Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2 p.m. today, Senator Paul be recognized for up to 1 hour for debate only; that following Senator Paul's remarks, the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 5 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; further, that the final 5 minutes be reserved for the majority leader or his designee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator Cantwell be recognized now as in morning business.

Mr. President, Senator Cantwell and I were joined on May 11 by 15 other Senators who wrote to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to request that agency, which has a key role in consumer protection, take immediate action to impose position limits on crude oil futures. We asked that they would act by Monday, May 23.

Position limits are limits on the number of contracts that a financial speculator can buy or sell at any given time. It is extremely important that consumers have this protection so we do not see these speculators increasingly dominate the market. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have a lot of folks who need gas to get to work and

get to school. We have trucking companies that depend on affordable fuel. We have restaurants that need fuel. They are all getting clobbered today.

Financial speculators who do not buy oil or consume oil are constantly pulling more of the oil out of the commodities market. What is so troubling about the approach of this key agency is they pretty much said they are not going to do anything soon. We have no sense of urgency. It is not a priority for them to try to tackle this issue. In fact, they are not even going to use their interim authority. They will not even use the interim authority they said they were going to use last year to protect the consumer at this crucial time.

This is particularly unfortunate because somehow they have reached the judgment that the only thing they ought to be moving on is to try to set limits as they relate to commodities generally. I can tell you, my phone is not ringing off the hook about the question of cocoa prices. The American people are not up in arms about what is going on in the cocoa market today. They are concerned about the fact they are getting clobbered on gas pricing. The fact is, 40 percent of the oil futures market is now dominated by financial speculators, and it is way past time for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to act to tamp down excess speculation and its impact on higher prices.

Senator Cantwell serves with me on the Senate Energy Committee. She has been a leader on this issue. She has constantly tried to blow the whistle on this practice of speculation. It is not the only reason gasoline prices are so high, but it clearly is a significant factor. If the financial speculators are taking so much of the oil and future oil out of the market to essentially hold this dominant position, that means there is going to be fewer opportunities for that person who is trying to get gas at the pump, the person who runs the restaurant, the trucking company, and why it is so important that we have position limits.

This is a crucial consumer issue. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's refusal to act quickly is especially upsetting because this agency knows better. They know better. Yet they wrote to Senator Cantwell and me and Senator Collins and colleagues that they were not going to do much of anything anytime soon.

In January of 2010, after holding three public meetings on fuel prices, the agency proposed to set position limits on four key energy commodities: crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, and heating oil. At the time, crude was around $75 a barrel.

Congress was so concerned about the need to control financial speculation that it expanded the agency's authority to set speculation limits last July as part of the financial reform legislation. That legislation specifically directed the agency to set limits on nonagricultural commodities such as crude oil within 180 days of enactment. That date has long passed. So rather than getting started on crucial protections for American consumers and businesses, the agency withdrew its January 2010 position limit proposal for energy commodities and basically started all over. It is inexplicable, in my view, that they would not even use their interim authority to take steps to help the consumer who is certainly going to be concerned about gasoline prices as we move into this Memorial Day weekend.

This past January, instead of issuing a final rule within the 180 days called for by the financial reform legislation, they issued another proposed rule. While it is certainly true Congress gave the agency expanded authority to set limits on multiple speculation holdings in the financial reform bill and not just future contracts, the result is there is not any limits at all. That is the bottom line for the consumer today.

Under the schedule proposed by the agency in January's recent proposed rule, final position limits are not going to be imposed until the first quarter of 2012, almost a year from now. That is what it is going to take based on the signals the agency is sending today, and at least one of the Commissioners at the agency, Bart Chilton, has pointed out that this is really contrary to the deadlines in the financial reform law.

We know most Americans walking on Main Street have not heard of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, but that certainly does not diminish its role in overseeing the commodities markets. That is why I have been pleased to join with Senator Cantwell and other colleagues to continue to press this agency to get out of the regulatory swamp and take steps to go to bat for the consumer and wring the excess speculation out of the oil market sooner rather than later. The agency was directed by the Congress to set speculation limits on more than two dozen commodities.

As I have indicated, I am sure setting position limits on commodities such as cocoa is important, but cocoa is not driving the American economy the way oil is every single day. Americans use about 19 million barrels of oil a day, and two-thirds of the price of a gallon of gas is the cost of the crude oil used to make it. So setting limits on speculation on crude oil is going to have an impact on the price at the pump. The American people and our economy cannot afford to pay the hundreds of millions of dollars a month in additional fuel prices that come out of their wallets while they wait for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to act. The agency ought to get about doing what it proposed more than 16 months ago, and that is rein in speculation, the speculation that is driving up the prices at the pump. The agency ought to do it now, before more Americans face financial hardship.

The country is obviously entering into the peak summer driving season. That is why I and Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins urged the agency to move, and move now. I wanted to outline the agency's history of foot dragging.

I see we are joined now by Senator Cantwell, who has been our leader in this cause. I say to my colleague, I so appreciate her leadership. This most recent response that we received from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission shows once again no sense of urgency, no sense of priority, not even a willingness to use the interim authority that they could use to go to bat for the American consumer.

I want it understood I am going to do everything I can to be the Senator's partner in this cause until we get these position limits set and get these basic protections that our consumers deserve.

Mr. President, I yield the floor now that Senator Cantwell is here.

Would my colleague yield for a question?

My colleague has made a very eloquent case with respect to how this hammers the people who need oil on a daily basis--farmers and truckers and restaurants. The Senator from Washington juxtaposed their position compared to the speculators. Those people have a lot higher tax rate, for example, than do the speculators. So there is one advantage after another that the speculators have over the people about whom my colleague and I are concerned.

Is it the understanding of my colleague that the next best step to help

those people and small businesses who need oil on a daily basis is to get the CFTC out of the regulatory swamp and to enact these position limits?

