reality check that I think most Americans fail to understand when it comes to why they are paying $3-plus at the pump, and that reality is that clearly demand in this country has outstripped supply by a significant amount. We have increasingly, since the 1950s, begun to have to

go elsewhere than just in and around our country to meet the hydrocarbon or the crude oil needs of our refiners and, ultimately, the gasoline needs of our consumers. As that dependency has grown on foreign sources of energy, I would argue that America became increasingly less secure.

Now, I am one who in the 1980s, and probably the early 1990s, thought it would be just production, production, and more production. I have changed. I have spent a lot of time looking at the energy equation of our country over the last couple of decades and said, no, you have to do a variety of different things.

Production is important. Our President said we are hooked on hydrocarbons. We are ``gasaholics,'' if you will. We are and we will be for an extended period of time. We have been there a long while. We have a multi, multibillion dollar infrastructure that supplies that energy out to the suburban access points, and you don't change those overnight. You don't change the technology that ultimately gets you there, but you do change. And America must change.

Some say you don't need anymore production, you can go to efficiency, you can go to new technology, and that alone will change the equation fast enough to save America's consumers and the economy.

I disagree with that. I think we are going to go there. In fact, the Senate by a voice vote a few moments ago passed a new efficiency standard for automobiles that I support. I am a Senator who has never supported that in the 27 years I have been in the Senate. So while I may be asking the Presiding Officer from Florida to change a little bit as it relates to the resources that are offshore Florida because I now know the technologies can bring those resources out without damaging the environment, here is a Senator who has changed also because I do believe that when you get to a fleet that burns less fuel, you are going to get to an America that needs less hydrocarbons over time.

That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I introduced legislation earlier this year that talked about conservation, and it talked about innovation, but it also talked about production and the reality of having to get more production out of our own resources instead of relying on one of the most unstable, riskiest areas of the world to gain that production.

If the world were at total peace today and the world's oil supplies were managed by companies and not countries, my guess is crude would not be at $60-plus a barrel. It would be at $40-plus a barrel and the American consumer would probably be paying a dollar less at the pump. But that is not reality. Reality is reflected at the pump and therein lies one of our greatest problems.

Earlier in the day, we had a great debate about a tax bill, to tax the oil companies by about $30 billion. Somehow that was going to change the equation; it was going to make the world a safer and better place. It was not going to change the price at the pump, not one dime. In fact it had the potential of taking it up.

Here is the reason why. It did not change this equation. What is this equation? These are the known reserves of oil on the globe. Here are the big boys, as we think of them--the big companies. Here is Exxon and here is the British Petroleum and here is Texaco and over here is Marathon.

You can hardly see them on the chart. They don't own the world's oil supply. They manage and own very little of it.

Who owns it? Hugo Chavez, Venezuela--who would love to jerk this country around by its tail--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq. I have named some of the most unstable areas of the world. They own the oil today. We need it because we are dependent on it, because we have done very little about it. That is why the Senator from North Dakota and I said we have to go where the oil is in our country, and the oil is not onshore anymore. The oil is not onshore. It is offshore. We know it is, and we know there is a substantial supply of it. But we have allowed States to put on moratoria and establish a political environment that denies the Federal Government access to its own resources, so the taxpayers of Idaho are paying a higher price for gasoline, in part, because the State of California--the Senator from California is here, the State of Florida, and other States have said you can't drill off our shore. No. No. Even though in California, with the old leases, they are still drilling in the State waters--not drilling but producing--the ghost of Santa Barbara is long gone. There are some who still like to talk about it, but my guess is these young folks sitting around here tonight, who are our pages, don't even remember Santa Barbara or the oilspill that resulted from the catastrophe of a wellhead blowing off offshore years ago.

The reason you don't is because it doesn't happen anymore. The technology of today, the safety of today, the regulations of today have changed the equation.

The Senator from North Dakota talked about a compromise the Senator from Florida worked with us on this past year. This is lease sale 181, where there may be millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of gas. We don't know. There is a pretty good idea it is there and it can be produced and pushed into the current infrastructure and America, for a moment in time, will be a little bit more energy secure.

What I am proposing and what many are talking about is what about this area? What about the rest of the eastern gulf? Ought we not be talking about that? Looking at it? Understanding what is there, if technology allows us to produce?

Here is where America's oil is being produced today, in the Gulf of Mexico. We are finding more and more out there as the technologies improve and as we can get deeper into the waters. That is reality. There are those who will give a lot of different arguments about why you should not do it. But I will argue you can do it and that the oil is there and America ought to know about it and they ought to be asking why we are not going there but, instead, why are we increasingly dependent upon foreign nations for our source of oil?

It is a reasonable question to ask. Right now, America has grown increasingly angry because of the price it is paying at the pump. People are not accustomed to using their disposable income for the price of energy as we know it today. That is not what we have done in an economy such as ours. But that is where we are today.

Here is what happens when we rely on other countries to produce our energy for us. We are at war with terrorism today around the globe. This is the French oil tanker off the coast of Yemen in October 6 of 2002, when an al-Qaida suicide boat hit it and set it afire. Here is the vulnerability of all of our oil moving on water. I suggest the ecological problems resulting from this are greater than from any drilling that could occur offshore America today because we expose ourselves to a high risk by the shipment of oil on our ocean surfaces around the world.

