Floor Statements

Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Senator from Oklahoma, at this time, on behalf of Senator Kerry, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 422, S. 1662; that the amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time; that the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee then be discharged of H.R. 3567, the House companion, and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 1662, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be advanced to third reading, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that S. 1662 be returned to the calendar, with all of the above occurring without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, especially Senator Murray and Senator Menendez, for their courtesy. I will be brief.

Today the House and Senate announced a historic package to address the energy crisis facing our Nation. But in addition, as part of that important legislation, the agreement contains more than $1.8 billion in desperately needed funding for our Nation's rural schools, counties, and communities.

Without the safety net funding provided as part of the energy legislation, rural communities across this country could literally be wiped off the map. Without this critical funding, rural counties across America will once again be staring down into a precipice and a future filled with closed schools, terminated services, and deteriorating roads. Within months, pink slips could again be sent to teachers and to county workers.

Fortunately, some help for those rural communities is now on the way. The energy package contains an extension of the Secure Rural Schools Program that I authored in 2000. This proposal closely mirrors the legislative proposal that was crafted with Senators Baucus, Bingaman, Reid, and myself, a proposal that passed overwhelmingly in this body by a 74-to-23 vote as an amendment that I offered to the war emergency supplemental spending bill last spring.

Specifically, the new energy package provides 4 more years of funding for the Secure Rural Schools Program, commonly known as the County Payments Program. A year of full funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program has also been included. By providing funds through 2011, this deal gets our rural counties off the fiscal roller coaster and back to stable funding so they can get at the real work of planning for the future. Today's announcement would mean $1.8 billion in critical funding for school and road programs across America.

In our home State of Oregon, particularly when folks are suffering because of the bad weather, it would mean hundreds of millions of dollars for schools and public safety, roads, and other essential county services. This program has been a successful one. It has been built around collaboration among counties, environmentalists, timber interests, and others, and the funds are absolutely critical to our rural communities.

The legislation that has been agreed to today, the Energy bill, is very important to our country's future. But equally important is the legislation known as the County Payments Program for rural communities.

I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Murray, and Senator Menendez, who have been waiting patiently for the chance to make this announcement, and it is my hope that with the unflagging support of rural folks from across the country that this much-needed energy legislation will move forward and the country can look to a brighter future for rural communities.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, credit card debt is hitting American families like a wrecking ball, with our families already being hammered by skyrocketing fuel prices and the subprime mortgage mess. We have seen credit card debt go up almost 25 percent in the last 3 years. I have brought to the floor a typical credit card agreement

that millions of our citizens enter into. It is 44 pages long. You can't see it from the chair, but it goes on and on and on with small print. It is very obvious to me that buried in all of this legalese, buried in all of this technical jargon, is a variety of sneaky terms that end up hurting consumers because it is not possible to understand what is in much of the key provisions of these agreements. For example, we understand folks in New Jersey, Oregon, or anywhere else pay a lot of attention to the interest rate provision. They pay a lot of attention to the annual fee provision. But they don't notice a lot of the little disclosures that end up hidden in the legalese that can end up making the real cost of credit significantly higher.

Last week, I met with students across the State of Oregon. A lot of them, with the financial aid cutbacks, are now walking on an economic tightrope. They balance their food bills against their fuel bills and their fuel bills against their housing costs. They are on an economic tightrope. They are getting buried in credit card debt. Very often they find, for example, that if they have a credit card, and they are late on another payment with someone else, their credit card interest rate ends up going up as a result. There may be a small provision in their existing credit card agreement that allows it, but nobody, for the most part, knows about it.

Students would say their interest rates would double almost overnight with virtually no notice. They would not be given any clear communication about what is going on. They would just find their costs would arbitrarily skyrocket, and they would again be unable to pay their bills.

Now, I recognize in a free society folks have a constitutional right to be foolish, to rack up charges that would not be wise, but they can do so anyway in a free society. I do not think most people will do that, certainly not the students I met with in Oregon last week, if it is possible to understand the terms of these credit cards in straightforward, plain and simple English rather than see the key provisions buried in all kinds of legalese that you would have to be a wizard to sort out.

So I am proposing today, with the support of our colleague, Senator Obama from Illinois, that the Federal Reserve, which has great expertise in this area, set up a safety rating system for credit cards--not one that evaluates credit card companies on provisions that are appropriately evaluated in the marketplace, but on safety matters-- for example, whether a credit card company gives the consumer adequate notice before they change terms; whether, for example, they highlight the key kinds of changes rather than bury them in the small print.

I think the Federal Reserve, with the technical expertise they have and the independent judgment they bring to these financial questions, is the ideal place to develop and operate a safety rating system. Such a system has worked quite well for new cars. When you have a rating system for cars, people can understand how they would be protected in a crash. The legislation I am offering will tell people whether credit card companies are treating them fairly and disclosing the key provisions so that a free market can work.

So under the rating system I propose today with Senator Obama, it would be required for credit card companies to put on the card itself, put on the various promotional materials they are using, stars which, in effect, would be granted on the basis of the Federal Reserve's independent judgment as to whether the key safety criteria are being met.

I am very hopeful that at a time when our citizens are being pounded by powerful economic forces, particularly in the energy and housing field, there could at least be bipartisan agreement that the Senate could support transparency, disclosure, changes in the credit card business, so our consumers--and millions are using these credit cards during this holiday season--can understand the agreements they are getting into.

The students I met with last week are taking steps now to better police what is going on in the credit card field. On several campuses in Oregon, they have moved the credit card companies off campus. Yet the credit card companies continue to flood the students with promotional material.

I was told, for example, about one program where students were brought into a room where money was essentially floating in the air, where it was as if you would be going to a financial paradise if you just signed up for one of these credit card agreements.

I am not proposing heavy-handed regulation. I am not proposing one- size-fits-all government. I am proposing that an agency with the expertise to make sure there is disclosure, that the forms and agreements are printed in simple English--that that kind of information be rewarded in the marketplace. If companies are not willing to do it, the American people could find that out as well.

That is the kind of simple, straightforward approach--with disclosure, transparency, in simple English--that makes sense for the digital age. With the Federal Reserve completing that first safety rating, all Americans could get that kind of information quickly and conveniently. That is what is in the interest of the American people with respect to this credit card debt issue at a critical time.