I thank my colleague. I think it is critically important that the Senate know we are going to keep the heat on, on this issue. Senator Cantwell and I have tried to point out that the agency is dragging its feet. They could use their existing authority. We think the kind of shellacking the American consumers and our small businesses are taking is not right. We are going to continue this fight until they get the consumer protections they deserve.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``How to Save Taxpayer Dollars: Case Studies of Duplication in the Federal Government.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 25, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Holding Criminals Accountable: Extending Criminal Jurisdiction to Government Contractors and Employees Abroad.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Assessing Efforts to Eliminate Improper Payments.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility

and Economic Growth of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 2 p.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Spread of Tax Fraud by Identity Theft: A Threat to Taxpayers, A Drain on the Public Treasury.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Derivative Clearinghouses: Opportunities and Challenges.''

Would my colleague yield for a question?

It seems to me the Senator has laid out the case for why there needs to be a thoughtful debate about the PATRIOT Act and what is necessary to strike the key balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting our liberties.

I am interested in what my colleague thinks about the proposition of how you have a thoughtful debate on these issues, when there is secret law where, in effect, the interpretation of the law, as it stands today, is kept secret. So here we are, Senators on the floor, and we have colleagues of both political parties wanting to participate. Certainly, if you are an American, you are in Oregon or Colorado, you are listening in, you want to be part of this discussion. But yet the executive branch keeps secret how they are interpreting the law.

What is the Senator's sense about how we have a thoughtful debate if that continues?

Well said.

Mr. President, before my colleague leaves the Chamber, I wished to tell him what a welcome addition he has been to the Intelligence Committee. I have served on that committee for 10 years. We have had excellent chairs--first, Senator Roberts, then Senator Rockefeller, Senator Feinstein.

So we continue to try to look for bipartisan support for trying to strike that balance between collective security and individual liberty. I am struck both by the clarity of your statement and the fact that those who are going to vote on these amendments and the American people who are listening in tonight ought to be able to get, in a straightforward, easy-to-access fashion, how the executive branch is currently interpreting the PATRIOT Act.

The fact is, law professors give assignments to their students to write analyses of the PATRIOT Act. The Congressional Research Service actually has an analysis out. But it is not possible to get the official interpretation of how the U.S. Government frames this law as far as the operations are so essential for our country. The Senator has laid it out very well. It is a pleasure to serve with him on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. President, let me sum up with what this issue has come down to, to me.

These are dangerous times. If you go into the Intelligence Committee several times a week, as Senator Udall and I do, you come away with the indisputable judgment that there are threats to the well-being of this country, that there are people who do not wish our citizens well. In these dangerous times, the sources and methods of our antiterror operations absolutely must be kept secret. That is fundamental to the work of the intelligence community--keeping the sources and methods of those who serve us so gallantly secret and ensuring that they are as safe as possible.

But while we protect those sources and methods, the laws that authorize them should not be kept secret from the American people. That is what this is all about--whether the laws that authorize the operations that are so essential, which have been passed by the Congress--that their interpretation should be kept secret from the American people. I call it ``secret law.'' I want to say to this body, yes, we need secret operations, but secret law is bad for our democracy. It will undermine the confidence the American people have in our intelligence operations.

You might recall that it was only a few years ago, during the Bush administration, that they secretly reinterpreted the warrantless wiretapping statutes to say that it was possible to wiretap our people without a warrant. When it came out, it took years to sort that out, with the executive branch and the Congress working together. I don't want to see that happen again. So that is why I have joined Senator Udall in these amendments, and we hope we can get bipartisan support for what we are trying to do and especially ensure that the official interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, an important intelligent statute, is made public to the American people, and I think it can be done in a way without jeopardizing our sources and methods.

One of the reasons Senator Udall, I, and others feel so strongly about this is--and Senator Udall touched on this--that this is a time when Congress should finally say we are not just going to keep kicking the can down the road. That is what has been done again and again over the last decade. The PATRIOT Act was passed a decade ago, during a period of understandable fear, having suffered in our Nation the greatest terrorist attack in our history. So the PATRIOT Act was born out of those great fears.

It seems to me that now is the time to revisit that and ensure that a better job is done of striking the balance between fighting terror and protecting individual liberty. Unfortunately, every time over the last decade there has been an effort to do just that--revisit this and strike a better balance--we have had the same pattern; we have said we just have to get it done quickly and we really don't have any time to consider, for example, the thoughtful ideas Senator Udall has mentioned. I just don't think it is time now to once again put off a real debate on the PATRIOT Act for yet another always-distant day.

There is an irony about what this is all about, and that is that Senators are going to want to consider the amendments of Senator Udall--and I believe Senator Paul is here, and others who care strongly about this. It is awfully hard to have a thoughtful debate on these specific amendments, whether it is the Leahy amendment, the Paul amendment, the Udall amendment, or the ones we have together, if, in fact, you cannot figure out how the executive branch is interpreting the law.

An open and informed debate on the PATRIOT Act requires that we get beyond the fact that the executive branch relies on the secret legal interpretations to support their work, and Members of the Senate try to figure out what those interpretations are.

Here are the rules. If a U.S. Senator wants to go to the Intelligence Committee--and I think Senator Udall touched on this--the Senator can go there and get a briefing. Many Members of Congress, however, don't have staff members who are cleared for those kinds of briefings. Under Senate rules, it is not possible for Senators to come down here and discuss what they may have picked up in one of those classified briefings.

I just don't think, with respect to the legal interpretation, that is what the American people believe we ought to be doing. The American people want secret operations protected. They understand what sources and methods are all about and that we have to have secrecy, for example, for those in the intelligence community to get the information we need about sleeper cells and terrorist groups and threats we learn about in the Intelligence Committee. But that is very different from keeping these legal interpretations secret.

In my view, the current situation is simply unacceptable. The American people recognize that their government can better protect national security if it sometimes is allowed to operate in secrecy. They certainly don't expect the executive branch to publish every detail about how intelligence is collected. Certainly, Americans never expected George Washington to tell them about his plans for observing troop movement at Yorktown. But Americans have always expected their government to operate within the boundaries of publicly understood law. As voters, they certainly have a right to know how the law is being interpreted so that the American people can ratify or reject decisions made on their behalf. To put it another way, Americans know their government will sometimes conduct secret operations, but they

don't believe the government ought to be writing secret law.

