Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the PATRIOT Act.

Like many of my colleagues, I am confronted with a very difficult decision. There are rarely easy answers in the Senate and today is no exception. The healthy debate we have had in this body over the last few days has been vigorous and valuable.

Today, we have a solemn obligation to protect our Nation from those who may bring terror into our homes. At the same time, we have a responsibility to respect our rights and honor our privacy. These principles are not mutually exclusive: we can and must achieve both.

This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation shaping our ability to resist and eliminate terrorist activity on our home front. Our actions today will have tremendous consequences in the lives of all Americans in months, years, and decades ahead.

I am proud that in the rush and passions surrounding this bill, I have worked with my colleagues to insist on a serious, patient, and transparent debate in the Senate as we strive to find the right balance between protecting our civil liberties and fighting terrorism.

Despite my reservations and after great deliberation, I support reauthorization today.

I believe that we must not allow the PATRIOT Act to expire. With new provisions and improved meaningful oversight secured at last, empower our national leaders and policy makers with the accountability, wisdom, and prudence to use this legislation's powers in a way that does not undermine the freedoms we seek to protect.

Under provisions of this conference report, the Federal Government must now provide public information on its use of intelligence gathering tools like national security letters and FISA warrants. What is more, this legislation provides for formal audits of these programs. We must play close attention in order to learn lessons of the past and prevent abuse in the future.

I will join my colleagues in strongly pursuing additional sunset provisions I believe should have been included in this bill, to give Congress the opportunity to reassess whether these tools are yielding the intended results in the war on terror.

We have already made some critical reforms to implement meaningful oversight. We have managed to get some of the most controversial provisions to sunset in another 4 years, despite the administration's desire to make them permanent. We have started with sunsets on the roving wiretaps and record requests from businesses and libraries. They are not enough, but they are a start.

Because of an important vote we took yesterday, we have removed America's libraries from the purview of national security letters. We're allowing recipients of records requests to challenge the gag orders on the requests and have removed disclosure requirements for the names of attorneys assisting with those challenges. We are seeing improvements on disclosure for ``sneak and peek'' warrants.

But I want to be clear, new powers must not be allowed to chip away at traditional privacy rights. We must closely watch how law enforcement uses these tools and be prepared to confront all abuses.

I believe that many provisions of the bill, particularly those sections dealing with electronic eavesdropping and computer trespass, remain seriously flawed and may infringe on civil liberties. And that is why I will continue our work to improve these protections even as we implement them.

At a time when we are making permanent broad powers for our law enforcement and intelligence communities without the full traditional safeguards of judicial review and congressional oversight my concerns have been exacerbated, truthfully, by the administration's explicit attempts to go around both the courts and the Congress with their wiretapping and secret listening posts.

So as the FBI and other agencies continue to expand and evolve, so will their powers. We will continue to ask who should be watching the watchers in oversight.

There is clearly more work to be done--Chairman Arlen Specter and Ranking Member Pat Leahy have worked together and are introducing legislation that addresses many of my outstanding concerns. I will be on that bill--we have made meaningful reforms.

I also want to thank Senator Feingold for his continued dogged support for reform of this bill. I want him to know that I stand with him in the battle to gain further reforms.

Also included in this conference report is some good news for port security. Sadly, there is not the funding that we have repeatedly asked for from this administration--but at least new criminal penalties for smuggling goods through ports. There are tools to help crackdown further on money laundering overseas by terrorist organizations.

Finally, I am very pleased that the conference report includes essential and long overdue resources to combat our Nation's surging methamphetamine epidemic.

Meth, as a problem in our communities, will not simply disappear on its own. We must make it a top priority and work to end it together. That's why I had introduced similar legislation to address meth use, manufacture, and sale, and create a law regulating the commercially available products used to make meth, such as pseudoephedrine.

And that's why I am so glad to see the Combat Meth Act included in today's legislation. I was proud to cosponsor this legislation when Senators Talent and Feinstein introduced it, and I am pleased that it will be signed into law, providing comprehensive reforms and critical resources. The legislation enforces strict regulations and keeps records so that meth producers can't get their hands on those key ingredients. When a similar type of law was enacted in Oklahoma, it reduced meth lab busts in the state by 80 percent.

This legislation also provides valuable resources to State and local governments for law enforcement officials investigating and shutting down labs, investigating violent meth-related crimes, educating the public, and caring for children affected by the drug's scourge. The bill also confronts international meth trafficking new reporting and certification procedures.

My State, Washington, is sixth in the country in meth production. In 2004, 1337 meth lab sites were discovered in Washington State. That same year, 220 fatalities were linked to the drug. And we are first in the country, when it comes to the number of children found on raided sites. It is clear this is neither a small problem not an isolated one.

But these aren't just numbers. They are parents and children, individual people with terrible stories of struggle and addiction. Acting here and now, to fight this epidemic, we can provide the resources to and protect our Nation's families and communities.

The events of September 11 have changed our country and its people forever. We were attacked on our own soil. Thousands have died; thousands were injured. Very simply, we must do all that we can to stop terrorism by finding and ending terrorist activities here and abroad. Our challenge is to do this without compromising the values that make Americans so unique. They are the same values that have allowed our Nation to become great: respect for personal autonomy and the rights of the individual; and tolerance of all regardless of race or religion.

They are the values that have always guided our Nation's leaders. It was Benjamin Franklin who said essentially:

Make sure we have our liberties. Make sure we protect the

people from ourselves. Those who would give up their

essential liberties for security deserve neither and get

neither.

We must defend both.

We must maintain and take full advantage of meaningful oversight to ensure power is never abused. While I will

vote for this bill, I will also continue to work to improve this bill. I will continue to be vigilant and urge those working defend and secure our Nation to use these powers wisely and with great deliberation.

Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Bingaman, Harkin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Lieberman, Clinton, Menendez, Akaka, Dodd and Kerry to introduce the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006.

Since Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system 100 years ago, we have cherished these amazing public lands. They have provided both timber for our economy, and quiet solace for our souls. However, only a fraction of the vast natural forests that once covered our nation remain. I believe it is our duty to protect these lands before we have no natural forest legacy to pass on to our children.

Simply put, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2006 represents a balanced and reasoned approach to forest management on untouched public lands. This legislation reasserts safeguards in place in 2001 to protect our nation's the last remaining pristine forest lands, 58.5 million acres, from logging, road-building, and other environmentally damaging development. In Washington State alone there are 2,015,000 acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as Roadless areas under the legislation.

The bill would prohibit new road construction or reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas while maintaining opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain-biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and other forms of outdoor recreation in our National Forests.

The legislation also includes a number of important exemptions to allow new road construction for human health and safety, oil and gas development, and other previously approved economic activities, such as ski trails.

What is more, it allows for hazardous fuels reduction, forest stewardship projects, and targeted economic activities. This legislation also helps address the serious fiscal challenge presented by the more than $8.6 billion dollar maintenance and reconstruction backlog on the 386,000 miles of existing U.S. Forest Service roads.

Of course, this might not sound new. And you'd be right. In many ways, we've travelled these roads before. The Clinton Administration finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001, following three years of official review and public participation, over 600 public meetings--45 public meetings in Washington state alone--and hearings on each National Forest and in each Forest Service region.

During his confirmation hearing I asked Attorney General John Ashcroft if the administration would uphold the Roadless regulation. He pledged that he would. In May 2001, then-USDA Secretary Ann Venemen also pledged that the administration would stand by the Rule.

But that's not what happened. Through a series of subtle yet unmistakable steps the administration has allowed these protections to be undermined steadily. They've rolled over for logging companies and developers. They've cooked up loopholes for State-based petitions or settlements that could weaken or eliminate the protections afforded to these unique lands. And finally, in May of 2005, they dropped the pretense altogether when the U.S.D.A. Forest Service repealed the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, eliminating these vital roadless forest land protections.