I hope my colleagues will support the legislation I introduce today with Senator Obama.

Mr. President, credit card debt is hitting American families like a wrecking ball, with our families already being hammered by skyrocketing fuel prices and the subprime mortgage mess. We have seen credit card debt go up almost 25 percent in the last 3 years. I have brought to the floor a typical credit card agreement

that millions of our citizens enter into. It is 44 pages long. You can't see it from the chair, but it goes on and on and on with small print. It is very obvious to me that buried in all of this legalese, buried in all of this technical jargon, is a variety of sneaky terms that end up hurting consumers because it is not possible to understand what is in much of the key provisions of these agreements. For example, we understand folks in New Jersey, Oregon, or anywhere else pay a lot of attention to the interest rate provision. They pay a lot of attention to the annual fee provision. But they don't notice a lot of the little disclosures that end up hidden in the legalese that can end up making the real cost of credit significantly higher.

Last week, I met with students across the State of Oregon. A lot of them, with the financial aid cutbacks, are now walking on an economic tightrope. They balance their food bills against their fuel bills and their fuel bills against their housing costs. They are on an economic tightrope. They are getting buried in credit card debt. Very often they find, for example, that if they have a credit card, and they are late on another payment with someone else, their credit card interest rate ends up going up as a result. There may be a small provision in their existing credit card agreement that allows it, but nobody, for the most part, knows about it.

Students would say their interest rates would double almost overnight with virtually no notice. They would not be given any clear communication about what is going on. They would just find their costs would arbitrarily skyrocket, and they would again be unable to pay their bills.

Now, I recognize in a free society folks have a constitutional right to be foolish, to rack up charges that would not be wise, but they can do so anyway in a free society. I do not think most people will do that, certainly not the students I met with in Oregon last week, if it is possible to understand the terms of these credit cards in straightforward, plain and simple English rather than see the key provisions buried in all kinds of legalese that you would have to be a wizard to sort out.

So I am proposing today, with the support of our colleague, Senator Obama from Illinois, that the Federal Reserve, which has great expertise in this area, set up a safety rating system for credit cards--not one that evaluates credit card companies on provisions that are appropriately evaluated in the marketplace, but on safety matters-- for example, whether a credit card company gives the consumer adequate notice before they change terms; whether, for example, they highlight the key kinds of changes rather than bury them in the small print.

I think the Federal Reserve, with the technical expertise they have and the independent judgment they bring to these financial questions, is the ideal place to develop and operate a safety rating system. Such a system has worked quite well for new cars. When you have a rating system for cars, people can understand how they would be protected in a crash. The legislation I am offering will tell people whether credit card companies are treating them fairly and disclosing the key provisions so that a free market can work.

So under the rating system I propose today with Senator Obama, it would be required for credit card companies to put on the card itself, put on the various promotional materials they are using, stars which, in effect, would be granted on the basis of the Federal Reserve's independent judgment as to whether the key safety criteria are being met.

I am very hopeful that at a time when our citizens are being pounded by powerful economic forces, particularly in the energy and housing field, there could at least be bipartisan agreement that the Senate could support transparency, disclosure, changes in the credit card business, so our consumers--and millions are using these credit cards during this holiday season--can understand the agreements they are getting into.

The students I met with last week are taking steps now to better police what is going on in the credit card field. On several campuses in Oregon, they have moved the credit card companies off campus. Yet the credit card companies continue to flood the students with promotional material.

I was told, for example, about one program where students were brought into a room where money was essentially floating in the air, where it was as if you would be going to a financial paradise if you just signed up for one of these credit card agreements.

I am not proposing heavy-handed regulation. I am not proposing one- size-fits-all government. I am proposing that an agency with the expertise to make sure there is disclosure, that the forms and agreements are printed in simple English--that that kind of information be rewarded in the marketplace. If companies are not willing to do it, the American people could find that out as well.

That is the kind of simple, straightforward approach--with disclosure, transparency, in simple English--that makes sense for the digital age. With the Federal Reserve completing that first safety rating, all Americans could get that kind of information quickly and conveniently. That is what is in the interest of the American people with respect to this credit card debt issue at a critical time.

I hope my colleagues will support the legislation I introduce today with Senator Obama.

I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my legislative aide, Jacquelyn Elder.

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

Mr. President, there is a worldwide epidemic of illegal logging which has been poisonous for the global environment and devastating to vital American industries. Given the urgency of this problem, Senator Alexander, myself, and more than 20 other Senators have joined in legislation--S. 1930, the Combat Illegal Logging Act-- and I and my good friend from Tennessee are on the floor and wish to speak briefly about this legislation.

We have worked for many months on this bill, cooperatively with the forest products industry, with the conservation community, and with labor organizations, and the Congressional Budget Office recently scored our legislation as having no cost. We have filed this legislation as an amendment to the farm bill, and we believe it is urgent that the Senate pass this legislation on a bipartisan basis to protect American companies from unfair competition and to protect forests around the world against illegal logging.

More than 1 year ago, a group of hardwood plywood manufacturers came to me with concerns about illegal Chinese hardwood plywood imports that were threatening their businesses. A whole host of unfair and illegal practices was lowering the costs of the Chinese hardwood plywood import sector, giving them an unfair advantage over our American hardwood plywood and putting American companies in jeopardy of going out of business and the workers they employ out of work.

Since then, I have been working to level the playing field for these plywood manufacturers, many of whom are in Oregon, and to protect the jobs of the workers they employ. In the course of all this, I have met with the Department of Commerce, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Customs and Border Patrol, and the International Trade Commission, and have urged them to pursue these issues and act where appropriate. They have, I commend them for it, and they have raised troubling practices that we have brought to light in diplomatic negotiations, opening investigations and even filing a case before the World Trade Organization targeting Chinese subsidies that benefit the hardwood plywood industry.

Our legislation--the legislation Senator Alexander and I hope to win passage for as part of the farm bill--would level the playing field for all American plywood manufacturers as they struggle to compete against artificially low-priced wood and wood products. I am also pleased we have been able to secure the support of the conservation community. They have joined us in this effort because they know it is critically important to the protection of the environment worldwide to act against this illegal logging epidemic.