The reason we have felt so strongly about this issue of secret law is that it violates the trust Americans place in their government and it undermines public confidence in government agencies and institutions, making it harder to operate effectively. I was on the Intelligence Committee, before Senator Udall joined us, when Americans were pretty much stunned to learn the Bush administration had been secretly claiming for years that warrantless wiretapping was legal. My own view was that disclosure significantly undermined the public trust in the Department of Justice and our national intelligence agencies. Our phones were ringing off the hook for days when the American people learned about it. The Congress and executive branch had to retrench and figure out how to sort it out.

I certainly believe the public will be surprised again when they learn about some of the interpretations of the PATRIOT Act. Government officials cannot hope to indefinitely prevent the American people from learning the truth. This is going to come out, colleagues. It is going to come out at some point, just as it came out during the Bush administration about warrantless wiretapping. It is going to come out. It is not going to be helpful to the kind of dialog we want to have with the American people, an open and honest dialog, to just continue this practice of secret law.

The reason I am offering or seeking to offer this amendment with Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and other colleagues with respect to changing the practice of secret law is that we have raised this issue numerous times--on the Senate floor, in correspondence, in meetings with senior administration officials--and I have been joined in the past by other Senators, and we talked about it with respect to the problem in the news media. But the problem persists and the gap between the public's understanding of the PATRIOT Act and the government's secret interpretation of it remains today. Once information has been labeled ``secret,'' there is a strong bureaucratic tendency--it almost gets in the bureaucratic chromosomes to keep it secret and not revisit the original decision.

So what Senator Udall and I and colleagues seek to do is correct this problem. We seek to offer an amendment that states that it is entirely appropriate for particular intelligence collection techniques to be kept secret but that the laws that authorize these techniques should not be kept secret and should instead be transparent to the public. We seek to offer an amendment that states that U.S. Government officials should not secretly reinterpret public laws and statutes in a manner that is inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws or describe the execution of these laws in a way that misinforms or misleads the public.

So under this proposal, the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence would--and we note this--provide a classified report to the congressional intelligence committees. It makes it clear that intelligence collection continues to go forward, and our amendment would simply require the Attorney General to publicly lay out the legal basis for the intelligence activities described in the report. The amendment specifically directs the Attorney General not to describe specific collection, programs, or activities, but simply to fully describe the legal interpretations and analyses necessary to understand the government's official interpretation of the law.

Let me close--I see colleagues waiting to speak--and say that we can have honest and legitimate disagreements about exactly how broad intelligence collection authorities ought to be, and members of the public do not expect to know all of the details about how those authorities are used, but I hope each Senator would agree that the law itself should not be kept secret and that the government should always be open and honest with the American people about what the law means. All that Senator Udall and I seek to do, along with other colleagues, is to restore some of that openness and honesty in an area where it is now needed. I hope colleagues on the floor of the Senate and in the Obama administration will join in that effort.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me in honoring the 20th anniversary of the Gang Resistance Education and Training--GREAT-- Program and to commend law enforcement agencies across the nation for their dedication to educating America's youth in gang resistance.

Founded in 1991 with the support of Congress, the GREAT Program is a school-based curriculum led by law enforcement officers to instruct students

on effective ways to avoid gang involvement and prevent youth violence and delinquent behavior. This program provides elementary and middle school students with the information and skills necessary to say no to gangs, to resolve conflict without the use of violence, and to set positive goals for themselves--helping America's youth take important steps in creating a future for themselves that does not include gangs or violence.

With western roots, the first GREAT classes were taught in Phoenix, AZ, in September of 1991. Over the past 20 years, GREAT has trained more than 12,000 law enforcement officers and nearly 6 million children have been educated in gang resistance and violence prevention. The program has also built key partnerships with nationally recognized organizations, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America and the National Association of Police Athletic Leagues. These partnerships encourage positive relationships among the community, parents, schools, and law enforcement officers and help America's students build positive ties with law enforcement officers.

In March of 1994, my home State of Oregon received its first GREAT classes at Parkrose Middle School in Northeast Portland. Since its inception in Oregon, Portland Police Bureau officers have taught over 1,400 GREAT classes with nearly 43,000 graduating students. Portland Police Bureau officers have strengthened families to by participating in the GREAT families program, which has educated over 80 families integrating nearly 300 family members.

Additionally, I would like to recognize that the Portland Police Bureau was chosen by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as headquarters for the GREAT Program's Western Region, which is one of five regional training sites.

I am proud to honor the GREAT Program's 20th anniversary, the thousands of lives it has touched, and share its ongoing commitment to strengthening our communities through youth-violence prevention.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, Oregon. The bill is identical to legislation which passed the House of Representatives in the previous Congress, by voice vote, and which was reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition last year.

The reason for involving the Bureau in this project is quite simple. Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau-authorized West Extension Irrigation District with enough additional high-quality water per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high value crops. This will have a significant, long-term benefit to the farming industry in the Hermiston area.

The Hermiston project has gotten the sign off at every level from the local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The City and the Bureau have completed the required feasibility report and the Bureau of Reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a biological opinion approving the project. The City and the West Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together to develop the project. The Bureau has concluded its environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to the District and issued a finding of no significant impact or FONSI.

Although the Bureau will be sharing in the cost of the project, I want my colleagues to know that the City, not the Bureau, will be responsible for the bulk of the expense. CBO has estimated that the Federal share of the $26 million project would be $7 million or just over one-quarter of the cost.

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement Project and the City's effort to obtain federal funding.

This project will increase agricultural production while improving the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete action on this legislation after it had advanced so far in the last Congress.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to share in the cost of the construction of a new wastewater treatment plant for Hermiston, Oregon. The bill is identical to legislation which passed the House of Representatives in the previous Congress, by voice vote, and which was reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee without opposition last year.

The reason for involving the Bureau in this project is quite simple. Once constructed, the plant will provide the Bureau-authorized West Extension Irrigation District with enough additional high-quality water per year to irrigate approximately 600 acres of high value crops. This will have a significant, long-term benefit to the farming industry in the Hermiston area.

The Hermiston project has gotten the sign off at every level from the local irrigation district to Federal agencies. The City and the Bureau have completed the required feasibility report and the Bureau of Reclamation has formally concluded that the project meets the requirements of the Title XVI cost-sharing program. The regional office of the National Marine Fisheries Service at NOAA has completed a biological opinion approving the project. The City and the West Extension Irrigation District have signed a memorandum of understanding to work together to develop the project. The Bureau has concluded its environmental review of the authorization to transfer the water to the District and issued a finding of no significant impact or FONSI.

