Floor Statements

Yesterday, when I heard the majority leader was going to call a cloture vote, I changed my schedule and hurriedly returned to Washington, DC, from Oregon, where I had been working on the Oregon Business Plan at the Oregon Business Summit in Portland. I was on an airplane, about an hour away from the Capitol, when the Senate Leader called the vote, and I missed the cloture vote on the $14 billion loan package for the U.S. automobile industry. It is my understanding that if my vote could have possibly made the difference, the Leader would have waited for my plane to arrive, but I want it to be noted that it was my intention to vote for cloture. While I continue to have concerns about ensuring that taxpayers are protected if this loan is to occur, I believe that if the President can unwisely provide $700 billion of taxpayer money for the investment banks that took horribly unacceptable risks and helped trigger an economic collapse, we certainly have a duty to attempt to preserve a cornerstone domestic industry and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of working people whose personal actions are in no way responsible for the current economic crisis.

Madam President, at this moment, exactly 13 years ago, I was locked in the toughest political battle of my life against Gordon H. Smith. I went on to narrowly win that race and continue to hold that Senate seat today. But Gordon Smith dusted himself off only a few months later and took on yet another very tough battle, and that time he won the Senate seat that had been held for 30 years by our remarkable Senator Mark Hatfield.

At that point, Oregonians did not know what to make of their Senate delegation. They had two Senators, myself and Senator Smith, who were replacing Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield. Those two individuals were the chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And, of course, the old story was that Bob Packwood got to raise all of the money because he was chairman of the Finance Committee, and Mark Hatfield got to spend it all because he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Of course, I was very much concerned about what was ahead because I thought it was very possibly going to be a long and uncomfortable 6 years serving with the fellow with whom I had just duked it out over many months of a political campaign that, as the two of us like to say, was not exactly for the faint hearted.

One of the great surprises of my career came, however, when I discovered that my new colleague, Gordon Smith, was as thoughtful and kind and decent outside the political arena as he was tough and competitive inside the political arena. It was that charm and that decency and his desire to meet me halfway on Oregon's interests that got me closer to Gordon over the years and led to an unusually strong working relationship and what became a strong and genuine friendship.

Gordon lost a very tough reelection race a few weeks ago in a State that has changed rapidly from what was a very small Democratic voter edge, back when we ran against each other in 1996, to what has become a significant Democratic voter edge in 2008. Gordon and his skillful campaign team battled hard and tough as they always have. They did everything they could to withstand a formidable political tide and a very strong Democratic challenger, a challenger whom I support. So it is with mixed and conflicting emotions that I come today to pay tribute to my colleague and my friend of 12 years, Gordon H. Smith.

Gordon and I have had plenty of political differences, enough differences, differences that we knew would be the case, that made us say from our very first meeting, when Gordon won that race to replace Mark Hatfield, that we would be supporting each other's opponents in years ahead.

Political campaigns are important, and each of us was called upon to separate our friendship from our beliefs every 2 years. Yet I will say this afternoon that I have come to genuinely loathe much of what has become of the political process in our country. The relentless and omnipresent negative ads obscure and distort to the point that it can be difficult for the typical citizen to maintain anything resembling a healthy perspective on fundamentally good and decent individuals who seek public office.

Thankfully, the negative ads are now off the air, and I want to make sure Oregonians once again remember the Gordon Smith I have known for 12 years. Gordon has been a good and decent and selfless public servant.

The fact is, Gordon Smith did not need to serve another term in the Senate. He and his wife Sharon have built a strong and prosperous business, and they could have done countless things with their time that would have been more glamorous and certainly produced less strain and wear and tear on their personal lives. But Gordon ran because of his belief in the role that he believed he could play in shaping our country's future. That, in my view, is the essence of being a good public servant. No one in this body or in the State of Oregon ought to lose sight of the extraordinary sacrifices that Gordon and his wife Sharon have made over the course of almost two decades of public service.

Among Gordon's many personal triumphs in the Senate, I would like to highlight two that are especially important to our State, to our country, and to me personally. I wanted to remind my colleagues and the people of our country of the very difficult decisions made by Gordon and Sharon to share with the public and the Congress their heartrending struggle on behalf of their son, Garrett. They did this selflessly to further the cause of mental health treatment, and particularly the cause of mental health parity.

If not for Gordon's courage in sharing their family's story, I believe Congress might not have acted on mental health parity this past fall, and thousands of parents might never know that they are not alone in their difficult struggle.

There were other critical tasks that Gordon shouldered and one that I was especially appreciative for his leadership on, and that was being the voice for rural folks, for people whose way of life and quality of life is connected to natural resources that are bountiful in our State.

Gordon spoke for the farmer, and he spoke for the rancher. He spoke for the logger, for the mill worker, and the miner. He spoke for the rural communities they live in, communities that struggle to retain a voice in increasingly urban America.

It was written fairly frequently in Oregon's papers, and was in the New York Times at one point, that there was something in the State of Oregon that people came to say was the Senate's odd couple. In fact, I think the headline in the New York Times when they talked about us was wildly inflationary, and Gordon and I came to laugh about it. I think the headline was, ``Oregon's Odd Couple Makes It Work.'' It was essentially all about how there were two Senators from Oregon; one of them was a Mormon fellow. He was a Republican. He was from somewhere called Pendleton. Gordon and I were never convinced that folks in the New York Times knew exactly where Pendleton was, but that is how Gordon was described.

Then they said, the other Senator was a Jewish guy, and he was from Portland and he was a legal aide lawyer for the senior citizens, and he was an activist with the Gray Panthers. What in the world would these two people ever have in common?

Well, I want people to know that gentle spirit, that Mormon from wheat and pea country taught this Jewish fellow from the city an awful lot about the too often forgotten voices, particularly those in our rural communities.

In his absence, I will do everything I can to remind colleagues, particularly Democratic colleagues on my side of the aisle, of the challenges faced in rural communities, of the people and the issues that Gordon H. Smith championed every single day in the Senate. I wish Gordon and Sharon well in whatever their future endeavors are. I have already made it clear they will always have my friendship and assistance in any project they pursue in the days ahead. But most importantly, I come to the floor and thank Gordon for his personal friendship to me and his service to our State. I ask my colleagues here and the people of our home State to voice their thanks today to two very special people, Sharon and Gordon H. Smith.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, one of the great privileges of public life is meeting people who make a difference through the sheer strength of their personalities and their enthusiasm for wanting to make the world a better place. One of those people was Randy Pape. I rise today to recognize what Randy meant to my State and to me personally.

On Thursday, November 6, Randy died of a heart attack at the all-too- young age of 58. News accounts of his passing referred to Randy as a ``Eugene businessman'' who built his family's small implement business into a regional giant employing 2,000 people in seven States.

But Randy was much more that. He was vintage Oregonian--relentless, effective, and tenacious. To Randy, no project was too big, no public service too small.

He was also my friend, and I will miss him every day.