From the Amazon to the Congo basin to Siberia, we are seeing illegal logging devastate some of the most precious and valuable ecosystems one can imagine. It has been gutting local economies. It has annihilated the very way

of life for a number of these communities. Because of the speed and violence with which illegal logging is occurring, failure to curb its effects now, in my view, is going to result in irreversible damage to forests around the world.

I note my friend from Tennessee is on the floor, and I want to make a couple of additional comments and allow him to speak as well. I see other colleagues want to talk, but I want to take a minute to describe how this illegal activity takes place.

It is typically done by complex criminal networks that have multinational funding, which I think is almost analogous to the way the drug trade works. There was a recent Washington Post article that documented how logs from Burma had been smuggled into Chinese processing facilities and then were exported to major retailers here in our country. In these Chinese processing facilities, what happens is the logs are often mislabeled and misclassified. Sometimes they are even fraudulently stamped with counterfeit stamps that mimic those of well-known wood certifications, such as the Forest Stewardship Council label.

There have been additional reports that have demonstrated how illegal logs are being smuggled out of the last intact rain forest in Asia, in Indonesia, and then they are made into flooring in China to feed the high-end markets in the United States and the EU. So the world's final remaining stands of old-growth teak, for example, are being stripped from Burma's forests to finance the bloody oppression of the military regime. The trade in teak and other valuable tropical hardwoods of Burma and China has reached as much as $350 million in 2005. In some cases one tree is so valuable on the international market that illegal loggers will cut a road through dense tropical forests to access it.

The amendment Senator Alexander and I seek to offer--and there are many bipartisan supporters--would curb illegal logging by making changes in the Lacey Act, which currently regulates trade in fish, wildlife, and a limited subset of plants. The Combat Illegal Logging Act of 2007 would expand the Lacey statute so that violations of foreign law that apply to plants and plant products would fall within its protections. This would make it against the law to import timber illegally harvested and obtained in a foreign country. The act would change the way people who are importing harvested timber and wood products do business. That is its intended purpose.

But I will tell you--and then I want to give what additional time I have left to my friend from Tennessee--I commend the wood products sector, particularly the American Paper Association, which has worked so closely with us. As the Forest and Paper Association, as is their formal name, they have worked diligently with us to make sure the many wood products firms that have worked responsibly in this area can be supportive of this legislation. I am grateful to them for their support and the many environmental organizations that have joined with us.

I see my friend from North Dakota and my friend from Minnesota are here as well. With their leave, Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have to the cosponsor of this legislation, I thank him, and we can conclude our remarks with Senator Alexander.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, a large number of Senators of both parties are working in good faith to try to address this question of the Internet tax moratorium. I simply want to take a few minutes this afternoon to bring to light a new development in the discussion that I hope all Senators will keep in mind.

The Congressional Research Service--our independent group that analyzes policy matters--informed me this morning that because the other body, the House of Representatives, changed the definitions in the current Internet tax moratorium, it would be possible, under the language that was adopted by the other body, to tax various Web services, such as e-mail. I know no Member of the Senate who wishes to see that happen.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to have printed in the Record the memorandum the lawyers at the Congressional Research Service sent me about the Internet tax moratorium.

Mr. President, in reference to the language that came from the other body, which I am concerned about, the Congressional Research Service said:

. . . if an Internet user utilized one provider to connect

to the internet and another paid provider of, for instance,

email services, the connection provider would be covered by

the moratorium but not the paid email provider. Under the

current moratorium, each would be covered.

What that means is, if you are an American, for example, who gets your Internet access from Verizon, under the House language that would continue to be protected. But if you get your e-mail from, say, another provider--perhaps EarthLink or Google or Yahoo--under the language that was passed by the other body, that could be taxed, according to the Congressional Research Service. I do not think any Member of this body wants that to happen.

Also, reading further from the Congressional Research Service memorandum, they say it would also allow the taxation ``of many more products and services than the existing exemption under the current moratorium.''

The reason I wanted to bring this to light this afternoon is I know various proposals will be voted on next week. I will not be able to be here next week because of some very exciting news in our household, but I do want all Senators to be aware of what the Congressional Research Service has said. We have had the Internet tax moratorium now for a decade. I wrote the original law with now-SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, and it has worked well. The Internet has thrived and prospered. It is, of course, a technology treasure trove that we use for business, health opportunities, education, and a vast array of services.

We were told when the original proposal came out that it would, for example, be harmful to States, that they would lose revenue. That hasn't been the case. The States have gained in revenue for something like 16 straight quarters.

We heard it would be harmful to Main Street, to small businesses. That hasn't been the case either. In fact, most small businesses now look to something called ``Bricks and Clicks'' where they have a physical presence and an Internet presence.

We were also told it would be harmful to malls, as if our original proposal would empty the malls. That hasn't happened either. The moratorium has worked well, and I wish to make it permanent.

Frankly, the thing I am most concerned about this afternoon is the change in these definitions. The change in the definitions from the original moratorium, as outlined in this memo by the Congressional Research Service, ought to trouble every Senator as this

body considers the various alternatives that will be presented this upcoming week. I think the current definitions have served us well. They have allowed the net to thrive and prosper and they haven't caused damage to the States or to small businesses on Main Street or to the shopping malls. I see no reason for changing those current definitions.

I hope Senators will reflect on this language. Certainly it is going to be hard to explain to folks at home making changes that would open up the prospect, as the Congressional Research Service has said, for taxing e-mail. But an awful lot of Americans get their Internet access from one provider and they get their e-mail from somebody else. Given that, I wanted to make sure the Senate was aware of this, and that as the Senate considers this legislation, the issue of whether the moratorium should be made permanent is important, but even more important is getting this question of the definitions of what is covered in the moratorium right, because I don't believe any Senator wants to see happen what the Congressional Research Service has indicated this morning could happen under the bill that was passed by the other body.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, this country is headed toward a total meltdown on taxes. I am going to spend a few minutes this afternoon to talk about how that can be cooled off for a bit.

Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Paulson warned that unless the Congress acts within the next month on the alternative minimum tax, up to 50 million households, more than a third of all taxpayers, could be clobbered with new taxes. Congress has known for some time that unless the alternative minimum tax is addressed, 23 million taxpayers would be hit with the double whammy of having to calculate their taxes twice, and typically pay a higher tax bill.

First, they are going to have to do their taxes using the regular 1040 form; then they will have to calculate their taxes using the alternative minimum tax, which has a completely different and more complex set of forms.

Having to do your taxes once is bad enough. On average, that takes something like 15 to 30 hours, depending on whether a taxpayer is itemizing. But having to do your taxes is simply bureaucratic water torture.

Yesterday's announcement by Treasury Secretary Paulson revealed that twice as many taxpayers as previously estimated could be put in bureaucratic limbo by the alternative minimum tax and face delays in processing their returns and getting a tax refund. The problem is going to get worse and worse each year, as more and more taxpaying Americans are dragged into the alternative minimum tax parallel universe of tax rules, because the tax law is now stuck in a time warp.

It was never indexed for inflation. If Congress does not act, an estimated 30 million taxpaying Americans are going to be hit by the alternative minimum tax double whammy in 2010.

The Congress has not been able to get ahead of the problem. It is simply, at this point, trying to keep the problem from getting worse. Each year, the cost of even the so-called temporary patch to keep the AMT from clobbering more persons goes up. This year it will cost $55 billion to preserve the status quo. The next year the cost will go to $80 billion. Over 10 years the cost is an astounding $870 billion.

The Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve, is trying to find a way to pay for a 1-year fix. Senators are working in good faith in a bipartisan fashion, but there is not a huge pot of money out there to pay for a $55 billion patch for the alternative minimum tax.

I will be working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to look at every conceivable possibility to come up with the money for 1 year of alternative minimum tax relief. But certainly the Congress ought to start, and start now, to find a clear path out of the budgetary haze. I think that path and all roads that the Congress ought to be looking at should lead to comprehensive tax reform in our country.

This week the House Ways and Means chairman plans to unveil his proposal that would repeal the alternative minimum tax as part of a larger tax reform effort. Over the summer, Treasury Secretary Paulson called for corporate tax reform.

Ways and Means Chairman Rangel has indicated he is going to look at the issue of corporate reform as part of broader legislation he wants to consider. But I think there is an opportunity now, if the administration would engage the Congress on tax reform, and there is a model. The model is one where a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, worked with the Democratic Congress to achieve historic reform in 1986. It was based on a simple set of principles. Those principles were: It ought to be possible for everybody in our country to get ahead. It ought to be possible for people who work for a wage and people who make money through investments to get ahead.

It was a system that kept progressivity so that there was a sense of fairness for all Americans. It was a system based on cleaning out a lot of unnecessary tax breaks, clutter in the Tax Code, in order to finance reform.

That is what I have proposed to do in legislation that I call the Fair Flat Tax Act. I believe there are real opportunities for bipartisan reform, starting with the issue of tax simplification. In our Fair Flat Tax Act we have a 1-page 1040 form, something like 30 lines long.

President Bush had a tax reform commission that looked at reform. Their simplification process involved a form that was something like 34 lines long. For purposes of Government work, that is about the same thing. We could get a bipartisan agreement on tax simplification, if the President engaged the Congress fairly quickly. Certainly, the other issues will take a great deal more thought and involve more complexity, but I have been asking witnesses who come before the Finance Committee their views about tax reform. These are experts who come from across the political spectrum. They share widely differing views. But of the witnesses who came to the Finance Committee, 19 out of 20 witnesses agree with my fundamental premise that the model of 1986, holding down rates for everybody, keeping progressivity and financing it by getting rid of loopholes and breaks, those witnesses all said the 1986 model, put together by the late President Reagan and Democrats in Congress, is still a model that makes sense for today.

One of the witnesses even said:

Baseball fans remember the moment when Babe Ruth pointed at

the stands and hit a home run, and tax geeks remember the

1986 Act with similar relish.

Like the 1986 act, I start with simplification, as I have outlined. Then I look to make the Tax Code flatter to make sure that instead of six individual brackets, we would have perhaps three. I start with the rates Ronald Reagan started with, but I am not wedded to those particular rates. Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley and others in 1986 looked at something in the vicinity of 15 and 28 percent. The point is, if Members of this body, working with the President on a bipartisan basis, want to get into this, it would be possible to look at comprehensive tax reform now. The alternatives, as the Senate sees how difficult it is to fix the alternative minimum tax and deal with various proposals as it relates to investment and hedge funds, strike me as nowhere near as appealing as dealing with comprehensive tax reform.

Many have raised the question of the issue of the differential treatment between work and wealth. It is a fact that the cop walking the beat today who makes their money on wages pays taxes at a significantly higher rate than somebody who makes their money from investments. That is a fact that ought to trouble all Americans. What we ought to be trying to do is not pit those two against each other but look at an approach such as the one pursued in 1986 so that all Americans have a chance to get ahead. That is what we are about as a nation, not pitting one group of people against another. We want people who work for a wage to have a chance to get ahead as well as pay for necessities for their families. We all understand how important investment is at a time when we face great economic challenges globally. The fair flat tax of 2007 seeks to try to ensure that all Americans would have an opportunity to get ahead and provides real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions, deferrals, credits, and special rates for certain businesses and activities and through the setting of one single flat corporate rate.

On the individual side, the fair flat tax ends favoritism for itemizers while approving deductions across the board. The standard deduction would be tripled for standard filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and raised from $10,000 to $30,000 for married couples. As a result, the vast majority of Americans would be better off claiming the standard deduction than having to itemize their deductions, so filing will be simplified for all Americans. We also keep the deductions most used by middle-class families, as Ronald Reagan and Bill Bradley and others who worked so hard in 1986 did. We protect the home mortgage interest break, the one for charitable contributions, and the credits for children, education, and earned income. But nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act.

The alternative minimum tax would be eliminated. This is particularly important right now as citizens look at the challenges they are going to face next year.