Although the Bureau will be sharing in the cost of the project, I want my colleagues to know that the City, not the Bureau, will be responsible for the bulk of the expense. CBO has estimated that the Federal share of the $26 million project would be $7 million or just over one-quarter of the cost.

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation have also recognized the benefits of the project and support it. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter and protection of sensitive fish habitat during summer. These benefits have led the tribe to endorse construction of the Hermiston Water Recycling System Improvement Project and the City's effort to obtain federal funding.

This project will increase agricultural production while improving the local economy, the environment and habitat for endangered fish. I look forward to working with my colleagues to complete action on this legislation after it had advanced so far in the last Congress.

Mr. President, before she leaves the floor, I want to say to my seatmate on the Energy Committee, I am looking forward to working closely with her on a host of these issues. I think she is spot-on with respect to her concern about the independents. This morning we talked about natural gas, where there is enormous potential. I want to assure my friend and colleague I will be working very closely with her.

Mr. President, let me start by discussing briefly what happened in 2005. Then-President George W. Bush spoke to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. It was at their convention in 2005. Then, as now, energy was a very important issue--obviously, central to our economy. President George W. Bush made some very important remarks, in my view, at that convention. I would like to read briefly what President Bush said to the convention. On energy, he said:

One of the initiatives I will push, again, is to get an

energy bill out. I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need

incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are

plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in

place that will help this country over time become less

dependent. It's really important. It's an important part of

our economic security, and it's an important part of our

national security.

George W. Bush was right then, and he is just as accurate today. His comments with respect to the importance of an energy bill to our economic security and national security, in my view, is indisputably accurate. Because the President, who of course comes from oil country and has been an oil man himself, took this position, I thought it important to look at that in the context of where we were headed in terms of our country's energy policy.

We had a hearing back then, in 2005. We had all the major oil companies with us that day, their executives. In fact, one of them who was before the Finance Committee last week, Mr. Mulva, also was there in 2005. I asked each of the executives of the five major oil companies whether they agreed with the statement George W. Bush had given to the American Newspaper Convention, and all of the major oil companies testified at this joint hearing that they agreed with President George W. Bush. They said they did not need any incentives.

There were no qualifiers, there were no caveats, there was no this, there was no that. The five major oil companies, through their CEOs, said they did not need any incentives to explore for oil. Period, end of discussion. I thought it important to get that on the record to compare it to their views now.

Last week, in the Senate Finance Committee on which I am honored to serve, we got a very different story. In effect, the CEOs did an about- face. Frankly, they did it with a pretty straight face. Each of them defended the $2 billion a year in tax breaks they specifically get for exploration and drilling. These are industry-specific tax breaks. I know there has been a lot of confusion in this discussion. Is this effort somehow about ending something that other people get as well? Why don't we move on to tax reform?

I don't take a back seat to anybody on this tax reform issue. I have been involved in the first and only bipartisan tax reform effort in the last quarter century with our former colleague, Senator Gregg, and now Senator Coats. So tax reform is certainly crucial. But now we are talking about industry-specific tax breaks, and the five major oil companies that said they did not need them in 2005--in fact, basically, said they didn't even get them--now say somehow if they don't continue to get them, we are going to have enormous economic problems.

These are not just plain old tax breaks. Tax credits such as ``expensing of intangible drilling costs'' under section 263 of the Tax Code and ``amortization of geological and geophysical costs'' under section 167 of the code are, in fact, not available to every American business. We are talking, again, about specific sections of the Tax Code. I mentioned two, section 263 and section 167. These oil and gas provisions which President Bush, in 2005, said were not needed--the executives in 2005 said they were not needed--are not like every other business tax provision. How many businesses do we know that have expenses for oil drilling that are not in the oil business?

At the Finance Committee last week the CEO of Chevron said the intangible drilling tax break was like the research and development tax credit that all other American companies get. That is not accurate.

First of all, as I reminded that CEO, oil companies also get the R&D tax credit. When they have legitimate R&D expenses, they can claim the credit. If intangible drilling costs were just like research costs for the oil and gas industry, they would be getting two tax breaks for the same thing. That would be double dipping at taxpayer expense.

In reality, as the major oil companies know, building access roads to bring in drilling rigs--which is the kind of thing that is covered by the intangible drilling provision--is nothing like the research and development tax incentive. It is a cost of doing business in their major business, drilling for oil.

What is more, the tax breaks for these kinds of expenses are usually spread out over a number of years, but with expensing of drilling costs the oil companies get to write off these costs in the first year. They not only get extra tax breaks that other companies do not get, they also get to claim these breaks sooner than would other types of businesses. It simply defies old-fashioned common sense to claim that the tax incentives oil companies get for exploration and drilling costs, which they did not need when oil was $55 a barrel, somehow today become essential when oil is at $100 a barrel. Even if we adjust for inflation, today's oil price is $30 to $40 a barrel more than it was in 2005--not a couple of dollars more but substantially more, no matter which of the inflation indices you use.

Just so there was no confusion about what was said in 2005, I thought it was important to actually look at that video and, as I indicated, each of the CEOs of the major oil companies reversed their position from 2005 and said those billions of dollars in tax breaks

were essential if they were to continue to drill for oil.

In 2005 the price of gasoline at the pump had soared to what was then a record high. Today the price of gasoline is just below the all-time high price set in 2008. Then, as now, the oil companies were reporting record-high profits. So both in 2005 and today the oil companies have high prices and certainly record profits to incentivise them to drill for oil.

Then the question is, What has changed from 2005 until now to continue justifying providing these major companies with taxpayer subsidies? I want to spend a couple of minutes unpacking a couple of the arguments we heard at the Senate Finance Committee.

Last week we heard from the CEOs that oil was getting harder and harder to find, and they faced increased global competition. If anything, U.S. oil supplies and prices are less tied to the global market now, and new oil supplies are easier to find than they were in 2005. After declining steadily since the mid-1980s, U.S. oil and natural gas production has begun to climb since 2008 due to new onshore discoveries in shale formations and development in the Gulf of Mexico.