That is why I think it is important that we keep talking and allowing America to understand we are not without oil and not without oil reserves. The progressive and environmentally sound development of them over time will help us in this period of transition that will take several decades to move to flex-fueled cars--hydrogen cars, electric cars, all of the kinds of things we think America wants and that in public policy and incentivizing the marketplace we are moving America toward.

It will not happen overnight. In that period of time, while it is happening, America remains extremely vulnerable. Our economy is at risk. There is no question about it. What I have said is this picture demonstrates something that ought to be repeated and repeated again: The weapon of mass ``disruption'' in this country is an al-Qaida suicide boat hitting the side of an oil tanker, time and time again. That is the weapon of mass disruption. The high risk involved, the driving up of the oil prices, the movement of gas by $2 or $3 a gallon in this economy creates havoc everywhere. Certainly, in my State of Idaho it creates tremendous problems.

It is important that I and other Senators recognize that you do not conserve your way out of an energy crisis. You do not innovate your way out of an energy crisis. You do not produce your way out. You do all three.

I am going to continue to work while I am in the Senate to encourage this

Senate in public policy to do all three. I think it is in the best interests of America, our economy, and our national security that we do so. As an American today, I am not only frustrated, I am sometimes angered and embarrassed that we, through public policy, have allowed our country to become so dependent on other parts of the world.

Great nations should not allow that to happen, but we have. Then we make excuses all around us why we can't produce. Petropolitics is a fascinating thing. America gets it. The consumer understands it, and the consumer will grow increasingly angry when they understand that public policy doesn't allow the marketplace to do what it can do best in an environmentally sound way, to provide our country with the kind of energy it needs.

Again, as we debate this bill on the floor and finalize it, my guess is we will do a lot about conservation, we will do a lot about innovation, but we will do little to nothing about production. In the next 5 to 6 years, production is where it is. As we work on innovation, as we move technology from the laboratory to the street to commercial use, production still remains critically important.

I call upon my colleagues to stand up and be counted in all three of these areas. It is important for our country. It is important for our economy. Without question, it is important for our national security. The rest of the world should not tell America what its foreign policy is or will be based on their willingness or lack thereof to produce the oil supply our economy needs.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I oftentimes laugh. It is either Iowa, or Ohio, or Idaho. The other side of that equation with the late Craig Thomas, I am Larry Craig, Craig Thomas. His wife is Susan, my wife is Suzanne. It was not at all unusual that sometimes we would get mixed up. People would come to my office looking for Craig Thomas, and would find out they needed to be on the other side of a mountain range and out across a rather wide expanse of land toward Casper, Wyoming, instead of Boise, Idaho.

But I understand. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

I will be brief. We are very close, I believe, toward the final passage of an energy bill that many of us have spent a good deal of time with.

I want to thank a few folks who have spent a lot more time with this issue than I or than the principals on it. Cory McDaniel on my staff, legislative LA for energy, who has spent a great deal of time over the last good many months as we have fashioned the SAFE Act, as we have fashioned a clean portfolio standard versus a renewable portfolio standard, I thank Cory for that effort.

I also thank Frank Macciarola, the minority staff director, and Bob Simon, the majority staff director. We worked closely with them as we have worked our way through this issue. Sam Fowler, counsel for the majority, and Judy Pensabene, minority counsel, have all been very helpful.

I have worked closely with Senator Dorgan and his staff. Franz Wuerfmannsdobler and Nate Hill on his staff have been very helpful; also Colin Jones, a fellow from the National Lab in Idaho on my staff, and Darren Parker, a research assistant, have been extremely helpful. A couple of interns, J.C. Dunkelberger and Brian Riga, have been very helpful throughout all of this effort.

I think those of us who have been in the Senate a long time know this work gets done certainly by us in some instances but by our staff in most instances. They spend a lot of time, they develop a level of expertise in working with us on some of these issues.

I thank these men and woman for their assistance in a complicated process. I hope we can finish and produce a work product that will come back to us in a reasonable form that many of us can support.

I am frustrated we are potentially moving a bill out of the Senate that does not have any production. It is all about the future and the outyears. I do not think America worries about the outyears when they go to a pump and pay $3 and 10 or 15 or 20 cents a gallon. They worry about tomorrow and next year and the next year. That is what I think all of us have voiced in this debate.

Somehow it is not right anymore to drill holes in the ground and pull out oil and refine it. I do believe that still fits into the equation and will for several decades to come, as we move to flex fuel, as we move to hybrids, as we move to hydrogen, as we move to electricity, as we are, and as we will continue to, and we must.

But in the meantime, it is a reality that this Nation has to continue to produce. As loudly as I and some on the other side have spoken about it, the Senate collectively does not want to seem to go there anymore. My guess is the American consumer, tragically enough, is going to pay the price. I hope that ultimately we do get some more production built into this legislation or other public policy as we move down the road because it is the reality of where we are. While we work our way away from it and take this great economy and start shifting it and moving it around to new economies in the field of energy, it takes a great deal of investment that the private sector will make, and it takes the kinds of incentives, and it takes a substantial amount of time that I do not think is as reflected in this policy as I would hope, and as I have hoped it would be.

I yield the floor.