What makes the Fair Flat Tax Act unique is it also corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; that is, regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low and middle- income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy once again. Compared to those who are more fortunate, they pay more of their income in State and local taxes. Poor families pay more than 11 percent, and middle- income families pay about 10 percent of their income in State and local taxes, while more fortunate individuals pay only about half. Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers don't itemize, they get no credit on their Federal forms for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two- thirds of the Federal deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with substantial incomes. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time the Federal code would look at the individual's entire tax picture, their combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give credit to low and middle-income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

What this all means--and we had Jane Gravelle and her excellent team at the Congressional Research Service work on these numbers--is that the typical middle-class family with wage and salary income up to approximately $150,000 a year would see tax relief in a way that would not cause the Federal Government to lose revenue.

Finally, by simplifying the code, there are other benefits. With a simpler system, it would be harder for individuals to take advantage of the system and easier for the Internal Revenue Service to catch those who do cheat. At present, there is a tax gap between taxes owed and collected of over $300 billion per year. Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley have done yeoman's work on this issue. I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make, in addition, a significant dent in dealing with the tax gap, raising a significant amount of revenue from a source that would not

increase taxes. The Fair Flat Tax Act, as it relates to the tax gap issue, is a win for all Americans except for those who have been cheating the system.

I am obviously aware that the clock is ticking down on this session of Congress. Certainly, by early next year, in the thick of a Presidential election, something such as this is daunting. But it is time for Congress to get started now on what witness after witness after witness in the Finance Committee is saying; that is, the urgent need, after scores of tax changes, to get about draining the swamp.

To give you an idea of what the numbers are with respect to tax changes, the latest analysis shows we have had something akin to 15,000 tax changes. That comes to three for every working day. Even regional IRS offices, according to practitioners I talk to, cannot agree among themselves as to how to apply this increasingly complicated Tax Code.

It is time to get started. The Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. Certainly, that is going to cause additional confusion and chaos for taxpayers. With the problems the Congress is wrestling with now, such as the immediate crunch of the alternative minimum tax and with the hammer poised to come down in 2010 with all the other expiring tax laws, there is a strong incentive for members of both political parties to come to the table and get to work on tax reform.

I hope colleagues will look at the Fair Flat Tax Act as a way to start the debate. I don't consider it the last word on this extraordinarily important subject, but I hope we can begin the debate now.

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

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

Mr. President, there was discussion on the floor this morning about intelligence matters. I wanted to spend a few minutes to discuss a matter of bipartisan concern in the Senate. What I am talking about is the very troubling development that came to light last week indicating that the head of the CIA, General Hayden, has decided to launch an investigation into the Agency's inspector general.

I and others--and I particularly commend Senator Bond, our vice chairman of the committee, for his excellent statement on this matter-- are very concerned about this new development. It is particularly important that the inspector general of the Central Intelligence Agency function with independence. Because our work by its very nature-- entrusted with those secrets essential to protect our country's security--has to be done in private and is classified, we need an independent inspector general to ensure accountability.

Because of a development such as this, I think this can have a chilling effect on the independence of the inspector general at the Central Intelligence Agency.

The Congress created these inspector general positions for a reason, and that is to ensure accountability, to ensure Government efficiency. Virtually all of the agencies have these key positions and, of course, it is their job to report findings to the Congress.

Perhaps General Hayden is concerned about the work of Mr. Helgerson, the inspector general for the Agency. There is an appropriate process for bringing up those concerns. If the head of the Central Intelligence Agency is concerned about how the CIA inspector general is doing his job, he ought to bring them to the President's Council on Integrity and Effectiveness.

It is my view that particular body has been handling complaints against inspectors general, and it is my view they are doing their job well and appropriately. But to have an investigation such as this, in my view, is going to interfere with the inspectors general independence. If the Director of the CIA is ordering investigations into the inspector general's activities and plans to ``suggest improvements'' for the inspector general to consider, my view is that can undermine the inspector general's independence.

I do not want to see inspectors general intimidated. That is the bottom line here, and I do not want the Director of the CIA interfering with the extraordinarily important activities of the inspector general at the Agency.

Let me also state that my concern is part of a view that there has been a pattern at the Agency of being less than transparent. I and, again, senior Members of this body, particularly Senator Bond and Senator Roberts, have worked very closely and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the inspector general's report on the role of the Agency in the runup to 9/11 was going to be made public. I can tell you that, unfortunately, General Hayden fought that bipartisan effort every step of the way.

The fact is, it was a balanced effort. The particular recommendations of the

inspector general were modest in nature. They did not require that anybody be fired or cavalierly dismissed. It called for what is known as an accountability board, something, again, to ensure that the watchdogs are in place to protect this country's security and do it in a fashion that is committed to the American principles of transparency and openness.

I have written Admiral McConnell who, of course, is the head of the national intelligence community, and asked him to direct General Hayden to cease and cease immediately the investigation that is now going on into the work of the inspector general at the Central Intelligence Agency.

It is my view that people who know they are doing the right thing are not afraid of oversight. It is time for the head of the intelligence community, Admiral McConnell, to put an end, and an immediate end, to General Hayden's attempt to muzzle the CIA's inspector general.

I wrap up by saying, again, we are not talking about a matter that is partisan. Senator Bond, who has been so cooperative on these matters relating to accountability and transparency, said it very well. Senator Bond said the inspector general had done great work. In his statement on this matter, Senator Bond noted that the Agency regrettably has a track record of resisting accountability.

So that is what this is all about. The ball is now in Admiral McConnell's court. It is my hope that in the next few days, Admiral McConnell will direct General Hayden to cease this investigation into the work of the CIA's inspector general.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, let me begin by saying that Senator Bennett and I are thrilled to be able to welcome Senator Stabenow to this bipartisan coalition, the first bipartisan coalition in 13 years that has been designed to try to finally fix American health care and ensure that all of our citizens have good quality affordable coverage.

Four Senators joined us this week. I want to say just a little bit about each one of them. First, Senator Stabenow has put decades into this cause of improving health care. Again and again, she has spoken for seniors, for kids, for holding down costs, for prevention. We sit right next to each other in the Senate Finance Committee. And to have Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley who have pulled out all of the stops once again to try to bring together a bipartisan coalition for our children, when I think about having Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley join those of us in this coalition and to have their support in the Senate Finance Committee, this is an enormously important day.