As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, we have great interest in this subject of natural gas and discussed it this morning in the Senate Energy Committee. The location and technology for getting oil and gas, especially from these onshore shale formations, have not only dramatically increased U.S. oil and gas reserves, but the technology is now sufficiently well established that U.S. oil and gas production is rising, and rising rapidly as a result.

According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, oil production from the Barnett Shale formation in Texas--literally in the backyards of the headquarters of some of the companies we heard from last week in the committee--oil production from that Barnett Shale formation in Texas has tripled since 2005. In North Dakota, oil production from shale has gone from next to zero in 2005 to 240,000 barrels a day and is expected to continue to grow. In 2010, production in the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma increased 40 percent between 2009 and 2010.

In one area after another, there was significant increase in production. In fact, total oil production has increased over 10 percent since hitting its low point in 2008, and the Energy Information Administration predicts that because of the increased production in oil shale and other sources in the Gulf of Mexico, it is going to continue to grow. U.S. prices are also less tied to global markets and competition now than they were in 2005 because of the increased U.S. production and increased Canadian tar sands production that is pouring into the U.S. market. This ought to be of no surprise to the five major oil companies that testified last week because each of them has also made significant investments in the Canadian tar sands project.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2009, Exxon announced it had acquired more reserves than it had produced for the 15th straight year, and half of those new reserves, 1.1 billion barrels of crude, were from a single Canadian tar sands project it was developing--a topic for another day.

I see my friend from Oklahoma on the Senate floor. Canadian tar sands developers are so concerned about the oversupply of tar sands oil to the North American market that they are pushing to build a new pipeline, the Keystone Pipeline, to the Gulf of Mexico that would allow them to export crude and refined products to the other markets.

The argument that it is just too hard to find new sources of oil simply does not hold water. Further evidence of just how much the U.S. and North American markets are being disconnected from global competition by these developments is the fact that the benchmark U.S. oil price, West Texas Intermediate, has been selling for $10 and $20 a barrel less than the benchmark for European oil. If supply was as tight in the United States as some of the majors told us last week, there would not be such a discrepancy in prices.

Last point. The Senate will certainly be hearing arguments that the loss of these tax breaks is going to drive up the price at the pump. This is, obviously, very much on the mind of every Senator when our people are struggling to pay the already steep cost of filling their tanks.

At the 2005 hearing I also asked the CEOs about ending these tax breaks on their companies, and several of them said it would not affect them, or it would only affect them minimally.

The CEO of Exxon said: ``As for my company, it doesn't make any difference.''

The Chevron CEO said ending these tax breaks would have ``minimal impact on our company.'' The CEO of BP said the same thing: ``It's a minimal impact on us.''

Again, common sense would tell us major oil companies earning combined profits of close to $32 billion in a single fiscal quarter would not suffer a big economic impact from the loss of those industry- specific tax breaks I have been talking about. They are certainly not going to stop doing business with prices at $100 a barrel.

In an important moment last Thursday, our colleague, Senator Cantwell, asked the head of Exxon what the price of oil actually should be with all other things being equal. Mr. Tillerson, the head of Exxon, said the price of producing the next marginal barrel of oil was probably between $60 and $70 a barrel. That is $30 to $40 a barrel profit at current prices. It is simply not credible to think these companies would significantly change their investment decisions if they lost these tax breaks, and the Congressional Research Service in a report last week concluded exactly the same thing.

I began my remarks this afternoon by quoting George W. Bush at the Newspaper Publishers Convention in 2005. He said the major companies did not need incentives to drill for oil at that price. I continue to ask how in the world, given George W. Bush's comments in 2005 and the other considerations I have outlined--that, again, prices are way in excess of inflation; again, profits are at record highs--how in the world can you justify getting industry-specific subsidies when George W. Bush said no incentives--no incentives--and he said it without a qualifier or a caveat--were warranted if you wanted to drill for oil.

As we move to this vote, I hope my colleagues will keep in mind the words of George W. Bush then. In my view, they are even more accurate today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today Sen. Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on imported oil by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. The only way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil. When it comes to reducing our use of oil, transportation is where the vast bulk of America's oil use is. Over 70 percent of all of the oil used in the U.S. is used for transportation. Unless we do something about the amount of oil used by our transportation sector, we have no chance of making a significant dent in our dependence on oil. The goal of this bill is to replace a significant portion of that oil with home- grown alternative fuels--electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. We believe this will create jobs and economic growth here in the U.S. and reduce the relentless flow of dollars overseas to buy oil.

Many of our colleagues share our concern and have been strong advocates for individual vehicle technologies. Indeed, both Sen. Stabenow and I voted last year in the Senate Energy Committee to support legislation by Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Merkley and Sen. Alexander to promote electric vehicles. With electric vehicles, fuel can come from many sources, and very little of it from oil. With plug-in electric technology now hitting the streets, you can literally use power from a wind turbine to drive to the store. Sen. Menendez and Sen. Reid have offered bills to promote natural gas vehicles. Natural gas is a natural fuel for many vehicle applications and it now appears that there are significant new natural gas resources here in North America that could be tapped to replace imported oil.

At the end of the day, however, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not chose which fuel is used where, or for what kind of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers.

While it is true that cars and pick-up trucks use about 63 percent of all transportation fuel, that still means that well over a third is used in other kinds of vehicles. Medium and heavy trucks and buses, for example, use about 20 percent of all motor fuel. Our bill is aimed at making inroads on oil imports all up and down the road, in all kinds of vehicles, and even for off-road vehicles and engines that aren't on the road at all.

Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies while keeping in mind the difficult budget situation the country faces. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than create new ones, and it includes a source of funds to pay for the new programs it does create.

First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the U.S. Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers.

Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial

support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure.