My most enduring image is of a smiling Randy reacting to some idea that would improve the lives of Oregonians--actually, of everybody--by pumping his arm and saying: ``We've got to do it. We've got to do it.'' The sound of his voice will always be with me, urging me on to embrace the things he believed in with the same enthusiasm.

Randy lived in Eugene all his life, but gave himself to the entire State. Growing his grandfather's business from a local equipment sales operation to a seven-State conglomerate was just a part of what he accomplished. During his life he helped raise nearly $600 million for buildings at his alma mater, the University of Oregon. His tenure on the Oregon Transportation Commission resulted in a $1.3 billion, 10- year program of bridge repair and replacement that remade Interstate 5, the heart of Oregon's transportation system. As head of the United Way of Lane County's fundraising campaign, he set a $1 million goal that everyone thought was impossible and then achieved it. He served on the board of The Nature Conservancy of Oregon, the Oregon Trail Council of Boy Scouts of America, as well as other nonprofit organizations such as the Oregon Business Council Steering Committee.

Randy had two other great passions that can never be overlooked. There was his love for Susie, his wife of 34 years, and their three wonderful and successful sons, Ryan, Christian and Jordan. Then there was his unflagging devotion to the University of Oregon Ducks football team. In fact, Randy and Susie met at a U of O football game in 1971.

This is only a partial list of what Randy helped achieve for my State, but it is a window into who Randy Pape was and what he was capable of doing. His wife described him best: ``He was the most positive person, the most upbeat. He was a joy to live with.''

In 1997, Randy was diagnosed with a severe form of cancer and wasn't expected to live that long. But in true Randy Pape fashion, he fought on, never losing that trademark enthusiasm and determination. In the end, it was not the cancer that took him from us. It was something that, ironically, he had more of than anyone I have ever known his heart.

I know that Randy would take great satisfaction in cheating the cancer that tried to kill him. As his oldest son, Ryan, said: ``I know he's looking down from heaven right now saying, Guys, I beat the cancer.' ''

I would say: ``Randy, of course you did.''

Randy Pape was a great Oregonian who will always have a place in my heart and in the hearts of the thousands of people who knew him and were touched by his unselfishness and dedication to doing the right thing.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a great Oregonian, Nancy Neighbor Russell. Not long ago, Nancy woke up and demanded that her family take her to see the Columbia River Gorge. It was not an unusual request because Nancy has been a tireless and fearless defender of the gorge for more than a quarter century. The scenic beauty of the gorge was her passion and protecting it was her crusade.

What made this trip different was that Nancy suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, often referred to

as ``Lou Gehrig's disease.'' Taking her to visit the place she loved most would not be easy. Her family hired an ambulance, placed Nancy in the back, and drove east from her home in Portland. Once there, Nancy saw her beloved gorge for the last time. On September 19, 2008, Nancy Neighbor Russell passed away.

While she is gone, her legacy is not. No individual has had the lasting and profound impact on a Pacific Northwest's landscape as Nancy Russell has had on the Columbia River Gorge. In my hometown newspaper, The Oregonian reporter Katy Muldoon described her this way: ``a lion in conservation circles, a fearless but graceful negotiator, a dogged fundraiser, a mentor to young leaders and an inspiration to anyone who had the pleasure of hiking or hunting wildflowers with her on the grassy slopes above the Columbia River.''

Anyone who has seen the Columbia River Gorge know that its steep cliffs, dramatic rock formations, and graceful waterfalls makes it one of the most beautiful places on Earth. It is the crown jewel of a Pacific Northwest landscape filled with a treasure trove of natural beauty. But it took someone like Nancy Russell to recognize that the gorge's beauty, drama, and gracefulness needed to be protected. She would devote the rest of her life to making sure it was.

In the early 1980s, she founded the Friends of the Columbia Gorge and began an unprecedented effort that in 1986 resulted in passage of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act. As Congressman of the Third Congressional District at the time, I was proud to stand with friends and allies to vote for this historic legislation. That act preserved the gorge while protecting the valuable orchards and agriculture lands and acting as a catalyst to the tourism and recreational values so important to the communities along the Columbia.

But Nancy didn't stop there. She continued to push the Federal Government to purchase important pieces of property from willing sellers so that stunning views of the gorge would remain open to the public. She personally purchased more than 30 properties and donated them to the public so hikers could enjoy them for generations to come.

Today, the Columbia Gorge faces issues that Nancy would have never contemplated three decades ago. Fortunately, Nancy Russell leaves behind what may be her greatest accomplishment--an organization with members who are inspired by her vision and determined to follow in her footsteps. The gorge may have lost an ardent supporter, but it has not lost support. I am confident that Nancy's children and grandchildren, her countless friends, and Oregon's and Washington's leaders on both sides of the aisle will honor her by continuing to protect this great legacy.

On those times when I return to Oregon and my flight takes me over the Columbia River Gorge, I will think of Nancy Russell and her last visit there. Knowing what I do about Nancy and all that she did for that beautiful area, it will be hard to think of anything else. I pay tribute to her life well-lived today and thank her and her family for all of her many, lasting accomplishments.

Mr. President, together with colleagues in the Senate and the House, I am introducing the Independence at Home, IAH, Act. This legislation will help Medicare and our Nation improve the efficiency and effectiveness of spending on Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. It will not only improve care for seniors suffering from serious illnesses but also save money.

Roughly 75 percent of the Nation's health care dollars are spent on chronic diseases. Yet spite this enormous investment, today's chronically ill only receive just over half, 56 percent, of the preventive and maintenance services that they need. Our Nation clearly needs to do better.

Recent Medicare demonstrations have shown that a number of key improvements could go a long way to help fix this situation: First, primary care physicians and key health professionals must assume more responsibility for care coordination; second, we need to target efforts at beneficiaries with multiple conditions; third, after-hours care needs to be available so people can access medical help when they need it and avoid calling 911; and finally, there must be better use of health information technology to help manage care.

The optimal way to address the challenges of caring for persons with chronic conditions is to better integrate their care. Medical problems are best managed and coordinated by health care professionals who know their patients, their problems, their medications, and their other health care providers. Using this approach, the IAH provides a better, more cost-effective way for Medicare patients with chronic conditions to get the care they need.

We do all these things in the legislation I am introducing along with colleagues in the Senate and House: Our bill would put in place a demonstration that improves at-home care availability for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions to help people remain independent in their homes. Physicians would get paid better for managing care while at the same time they would be responsible for demonstrating at least 5 percent savings in the cost of their patients' care. The bill also includes minimum performance standards for patient health outcomes, and would measure patient, caregiver and provider satisfaction.

The Independence at Home Act establishes a three-year Medicare demonstration project that uses a patient-centered health care delivery model to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions can remain independent for as long as possible in a comfortable environment; advances Medicare reform by creating incentives for providers to develop better and lower cost health care for the highest cost beneficiaries; incorporates lessons from past Medicare demonstration projects; provides for physician and nurse practitioner-directed programs that hold providers accountable for quality, patient satisfaction, and mandatory annual minimum savings; and generates savings by providing better care to Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions and reducing duplicative and unnecessary services, hospitalization, and other health care costs.