As Senator Stabenow said, she represents constituents facing one of the great challenges in American health care; that is, how to make the transition for so many of our key workers and companies in basic industries. When you open a business today in the State of Michigan or Montana or Oregon or anywhere else, you spot your foreign competition about 18 percentage points the day you open your doors. Those businesses in our States see premiums go up 10, 12, 14 percent a year. And they are competing in global markets against people who have State- funded health care.

So as Senator Stabenow has said, and as we have seen just in the last couple of weeks with the new UAW agreement, there is going to be change in the air. The question is how we shape it. And to have people such as Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley, who have been leaders for years and years in this cause, it is of enormous benefit.

Senator Bennett and I are very appreciative. We are also glad to have Senators Landrieu and Coleman join us. Senator Landrieu, of course, is wrestling with the great challenge of how to reform health care in the State of Louisiana. She has looked at a number of innovative reforms that we support.

Senator Coleman, coming from Minnesota, which has been a huge tech center that has contributed to an area that Senator Stabenow has a great interest in, which is health information technology--Senator Coleman's involvement will be very helpful as well.

It seems to me this Congress has the chance to deliver a bipartisan one-two punch for health care this year. Punch No. 1 is to try to make sure our kids are covered. Americans are watching the back and forth between the Congress and the President with respect to children's health care.

Clearly, it is a moral abomination that so many of our youngsters in America do not have health care. The American people want action. They cannot understand the bickerfest going on in Washington, DC, over this issue.

I am very hopeful that the White House will continue to work, pick up on the model set out by Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, working with Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller, and we will resolve this issue quickly.

It is clear to me that covering kids is a moral issue, but it is also a financial issue. If these youngsters do not get good health care, America plays catch-up ball for years and years in the aftermath. Because they cannot get the preventative services they need, they pick up illnesses, and we are already seeing the great problems with childhood obesity and chronic illnesses setting in at a very early age.

So punch No. 1 is covering the kids, and punch No. 2, as Senator Stabenow suggested, is moving on to the broader reform issue of making sure all Americans have quality, affordable coverage. What is promising about this period that we have not had in the past is that both Republicans and Democrats have been willing to search for common ground.

In our conversations, Senator Bennett, Senator Grassley, and I, and others, have talked about the need to cover everybody. Certainly, back in 1993, that was something that was a bit of a show stopper. People said: You cannot afford it. Today, many Republicans share the view of Senator Stabenow and myself that the country cannot afford not to cover everybody because what happens today is people who are uninsured shift their bills to people who are insured, and not only do they shift the bills, they shift the most expensive bills: those hospital emergency room bills and expensive treatment bills for acute illnesses.

So I very much credit Republicans such as Senators Bennett and Grassley and Gregg and all of those who have joined us from the other side of the aisle by being willing to search for common ground around the proposition of getting everybody covered.

But Democrats have also been willing to look at new approaches to make sure we could address this issue in a bipartisan way. Senator Stabenow has said the Healthy Americans Act focuses on a private delivery system, a private delivery system which is, of course, what we enjoy. When we all go home, we go home to Montana or Michigan, and everyone says: We would like coverage like you people have back in the Congress.

Well, we have private coverage. I have a Blue Cross card in my pocket. A couple of Wyden twins in a few weeks are going to get their health care through that Blue Cross card. Nancy is at home in Oregon, and we are going to have those kids in a few weeks. They are going to be covered with private health insurance.

So we want to make sure everyone in this country has private choices like Members of Congress have. As Senator Stabenow has mentioned, Democrats who might have said, well, we ought to be looking at a Government program, are willing to reach out and work with Republicans to say: If we can cover everybody, if we can get everybody in America good, quality, affordable coverage, we are willing to make sure there are private choices, which is something our colleagues on the Republican side have talked about as well. We also have responsible ways to pay for this program that covers all Americans.

As the Lewin Group has indicated--and the report is on our Web site so folks can see it--by redirecting the

money in the Tax Code, which now disproportionately favors the most affluent and rewards inefficiency, you get substantial funds in order to pay for the transition to a program that covers everybody.

Why in the world would we want to continue to say, if you are a high- flying CEO, you can go out and get a designer smile put on our face and write the cost of that off your taxes, while a woman of modest means at the neighborhood furniture store, with no employer coverage, gets virtually nothing out of the Tax Code. So Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley and Senator Bennett and the other co-sponsors and I are going to work to redirect that Tax Code money to the people in the middle- income brackets and the lower middle-income brackets so we make better use of that money, which now is well over $200 billion.

We are also going to create, in our effort, significant administrative savings. We are going to get some, as Senators Stabenow and Whitehouse and others have talked about, through better use of health information technology. I support that. We are also going to get the savings, as the Lewin Group reported in looking at our legislation, by making sure that after you sign up once under the Healthy Americans Act, you are not going to have to go through a sign-up ever again if you wish.

From that point on, everything will work through the world of electronic transfers. And all of those folks who are low income, on Medicaid, who have to dive through all of these different boxes in order to be eligible, they will get choices like Members of Congress have. And once they sign up, they are done. No more dehumanizing, wasteful kinds of programs where you have to sign up again and again and again. And you waste money and take dollars that ought to go, as Senator Stabenow has talked about, to make sure that every poor person does not fall between the cracks of the American health care system.

Our coalition is going to be talking a fair amount about this effort on the floor of the Senate in the days ahead. We now have nine Senators as part of this effort. We are going to be talking about the ways this proposal modernizes the health system and how we make the changes from what we have today to what we will have in the future.

One other area that I would like to just touch on briefly is that I think under the Healthy Americans Act we can respond to something that Americans are talking about all over this country; that is, making the health care system portable. Right now, so many folks are pretty much locked in their jobs and just hoping that their employer is not going to find health coverage unaffordable in the days ahead.

I cannot tell you how many times people in their late fifties have come to me and said: Ron, I just hope my employer can hang on until I am 65 and I will be eligible for Medicare. We ought to make coverage portable so that if you change your job, in Michigan or Montana or anywhere else, your health care coverage goes with you.