The need for action today is more urgent than ever. These are national forest lands that provide unmatched outdoor recreation opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats, and promote clean drinking water for millions of Americans. This bill would not apply or effect state, tribal, county, municipal, or private lands and does not impact existing U.S. Forest Service roads, trails, or activities on those roads and trails.

The 2001 Roadless Rule has received unprecedented public support, including over four million comments submitted to the U.S. Forest Service asking that it not be overturned. Most recently, over 250,000 Americans, including over 100 current and former Olympic athletes, have filed a formal petition under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to reverse the Bush Administration's decision to eliminate the 2001 Rule. This legislation enjoys the support and endorsement of such groups as National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Heritage Forests Campaign, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club.

I've worked to protect these pristine forest lands since the day I came into office, and I'll keep fighting to make sure this bill gets signed into law. We've heard it loud and clear: Americans don't want to see their hunting, fishing, and hiking areas turned into a reckless patchwork of road-building, logging, and mining.

Let's act today and pass the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. The American people and future Americans deserve nothing less.

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

Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Bingaman, Harkin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Lieberman, Clinton, Menendez, Akaka, Dodd and Kerry to introduce the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006.

Since Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system 100 years ago, we have cherished these amazing public lands. They have provided both timber for our economy, and quiet solace for our souls. However, only a fraction of the vast natural forests that once covered our nation remain. I believe it is our duty to protect these lands before we have no natural forest legacy to pass on to our children.

Simply put, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2006 represents a balanced and reasoned approach to forest management on untouched public lands. This legislation reasserts safeguards in place in 2001 to protect our nation's the last remaining pristine forest lands, 58.5 million acres, from logging, road-building, and other environmentally damaging development. In Washington State alone there are 2,015,000 acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as Roadless areas under the legislation.

The bill would prohibit new road construction or reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas while maintaining opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain-biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and other forms of outdoor recreation in our National Forests.

The legislation also includes a number of important exemptions to allow new road construction for human health and safety, oil and gas development, and other previously approved economic activities, such as ski trails.

What is more, it allows for hazardous fuels reduction, forest stewardship projects, and targeted economic activities. This legislation also helps address the serious fiscal challenge presented by the more than $8.6 billion dollar maintenance and reconstruction backlog on the 386,000 miles of existing U.S. Forest Service roads.

Of course, this might not sound new. And you'd be right. In many ways, we've travelled these roads before. The Clinton Administration finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001, following three years of official review and public participation, over 600 public meetings--45 public meetings in Washington state alone--and hearings on each National Forest and in each Forest Service region.

During his confirmation hearing I asked Attorney General John Ashcroft if the administration would uphold the Roadless regulation. He pledged that he would. In May 2001, then-USDA Secretary Ann Venemen also pledged that the administration would stand by the Rule.

But that's not what happened. Through a series of subtle yet unmistakable steps the administration has allowed these protections to be undermined steadily. They've rolled over for logging companies and developers. They've cooked up loopholes for State-based petitions or settlements that could weaken or eliminate the protections afforded to these unique lands. And finally, in May of 2005, they dropped the pretense altogether when the U.S.D.A. Forest Service repealed the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, eliminating these vital roadless forest land protections.

The need for action today is more urgent than ever. These are national forest lands that provide unmatched outdoor recreation opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats, and promote clean drinking water for millions of Americans. This bill would not apply or effect state, tribal, county, municipal, or private lands and does not impact existing U.S. Forest Service roads, trails, or activities on those roads and trails.

The 2001 Roadless Rule has received unprecedented public support, including over four million comments submitted to the U.S. Forest Service asking that it not be overturned. Most recently, over 250,000 Americans, including over 100 current and former Olympic athletes, have filed a formal petition under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to reverse the Bush Administration's decision to eliminate the 2001 Rule. This legislation enjoys the support and endorsement of such groups as National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Heritage Forests Campaign, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club.

I've worked to protect these pristine forest lands since the day I came into office, and I'll keep fighting to make sure this bill gets signed into law. We've heard it loud and clear: Americans don't want to see their hunting, fishing, and hiking areas turned into a reckless patchwork of road-building, logging, and mining.

Let's act today and pass the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. The American people and future Americans deserve nothing less.

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

Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour of postcloture debate to the Democratic leader.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate a great American innovator.

It is a special pleasure to recognize an exceptional company which today has earned the prestigious National Medal of Technology, the highest honor given in our Nation for technological innovation. PACCAR Incorporated is a model of success and a Washington State institution. In 2005, the company celebrated its 100th year in business. You might not recognize the PACCAR name, but perhaps you have heard of some of PACCAR's finest brands: Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks.

PACCAR is one of our Nation's top truck manufacturers and today they are cited for: ``pioneering efforts and industry leadership in the development and commercialization of aerodynamic, lightweight trucks that have dramatically reduced fuel consumption and increased the productivity of U.S. freight transportation.''

This National Medal is a distinct honor bestowed by the President since 1985. It was first mandated by Congress in 1980, established to recognize the significant contributions that America's leading innovators have made to the Nation's economic strength and standard of living. The award is given annually to individuals, teams, and/or companies or divisions whose work has made a lasting impact on our lives through the development and commercialization of groundbreaking technology in our Nation.

Past recipients include leaders in our Nation's cutting-edge science and high-tech communities--companies such as Dow, Dupont, and Corning or individuals such as those who have performed the first human heart transplant and invented the first whole-body CT scanner. The National Medal serves to honor the legacy of innovation that has made our Nation a technological leader for more than two centuries. And it seeks also to inspire the future generations of innovators who will keep our Nation strong for years to come.

This year, PACCAR, a Bellevue, WA company has earned this special recognition. But what, you may ask, do a lot of big rigs have to do with science and innovation?

Well, PACCAR has time and again led the industry in the design and manufacture of fuel efficient and lightweight trucks. They were the first to use a diesel engine in a heavy-duty truck. They were the first to introduce a truly aerodynamic truck design. And they were the first to use lightweight composites and aluminum in truck suspensions on a large scale. It would be difficult to name a single innovation in the recent history of truck design without finding a PACCAR product at its foundation.

These advances have required both significant investment and no small amount of risk. But PACCAR's faith has paid serious dividends to the truck buyer, the consumer, the economy, and the environment. For too long, heavy-duty trucks couldn't improve beyond a weak 10-mile-per- gallon fuel efficiency ceiling. But today, thanks to Peterbilt's and Kenworth's transformation, they have soared above and beyond that mark, significantly altering the economic and environmental forces at play in the market.

PACCAR's example has shown that it makes sense to support and advance fuel efficient technology, not only to protect our precious natural resources and reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign oil but also to help our economy thrive and grow. We would be wise to note PACCAR's model as we develop a comprehensive strategy for thoughtful investment in our energy future.

Day and night in all 50 States, PACCAR's trucks travel our Nation's highways--roads that have no end, constantly curving, folding and merging into one another. In our complex world of commerce and the vast transportation system on which that world relies, change is great and inevitable. PACCAR recognizes this beautiful evolution, embraces it, and seizes the opportunities it creates.

I rise to congratulate PACCAR Incorporated. It has made Washington State proud, it has made our Nation strong. The National Medal of Technology they receive today is well deserved.

Mr. President I rise to discuss the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court to the United States.

After closely and carefully studying his record and recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I have decided to vote against Judge Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court of United States.

Of course, it is vital that any lifetime appointee to the highest court in the Nation possess the breadth of experience and character necessary to review the most significant, complex, and far-reaching legal questions of our time.

But that is not enough. I see disappointing and clear evidence in Judge Alito's long record, rulings, and statements of dangerously skewing the balance and relationship between our branches of Government. I do not expect any nominee to the Supreme Court to predict and promise with certainty how he or she will rule in any and all future cases.