The demonstration program will take place in the thirteen highest- cost states plus thirteen additional states. Persons eligible for the program include Medicare beneficiaries with functional impairments, two or more chronic health problems, and recent use of other health services. Each IAH patient will receive a comprehensive assessment at least annually. The assessment will inform a plan for care that is directed by an IAH physician or nurse-practitioner and developed in collaboration with the patient. Each patient will also have an IAH plan coordinator. Electronic medical records and health information technology will be employed to improve patient care. The IAH organization will be required to demonstrate savings of at least 5 percent annually compared with the costs of serving non-participating Medicare chronically ill beneficiaries. The IAH organization may keep 80 percent of savings beyond the required 5 percent savings as an incentive to maximize the financial benefits of being an IAH member.

I would like to thank my cosponsors in the House, Representatives Ed Markey, Chris Smith and Rahm Emanuel for their support, along with my fellow Senate cosponsors, Senators Barbara Mikulski, Benjamin Cardin and Sheldon Whitehouse. I would also like to thank all our staff who worked so hard on this legislation, particularly Gregory Hinrichsen in my office. Finally, we would like to thank the following groups for voicing their support for this legislation: the American Academy of Home Care Physicians; the AARP; the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; the National Family Caregivers Association; the Family Caregiver Alliance/National Center on Caregiving; the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the Maryland-National Capital Home Care Association; the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, and Intel Corp.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to help Medicare patients get better care at lower cost.

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

Mr. President, together with colleagues in the Senate and the House, I am introducing the Independence at Home, IAH, Act. This legislation will help Medicare and our Nation improve the efficiency and effectiveness of spending on Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions. It will not only improve care for seniors suffering from serious illnesses but also save money.

Roughly 75 percent of the Nation's health care dollars are spent on chronic diseases. Yet spite this enormous investment, today's chronically ill only receive just over half, 56 percent, of the preventive and maintenance services that they need. Our Nation clearly needs to do better.

Recent Medicare demonstrations have shown that a number of key improvements could go a long way to help fix this situation: First, primary care physicians and key health professionals must assume more responsibility for care coordination; second, we need to target efforts at beneficiaries with multiple conditions; third, after-hours care needs to be available so people can access medical help when they need it and avoid calling 911; and finally, there must be better use of health information technology to help manage care.

The optimal way to address the challenges of caring for persons with chronic conditions is to better integrate their care. Medical problems are best managed and coordinated by health care professionals who know their patients, their problems, their medications, and their other health care providers. Using this approach, the IAH provides a better, more cost-effective way for Medicare patients with chronic conditions to get the care they need.

We do all these things in the legislation I am introducing along with colleagues in the Senate and House: Our bill would put in place a demonstration that improves at-home care availability for beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions to help people remain independent in their homes. Physicians would get paid better for managing care while at the same time they would be responsible for demonstrating at least 5 percent savings in the cost of their patients' care. The bill also includes minimum performance standards for patient health outcomes, and would measure patient, caregiver and provider satisfaction.

The Independence at Home Act establishes a three-year Medicare demonstration project that uses a patient-centered health care delivery model to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions can remain independent for as long as possible in a comfortable environment; advances Medicare reform by creating incentives for providers to develop better and lower cost health care for the highest cost beneficiaries; incorporates lessons from past Medicare demonstration projects; provides for physician and nurse practitioner-directed programs that hold providers accountable for quality, patient satisfaction, and mandatory annual minimum savings; and generates savings by providing better care to Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions and reducing duplicative and unnecessary services, hospitalization, and other health care costs.

The demonstration program will take place in the thirteen highest- cost states plus thirteen additional states. Persons eligible for the program include Medicare beneficiaries with functional impairments, two or more chronic health problems, and recent use of other health services. Each IAH patient will receive a comprehensive assessment at least annually. The assessment will inform a plan for care that is directed by an IAH physician or nurse-practitioner and developed in collaboration with the patient. Each patient will also have an IAH plan coordinator. Electronic medical records and health information technology will be employed to improve patient care. The IAH organization will be required to demonstrate savings of at least 5 percent annually compared with the costs of serving non-participating Medicare chronically ill beneficiaries. The IAH organization may keep 80 percent of savings beyond the required 5 percent savings as an incentive to maximize the financial benefits of being an IAH member.

I would like to thank my cosponsors in the House, Representatives Ed Markey, Chris Smith and Rahm Emanuel for their support, along with my fellow Senate cosponsors, Senators Barbara Mikulski, Benjamin Cardin and Sheldon Whitehouse. I would also like to thank all our staff who worked so hard on this legislation, particularly Gregory Hinrichsen in my office. Finally, we would like to thank the following groups for voicing their support for this legislation: the American Academy of Home Care Physicians; the AARP; the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners; the National Family Caregivers Association; the Family Caregiver Alliance/National Center on Caregiving; the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the Maryland-National Capital Home Care Association; the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, and Intel Corp.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation to help Medicare patients get better care at lower cost.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Barrasso and I are introducing legislation to reform the Minerals Management Service at the U.S. Department of Interior. Most Americans have probably never heard of the Minerals Management Service. At least they hadn't heard of it until the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued a report a couple of weeks ago documenting sordid details of MMS employees accepting gifts and dinners and drugs and sex from employees of the oil and gas companies they were supposed to be doing business with on behalf of American taxpayers.

The MMS is responsible for collecting over $10 billion a year in lease and royalty payments from companies that drill for oil and gas and mine coal and minerals on our Federal public lands, both onshore and offshore. MMS is also the agency that actually issues the leases for drilling to oil and gas companies off our coasts. And when you hear the call for more oil drilling just remember that it is MMS that's responsible for issuing those leases and making sure that oil and gas companies protect the environment and pay their fair share of royalties to the American people. And that should give everyone pause.

Two years ago, I stood here on the floor and spoke for several hours to draw the Senate's attention to the mismanagement of our offshore oil and gas leasing program involving MMS and the royalty relief program. The problem then was the failure of MMS to include a key clause in almost 1,000 leases that would have required oil and gas companies to pay the U.S. Treasury higher royalties if the price of oil and gas increased.

The law MMS was supposed to be implementing was originally written back in the mid-1990's when oil prices were low--around $15 a barrel, to encourage drilling by giving oil companies a break on paying royalties on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The royalties didn't kick in until the price of oil rose to a certain point where the companies would make a profit. Oil prices, as we now know, didn't stay low, but it turns out that ``royalty relief'' didn't phase out the way it should have. We learned that the MMS had bungled things so badly that they forgot to include provisions in their leases requiring any royalties on those particular leases.

At the time, the Government Accountability Office estimated that this single dereliction of duty--which covered leases issued between 1995 and 2000--would cost American taxpayers as much as $11.5 billion . . . and that was based on oil prices of between $50 and $70 dollars--half of what oil prices have been this year. GAO recently updated that amount to as much as $14.7 billion. We held hearings on this problem in the Energy Committee but the bottom line is that nothing has been done to fix this problem.