Andy Stern, the President of the Service Employees Union, points out that the typical worker today changes jobs about eight times by the time they are 35. Let's come up with a system that ensures coverage is portable, and that even if you fall on hard times, even if you lose your job, even if your company goes down, you are in a position to take good, quality, affordable coverage--with choices like we have in Congress--with you.

I see a number of colleagues on the Senate floor. I think I would just like to wrap up by expressing my appreciation to Senator Stabenow for coming today. She has appropriately singled out Senator Grassley as well. I want to thank all of the members of our coalition. Health reform is a top issue. Everybody remembers what happened in 1993 and all of the ads and the shrill rhetoric.

It seemed every time you turned around in 1993, the decibel level went up and up. Now what we are seeing, as Senator Stabenow touched on, is a group of Senators coming together on a bipartisan basis who want to roll up their sleeves, take out a sharp pencil, and go to work. This is going to be a lot of work. If Senator Stabenow and I got 100 Members of the Senate to be cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act today, it would still be a lot of work because we are going to have to look at a variety of issues and walk the country through all of these choices, through hearings and town meetings and forums, so we can pick up on all of the wisdom and suggestions that are out there across this land. But we are making a very important start. We have received a huge boost this week with the four additional Senators who have joined us.

To my friend from Michigan, for all her knowledge and passion and years of effort, I want her to know how much I am looking forward to teaming up with her on this issue in the Finance Committee.

I yield the floor.

I would like to join my colleague from Oregon in recognizing the Guard soldiers who leave their community to fight for their country. And I agree that they deserve the best equipment available, including the Stryker vehicles. I think it is also important to point out that in the hands of the Guard the Stryker vehicles would also be used during domestic disaster situations as well as combat overseas. Our citizen soldiers deserve the same equipment as the active duty Army, and I too hope that the Army will see the wisdom of establishing a Stryker Brigade Combat Team for the National Guard.

Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their robust debate about this important piece of legislation.

I would also like to highlight a provision included in this bill based on the Stop Arming Iran Act, which I introduced in January of this year. The provision seeks to end the Iranian Government's acquisition of sensitive military equipment by blocking the Pentagon's sale of F-14 fighter jet parts.

It is the sensitive job of the Department of Defense to demilitarize and auction off surplus military equipment. However, recent investigations and reports have uncovered a frightening trend regarding the sale of F-14 Tomcat aircraft parts. U.S. customs agents have discovered F-14 parts being illegally shipped to Iran by brokers who bought F-14 surplus equipment from Department of Defense auctions.

Other than the United States, Iran is the only nation to fly the F- 14. The United States allowed Iran to buy 79 F-14s before its revolution in 1979. Fortunately, most of Iran's F-14s are currently grounded for lack of parts. As the F-14 is retired from active service in the United States, a slew of parts are about to be processed by the Pentagon.

We know that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. We know that the Department of State has identified Iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism. We know that the sale of spare parts for F- 14s could make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons capability of Iran. And yet F-14 parts are still being sold by the DOD.

Iran's F-14s, especially with the parts to get more of them airborne, greatly strengthen its ground war potential, harming our national and global security. Our country should be doing everything possible to deny the brutal regime in Tehran access to spare parts for their F-14 fleet.

The Department of Defense will tell you that it is already taking action to control the sale of F-14 parts. They now say that every F-14 part is frozen and cannot be sold. However, they will not commit to keeping this freeze in place and admit that the Pentagon can choose to rescind or make exceptions to this policy at any time. I have identified three large-scale changes to the Pentagon's policy on F-14 parts in just the last year. And history has shown us that these rules are not enough.

The Department has been caught still selling F-14 parts, even when its rules forbid it. It has sold F-14 parts to companies that have turned out to be fronts for the Iranians. More recently, the DOD sold sensitive technology, including classified F-14 parts, to undercover GAO investigators.

This provision will make it crystal clear to the Department of Defense that it may not sell any F-14 parts to anyone for any reason. There should be no chance for the parts to make their way to the Iranians.

I am very encouraged that both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees have included the Stop Arming Iran provision in both versions of the Defense authorization bill. I commend my colleagues for allowing this important legislation into today's bill.

The provision fixes a very specific but very important problem: the sale of F-14 components to a state sponsor of terrorism. We cannot--and with the passage of this bill, we will not--allow that to happen.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I hope tomorrow the Senate will pass urgently needed help for millions of America's children. I hope it will be done quickly because it is a moral abomination that millions of America's kids don't have health care. If the Senate acts quickly and the White House approves the legislation, it would then be possible to move forward on a bipartisan effort to more broadly address the extraordinary health care needs of all of our citizens.

The fact is, you don't get anything important done on health care, or other issues, unless it is bipartisan. Tomorrow, we will see a textbook case of bipartisanship on display on the floor of the Senate. Four members of the Senate Finance Committee on which I am proud to serve-- Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller, and Hatch--and I see my friend from Utah on the floor. I salute him personally in my remarks because I know the Senator from Utah, the Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Montana, and the Senator from Iowa spent hours and hours, day after day, working on the legislation to help our kids.

Bills such as this don't happen by osmosis; they happen because legislators of good faith, such as Senator Hatch, who, along with Senator Kennedy and others, was a pioneer of this effort. Senator Hatch has addressed the major concerns. This is protecting private options for health care for children. He has been able to target the neediest youngsters. I am pleased he has addressed this waiver question and the remarks that the Senator has made and the distinguished Senator from Iowa has made, joining Senators Baucus and Rockefeller. This is a textbook case, in my view, of how we address health care in a bipartisan way.

Frankly, one of the points I am going to make tonight in my remarks is that I wish to have this issue addressed by the Senate quickly because, first, our kids need it so much and, second, because if we can get it done quickly, he and I, Senator Grassley, and so many other colleagues on the Finance Committee still want to work in a bipartisan way to go further.

Yes.

I thank my friend. The fact that Senator Hatch and Senator Kennedy, in particular, have prosecuted this cause of improving health care for our citizens has been so important. It is going to pay off, I hope, this week with resounding support for the children's health bill.

I want to spend a few minutes tonight talking about the possibility, with a strong victory for the cause of children's health, about the prospects of moving on from there. I wish to pick up on the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. He has been very gracious in terms of working with me and looking at the variety of options for broader reform. And I appreciate the conversation that Senator Grassley had just a few days ago with the White House.