But I do expect nominees to make clear that they would protect the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. Yet I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either. Indeed, I question whether he would show due respect for the authority of Congress or apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive.

Serving as that check has long been one of the Court's most solemn obligations. Today, that role is more important than ever. We have seen evidence of a National Security Agency's eavesdropping program operating in question of a legal framework and without due oversight. We are seeing literally, in wartime, a President reach without probable cause or warrant at the expense of individual rights and the most basic protections of the Constitution. Yet it is a question whether Judge Alito would adequately control that reach.

Judge Alito has a record of concern when it comes to placing and consolidating the rights of the government over the rights of the individual. Consider, for example, how Judge Alito would give virtually unfettered authority to the police to trample on the clear privacy protections given to every American as demonstrated in his 2004 dissent in Doe v. Groody. In this case he would have upheld the strip search of a 10-year-old girl and her mother, despite the fact that they were not suspected of any crime nor named in any search warrant.

When asked at his hearing about this case, and his minority opinion, Judge Alito repeatedly sought to portray it as ``a rather technical issue,'' a question of whether the police affidavit should be incorporated into the warrant itself, and suggested that the police were operating under time pressure.

These claims are inconsistent with the facts, as made clear by Judge Alito's colleague, then-Judge Michael Chertoff, now Secretary of Homeland Security. According to Judge Chertoff, the approach advocated by Alito in Groody ``might indeed transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliche `rubber stamp.''' The American people deserve a Supreme Court Justice who understands how important privacy rights are to all Americans, even the most vulnerable. They deserve more than just a rubber stamp.

History shows that our courts have often stood up to Presidential overreaching during wartime: protecting the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War; forbidding the president from authorizing domestic warrantless wiretaps during the Cold War; and in the War on Terror by an 8-to-1 margin, the Supreme Court held that the President cannot indefinitely detain American citizens without allowing them to challenge their detentions before a neutral decisionmaker, another power this administration had claimed.

Worse still, in areas where precedent is sparse or dated--such as the war on terror and the executive's power to carry it out--Judge Alito's record and testimony suggests that he is far more likely to defer to the ideological ambitions of our President than the protection and rights of our citizens.

To be sure, there is nothing wrong with an aggressive executive, especially at times of great peril. An aggressive executive, however, also requires a strong and functional Congress, the responsive voice of the people. I have questions, however, if Judge Alito's rulings will narrowly define the law and therefore threaten the authority and ability of Congress to govern effectively and affirmatively.

Writing in Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development, Judge Alito wrote that parts of the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which allow employees to leave when they or family members are seriously ill, were not applicable against the States. When passing the legislation Congress had identified the importance of both men and women in caring for young children and family members with serious health conditions.

Congress also pointed to the burden that family caretaking imposes on women. But Judge Alito denied those findings. He saw no ``existence, much less the prevalence, in public employment of personal sick leave practices that amounted to intentional gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.''

This view essentially deflated Congress's ability to defend civil rights. He wrote: ``Even if there were relevant findings or evidence, the FMLA provisions at issue here would not be congruent or proportional. Unlike the Equal Protection Clause, which the FMLA is said to enforce, the FMLA does much more than require nondiscriminatory sick leave practices; it creates a substantive entitlement to leave. This is `disproportionate to any unconstitutional conduct that conceivably could be targeted by the Act.'''

The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's position on the FMLA.

Ultimately, the Commerce clause is about understanding Congress's power to protect our families and its ability to respond to threats that immediately affect those families. In February, for example, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the scope of the commerce clause in two critical cases that could restrict the geographic jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to one percent of its current coverage.

In my State, we know how fragile our precious natural resources can be. The Pacific Northwest is blessed with incredible beauty. But habitat loss and other pressures threaten some of my State's most iconic species, salmon that spawn our great rivers and birds that depend on old growth forests.

We also know that how we treat those resources and that wildlife speaks to our priorities as a people and a nation. How do we value our communities and ensure their safety? How do

we honor an individual's freedom and his or her rights?

While I do not expect any judicial nominee to prejudge future cases, I do expect all nominees to make their positions clear on protecting the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. In the end, I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that Judge Alito has a record of concern when it comes to placing and consolidating the rights of the government over the rights of the individual, and he has not provided the answers to adequately reassure the people of our Nation. I must conclude that he would neither show due respect for the authority of Congress nor apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive. With great respect for the institution, I cannot vote to confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, I was saddened today to learn of the death of Coretta Scott King. Her work and life gave one man great strength and inspired a nation. In a lifetime, suffering and pain can envelop communities and span generations; it can also touch us intimately and immediately. When her husband was assassinated in April of 1968, Mrs. King suffered a world of loss in one moment. She persevered with passion and devotion, honoring the movement her husband made so strong. She taught the world that carrying on a great legacy requires more than simply remembering the words of the dead, but requires imbuing those words with action, life, leadership, and vision. Mrs. King has left our Nation a vital legacy of her own.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is the agreement to have the time evenly divided between both sides and no specific request for how the sequencing of time is allocated under the order?

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. I see the Senator from New Mexico seeks recognition.

Did I understand--

I think I understand that the Senator from Alaska asked for additional time.

I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 3 minutes.

I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, if I could be notified when I have used 5 minutes.

I rise today to ask my colleagues to reject this cynical ploy that has brought us to this point today. Just a few days before the holidays, we are presented with this Defense bill that has become a Christmas tree. It is a Christmas tree decorated with giveaways and back-door exemptions, and special rules for the oil industry.

We have been debating the topic of ANWR for 25 years. No one should condone such a blatant maneuver as taking the bill that provides funding for our men and women in uniform, and stuffing into it a provision that was in neither the House nor Senate bills; a provision that gives away to the oil industry the ability to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; a provision that hasn't gone through the normal rules and processes that any other business in the Senate would have to go through.

This Senator strongly objects to these provisions for Arctic drilling on the merits of the issue. I welcome a debate on the merits of the issue. But regardless of those issues, my colleagues should understand that every Member of this institution should object to the way this provision has been added to this legislation. These measures were slipped into the Defense spending bill, and they are a violation of the Senate rules. What is more, these provisions were changed after the bill was voted out of conference. After my colleagues had signed the conference report, the language related to ANWR was changed. So not only was it not in the House or Senate conference bills, it was changed after members had signed their names to the conference report.

Madam President, this is a frontal assault, as my colleague, the Senator from West Virginia said, on the institution, on the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to consider, what is next? If we are to allow legislation like this to move forward, what do we have to look forward to in the future? Will we be drilling off the coast of Florida? Will we be drilling in the Great Lakes? Will we be drilling anywhere, just because it can be put in a defense measure?

I ask my colleagues to make sure that we send a message that is loud and clear, that we are not for breaking Senate rules.

Over the last week or so there have been more than 20 different editorials from papers across the country, from New Hampshire to Oregon, from Minnesota to Florida and elsewhere around the country, talking about these issues and why we should not be in this situation.

From the Oregon newspaper--basically it said this is a shortsighted plan, and it is ``disgusting that lawmakers would try to equate oil profits with our Nation's true defense needs.''

Another newspaper in New York said it was an eleventh hour ploy in Congress by Republican leadership, lowering the bar and slapping Alaskan oil drilling onto a must-pass bill to pay for the Iraq war.

Another criticism from the Oregonian:

A vote for the Arctic is not a vote against our Nation's

military.

We are not going to be blackmailed into passing this legislation, just because someone at the eleventh hour sticks this language in.

I saw in a news commentary, the Scarborough Report--this from somebody who supports drilling in Alaska--who basically said that this provision is a ``politically toxic rider to funding our troops in Badhdad, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and across the world. It is unforgivable,'' this tactic.

And the military, retired leaders sent a letter saying:

. . . any effort to attach this controversial legislative

language authorizing drilling to the Defense appropriations

conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to

provide our troops and their families with the resources they

need in a timely fashion.