The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States and local governments, public-private partnerships and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill provides worker training and technology research programs to make sure there is a skilled workforce and new technologies. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State and local officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Finally, the bill includes a funding offset by capping the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, at 90 days of non-North American crude oil and petroleum fuel imports. Under current law, the SPR is supposed to grow to 1 billion barrels at a cost of over $5 billion for construction and, at current prices, over $30 billion to fill it with oil. Buying more insurance doesn't make that old car any safer. While I support having a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the plain truth of the matter is that spending billions of additional dollars to put more oil into the SPR will not reduce our dependence on oil imports by a single barrel. This bill would take the money generated by reducing the size of the SPR and reinvest it in alternative energy technologies that will, in fact, genuinely reduce that dependence. Rather than putting more oil in the ground for short-term supply emergencies, we put American innovation to work to reduce our Nation's oil dependence permanently.

I applaud my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, and our other Senate colleagues, for recognizing that new vehicle technologies now entering the market are not just scientific curiosities, but game- changing opportunities to finally get our country off of its addiction to oil. I look forward to working with them to enact programs and policies that ensure these alternative fuel technologies succeed in the marketplace.

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

Mr. President, today Sen. Stabenow and I are introducing legislation designed to reduce our dependence on imported oil by replacing it with cleaner, domestic sources of energy to power our cars, trucks, buses, tractors, and ships. The only way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is to reduce our dependence on oil. When it comes to reducing our use of oil, transportation is where the vast bulk of America's oil use is. Over 70 percent of all of the oil used in the U.S. is used for transportation. Unless we do something about the amount of oil used by our transportation sector, we have no chance of making a significant dent in our dependence on oil. The goal of this bill is to replace a significant portion of that oil with home- grown alternative fuels--electricity, natural gas, propane, biofuels, and hydrogen. We believe this will create jobs and economic growth here in the U.S. and reduce the relentless flow of dollars overseas to buy oil.

Many of our colleagues share our concern and have been strong advocates for individual vehicle technologies. Indeed, both Sen. Stabenow and I voted last year in the Senate Energy Committee to support legislation by Sen. Dorgan, Sen. Merkley and Sen. Alexander to promote electric vehicles. With electric vehicles, fuel can come from many sources, and very little of it from oil. With plug-in electric technology now hitting the streets, you can literally use power from a wind turbine to drive to the store. Sen. Menendez and Sen. Reid have offered bills to promote natural gas vehicles. Natural gas is a natural fuel for many vehicle applications and it now appears that there are significant new natural gas resources here in North America that could be tapped to replace imported oil.

At the end of the day, however, different fuels are going to work better in different types of vehicles and in different parts of the country. For that reason, our bill does not pick technology winners and losers. It is ``technology neutral,'' ``geography neutral'' and ``market neutral.'' An alternative fuel that is readily available in one part of the country may not be readily available in every part of the country, or it may not work as well in an 18 wheel tractor-trailer as in the family car. Our bill does not chose which fuel is used where, or for what kind of vehicles. We leave that up to the free market so that fuel providers and vehicle manufacturers can compete for what works best for their customers.

While it is true that cars and pick-up trucks use about 63 percent of all transportation fuel, that still means that well over a third is used in other kinds of vehicles. Medium and heavy trucks and buses, for example, use about 20 percent of all motor fuel. Our bill is aimed at making inroads on oil imports all up and down the road, in all kinds of vehicles, and even for off-road vehicles and engines that aren't on the road at all.

Our bottom line goal is to help American businesses, which build vehicles and supply fuel, provide genuine alternatives to conventional fuels and engine technologies so that Americans can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bill does this by providing a set of tools to promote the deployment of these technologies while keeping in mind the difficult budget situation the country faces. In several instances, the bill modifies existing programs, rather than create new ones, and it includes a source of funds to pay for the new programs it does create.

First, the bill takes the existing advanced vehicle manufacturing support program at the U.S. Department of Energy, which is now focused on providing financial support to major manufacturers of light duty vehicles, and opens it up to alternative fuel technologies. It also expands the program to component manufacturers further down the supply chain and to the production of medium and heavy trucks, buses, and transit vehicles and lifts the cap on the amount of loans that can be made to American manufacturers and their suppliers.

Alternative fuel vehicles need alternative fuel. So the next major initiative in the bill is to provide financial

support for the production and distribution of those alternative fuels. Again, instead of creating a whole new program to support this alternative fuel infrastructure, the bill modifies the existing clean energy Department of Energy loan guarantee program created section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This loan program was aimed at financing new, innovative low-carbon electricity generation technologies. That is all well and good, but those investments do not address the very real energy security challenge facing our country from oil imports, especially since so little electricity in the U.S. is actually generated using oil. Our bill would allow this already existing program to be used for alternative fuel infrastructure.

The bill includes additional measures to provide technical assistance to States and local governments, public-private partnerships and utility companies and utility commissions to help overcome barriers to the deployment of these alternative fuel vehicles. The bill provides worker training and technology research programs to make sure there is a skilled workforce and new technologies. Taken altogether, these provisions are designed to provide the tools for manufacturers, parts suppliers, fuel providers, transportation planners, utility regulators, and State and local officials to deploy alternative fuel vehicles, and the fuels to power them, in numbers that make a difference and truly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Finally, the bill includes a funding offset by capping the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, at 90 days of non-North American crude oil and petroleum fuel imports. Under current law, the SPR is supposed to grow to 1 billion barrels at a cost of over $5 billion for construction and, at current prices, over $30 billion to fill it with oil. Buying more insurance doesn't make that old car any safer. While I support having a Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the plain truth of the matter is that spending billions of additional dollars to put more oil into the SPR will not reduce our dependence on oil imports by a single barrel. This bill would take the money generated by reducing the size of the SPR and reinvest it in alternative energy technologies that will, in fact, genuinely reduce that dependence. Rather than putting more oil in the ground for short-term supply emergencies, we put American innovation to work to reduce our Nation's oil dependence permanently.

I applaud my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, and our other Senate colleagues, for recognizing that new vehicle technologies now entering the market are not just scientific curiosities, but game- changing opportunities to finally get our country off of its addiction to oil. I look forward to working with them to enact programs and policies that ensure these alternative fuel technologies succeed in the marketplace.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, in introducing this needed legislation.

The creation and consumption of downloadable digital goods, like books, songs, ringtones and video games, and the provision of digital services, like health care monitoring and cloud computing, represent a rapidly growing segment of our national economy. These goods and services, which are supporting a growing number of American jobs, are sold over communications networks that transcend numerous state and local boundaries. Tax law, not surprisingly, has failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology and economy. The lack of a national framework addressing how State and local taxes can be imposed upon these products has led to a confusing process that will only grow more burdensome for consumers and the providers of digital commerce as new, innovative and emerging technologies become available.