We have also learned from Inspector General and from agency whistleblowers that MMS has essentially stopped conducting audits of the billions of dollars of royalty payments it collects, and it has allowed oil and gas companies to improperly change the amount they owe by allowing them to self-report adjustments to their royalties affecting millions of dollars in payments.

Most recently, the Inspector General for the Department of Interior, Earl Devaney, has issued a report that details his office's criminal investigation into the Royalty-in-Kind program at the Minerals Management Service. Under the Royalty-in-Kind program, oil and gas companies are allowed to pay their royalties to the Federal Government not in dollars, but by physically delivering barrels of oil or cubic feet of gas to MMS. MMS, in turn, is responsible for selling that oil and gas and turning the proceeds over to the Treasury. The Inspector General found that instead of putting the American people first, employees of the RIK program put themselves first. Mr. Devaney's investigation, in his words, found ``a culture of ethical failure.''

I am not going to go through all of the sordid details of what the IG found, but I do ask unanimous consent to include his four page summary following my remarks.

The bottom line is that this is an agency that is broken and needs to be fixed. The legislation that Sen. Barrasso and I are introducing will start to fix it.

The legislation has five major components

It requires that the head of the MMS be appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. MMS is the only major bureau within the Interior Department that does not require its director to be confirmed by the Senate.

It requires MMS to implement a comprehensive audit program, including on-site financial audits of royalty payments.

It gives the Secretary of the Interior 60 days to implement all of the Inspector General's recommendations from

both the May business practices report and the more recent September ethics report. If that deadline is not met, the Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) Program would be suspended.

It requires the Secretary to annually ``re-certify'' that the RIK program meets all Federal ethics and procurement laws and regulations. If that recertification is not completed, the RIK program would be suspended.

It directs the Inspector General to annually review the MMS program, including the RIK certification process.

I am pleased that Sen. Barrasso, the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, which I chair, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this bill. While it does not specifically address every single problem at MMS, it will begin to establish some basic accountability in an agency that has demonstrated that it has none.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Barrasso and I are introducing legislation to reform the Minerals Management Service at the U.S. Department of Interior. Most Americans have probably never heard of the Minerals Management Service. At least they hadn't heard of it until the Inspector General of the Interior Department issued a report a couple of weeks ago documenting sordid details of MMS employees accepting gifts and dinners and drugs and sex from employees of the oil and gas companies they were supposed to be doing business with on behalf of American taxpayers.

The MMS is responsible for collecting over $10 billion a year in lease and royalty payments from companies that drill for oil and gas and mine coal and minerals on our Federal public lands, both onshore and offshore. MMS is also the agency that actually issues the leases for drilling to oil and gas companies off our coasts. And when you hear the call for more oil drilling just remember that it is MMS that's responsible for issuing those leases and making sure that oil and gas companies protect the environment and pay their fair share of royalties to the American people. And that should give everyone pause.

Two years ago, I stood here on the floor and spoke for several hours to draw the Senate's attention to the mismanagement of our offshore oil and gas leasing program involving MMS and the royalty relief program. The problem then was the failure of MMS to include a key clause in almost 1,000 leases that would have required oil and gas companies to pay the U.S. Treasury higher royalties if the price of oil and gas increased.

The law MMS was supposed to be implementing was originally written back in the mid-1990's when oil prices were low--around $15 a barrel, to encourage drilling by giving oil companies a break on paying royalties on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The royalties didn't kick in until the price of oil rose to a certain point where the companies would make a profit. Oil prices, as we now know, didn't stay low, but it turns out that ``royalty relief'' didn't phase out the way it should have. We learned that the MMS had bungled things so badly that they forgot to include provisions in their leases requiring any royalties on those particular leases.

At the time, the Government Accountability Office estimated that this single dereliction of duty--which covered leases issued between 1995 and 2000--would cost American taxpayers as much as $11.5 billion . . . and that was based on oil prices of between $50 and $70 dollars--half of what oil prices have been this year. GAO recently updated that amount to as much as $14.7 billion. We held hearings on this problem in the Energy Committee but the bottom line is that nothing has been done to fix this problem.

We have also learned from Inspector General and from agency whistleblowers that MMS has essentially stopped conducting audits of the billions of dollars of royalty payments it collects, and it has allowed oil and gas companies to improperly change the amount they owe by allowing them to self-report adjustments to their royalties affecting millions of dollars in payments.

Most recently, the Inspector General for the Department of Interior, Earl Devaney, has issued a report that details his office's criminal investigation into the Royalty-in-Kind program at the Minerals Management Service. Under the Royalty-in-Kind program, oil and gas companies are allowed to pay their royalties to the Federal Government not in dollars, but by physically delivering barrels of oil or cubic feet of gas to MMS. MMS, in turn, is responsible for selling that oil and gas and turning the proceeds over to the Treasury. The Inspector General found that instead of putting the American people first, employees of the RIK program put themselves first. Mr. Devaney's investigation, in his words, found ``a culture of ethical failure.''

I am not going to go through all of the sordid details of what the IG found, but I do ask unanimous consent to include his four page summary following my remarks.

The bottom line is that this is an agency that is broken and needs to be fixed. The legislation that Sen. Barrasso and I are introducing will start to fix it.

The legislation has five major components

It requires that the head of the MMS be appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate. MMS is the only major bureau within the Interior Department that does not require its director to be confirmed by the Senate.

It requires MMS to implement a comprehensive audit program, including on-site financial audits of royalty payments.

It gives the Secretary of the Interior 60 days to implement all of the Inspector General's recommendations from

both the May business practices report and the more recent September ethics report. If that deadline is not met, the Royalty-in-Kind (RIK) Program would be suspended.

It requires the Secretary to annually ``re-certify'' that the RIK program meets all Federal ethics and procurement laws and regulations. If that recertification is not completed, the RIK program would be suspended.

It directs the Inspector General to annually review the MMS program, including the RIK certification process.

I am pleased that Sen. Barrasso, the ranking Republican member of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, which I chair, has agreed to be an original cosponsor of this bill. While it does not specifically address every single problem at MMS, it will begin to establish some basic accountability in an agency that has demonstrated that it has none.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes on the third amendment.

Mr. President, I particularly wish to thank my friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, for his courtesy because I know his remarks

are extremely important, given these tough fiscal times.

I will be speaking on the third amendment and particularly the part of that third amendment that addresses the extraordinary economic hurt in much of rural America. Senator Baucus and the ranking minority member, Senator Grassley, have worked very closely with me and a number of Members of the Senate who represent rural communities where the Federal Government owns much of the land, and tonight it looks like there is some promising news ahead for these desperately hard-hit rural communities.

More than 100 years ago, our rural communities entered into an agreement with the Federal Government. What these rural communities said was that, in effect, they would give up their land so there could be a national forest system, and in return the Federal Government would ensure that these rural communities would have sufficient funds for schools and basic services.