We did not have to get to this point. We did not have to get to this point today, where Members are being forced to vote on drilling in the Arctic just because we have to pass a Defense appropriations bill.

I ask my colleagues to consider this. I do believe in a different view than this legislation when it comes to energy independence. I do believe that being dependent on foreign oil at more than 50 percent today is too much. There is no way we are going to drill our way to energy independence in the United States. God only gave the United States 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, so we should move off of that and on to other supply.

Today we are here as Senators to say whether we are going to allow the Senate rules to be broken; whether we are going to try to pass some language that never appeared in any Senate bill, but mysteriously appeared in this conference report at the eleventh hour.

I do not think we should give a green light to oil companies in this fashion, giving them the ability to circumvent seven Federal laws and countless regulations, regulations with which every other business in America has to comply.

I thank the Chair. I will consume another minute.

I hope the Senate will turn down this language, that we will make sure we do not give an exemption to oil companies from all these laws, and that we certainly do not do so on the backs of our military men and women.

I yield the floor and yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, who has been hard working on this subject.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the disturbing reports of political chaos in Ethiopia. With allegations of vote tampering and emerging pictures of large-scale human rights abuses taking place in Ethiopia, that the administration must impress upon Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and other global neighbors, that severe consequences follow actions which undermine democratic ideals.

Ethiopia held its first ever democratic elections on May 15, 2005. Revelations since then of violence and mass detention of Ethiopian citizens by the Me1es government are not only alarming and disconcerting to me and the American people who have supported the country in its effort to advance the cause of democracy. It is regretful to have to witness a regress in democratization.

Roughly 90 percent of Ethiopia's populace turned out for the democratic election. Rather than a sentiment of accomplishment or progress, the mood of the country remains nihilistically somber. According to international human rights observers, increased repression of the Ethiopian people is connected to the seeming loss of power from the ruling Meles government to the opposing party, the Coalition for Unity & Democracy, CUD--has shown by early vote counts during the election. With the Meles government accused of voting irregularities, it is not surprising that the people of Ethiopia protested the unofficial election results.

Recent reports of human rights abuses in Ethiopia range from arrest and intimidation by government authorities and illegal arrests of innocent people, including ranking members of the CUD party and media representatives, to the loss of life. For example, some 14,000 people were detained when riots ensued following the election. Among other journalists, Getachew Simie, former editor of the Amharic-language weekly, and Leykun Dngeda, former publisher of the Dagim WonchifWeekly, have been given jail sentences for covering the anti-government protests. Even Prime Minister Meles reported that 48 people were killed last month in relation to the unrest caused by the alleged fraud in the May polls.

Prime Minister Meles must fulfill his good faith commitment to human rights. With any successful transition to democracy, civil society requires the firm accountability of its government authorities. Until the Meles government brings an end to the intimidation of its people, political unrest will remain high and America's support for the democratization of Ethiopia will be muted by concern for the country's political instability.

I am happy to.

Mr. President, many of my colleagues have been on the floor talking about the importance of the votes tomorrow, and I want to remind my colleagues that I do think that these votes are important for the Senate process. I am very disturbed, as are many of my colleagues, that we have moved forward with the Department of Defense appropriations bill that includes language to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as a provision allowing drug manufacturers to be protected from liability from lawsuits for vaccines that they make.

I think most of my colleagues thought we were going to vote on a Department of Defense appropriations bill tomorrow that was going to help our troops and give military pay raises and help provide security for our Nation. The last thing I think many Americans think is a nexus to that is drilling in the Arctic Refuge, particularly when many Americans believe we don't have enough energy independence and need to get over our over dependence on fossil fuels.

I hope my colleagues understand how important this issue is. We have been contacted by military leaders, retired military leaders who have said:

. . . any effort to attach controversial legislative language

authorizing drilling in ANWR to the defense appropriations

conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to

provide our troops and their families the resources they

need. . . .

This coming from retired military personnel who thought it was so important they actually sent a letter saying they were concerned that this legislation would hold up funding for our troops. That letter has previously been printed in its entirety in the Record.

We have also been contacted by the Retired Military Officers Association. These are individuals, too, who want to see legislation go through because they want to make sure the men and women in the military receive their increase in pay and take care of the troops overseas and get all the enforcements they need in a Defense bill. But they also wrote to us saying:

We are concerned that the insertion of any divisive, non-

defense related issues at the last minute could further delay

the enactment of this crucial legislation.

So military leaders from around our country are saying they do not like the antics of putting ANWR drilling, a very divisive issue that has been debated for 25 years, into a Defense appropriations bill. This is coming from the military men and women who want to see a clean defense appropriations bill.

I should say to my colleagues that there are other people watching this issue as well. We have newspapers across the country that are also calling out for Congress to be more responsible on this legislation. They are hearing the complaint, as I am, from many parts of the country about this legislation and the way it has been put together.

The Statesman Journal in Salem, OR, states that some U.S. lawmakers are still trying to scheme and allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I heard my colleague talk about the vote tomorrow and the process. I just wish to emphasize that while there will be points of order as it relates to the budget and the budget process allowing for a budget point of order and the rules of the budget as it relates to this bill, the Defense appropriations bill, there is language in here that I believe is outside the scope of this legislation and should not be allowed.

I hope my colleagues understand that is one of the possible votes tomorrow--on whether this language on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as my colleague from Michigan said, has no inclusion, neither in the House nor Senate original proposal, has no place showing up in a conference report in the eleventh hour. That is why we are hearing from people all over the country about how absurd it is to include this in the legislation.

I hope, if my colleagues are forced to have a vote on upholding the ruling of the Chair, that they will realize they are really overturning the Senate rules if you disagree with the ruling of the Chair on this issue. This is not the same as the budget process. It is part of our Senate rules. The Senate rules, as the Senator from Michigan read, are very clear. You can't include things in a conference report that were in neither House nor Senate version. But that is exactly what the Senator from Alaska has tried to do.

Alaska will likely get, from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, $5 billion in bid bonuses. I actually think that this proposal, even for an Alaskan, is shortsighted.

America needs to be diversifying into alternative fuels like biofuels, and be focusing on lightweight materials that help us be efficient.

I think that is why this newspaper in Oregon calls this plan shortsighted, that it is disgusting that lawmakers would try to equate oil profits with the Nation's true defense needs. That is what newspapers across the country are saying about this legislation. I believe they are right because we are doing a great disservice to the men and women in the military by continuing to talk about this issue without being specific to the fact that we are adding something that should never have been put in this legislation.

Another Oregon newspaper, the Oregonian also said that Arctic drilling has been thrown into the Defense bill, and it is an emotionally charged matter of supporting the troops at a time of war, and it does not belong there.

This is from another newspaper: It doesn't belong there.

Americans are watching and paying attention to the fact that this legislation was thrown in at the eleventh hour. I believe we should pull it out and get on about our business of passing a Defense appropriations bill.

Let me mention another issue that I am sorry is in this legislation.

I have for the Record several editorials that I would also like to submit for the Record on this issue of immunity for drug and vaccine manufacturers. There are several here that deserve being a part of the Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

For example, the Register-Guard--I don't know why Oregon is paying so much attention to what is happening, but they are on top of things--says in an editorial, ``Unjustifiable protection against lawsuits,'' making sure to protect the drug companies is an immunity deal for vaccine makers that has been slipped into the Defense bill.

They think it is unjustifiable.

Another paper, the Vindicator, a Youngstown, OH, newspaper with the headline: ``Trading on fear by passing legislation is wrong.''

It says that when legislators begin attaching complex legislation with far-reaching effects to must-pass bills, a tactic designed to grease the way for passage with virtually no debate, people should be alarmed.

I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.