Since digital goods and services can be downloaded in a mobile environment, there is a significant question as to which jurisdiction has the authority to tax such purchases. In fact, there is substantial risk that, without a national framework, multiple States and localities will claim they have authority to tax the same digital transaction. For example, if a consumer is on vacation in another State and downloads a song, the State the consumer is visiting, the State that houses the server providing the song, and the consumer's home State could all claim the authority to tax the purchase. This is not only an unfair tax burden on the consumer, but also for the seller that is responsible for identifying the jurisdiction on whose behalf it should be collecting taxes. Left unchecked, these multiple taxes could stifle the digital commerce and crush a growing industry that is creating the good jobs that our country needs.

We can't let that happen. We need a uniform solution that will modernize our State and local tax system to appropriately address the inherent complexities that digital commerce presents.

Neutrality should guide tax policy and administration in the area of digital commerce. Transactions involving similar types of goods and services should be taxed fairly, regardless of the method and means of distribution, whether through electronic transfer or through other channels of commerce. To ensure neutrality and avoid multiple taxation, rules should be adopted to reflect the unique nature of electronic commerce and how digital goods and digital services are provided.

I am introducing the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act to establish a framework for when and how local governments can tax digital goods and services. The framework put forward in the legislation respects States' authority to tax these products while also fostering innovation and growth in this segment of global commerce.

In most cases, this legislation will use the address of the consumer to determine which jurisdiction has the authority to tax a digital purchase, as long as the State has passed a law to do so and is lawfully able under the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the Supreme Court's Quill decision. Similar to mobile phones, digital purchases should be taxed by the State the consumer resides, not the State that they may have been traveling through while they downloaded the digital product.

This legislation would also preclude discriminatory taxes from being imposed on digital goods and services solely because they are transmitted over communication networks. Additionally, this legislation would ensure that if States tax digital goods and services, they should only be taxed at the same rate imposed upon other tangible goods taxed under the general sales tax.

The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011 is structured to provide discipline, but also certainty to States and local governments that wish to tax digital commerce and to the businesses and consumers that are engaged in this marketplace. Our economy is changing in a variety of exciting ways. Congress must be responsive to this reality and consider this legislation soon.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, in introducing this needed legislation.

The creation and consumption of downloadable digital goods, like books, songs, ringtones and video games, and the provision of digital services, like health care monitoring and cloud computing, represent a rapidly growing segment of our national economy. These goods and services, which are supporting a growing number of American jobs, are sold over communications networks that transcend numerous state and local boundaries. Tax law, not surprisingly, has failed to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology and economy. The lack of a national framework addressing how State and local taxes can be imposed upon these products has led to a confusing process that will only grow more burdensome for consumers and the providers of digital commerce as new, innovative and emerging technologies become available.

Since digital goods and services can be downloaded in a mobile environment, there is a significant question as to which jurisdiction has the authority to tax such purchases. In fact, there is substantial risk that, without a national framework, multiple States and localities will claim they have authority to tax the same digital transaction. For example, if a consumer is on vacation in another State and downloads a song, the State the consumer is visiting, the State that houses the server providing the song, and the consumer's home State could all claim the authority to tax the purchase. This is not only an unfair tax burden on the consumer, but also for the seller that is responsible for identifying the jurisdiction on whose behalf it should be collecting taxes. Left unchecked, these multiple taxes could stifle the digital commerce and crush a growing industry that is creating the good jobs that our country needs.

We can't let that happen. We need a uniform solution that will modernize our State and local tax system to appropriately address the inherent complexities that digital commerce presents.

Neutrality should guide tax policy and administration in the area of digital commerce. Transactions involving similar types of goods and services should be taxed fairly, regardless of the method and means of distribution, whether through electronic transfer or through other channels of commerce. To ensure neutrality and avoid multiple taxation, rules should be adopted to reflect the unique nature of electronic commerce and how digital goods and digital services are provided.

I am introducing the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act to establish a framework for when and how local governments can tax digital goods and services. The framework put forward in the legislation respects States' authority to tax these products while also fostering innovation and growth in this segment of global commerce.

In most cases, this legislation will use the address of the consumer to determine which jurisdiction has the authority to tax a digital purchase, as long as the State has passed a law to do so and is lawfully able under the Internet Tax Freedom Act and the Supreme Court's Quill decision. Similar to mobile phones, digital purchases should be taxed by the State the consumer resides, not the State that they may have been traveling through while they downloaded the digital product.

This legislation would also preclude discriminatory taxes from being imposed on digital goods and services solely because they are transmitted over communication networks. Additionally, this legislation would ensure that if States tax digital goods and services, they should only be taxed at the same rate imposed upon other tangible goods taxed under the general sales tax.

The Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act of 2011 is structured to provide discipline, but also certainty to States and local governments that wish to tax digital commerce and to the businesses and consumers that are engaged in this marketplace. Our economy is changing in a variety of exciting ways. Congress must be responsive to this reality and consider this legislation soon.

Mr. President, in March, I was compelled to place a hold on the nomination of Jo Ann Rooney to be Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, when I was not satisfied that the military had properly investigated the mistreatment of some members of the Oregon National Guard who were demobilizing at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, JBLM.

I am pleased to say that today I am lifting that hold.

I have had meetings and exchanged letters with Secretary of the Army John McHugh, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli, Major General Philip Volpe, Jo Ann Rooney, and Dr. Clifford Stanley, who will be Dr. Rooney's supervisor if she is confirmed. I have also received several documents related to the investigations, and written answers to more than 60 questions about the investigations.

I am satisfied that the actions taken by the Army put them on the right path to ensuring that future National Guard soldiers receive all of the care and benefits to which they are entitled.

I will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the changes the Army is making. However, I believe that Dr. Rooney would, if confirmed, work to ensure that all servicemembers get appropriate medical care, and improve the demobilization process.

I would urge the Senate to quickly and positively act on Dr. Rooney's nomination.