This was facilitated by tying these payments to the rural communities to the amount of timber that was cut in these areas.

Now, this went quite well for many years. But as the environmental laws in our country began to change, this money shriveled up. It shriveled up and we were faced, in rural communities, with the prospect of having school 3 days a week. In my part of the country, our law enforcement officials were faced with not having the funds that they desperately needed to fight this epidemic of methamphetamines. Suffice it to say there was a real question--and there continues to be--as to whether some of these communities and some of these rural counties would actually survive. We have three in our State that are walking on an economic tightrope right now.

So what Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley have done, working with a host of us from these communities--myself, Senator Bingaman, Senator Feinstein, Senator Cantwell, Senators Murray, Smith, Boxer, Crapo, Craig, and other colleagues on both sides of the aisle--is they have given us the opportunity, if this third part of the extenders package passes tonight, to give new hope to these rural areas. The hope comes in the form of a multiyear reauthorization of the law that I wrote in 2000 with Senator Craig to the Secure Rural Schools legislation.

It provides a safety net for these communities in our part of the country so they can educate their kids, fight drugs and crime, and pay for essential services. Right now, pink slips have been sent out in my State and elsewhere to county workers, teachers, and others. Without the legislation that has been put together so carefully by Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, my view is we will see devastating losses to the very fabric of rural communities. Some of those rural communities will not survive. Today's vote--the vote we are going to have this afternoon--provides the best opportunity we have seen in many months to ensure that rural communities do not drown in this economic crisis.

The reason this proposal is so very important is that it is a multiyear reauthorization of the law that Senator Craig and I wrote in 2000. The reason we feel so strongly about a multiyear reauthorization is it will give our rural communities an opportunity to plan for new economic development efforts where they can create good-paying jobs for their people.

I know for a fact, given the huge problems we have had with fires in the West, that it will be possible to put together a strong thinning program, where we can thin out, for example, the overstocked second growth stands and get those merchantable materials--they are merchantable materials--to the mills and put our people to work.

We are going to be able to take other steps. We want to have new clean energy programs, using biomass, something where the Senate has brought together the forest product sector, the environmentalists, scientists, and others. We are looking at new opportunities in carbon sequestration. But to have the time for our rural communities to get into the thinning, to get into biomass, to get into carbon sequestration, we desperately need this 4-year reauthorization program to take these rural communities off the economic roller coaster they have been on since the time in which these funds ran out.

We have had wave after wave of bad economic news in rural America. We are now in a position to vote for a measure that will give new opportunity to these rural communities and particularly the opportunity over the next few years to survive and to look at additional business ventures that are tailor-made for the times. They are going to be greener, they are going to be sustainable, but they are going to create family wage employment.

In our part of the country, we recognize this is a different day than it was 100 years ago, when folks in the Northwest and other parts of rural America made this agreement with the Federal Government. Times have changed, and they are certainly tough fiscal times, made tougher by the events of the last few weeks. But the people I have the honor to represent in the Senate are up to making these changes.

On this legislation that we will vote on shortly, I am very hopeful that this time the other body will finally approve it; we have had 74 votes in the Senate in favor of this package. What Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley have added to the legislation virtually mirrors the vote that we had on the amendment I offered earlier in the Congress. Chairman Conrad worked very closely with westerners to ensure that this was fiscally responsible. Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican on our Finance Committee, on which Senator Conrad and I serve, worked closely with us. This is truly bipartisan. It is a vote that would bring new hope to rural America, ensuring their survival and the chance for better days ahead.

I urge my colleagues to support the third part of the tax extenders package.

I thank my colleague from North Dakota for the courtesy of speaking at this time, and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, there is extraordinary economic hurt in much of rural America this evening, and that is especially the case in my part of our country in rural Oregon. We are going to have a chance to do something about that with the tax extenders legislation. I come to the floor today to urge its passage.

A number of colleagues have been wondering about the folks in green shirts who are out and about on Capitol Hill this week. These are some of the country's best people committed to making this country a better place, and they are here because they come from communities where the Federal Government owns much of the land and the Federal Government, regrettably, has been talking about breaking its commitment to these communities.

About 100 years ago, the Federal Government entered into an agreement with these communities. In effect, the Federal Government said: When the National Forest System is created, so it benefits people across the country--in Minnesota, in New York, in Florida, and all across the land--because we are going to have property owned by the Federal Government, we will assist those communities with funds for schools and essential services.

That worked for a number of years when the timber cut was fairly high and we were able to get the funds those communities needed for essential services. However, when the laws began to change in the 1990s and timber cut went down, all of a sudden those communities were hard- pressed to keep the schools open in my part of the country and to make sure there was essential law enforcement service--on the beat fighting methamphetamines and providing key services on our Federal lands. So in 2000, I authored a law with our friend and colleague, Senator Craig, and brought those communities money for schools, money for essential services, but regrettably, that money has run out. As the revenues and benefits that we receive from our national forests change with the times, Congress simply can't walk away from its responsibility to provide funding to rural counties.

Now, because of the good work particularly of Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, there will be an opportunity to renew our commitment to these rural communities and to do it in a way that is going to allow these communities, after a few additional years, to get into additional opportunities for economic growth and creating good-paying jobs for their citizens. For example, I have said that if we pass this legislation--and it authorizes $3.8 billion in desperately needed funds for rural schools and essential services--we are going to use those 4 years so that at the end of that period, our rural communities can be involved in a number of other economic development activities that will allow their communities to prosper. For example, we

know that in our part of the country--and this has been true in much of the land where there is great risk of fire--there is a need to thin some of these forests. In our part of the country, it is second growth. It may be different in the Midwest and Minnesota and other parts of the land.

But the point is, they are working together--people in the forest product sector, environmental leaders, scientists, and others--they are coming together and over the next 4 years will act in a fashion that will allow us to say that, on our watch, by making sure we acted today so these communities could survive, we used this period so that they could get into additional opportunities that would allow their communities to prosper and provide good-paying jobs for their people.

Right now, pink slips have been sent out to county workers, teachers, and others, and without the action that has been achieved in the extenders legislation on a bipartisan basis, led by Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, without their work becoming law, it is my view that the very fabric of rural communities in our part of the country and over much of the United States will be torn asunder.

A number of colleagues have worked hard on this legislation, and that is because this 100-year commitment we have had with rural America has always been bipartisan. The fact is, Americans who enjoy the National Forest System don't come to the forest and get asked whether they are Democrats or Republicans. It has been something that has been beneficial to our Nation, and in return, we said that our rural communities would be given the funds they need for essential services. The fact is, in much of the country where there is not Federal land, where there is not land in Federal ownership, they sell private property, they tax private property, they generate revenue, and they pay for essential services. That is what is different about my home State where the Federal Government owns much of the land. We haven't been able to do that.