The Toledo Blade editorial said:

Congress and President Bush have acted sluggishly in

protecting the nation from public health emergencies, but

they can move at lightning speed when it comes to helping

their friends in the pharmaceutical industry.

I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

The St. Louis-Dispatch, ``Vaccines: Shot in the dark.''

Nor is there any reason to provide extraordinary liability

protection for drug companies making bird flu vaccine.

It may be attached to a defense appropriations bill . . .

that would be a big mistake.

I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

The Times-Tribune of Scranton, PA, said:

. . . the prospect of a pandemic is being used by Congress

to pander to the pharmaceutical industry.

And:

Congress should not use legitimate concerns about a flu

epidemic as a wedge to protect the manufacturers from

liability.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Several other articles that I will go through include the Roanoke Times, that this legislation is in pursuit of secrecy around this issue.

The Orlando Sentinel: Drug firms don't deserve virtually unlimited protection against vaccines lawsuits that would shield manufacturers.

The Raleigh, NC newspaper: Wrong way immunity.

One more, the Las Vegas Sun, titled ``Vaccines and accountability: Bush's proposal to shield avian-flu vaccine makers from liability invites health problems.''

I ask unanimous consent to have those printed in the Record.

We can see from the editorials there are many people paying attention to what is in this Department of Defense appropriations bill. I should say, because my colleagues all have a copy of the legislation on their desk but they may not have dug deep into these many pages to see, that they should pay special attention to language starting on page 434 about a liability provision exempting drug manufacturers.

It was alarming enough to me to have the ANWR language, but certainly to have additional language that is thrown into this bill as these various editorials have said, at a time without the review and the complexity of the legislation being discussed is wrong.

I hope my colleagues tomorrow will think about their votes on this process and to say that the Defense bill and appropriations should be about the

troops. It should be about protecting our country. It is about giving them resources. It should not be about backdoor attempts or legislative blackmail to say force Members to vote for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or this drug liability provision.

I hope my colleagues will read this legislation carefully.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to raise my concerns about this process and the unbelievable avenues through which this legislation is coming before us, just to try to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.

As my colleagues have just been discussing on the floor, these are priorities, for Congress to pass the DOD appropriations bill and the DOD authorization bill. As this Senator sees it, we could wrap up this business today and go home. But because a provision in this legislation coming over from the House opens up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, you bet there are Members on this side of the aisle-- Members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate--who have great concerns over this measure.

As one Senator who would like to wrap up the year today and go home and spend time with my family, I know there are the prospects of us staying here to fight for something we believe in. It is very clear that we could go home today if the Senator from Alaska would agree to take this language out of the bill. So, in fact, this process is being held up over the fact that he has inserted a controversial measure into this legislation. It is such a controversial measure that House Democrats and Republicans refused to vote on a budget bill while it still remained in the legislation. That gives you some idea of how controversial it is. In fact, they took it out of the budget bill because they could not get the budget bill passed with it in there.

Now my colleague wants to say that somehow he is not holding up the process when it is very clear that he is holding up the process. We could all go home today instead of arguing over something that has been argued over for 25 years. There is a reason we have been arguing over it for 25 years, and that is because there has been great division over this issue.

The notion that this is about national security is unbelievable to me. To me, what national security is really about is passing a clean DOD appropriations bill that gives resources to our troops. In fact, we should give the military in Iraq the ability to do a better job protecting the security and infrastructure of the pipeline there. We lose 800,000 barrels a day of oil in Iraq that could be part of helping the Iraqi government get on its feet and the rest of the world energy markets stabilize. But this ANWR measure is holding up a DOD bill instead of giving the military all the resources they need. We are not talking about an oil supply 10 years from now; we are talking about something we should be doing today in terms of securing existing infrastructure. We should strip this ANWR language out and pass this bill.

I understand the Senator from Alaska thinks this ANWR provision is in the interest of some, because I think it is in Alaska's interest. In 2005, petroleum counted for 86 percent of the State of Alaska's general revenues--86 percent of their State revenues. In fact, according to a published article, State officials expect that at least until 2013, 74 percent of Alaska's general purpose revenues will come from oil revenues. So I get why the State of Alaska cares so much. In fact, CBO recently calculated that Alaska will get $5 billion in revenue from this legislation if it is passed. Of course Alaska cares about this. Of course Alaska would hold up the legislative process and keep us here extra days to get this bill passed and get ANWR in by hook or crook, any possible way. Of course they would.

But don't say that this is in the national interest. What is in the national interest of our country is to get over our overdependence on foreign oil. We need to start doing that now, as well as get off of our overdependence on domestic oil and fossil fuels in general. Instead of implementing this Arctic drilling program, we ought to be implementing policies that help us diversify and move forward, so people can have affordable energy rates in this country and not be held hostage by these special interests.

It is another thing to say, somehow, this legislation has arrived here through a clean process. The fact is you would basically have to overrule the Parliamentarian--which is our judge here. It is basically like going to a Federal court, having a judge rule on something, then when the judge rules on it voting to overturn them, and then a few minutes later reinstating the rule. If that isn't a quick fix around the legislative process here, I don't know what is. But this whole ANWR measure, trying to get it on any piece of legislation that is moving, has been exactly that--every attempt to make the process go without adhering to the rules.

The fact is this legislation comes to us and basically takes away about seven different laws that would otherwise apply to drilling in the Arctic. It really is--it is a free ride, a back door that circumvents seven different Federal laws and countless regulations that have been on the books for years. So this is not just passing ANWR; this is basically giving the oil companies a sweetheart deal around Federal laws and regulations that no other company has ever gotten. I guarantee, Scoop Jackson would roll over in his grave.

There is no way Scoop Jackson would support drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge when you are overturning a law, the National Environmental Policy Act, that he wrote. So you can mention Scoop Jackson's name a thousand times, there is no way he would support this process.

Did you ever ask yourself why he didn't just authorize it to begin with? I think he knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted further review, and he certainly wanted environmental laws to apply. But, no, this legislation basically overrides the environmental statutes. It creates ill-defined environmental standards. It has a waiver for the lease and sale of land and cuts off the Secretary's ability to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and it allows the Secretary to lease an unlimited amounts of coastal plain. It takes a weak reclamation standard and basically hamstrings the Federal agencies that are supposed to do their job when it comes to protecting federal lands.

Maybe it is no surprise that, after trying to stick this on the budget bill, having both Democrats and Republicans in the House defeat it, now there is an effort to try to stick it on the DOD appropriations bill.

In this Senator's opinion, this is nothing more than legislative blackmail, to try to get colleagues to vote for something because it is a must-pass bill. That's because, in fact, the proponents of this measure know that there is great opposition to this process and to drilling in the Arctic. I know the Senator from Alaska said in the Fairbanks paper that he was not going to hold up the process. But newspapers across the country know exactly what is going on. In fact, the Oregonian just said a few days ago:

Arctic drilling has been thrown in with the defense bill

and the emotionally charged matter of supporting American

troops at a time of war. It does not belong there, something

that ought to be obvious to all but the most cynical members

of Congress.

All but the most cynical Members of Congress should see that this is obvious.

We actually had a letter from military leaders, military leaders in our country, raising the same concern:

. . . any effort to attach controversial legislative language

authorizing drilling to the Defense appropriations conference

report will jeopardize Congress' ability to provide our

troops and their families the resources they need in a timely

fashion.

That is coming from General Zinni and many others who wrote to us saying, don't do this. This is crazy. We want to get about the process of getting a DOD bill passed.

The New Hampshire newspaper said:

He has threatened to attach the provision to the Hurricane

Katrina relief bill or to

the defense appropriations bill, a cynical

ploy. . . .

Trying to attach this, basically, should be rejected. Both approaches should be rejected.

Even my newspaper in Seattle called this, ``dubious congressional standards of fair play,'' because they know that this situation is one in which any legislative rule will be thrown out, just to pass drilling in ANWR.