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

I come to the floor to honor a man who touched every corner of my home State of Oregon. Harold Schnitzer left his mark on our business community, the arts, health care, education, and practically every nook and cranny of my home State.

Harold Schnitzer died last week of complications relating to cancer and diabetes. He learned of his impending death earlier this year and faced it with extraordinary style, grace, and the wit that marked his 87 years of life.

Those who knew Harold Schnitzer describe him in one of two ways. Many knew him as a powerful and philanthropic force in our State. Others knew him as approachable, easygoing, and especially as a person who never took himself all that seriously. I knew him

in both ways, and I knew him as a friend.

Like many in Oregon, I am saddened by Harold's passing. Harold was a successful real estate developer. He and his wife of 62 years, Arlene, gave generously to my alma mater, the University of Oregon, and to Portland State University. They established the Harold Schnitzer Diabetes Health Center at the Oregon Health Sciences University. Their gifts of art and financial support helped transform our Portland Art Museum into a center for regional art works.

The generosity of Harold and Arlene can be found throughout Oregon in places such as the Oregon Zoo, a special favorite of my children, Lewis and Clark College, the Mittleman Jewish Community Center, the Oregon Symphony, the Oregon Ballet, and the Portland Opera. A centerpiece of Oregon's art community is the beautiful Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall in our downtown Portland community. It is affectionately known as ``the Schnitz.''

Harold Schnitzer was a humble man, and he came from humble roots. As a boy, he earned 25 cents a week polishing metal in his father's Portland scrap yard. From there it was on to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a degree in metallurgy, and then he went on to a career in real estate.

Certainly, our colleagues from the bay area of California know who Harold Schnitzer was because with great pride he restored the historic Claremont Hotel Club and Spa in Berkeley to its former glory. In true Harold Schnitzer fashion, when he sold the hotel in 1998 the proceeds provided the funding for two family charitable foundations.

We have lost a man, but, fortunately, we have not lost his vision and his generosity. His wife Arlene will continue to stand for those kinds of good works in our home State, and their son Jordan, a successful businessman in his own right who shares his parents' passion for philanthropy, continues every single day to look for opportunities to serve our home State. You can look no further than the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art in Eugene and downtown Portland's Simon and Helen Director Park, named for his maternal grandparents.

What I liked most about Harold Schnitzer was his very wry sense of humor and particular knack for summarizing the events of our time. I remember often when I would see him after a particularly spirited discussion in the Senate. Harold had a great interest in politics and was a devout consumer of all the Sunday morning talk shows. After a particularly volcanic debate in Washington, DC, about some issue where it seemed nothing could get resolved, I would go home and be out and about, perhaps at the grocery store in Portland, and I would see Harold. He would tug on my elbow and say: I have been watching what is going on in Washington, DC, Ron. Got things pretty much worked out back there, do you?

He would kind of chuckle and sort of express perfectly his sense of the irony of the challenges we have in Washington, DC. He knew somehow we would always get through them. Whenever I was around Harold, I got a sense that he really captured some of the irony of what goes on in Washington, DC, very well. He brought that same kind of approach and that light touch and combination of humor and irony to so much of what he did.

In my view, Harold Schnitzer represented what was good in humanity. His legacy of good works is going to go forward. But for all those who didn't know him personally, didn't know him like I had the chance to, I wanted to take just a few minutes to tell the Senate and our country that Harold Schnitzer was a very special man. In my view, he was what I call a vintage Oregonian--somebody who got up every day and tried to make our State and country a better place. He will be greatly missed.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill that will address the cumbersome and time consuming process under existing law within the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This piece of legislation will streamline the land acquisition process for the Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians. The current process for taking land into trust is not working, and I believe there are changes that need to be revived in the existing process. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Merkley in this effort.

The original Siletz Coastal Treaty Reservation, established by the Executive Order on November 9, 1955 was diminished and then eliminated by the Federal Government's allotment and termination policies. Tribal members and tribal government have worked to rebuild the Siletz community since the Western Oregon Termination Act of August 1954 stripped the Siletz people of Federal tribal recognition, and since then the tribe has been struggling to rebuild its land base. This legislation would work to facilitate the tribe's land into trust process within the original Siletz coast reservation to overcome the chronic Bureau of Indian Affairs, BIA, delay in processing applications. Instead of having two processes to bring each piece of former reservation land back into the reservation after purchase, one to bring the land into trust, and another, to make it reservation land, allows the tribe to combine the process.

In this case, because the original reservation was disassembled, the tribe terminated and provided a very small land base upon restoration, virtually every tract of land the tribe seeks to place into trust today is considered by BIA pursuant to ``off reservation'' procedures. ``Off reservation'' requests would mean that the ``. . . secretary gives greater scrutiny to the tribe's justification of anticipated benefits . . .''

By applying the on-reservation fee-to-trust criteria for lands within the Siletz Tribe's original reservation, this legislation allows the Tribe to take land into trust that will ultimately provide for vital tribal programs such as housing, government administration, and jobs-- for both tribal and county residents. In addition, the bill emphasizes the importance and the intent of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934--which allows the Secretary of Interior, in his or her discretion, to take land into trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or of individual Indians. Essentially, reversing the loss of tribal lands and restoring some of the Tribe's original land base by allowing the Tribe to take land into trust under the same provisions as other Indian tribes within their reservations.

This bill underscores the importance of economic stability and self- determination for the confederated tribe of Siletz Indians and its members. Oregon Tribal communities suffer some of the greatest hurdles, whether it is health care, education, or crime on reservations, this bill would alleviate much of the cost and much needed resources associated with the bureaucratic hoops the tribe has had to jump through for years--which mean a significant savings of time and resources.

As a result of the great working relationships, the Siletz Tribe has approached all six involved counties, and obtained their support. This legislation establishes and confirms a positive and beneficial partnership between the Federal Government, Siletz Tribe and local counties Lincoln, Lane, Tillamook, Yamhill, Benton, and Douglas.

That is why I am introducing--the process has not sped up and we recognize the need for more action. It's always great to see Tribes and local counties work together to come up with proactive, inventive solutions for their communities to tackle challenging economic conditions.

I want to express my thanks to all the citizens and community and tribal leaders who have worked to build their communities. They represent the pioneering spirit and vision that defines my state.