I see my friend and colleague on the floor, Senator Craig. We worked together to update our commitment to rural America back in 2000. We put in place, for example, resource advisory councils--and Senator Craig remembers this well--that brought together people in the forest product sector and environmental leaders. Several of them said: What you were able to do with Senator Craig has people working together in the natural resources field who never worked together before.

So this has been a program that has worked. We have tried to extend it on a multiyear basis. I offered legislation previously with Senator Craig. We got 74 votes. An overwhelming majority of the Senate supported this legislation. Yet we were not able to get it enacted into law.

I am happy to yield.

Madam President, I don't want to turn this into a bouquet- tossing contest, but the fact is that Senator Craig and I have been partners in this for some time. We believed we had a good model when we moved to pass it during the Clinton years in 2000. It has exceeded our expectations in terms of bringing people together and helping these rural communities survive.

I simply say to colleagues that as part of this tax extenders package, by extending the program now through 2011, the legislation would give rural communities the certainty they need to plan for the future and get them off this roller coaster of disaster one day, hope the next, that has been the pattern of the last few years.

There are a lot of exciting things going on in the rural West. My friend from Idaho and I, as we sat on the Forestry Subcommittee, have heard the exciting developments, for example, in projects to thin and restore the Nation's forests, have heard about the good work that is being done in terms of biomass, taking essentially woody waste and turning it into a source of clean fuel. We have been working together to make sure the Federal Government gets the right definition of biomass so that we can allow these programs to go forward. Carbon sequestration would be a third opportunity that we know will be a sensible step because it will help improve the climate and create economic revenue.

So as Senator Craig and I sat and listened to this testimony all of these many hours about thinning and biomass and carbon sequestration, it became clear to us that as long as our rural communities weren't denied the funds they needed to keep going, which is what we are talking about today, they could use these next 4 years to get into some very exciting and promising fields in the years ahead.

Madam President, I am very pleased that my friend from Idaho has come to the floor, and I know I have exceeded my time for morning business. I simply say to my colleagues that I hope they will pass the extenders package. The funds involved are for secure rural schools, and it is critically needed now so they can use this time to make sure young people, law enforcement, and other essential needs are addressed.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, around the Halls of Congress this week are some wonderful folks walking around in green shirts trying to save our rural schools and many rural communities across our country. These are folks who come from areas such as mine where the Federal Government owns

much of the land. For decades and decades, in these communities, the secured money for funding schools in our State and for a variety of other services, such as police and essential needs for counties, has come through Federal timber payments. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, as a result of environmental law changes and other policies these communities have been strapped for funds now for quite some time.

In 2000, the distinguished Senator from Idaho Mr. Craig, and I, wrote legislation that brought essential funds to these communities so they could secure quality education for their students, for their families. But the law expired in 2006. So we sought, then, to extend this program on a multiyear basis. We had a vote in the Senate with overwhelming support for the legislation. Mr. President, 74 Senators voted for it, but the other body was not able to pass the legislation. So at that time the program was extended for just 1 year, and now it appears unless additional help is passed in this Congress, we are going to see many of these communities simply not able to survive.

I have been told in my State alone two rural communities would simply have to shut their doors, and we are looking at the prospect of the State taking over those communities.

The reason all those folks in the green shirts are walking the corridors this week is they are making one last-ditch effort to get the funding passed before these county governments have to make what are not just drastic cuts to their budgets permanent but cuts that will be so severe, as I have indicated, the communities simply could not survive.

The energy tax extenders bill is the last best hope for getting this done, and as a result of the exceptional work done by Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley, the multiyear reauthorization of the county payments legislation has been included in their proposal. I think a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have been very supportive of this effort. I particularly express my thanks to Chairman Baucus, the distinguished leader; Senator Reid, the chairman of the energy community, and Senator Jeff Bingaman. All of them have been enormously helpful as we have prosecuted this cause for months on end.

On the Republican side, Senator Grassley has been extraordinarily helpful. Senator Craig, who authored this legislation originally with me, has been very helpful. Senator Smith of my home State continues to strongly support this effort. I am also very grateful to Senator Crapo from Idaho who continually brings up, at practically every session of the Senate Finance Committee, how important it is to reauthorize this proposal.

I know in the last few weeks of our fall session it is going to be easy to block legislation and hard to pass it. But I am very hopeful the energy tax legislation, which includes the county payments legislation, which has the strong bipartisan support of Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, will prevail in the Senate and will go to the House of Representatives.

For literally decades, support from the Federal Government for these essential services, particularly schools in much of the country--but fighting meth, law enforcement, and other essential services in my State--have, in effect, been part of a bigger agreement with the Federal Government. In effect, what happened is something like 100 years ago, when the National Forest System was created, the communities that had largely forested areas said: We are going to offer a benefit to all the people of this country in terms of the National Forest System, but in return for placing these lands in public ownership, our communities would get support for essential services. For decades and decades that went on, and it was quite beneficial to both sides--to the rural communities and to the Federal Government--and we saw in my home State people from all over the country come and enjoy the National Forest System in Oregon and other communities around the United States.

But we saw, in the late 1970s and 1980s, because of the change in environmental policy and changes in the size of the timber cut, the money shriveled up for these rural communities. So it is essential we pass this legislation, particularly for this multiyear purpose, because it is our sense that in these rural communities, they know they have to look to the future for a variety of other opportunities to have family wage employment.

For example, in our part of the world, we hope to have a very significant job-creating program to thin out the second row of trees. This is an opportunity to get merchantable timber to the mills but do it in a way that helps family wage employment and is good for the environment. We are going to have rural communities and folks from the forest product sector and environmental leaders supporting us in that effort. In the other body, a friend of the Presiding Officer and myself, Congressman Fazio, has championed a similar effort. But to set in place these new programs such as thinning and biomass, where we can create clean energy from our forests, we are going to need a bit of time. That is why this multiyear program is so extraordinarily important.

It is my view that the best opportunity we have had for some time to get county payments passed has come about because of the strong bipartisan work done in this Chamber to add county payments to the energy tax legislation. It is my hope, as we did when 74 Senators came together to support the original legislation I offered in this session, that, once again, we can get strong bipartisan support for county payments as part of the energy tax bill. If we can get it sent from the Senate in a timely way to the other body, I think this time it will be possible to thread the needle, secure the funding for our rural communities, give them the opportunity to make the transition to these other areas that will allow them to strengthen their economy and particularly bring to our schools, to our law enforcement agencies the tools that are so desperately needed at this critical time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, also, before he leaves the floor, I intend to talk about the ethical quagmire at the Minerals Management Service. I commend Senator Nelson, who really, just as he said, always does try to be bipartisan. We work together as part of a large health care group. Senator Nelson was one of the first to spot these flagrant examples of abuse at the Minerals Management Service. I know he is going to be part of our effort to finally drain the swamp at the Minerals Management Service next week. I thank my friend from Florida for his efforts in that regard.