We know that this issue is not without controversy. We know the oil spills of the past are raising great concerns for people. If they have raised so many great concerns for us, why would we give a blanket pass to drilling in ANWR and overthrow those Federal rules and regulations that apply everywhere else? Why should we go to the extent of trying to attach it to a bill that has to pass, knowing that you are going to ask Members to overrule the Parliamentarian and then, after you basically have tried to overrule him, then go back and say the Parliamentarian was right?

How far are we willing to go? How many rules are we willing to break in this process just to get a small amount of oil 10 years from now?

What the American people want is for us to do our job and send money to the troops and get them home. They do not want to sit and watch us stay here for 3 or 4 more days to continue to complain about this process. What they want us to do is pass legislation that gives the troops the support they need. Let us give the troops the money they need to make sure that 800,000 barrels a day are protected right now. Let's do a better job of making sure we're making the right infrastructure investments, which will help everybody. Let's make sure that gets done.

But this Senator still remains in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because you can't tell me that 5,504 spills on an annual basis in the North Slope since 1996 is a good track record. You just can't tell me that all those oil spills in the Prudhoe Bay area and near the Trans-Alaska Pipeline constitute a good enough track record to now say you can open up drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge and have no impact. Last year, those spills totaled more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substance, mostly crude oil and diesel.

We know where this is heading. We know where it is heading with no great result for the United States. We are not going to see any oil for a long time. It is a time in which the United States should be making an investment in diversifying off of our dependence on oil instead, and supporting our troops.

This Senator plans to talk a long time about this issue. This Senator knows that we could be going home today, having finished our work, having a session that is ended, having Members back at home talking to their constituents and having the troops realize that we didn't play politics with their legislation.

I hope we will get about doing business here today and closing this legislative session. That's what we should be doing instead of figuring out what three or four other rules in the process need to be broken just to try to pass ill-conceived legislation that we have been battling over for 25 years. Let us not hold the troops' money hostage. Let's pass this legislation in a clean fashion and get home to our families.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, my amendment is based on S. 1735 which has been sponsored by about 29 of my colleagues. I certainly appreciate the fact that this amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Bayh, Schumer, Boxer, Carper, and Lieberman. I thank my colleagues for paying attention to what I believe is a very important issue for us to address before we adjourn; that is, the issue of price gouging and the fact that the Senate should say loud and clear that we think price gouging should be a Federal crime. That is exactly what my amendment does. It creates a new Federal statute to make sure that consumers are protected from price gouging.

How did we arrive at this point? While my colleagues, I am sure, would like to adjourn and continue to think about the complications and challenges, the American economy is being hurt by the high price of gasoline, as we saw this summer prior to Katrina. Certainly, we are anxious about the winter months and home heating oil and the costs that consumers are going to pay when they get their bills in the next couple of months.

It is important to note that Americans will spend over $200 billion more on energy this year than they did last year. That is hundreds of billions of dollars coming directly out of family budgets and the bottom lines of businesses across the country. The airline industry is expected to spend $30 billion more on fuel alone this year, which is twice what they spent in 2003. In fact, if you look at what the airline industry is expected to lose this year, it is about $9.5 billion. If you look at the increase in the expense of fuel costs for the airline industry, it is $9.2 billion.

For the airline industry, there is a high correlation between their actual loss and the amount they are paying in higher fuel costs. For the trucking industry, where diesel fuel accounts for almost a quarter of their operating expenses, each penny increase in diesel fuel costs the trucking industry $350 million a year. And what about our farmers who are obviously on low profit margins--about 5 percent--and their challenge? Well, they have had a combination of record diesel fuel costs and price increases of fertilizer of more than 20 percent. So it makes it very challenging for the American farmer to be competitive in this kind of environment.

What about the Air Force? I know the Presiding Officer is interested in the Air Force. The Air Force energy budget is expected to increase 50 percent this year, costing taxpayers another $400 million. Even the Postal Service is paying higher fuel prices, expecting to add another $300 million to the Postal Service transportation costs.

And what about the taxpayers? Well, they pay every week at the pump for higher fuel costs and they want us to protect them. But I don't know if they know that the taxpayers are even paying more for the President's travel. According to reports, the per-hour fuel cost for the travel of Air Force One has increased from $3,974 to now $6,029.

The cost of energy integrated into our economy is costing us all more money and at a time when we are seeing oil companies reach record profits and billions are being sent to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela. I guarantee you do not have our interests at heart.

I am offering an amendment today to say that price gouging is a Federal crime and we should pass this before we adjourn.

Why is it so important to pass new Federal legislation? First, there are 28 States in America, the District of Columbia included, Gulf States such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas, that currently have price-gouging statutes on the books. These States have taken legal action to try to make sure that gas distributors or service stations or oil companies are investigated when allegations of price gouging have occurred, and certainly when you have a state of emergency as we have had after hurricanes. So these State statutes are the very statutes we are saying ought to be in Federal law.

As to examples of how these have been prosecuted at the State level, retailers have been charged with unconscionable pricing attributed to an increase in unreasonable wholesale gasoline prices or because gasoline, oil, or fuel commodities in general are raised to what is an unconscionable price. We based this on what is a New York statute that has been upheld in court. I think it is very important to note that the Federal court system has taken this term of unconscionable pricing and has Federal case law related to it.

Why did we get to this point? We got to this point primarily because current Federal law and the focus of the FTC has been whether there has been collusive pricing activities by these oil companies, collusive meaning whether they got together and fixed the price.

That Federal statute gives very little room to investigate and examine what I believe are key issues about supply and demand. We hear a lot from the oil industry that this is about simple economics and supply and demand.

I guarantee you we ought to be demanding more information about the possible manipulation of supply and why supply was exported out of the United States at a time when it was so needed for American consumers.

We need to pass a Federal price-gouging law to make sure that the current law on the books does not leave us emptyhanded when coming to pursue this issue and to make our point in protecting the American consumers.

This last week we heard from attorneys general at a joint hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Energy Committee talking about this issue. One attorney general from New Jersey, Peter Harvey, who has utilized his own statute on antiprice gouging, told us:

We need a Federal price gouging statute that applies

nationwide to the sale of essential goods and services.

I am also pleased that the attorney general from New York--as I said, we have based this statute on New York law--has also championed this legislation in a letter of support that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Attorney General Spitzer says:

Accordingly, there are levels in the chain of distribution

where Federal assistance would be both helpful and

appropriate . . .

Currently, the FTC can act against such companies if they

unlawfully agree to fix price, but cannot act if unfair

practices occur simultaneously but without collusion.

I think the Attorney General of New York has it right as to why we need this Federal statute.

We also want to make sure we are recognizing in the next several months what further damage is going to happen to the economy if we do not act, that is, if we leave here without getting a good Federal statute on the books.

For example, in my home State a farmer from Lamont, WA, wrote to tell me that his fertilizer prices have gone up 75 percent since May and 100 percent since last year, and fuel costs have gone from $2 to $3.15. Another eastern Washington farmer told me he is paying more for a gallon of fuel than he received for a bushel of grain. So these farmers are looking at this issue, and as Senator Roberts said the other day, the agricultural industry is facing something like a category 5 fuel and fertilizer hurricane. We can't leave these farmers emptyhanded this winter as we go away, without enacting a good, strong Federal statute.

Home heating oil is another issue in which consumers are going to feel an impact. For an American family, it is believed that they will pay an average of $306 or 41 percent more this winter than they did last winter. So we certainly want to implement the Federal statute to protect them during these winter months. I can tell you people are worried in my State. Unfortunately, our local jurisdictions are doing their best, but I think it shows what kind of anxiety Americans have about being able to keep warm this winter.