What a lot of us are saying to the White House is we think you have some valid points with respect to the broader issue of health care reform. I happen to think that Democrats have been spot on, absolutely correct on the coverage issue. We have to cover everybody because if we do not cover everybody, the people who are uninsured shift their

bills to people who are insured. But Republicans have had a very valid point as well that there ought to be private options, that there ought to be choices, that you need to have a strong delivery system with American health care in the private sector. That is why I made mention of the emphasis in the children's health bill on the private sector options.

My message to the White House has been, and I think the distinguished Senator from Iowa has made the same point, that it will not be possible to go on to the broader issue of health care reform until first the urgent needs of our children, needs that are demonstrated every single day in communities across the land--we are not going to see efforts on the broader reform effort pay off until first the needs of our children are met.

I hope the White House will see that the prospects of getting into issues that they correctly identify as important--I have said for a long time, and I say to my colleagues again, every liberal economist with whom we have talked in the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee has made the point that the current Tax Code disproportionately on health care favors the most wealthy and encourages inefficiency.

If the children's health bill can get passed, and passed quickly, we can then go forward, Democrats and Republicans, to work together on it. I have a different approach than the White House has with respect to fixing the Tax Code on health care, but certainly there are ways that Democrats and Republicans can work together if there is the same kind of good faith, bipartisan effort we have seen with Democratic and Republican leaders on the CHIP legislation.

I hope the White House will not veto the CHIP bill. They want broader health care reform, and so do I. The fact is, Senator Bennett of Utah and I, along with Senator Gregg, Senator Alexander, and Senator Bill Nelson, have brought to the floor of the Senate the first bipartisan universal coverage health bill in more than 13 years. It has been more than a decade, I say to my colleagues, since there has been a bipartisan universal coverage bill.

The fact is, out on the Presidential campaign trail, a lot of the Democratic candidates for President and a lot of the Republican candidates for President are talking about some of the very same approaches I outlined when I proposed the Healthy Americans Act in December of 2006.

This is an important time for the future of health care in our country. I hope steps will be taken to meet the needs of our kids that are so urgent and the President will sign that legislation, that he will see the value of the important bipartisan work done in this Chamber. If he does, even though the clock is ticking down on this Congress--and there is not a lot of time left for major initiatives--I still believe, as do Senator Bennett and the sponsors of the Healthy Americans Act, Democratic and Republican colleagues with whom we continue to talk, that it is possible to go forward after a good children's health bill is passed to have broader health reform. And I think colleagues understand how urgent that is.

One of the sponsors of our Healthy Americans Act, Senator Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, just came into the Chamber. I am very honored to have him as a cosponsor of the Healthy Americans Act. Senators Gregg and Conrad have correctly identified entitlement spending and the need to address it as a special priority.

The fact is, we cannot address the growing escalation in entitlement spending unless we deal with health care reform. We just cannot do it. It cannot happen because there are no costs rising in America like medical bills. Medical bills are a wrecking ball, flattening communities across the country and are the principal factor in the mushrooming cost of entitlements.

Again and again, the question of our country's well-being, the place of our companies in a tough global marketplace, the spiraling cost of entitlements comes down to the need to better address comprehensive health reform.

I believe, even though there is not a lot of time left in this session of Congress, that can be done, but only if, as Senator Grassley noted early in the evening, the legislation that ensures that at least this session of Congress, at a minimum, takes steps to remove some of that moral taint we now face because our kids don't have health care. If that is done, we can go on from there.

I hope tomorrow we will see a resounding vote for the country's children. It is in their interests, it is in their name that we have had a bipartisan coalition working on the legislation. But I also suggest to the White House and others who want broader reform, reform that picks up on some of the White House's principles, it cannot happen unless the children's health bill is passed, and passed with a strong majority this week and the President signs it into law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Oregon's coastal forests contain many hidden gems. Within the lush rainforests of the Siskiyou-Rogue River National Forest, we find one of these gems--the headwaters of the North Fork of the Elk River, known as the Copper Salmon area. Today I introduce a bill to protect this natural treasure, which lies adjacent to the existing Grassy Knob Wilderness.

During the last decade, a dedicated group of local conservationists has been working hard to protect Copper Salmon. It is one of the last intact watersheds on the southwest Oregon coast. Copper Salmon is renowned among fishermen. For anglers seeking to catch a trophy chinook salmon or winter steelhead for the barbeque or smoker in Oregon, this is the place. Few watersheds in Oregon can match the Elk River drainage. Even after torrential rainstorms, anglers are still able to fish the Elk. When 25 inches of rain fell over 18 straight days last December, the Elk was still fishable while the other rivers in southwest Oregon, Rogue, Umpqua, Coquille, were clouded with debris and mud. Copper Salmon also supports healthy populations of blacktail deer, elk, black bear and mountain lion. This beautiful gem on the southwestern Oregon coast provides great and challenging opportunities here to hunt in freedom and solitude.

Mr. President, 80 percent of the watershed in this region is still intact. The Elk has healthy wild runs of winter steelhead and chinook. It also has some coho salmon and sea-run cutthroat trout, as well as resident cutthroats and rainbow trout. Oregon State University researchers believe it is one of the healthiest anadromous fish streams in the lower 48. There is a reason why: intact habitat.

My bill would provide permanent protections to 13,700 acres of new wilderness. It would also designate 9.3 miles of wild and scenic rivers. Wilderness and wild and scenic designations will protect this watershed and ensure that hunting and fishing opportunities are protected in the Copper Salmon area. Wilderness designation is popular in the local area, as evidenced by resolutions in favor of it from the Port Orford Chamber of Commerce, the mayor of Port Orford, and the Curry County Commissioners. Additionally, a majority of the guides, lodges and local citizens have supported this proposal. It is time now that we all come together and permanently protect this special place.

As Oregon's population grows, I believe that we must match this growth and the corresponding development with protection of our natural heritage. Protection of these areas will ensure that Oregonians and visitors will continue to enjoy opportunities to hike in the wilderness, hunt healthy populations of elk, blacktail deer, black bear, mountain lion and to catch trophy-sized chinook and steelhead.

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