Mr. President, 2 days ago I came to the floor of the Senate to describe specifically the horror story of misconduct and mismanagement at the Minerals Management Service. Today, this morning, in coffee shops across the country, in addition to talking about the pain at getting clobbered by these gasoline prices at the pump, a lot of Americans are wondering how can it possibly be that in these Federal energy development programs, the tax money of the American people is being used to prop up sweetheart contracting, flagrant conflict of interest violations, drug abuse, apparently all kinds of sexual escapades, and lots more.

I have been trying to clean up these royalty programs for more than 5 years. I stood right in this spot 2 years ago and spent almost 5 hours trying to force a vote here in the Senate to clean up these royalty programs.

Some of these royalty problems, of course, began when the price of oil was $19 a barrel. The day that I spoke at length to try to force a vote, the price of oil was $70 a barrel. Of course, for quite some time the price of oil has been $110, $120, $130--of course 8, 10, 12 times what it was when this program began.

The Bush administration has repeatedly indicated that they would take care of these problems. We have had Secretary Kempthorne, for example, in the Energy Committee even 19 months ago essentially saying they would get on top of the program.

I came to the floor today because I would like to describe how it looks as though once again the Department of Interior is especially interested in trying to keep the Congress from stepping in and taking bold action to try to drain the swamp. For example, the statement the Secretary of Interior made--I brought it to the floor--came out yesterday. It states, for example:

The conduct of a few has cast a shadow on an entire agency.

That is not what the inspector general said about this program. The inspector general didn't talk, as Secretary Kempthorne did, about the conduct of a few. What the inspector general said--I will just read it:

We discovered that, between 2002 and 2006, nearly one-third

of the entire royalty-in-kind staff socialized with and

received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from oil and

gas companies with whom the royalty-in-kind program was

conducting official business.

Let's unpack that for a minute. Secretary Kempthorne has said repeatedly that we are only talking about the conduct of a few people and offered up once again, just in the last 24 hours, an argument clearly designed to keep the Congress from stepping in next week and finally draining the swamp at the Royalty-in-Kind Program. The inspector general found that there were gifts and gratuities on at least 135 occasions from major oil and gas companies. The inspector general called it a textbook example of improperly receiving gifts from prohibited sources. And then the inspector general said:

When confronted by our investigators, none of the employees

involved displayed remorse.

They found a culture at this program of ethical disregard--substance abuse, promiscuity. They go on and on to talk about an entire program. They certainly do not talk about how these problems took place in the past. They talk about how this is an ongoing problem that certainly is not going to be taken care of, in my view, as Secretary Kempthorne has suggested in the past, with one of his kind of ethics training

programs. There are going to have to be substantial changes. I am very hopeful that finally, after the Congress has gotten report after report about the problems at this agency, the Senate will not accept the argument from Secretary Kempthorne that once again the Congress ought to just trust the agency to take care of things on its own.

Let me outline just a few of the areas that I hope the Senate would consider in changing these flagrant abuses at Minerals Management.

It seems to me, first, that this program, the Royalty-in-Kind Program, should be suspended until the Secretary certifies that each of the inspector general's ethical and business recommendations is implemented.

That strikes me as pretty obvious. You have all of these problems. It has been documented in report after report after report. The Secretary has come to the committee, and said he would take care of it. It has not been done. It would seem to me that you suspend this program until the Secretary certifies that the recommendations from the inspector general are implemented.

Second, I am sure people listening to this say, ``hello,'' when you make this particular recommendation. It is time to get rigorous audits back in the Minerals Management Royalty Program. You think to yourself, how can it be that millions of dollars go in and out the door in these programs? There have been problems documented again and again in these inspector general reports and they still do not have rigorous audits. So that is the second thing the Senate ought to require with respect to this program.

I personally would favor a limited continuation of the Royalty-in- Kind Program to a fixed term, choose 1 year, 2 years, and then it would be sunset unless it would be reauthorized. This would be a process that would make sure the program either gets fixed and the Senate comes away convinced that it works or the program goes away. So I would hope the Senate would look at that.

Finally, I think it is worth noting that the Minerals Management Service is the only major bureau within the Interior that does not have a Senate-confirmed director. It is my view that the head of the Minerals Management Service, particularly at a time such as this, when the very programs in its charge, and the programs the Congress is looking to expand next week, that the head of the Minerals Management Service should be a Senate-confirmed position. This way it would be possible for the Senate Energy Committee--and I know Senator Nelson has a great interest in this as well--would have a say in who the next director of that office is, and the Energy Committee would be in a position to hold that individual accountable.

As I have indicated, the Minerals Management Service is the only major bureau within Interior that does not have a Senate-confirmed director. It is obvious you cannot wave your wand and legislatively fix every ethical consideration imaginable. But it would seem to me, given the blockbuster nature of this inspector general's report, and the tenacious work that has been done by Earl Devaney there, that Congress would be negligent, that Congress would be more than remiss, that Congress would be negligent to not step in next week when we are working on these very programs--there is discussion of expanding them dramatically--to not step in and make sure the taxpayers' interests are protected.

This is not a question of whether you are for drilling or against drilling here. Senators will have differences of opinion surely on that. But as Senator Nelson has said over a period of years, and I have said over a period of years, this ought to be something every Member of the Senate would agree on.

I think back to 2 years ago, and I got up in the morning and did not expect to be on this floor for 5 hours trying to force a vote to change these programs. It was clear that if we had gotten the votes, we would have won. That was when the price of oil was $70 a barrel, not $100 a barrel; $100 often seems reasonable these days to people given the shellacking they are taking.

But the Congress will have a vigorous debate next week on a host of issues with respect to energy policy. What I would hope is that 100 Members of the Senate would say, given what the inspector general has said, No. 1, given the fact that Secretary Kempthorne has again in his statement yesterday--and I read this specifically--suggested that we are talking about a few individuals:

The conduct of a few has cast a shadow on an entire agency.

That is not what the inspector general said. One-third of the employees in this program, one-third, colleagues, were involved in this. Given what the inspector general has said, given the facts that the agency has repeatedly said it would clean up these programs, and it has not done it, that under the leadership of Chairman Bingaman of the Energy Committee, he always works closely with the ranking minority member, our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, that finally next week the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, end these disgraceful practices that have been documented repeatedly in these independent reports.

If the Congress does not step in and finally adopt specific measures to hold this agency accountable, I believe when the headlines are no longer the topic of kitchen table conversation, I believe what will happen, certainly regrettably in this administration, we will not see the changes needed to protect the American people.

I do not see how you can make a case for playing down this set of problems that has been so well documented. I hope all Members of the Senate, all 100 Senators, will back our efforts next week to clean up this program.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I will yield.

First, I wish to note that my friend and colleague, Senator Smith, was just on the floor. I wish to commend him for all the work he has done for the vulnerable families in our country. He and Sharon, of course, have suffered the loss, a loss almost unbearable to all of us who are parents. They have done everything they possibly could to stand up for other families across the country.

Since our colleague spoke, and very movingly, on the floor, I wish to take a special note, before I begin my comments on another subject, of his advocacy because I think it has been extremely important for millions of families in our country.