In my State, in Whatcom County, after the Whatcom County Opportunity Council advertised last week they would take up the low-income energy assistance applications but would only take 200 walk-ins or the first 400 phone-ins, they had over 200 people line up outside their doors, some people standing outside all night long, just to receive assistance from this program, and the local phone service, Verizon, called to say that the unusual volume of incoming calls trying to get energy assistance basically crashed the system for the entire area. I can tell you consumers are anxious about these high fuel costs.

We are dealing in the Senate with airline bankruptcies and pensions. I can tell you the airline industry has been hardest hit by the increase in fuel costs. As Southwest Airline CEO Steve Kelly told the Seattle Times recently:

We are now facing energy prices that no airlines can make

money at, at least with today's [ticket prices].

I want to make sure we do not have other pensions that are defaulted on, other people losing their jobs or their life savings because we have not enacted tough legislation saying that price gouging is a Federal crime.

The amendment I am offering today does a couple of things. First, it creates a ban on price gouging during a national emergency declared by the President of the United States. As I said earlier, the antiprice gouging standard is based on the successfully tested New York State statute.

Second, it gives the FTC and AGs and, because it creates criminal penalties, the Department of Justice the authority to levy civil and criminal penalties for proven price gouging of up to $3 million and 5 years in jail. Additionally it puts in place a new ban on market manipulation and falsifying information to the Federal Government about fuel prices, which is based on a provision of the Energy bill we passed here this year related to electricity and natural gas, trying to stop the market manipulation that happened in response to Enron and the market manipulation in the western energy crisis.

In addition, the bill gives additional remedies available to the FTC to levy fines up to $1 million for violation of market manipulation and false information.

I am very satisfied that this bill has the teeth in it that we need in a strong Federal statute to over the next several months give the Federal Government, attorneys general, and others the ability to prosecute market manipulation of energy prices.

Why do I think this is so important? My colleagues have been on the floor talking about the questions that were asked to oil company executives this week, the questions about whether they cared about tax incentives or tax breaks, whether they participated in energy meetings. My questions were more about the supply of fuel here in the United States and whether we have a greater understanding about the protection and possible manipulation of that fuel supply.

Now for my colleagues in the West who have been out on the floor, we have reeled from an energy crisis on electricity, and my colleagues, Senators Wyden from Oregon and Feinstein from California, all had economies that were very hurt by the manipulation of the electricity market. In fact, there are some cases in Federal courts now talking about the manipulation of natural gas prices. So I guarantee you with five refineries in the State of Washington, we are doing our part at refining fuel, but we still have some of the highest gas prices in the Nation and had those prior to Katrina, so my constituents want to know what are we going to do to make sure the prices are not manipulated.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from attorneys general across the country who are also supporting my legislation.

I am also submitting this letter for the Record because I think the attorneys general who are chief law enforcement officers across the country for their individual States said it well. If there is no market manipulation going on, then no harm, no foul. It does not mean this is an automatic incrimination; it simply means we have a good Federal statute in place. I certainly appreciate the support of those attorneys general who have signed this letter in support of this legislation.

What we found in our hearings--and the attorney general of Arizona brought this up--is over the last several years the oil industry has moved to a new inventory prop called ``just-in-time inventory.'' Just- in-time inventory is a great idea for the oil industry because it actually saves them dollars because they don't have the same amount of inventory they used to. It used to be that oil companies had a 20 to 30-day supply inventory. Now they only have about 3 to 5 days of supply. You can imagine if you only have 3 to 5 days of supply versus 30 days of supply, the price is going to be different.

Here is what Attorney General Terry Goddard said:

Just in time delivery almost leaves no cushion when

supplies are delayed.

He testified that:

The entire oil industry has moved to this just in time

delivery system vastly reducing the number of refineries

available on a nationwide basis and minimizing inventories at

stage site. The effect is a constant and precarious supply-

demand balance which is exceedingly beneficial to the

industry in lowering operating costs but harmful to consumers

so that supply is set at a fragile stage where price spikes

can occur.

I applaud the attorney general from Arizona for pointing out how important this inventory issue is and how it ought to be investigated. The Energy Department itself had a similar analysis. It found in a 2003 study:

The reduction of spare capacity has helped drive up the

price at the pump and leaves the market vulnerable to

shortages caused by plant breakdown or other unpredictable

events.

So even the Department of Energy knows the supply issue is what can drive price spikes. But what we want to know is whether oil companies are purposely exporting product. I asked a question at the hearing I thought was very important; that is, have oil companies ever exported oil products to foreign countries for a cheaper profit than they would have gotten if they would have kept the supply in the United States?

The reason I asked this question is because I wanted to know if they were artificially trying to limit supply in the United States just to drive up the price. One would think that is not something they would do. They, obviously, want to sell in the United States. There is one case in the West that we have been very sensitive to, according to the Oregonian newspaper that has reviewed what had been secret reports and documents basically found that BP/Amoco systematically jacked up west coast oil prices by exporting Alaskan crude oil to Asia for less than it could have sold it to U.S. refineries. So there is a specific example where an oil company exported product for cheaper profits just to have less supply in the United States to drive up the overall market. That, I think, is exactly what my amendment is trying to get at.

According to the Department of Energy, between January and August of this year, over 48 million barrels of refined product was exported out of the United States. As my friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, points out, that is 24 times the amount that is stored in the Northeast heating oil reserve, a critical safety net in times of shortage.

One can imagine that my colleagues want answers to why they would export

48 million barrels of refined product at a time when, if you would have kept it in a heating oil reserve for the Midwest, it might actually keep prices down in the Midwest this winter.

As I said, I have already had enough of this as it relates to Enron. In 2001 I sat in a lot of hearings in the Energy Committee and heard from a lot of different people testifying that the electricity market had nothing to do with manipulation. It was all about the fact that some environmental laws prevented us from building enough supply.

After 3\1/2\ years of investigation, we found out there was a lot of manipulation going on that terms such as Fat Boy, Get Shorty, and Ricochet were schemes perpetrated on the consumers of the western energy market just to manipulate supply. So you can bet we want to know whether supply is being manipulated in a similar fashion in oil markets today, and we want answers.

The only way to get answers is to put a new Federal statute on the books that says price gouging is a Federal crime and to give the Federal agencies the tools to prosecute that crime.

I feel very strongly that this body needs to act on this legislation before we adjourn. We need to get this to the President's desk and get it signed.

I know my colleagues are going to offer amendments about various tax proposals and tax incentives, whether the oil industry wants those or doesn't. But I care about what is happening to the consumer, to the American farmer who is really getting squeezed out of his family farm, to those flight attendants and pilots who are losing their pensions because we have seen a 293-percent increase in jet fuel costs over 5 years, and to the small businesses in my State that can't exist on low profit margins when they see a 50-percent increase in home heating and fuel costs. So I want to protect consumers, not just now, but if this crisis happens again in the future, I want consumers to be protected.

I hope we can pass this legislation in a good bipartisan effort, that my colleagues will support every effort right now to protect consumers as we head toward the winter months, and we act responsibly in giving Federal regulators the statutes they need to prosecute these crimes.

Mr. President, I also would like to add Senators Clinton and Salazar as cosponsors of the amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

My amendment makes price gouging a Federal crime. It does two things. It implements what is in 28 different States the law to make sure consumers are protected from price gouging, and it gives the FTC, the Department of Justice, and State attorneys general the ability to look at market manipulation as a Federal crime when energy markets are manipulated. I urge my colleagues to support, at a time when we are going home to high heating oil prices, something that will protect consumers by giving new tools to the Federal statute.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of a Senate resolution commemorating the bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's remarkable arrival on the Pacific Coast. I am pleased that Senators Murray and Wyden are original cosponsors of the resolution.

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark's epic journey explored and charted the western frontier of our fledgling Nation.

This journey was America's great odyssey. It marked our Nation's coming of age and represents its core values: courage, innovation, perseverance, and opportunity.

And two centuries ago, they reached their destination. On Nov. 7 1805, William Clark wrote in this in his journal:

Great joy in camp, we are in View of the Ocean, this great

Pacific Ocean which we been so long anxious to See and the

roaring or noise made by the waves breaking on the rocky

Shores may be heard distinctly.

It's no wonder he was so excited. Their expedition began a year and half earlier and 4,000 meandering miles east.

President Thomas Jefferson had charged them with finding the most direct, practical water route across the continent.

When Clark wrote that they had seen the Pacific on that day, 200 years ago, he was slightly off target. They were actually 25 miles away, in the Columbia's widening estuary.

Dangerous storms, wind, rain, and waves battered them without relent. They were trapped for 6 days and forced to hunker down at the spot we now call Clark's Dismal Nitch.

When the weather finally cleared, they moved west to Station Camp. They set down for ten days and got their first real glimpse of the Pacific.

Expedition-member Sgt. Patrick Gass wrote: ``We could see the waves, like small mountains, rolling out in the ocean.''

Station Camp also marks the spot where Lewis and Clark held a historic democratic vote among all of the group's members--including Sacagawea and the African American slave, York--to determine where the expedition should stay for the winter.

On November 19, William Clark took 11 expedition members from Station Camp on an excursion beyond camp, and for the first time saw a full view of the Pacific Ocean.

That land, now called Cape Disappointment, marks the westernmost point of their journey. Its name belies the great hope and joy that moment inspired in our travel-worn heroes.

Today, in Washington State, you can visit these historic locations and find that hope again. Dismal Nitch, Station Camp, Cape Disappointment: In addition to Oregon's Fort Clatsop and other nearby state parks, they comprise America's newest national park.

I introduced legislation with Representative Brian Baird to create the Lewis and Clark National Historic Park: to preserve those beautiful and precious lands, to build local tourism, and to educate future generations.

Last November, President Bush signed it into law. This November, we celebrate an incredible bicentennial.

Lewis and Clark produced the first maps and charts of a previously undocumented region.

They created an invaluable record of the native cultures, the flora, and the fauna they encountered on their journey.

Prior to the expedition, the United States' claim to the Pacific Northwest, was tenuous at best, based on American sea captain Robert Gray's discovery of the Columbia River in 1792.

And so: Lewis and Clark's expedition, more than a decade later, was crucial to securing the claim. It was crucial to the eventual creation of all the States in the Pacific Northwest.

More fundamentally though: their task was to explore the unknown. In doing so, they expanded the boundaries of our Nation and pushed the limits of what we were capable, as a people.

It was not easy for them; it rarely is. But many have come after Lewis and Clark. Inspired by their spirit, we have transformed our great Nation many times over in those 200 years.

We would be wise to turn to Lewis and Clark again, as we confront so many critical challenges before us today.

Only by truly reaching beyond our grasp, can we make our Nation great, as Thomas Jefferson said: ``from Sea to Shining Sea.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water appropriations bill. While I support this legislation, I do have significant reservations about certain provisions of the conference report before the Senate today. Most significantly, I am very disappointed with the funding level included for Hanford Site cleanup.

The Federal Government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup the Hanford site and its nuclear legacy. The President budget sets the tone for the appropriations process. I was very concerned when the President's request slashed funds by more than $290 million from last year levels, jeopardizing compliance with cleanup milestones and putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

Among the most important risk reduction projects are the cleanup and treatment of waste stored in underground storage tanks near the Columbia River. At the Hanford site there are 177 underground storage tanks containing more than 53 million gallons of radioactive and toxic waste. Sixty-seven of these tanks are known to have leaked, allowing at least 1 million gallons of waste to seep into the soil.

Tank waste cleanup is critical to the overall effort in Hanford. I am extremely concerned about a recent report from the Department of Energy Inspector General that found significant problems with the administration's plan for tank waste cleanup in the C-Tank Farm. The audit found that the Department of Energy was overly optimistic and failed to account for problems encountered during previous retrieval operations.

The Department has known since January of this year, before the presentation of the President's budget, that the scheduled C-Tank completion date of September 2006 would likely be missed and project costs would more than double. Falling behind on the C-Tank Farm cleanup will jeopardize long term tank cleanup commitments.

Despite those challenges, the Department cut the tank cleanup program by $62 million in its fiscal year 2006 request. That request forced Congress to work within an incredibly limited budget environment to restore at least some of the funding necessary to keep tank cleanup on track. Fortunately, we could add $27 million in the conference report.

I remain concerned, however, that the Department has yet to publicly acknowledge that it will miss the C-Tank Farm Tri Party Agreement milestone, nor has it committed to adequate funding in fiscal year 2007. I urge the Department of Energy to quickly respond and propose a new appropriate cost estimate and cleanup schedule.

In order to fully reduce risk we must have the facilities necessary to treat the toxic and radioactive waste from Hanford tanks. The timely construction of the vitrification plant is critical to reducing risk and protecting our citizens. The facility was designed to treat most of the waste removed from the 177 underground tanks before its storage at the Hanford site or a national depository.

But in the face of design challenges, the administration's budget cut funding for vitrification plant construction--setting it at $58 million less than fiscal year 2005 funding levels. The Department said it needed to reduce funding in order to address the seismic issues with the design of the facility.

Despite both Houses of Congress supporting funding levels for the vitrification plant at least at the President's request level, this conference report reduces funding to $100 million below the already-low fiscal year 2006 request. This level of funding would be $158 million less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriations level.

Remarkably, the President has proposed a rescission of an additional $100

million in previously appropriated vitrification plant construction funds to address hurricane recovery efforts. In his letter to the Congress, the President labeled plant construction as a lower priority Federal program.

This cut comes at the same time that the administration has noted that the cost of the vitrification plant has increased by at least 25 percent. And language in the underlying report estimates that the cost of the plant may rise to $9.3 billion. Yet this administration continues to cut funding, jeopardizing long-term cleanup milestones.

I urge the administration to drop its proposed $100 million rescission, set forth a clear cost and schedule for the completion of the vitrification plant, and fund the vitrification plant in a way that does not jeopardize the health and safety of our region.

I do not support the funding levels for Hanford cleanup in this year conference report and hope that the administration will make a clear commitment with its fiscal year 2007 request. The Federal Government must keep its commitment. I hope the current administration will back its words with clear action.

My amendment strikes the language allowing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The underlying bill is a sweetheart deal for oil companies that have made a record $30 billion in profits last quarter. The bill gives oil companies a free ride with back-door language that allows them to circumvent environmental laws, legal standards and Federal agency oversight that every other business in America has to comply with.

This wildlife area has been protected since the Eisenhower days, and for good reason. There is an average of over 500 oil spills a year on the Alaska North Slope and over 4,000 spills in the last 10 years. Let's not pollute one of the great last refuges of America, and let's take the polluting language out of this bill. The Department of Energy says drilling in ANWR will do nothing in the near term and very little in the long term, reducing gas prices by only one penny. America wants a better energy plan than putting a sweetheart deal in the budget language.

I urge my colleagues to strike this language.

Mr. President, I rise to offer a perfecting amendment. In order to raise the $2.4 billion claimed in the underlying bill, it assumes a 50-50 split of oil leasing revenues between the State of Alaska and the Federal Treasury.

But my colleagues may be surprised to learn that whether or not this 50-50 legislative language is upheld in court is a matter of some uncertainty. The State of Alaska has long maintained it is due 90 percent of these revenues, so instead of the Federal Government getting $2.4 billion, it would only get $480 million.

If you don't believe me, the State of Alaska just passed a resolution this spring, saying it would insist on the 90-10 split. I ask my colleagues to be faithful in telling the taxpayers the real story. Let's support maintaining the 50-50 and not moving forward until we are certain that is $2.4 billion of revenue for the Federal Government.

I ask for the yeas and nays.