Minerals Management Service

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk about a new report that the Interior inspector general has released on the offshore oil and gas leasing program.

Several years ago, I stood on the floor and spoke for several hours in an effort to draw the Senate's attention to the mismanagement of this offshore oil and gas leasing program. Today we have learned, with the inspector general's report, that nothing has changed. What they have shown, the inspector general in this report, is that the Royalty- in-Kind program, one of the key royalty programs that they looked at, is a horror story of mismanagement and misconduct.

The inspector general looked at the Minerals Management Service, and said, with respect to this royalty program, there is a ``culture of ethical failure.'' Nearly one-third of the entire staff of the Royalty- in-Kind program accepted gifts and gratuities from the oil and gas companies with which they were conducting official business.

There are stories of drug use. There are stories of inappropriate sexual relationships. The inspector general confirmed that two Royalty- in-Kind employees were running a side consulting business for oil and gas companies with which the Royalty-in-Kind program was doing business.

The inspector general's report detailed how Royalty-in-Kind managers, instead of working for the taxpayers' interests, were working for their own self-interest, ingratiating themselves with the very oil companies they were charged to negotiate fair deals with on behalf of American taxpayers.

Now, some are probably wondering exactly how much money has been lost as a result of this mismanagement and misconduct. The bottom line from the inspector general's investigation is there is no way to determine how extensive the abuses in this program have been. There is no way to determine exactly how much money the American taxpayer has lost. Because the record keeping has been so shoddy, it is not possible to figure out exactly what these losses are.

I am very hopeful, as a result of this extraordinarily important report by the inspector general, that it will be possible to clean house finally at the Minerals Management Service. I hope it will be possible.

You say to yourself: How can it be that these things are done at this agency today? What would it take to get a serious audit program at the Mineral Management Service? I hope it will be possible now to make changes in this program, to make it crystal clear that the Federal Government will no longer employ someone serving an interest other than the public's.

Whether you are a secretary or manager or the guy or the gal who is cleaning up, if you want to work for the public, then you need to take the public's trust seriously.

Now, you say to yourself, this should pretty much go without saying. But particularly this afternoon, as the Congress is on the eve of a historic debate about the future of energy policy, you ought to say: Let's clean up the abuses that are taking place in existing leasing programs that are going to continue and possibly be expanded under the legislation that the Congress will consider shortly.

Some of the Minerals Management Services problems also involve a law that was written originally in the mid-1990s, when the price of oil was low. When the price of oil was around $15 a barrel, the Congress said: Let's give oil companies a financial incentive to drill on new leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The law said that while the oil companies were drilling on public land, they didn't have to pay the Federal Government the required royalties until the price of oil rose high enough for the companies to make a profit, obviously a little bit different time than today. Oil prices, of course, have not stayed low. It turns out that royalty relief didn't phase out the way it should have.

We learned the Minerals Management Service, the part of the Interior Department charged with issuing and administering offshore leases, bungled things so badly they forgot to include provisions in the leases requiring royalties on those particular leases. The Government Accountability Office has estimated that just this dereliction of duty would cost American taxpayers as much as $11.5 billion. The Government Accountability Office recently has updated that amount and the impact is several billions of dollars higher.

The Congress has held hearings on this management failure, but the fact is, nothing has been done to fix the problem.

To add further insult to the injuries suffered by taxpayers, the oil companies operating in the gulf, led by Kerr McGee, sued the Federal Government, claiming they shouldn't pay royalties on any of the oil from any of the 1995 to 2000 leases, no matter how high the price of oil went. They got a judge in Louisiana to agree with them. The Federal Government is appealing the case.

Senator Kyl and I have been working on a bipartisan basis to try to get this corrected, but in the 2005 Energy bill, the Congress extended the exemptions for new leases in the Gulf of Mexico from royalty payments for both oil and natural gas wells, despite the fact that oil was already $50 a barrel. This is a loophole that remains in effect until June of 2010 and is going to allow current and future leases in the Gulf to continue to avoid even more royalties while additional profit is generated at record prices.

The Bush administration has proposed repealing these 2005 royalty relief provisions, but they are still in place.

This is the time to get control of this runaway stallion. We are talking about millions, certainly billions, in terms of the cumulative cost of the program, and these practices take your breath away.

Let me read from one paragraph from the summary the inspector general has issued. One paragraph talking about three employees says: The results of this investigation paint a disturbing picture of three senior executives who were good friends and remained calculatedly ignorant of the rules governing postemployment restrictions, conflict of interest, and Federal acquisition regulations to ensure that two lucrative contracts would be awarded to a company created by one of them and then later joined by another.

These are such clear examples of abuse that no matter what one says, you have to say this is unacceptable. The inspector general found that between 2002 and 2006, nearly one-third of the entire Royalty-in-Kind staff socialized with and received a wide array of gifts and gratuities from oil and gas companies with which the Royalty-in-Kind Program was conducting official business. We are talking about 135 occasions involving gifts and gratuities. They went on to say that the inspector general discovered a culture of substance abuse and promiscuity in the Royalty-in-Kind Program, alcohol abuse associated with the program, where there was socializing by staff with the industry.

I have suggested two steps today that strike me as obvious changes that should be put in place. First, there needs to be an effort to clean house at the Minerals Management Service so that we get these practices behind us. We also have to get back in the serious business of auditing these programs where millions and billions of dollars are involved.

I want to commend particularly the inspector general of the Department of the Interior for his outstanding work in putting together this report. This is one of a series of reports that the inspector general has issued in this area. I and the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, have worked closely with colleagues to try to get these changes put in place. Senator Bingaman in particular has offered a number of promising legislative changes to deal with the royalty issue.

I wanted colleagues to know in particular about this Office of Inspector General inquiry into the Minerals Management Service, given the debate that is about to begin in the Senate.

We will be, as far as I can tell, spending much of the remainder of this session talking about these and similar programs. I happen to think it is possible for us to do our work in a bipartisan fashion, get in place energy changes that will allow us, in the area of alternative energy supplies and renewables, to make significant progress. I have made it clear that particularly with respect to additional opportunities for drilling, be it in the Gulf of Mexico, and maybe other areas, I am open. What I am not open to is the continued abuse of taxpayers in these essential programs involving public resources. We are talking about public lands. We are talking about public resources. It is one thing when private companies drill on private lands. It is quite another when they are developing energy on public lands and, in my view, taking advantage of programs that were set up years ago when the price of oil was $15 a barrel.

It is time to clean house at the Minerals Management Service. It is time to get back in the business of accountability and rigorous oversight of these leasing programs that involve such extensive amounts of taxpayer funds.

I hope all colleagues will look at the report issued by the inspector general of the Department of the Interior. It provides a clear roadmap for how the Congress ought to proceed in terms of correcting these programs, ending the pattern of abuse and mismanagement, and changing the channel from the current horror show of mismanagement and misconduct at the Minerals Management Service.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.