Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, first, I see the distinguished chairman of the committee and the vice chairman of the committee on the floor. I commend both of them for their excellent work on this legislation. I particularly wish to commend Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond for the bipartisan approach the two of them have brought to tackling these important issues in this session of the Senate.

It is extremely important that intelligence is conducted in a bipartisan fashion and the chairman and vice chairman have set a model in terms of approaching these issues in that fashion.

In the 1970s, Members of Congress realized there was not nearly enough oversight of our Nation's spy agencies, and this lack of oversight led to a number of serious abuses. In response to the abuses, the Senate created the Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I am proud to serve. Each year, for 29 straight years, our committee has produced an intelligence authorization bill, and this annual legislation has given Congress a means by which to exercise oversight of the classified intelligence budget and provide guidance to the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and various other important intelligence agencies.

In 2005 and 2006, regrettably, the Congress failed to pass the Intelligence authorization legislation. In my view, this is inexcusable. At a time when

Americans were questioning our intelligence agencies' ability to keep them safe, the Congress failed to provide the necessary support. At a time when the intelligence community was undergoing major reorganization, Congress failed to provide sufficient guidance. At a time when our allies and our own citizens were raising serious questions about our detention policies, the Congress failed to conduct oversight. At a time when Americans were opening their morning papers and reading about the aggressive new forms of Government surveillance, such as the President's warrantless wiretapping program, the Congress failed to demand accountability.

The committee did report Intelligence authorization bills for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, but they were blocked repeatedly by anonymous holds. Regrettably, the previous leadership failed to make passing this legislation a top priority. The new leadership of the Senate has decided that ensuring national security and protecting Americans' rights and values is a major concern and, as a result, we are now dealing with this year's Intelligence Authorization Act, and it comes, in my view, to a great extent because of the cooperation of Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond, who has also assisted me in a number of critical areas throughout this session of the Senate, for which I am very appreciative.

This legislation contains a number of important provisions which I am proud to have worked on with my colleagues on the committee. It clarifies many of the authorities of the Director of National Intelligence, establishes a new national space intelligence center, and creates a strong independent inspector general for the intelligence community. It strengthens congressional oversight by clarifying the President's responsibility to keep the Congress informed of all intelligence activities. In addition, it contains three amendments that I offered and that I believe are going to improve the functioning of our intelligence agencies.

The first of these amendments would make public the total amount of the national intelligence budget. In my view, it is ridiculous to suggest that Osama bin Laden is going to gain some sort of advantage from knowing that the national intelligence budget is one specific number or another. But declassifying this number would increase, in my view, transparency and public accountability. It would increase public accountability without sacrificing the national security needs of this country and also permit a more informed debate about funding for defense and national security.

The second of these amendments which I offered with the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller, would increase resources to support the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. After investigating the proposed takeover of the management of several United States ports by Dubai Ports World, I became convinced that the process for approving these foreign purchases did not include sufficient due diligence. There ought to be more room in this process for input from the intelligence community, and these additional resources that have come about as a result of this amendment I developed with Chairman Rockefeller would support that.

The last of these amendments would maximize the criminal penalty for knowingly and intentionally disclosing the identity of a covert agent. Like many Americans, I was shocked and disappointed to learn that members of the administration exposed the identity of an undercover CIA officer for partisan political purposes. Undercover officers perform a vital and demanding service for the Nation, and the very nature of their work prevents them from receiving public praise or recognition. Deliberately exposing an undercover officer for any reason, in my view, is unacceptable, and to do it for a political purpose is simply reprehensible. This provision will send a message to men and women of the CIA and other human intelligence services that the Congress values them and their work and takes any threat to them or to their identity very seriously.

I also note that the version of this legislation that was reported by the Intelligence Committee also creates a new exemption to the Privacy Act. In the additional views to the committee report, Senator Feingold and I expressed our view that the impact of this provision had not been considered carefully enough. I am pleased the managers' amendment prepared by Chairman Rockefeller and Vice Chairman Bond removes this provision and, in my view, that is going to make our conference with the House of Representatives easier.

In sum, I am pleased with the work--the bipartisan work--our committee put into this legislation, and I hope the Senate will support cloture this afternoon. This is extremely important legislation. It ought to be passed on a bipartisan basis. It should not be subject to a filibuster. Congress has surrendered its national security responsibilities for too long and too often, and it is time for the Congress to stand up and do its job.

Chairman Rockefeller and Senator Bond have made it possible for the Senate Intelligence Committee to bring this legislation before the Senate. I am very hopeful this legislation will move forward today and that the Senate will support cloture.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year.

Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system.

The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer.

The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes.

We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class.

We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it.

The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not.

We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and 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 their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income.

Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests.

Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education.

I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, 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 the wealthier pay only about 5 percent.

Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break.

The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit.

I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do?

If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this.

I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system.

I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America.

It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially.

I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor.

I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way.

I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days.

There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission.

But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead.

That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork.

So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again.

The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort.

I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better.

I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a bit about taxes. Millions of Americans are scrambling today to file their taxes, trying to pull together their 1040 forms and ``schedule this'' and ``form that'' and are plowing through shoe boxes and filing cabinets trying to find the receipts they accumulated all through this year.

Millions of our citizens have to calculate their taxes twice to find out the hard way that they have been ensnared in the alternative minimum tax and that they have to pay a much larger burden than they had expected. I believe there is a better way for our country to handle taxes, one where most Americans do not have to fear tax day, do not have to shell out billions of dollars in order to file their taxes, do not have to worry about getting crushed by the alternative minimum tax that years ago, when it was created, was not supposed to clobber middle-class folks in the Pacific Northwest and across the country.

Today I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act, along with my colleague in the other body, Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. What we are doing in our fair flat tax legislation is offering the country a proposal that offers the administrative simplicity of a flat tax with the sense of fairness and progressivity that our country has always wanted in our tax system.

The tax reform proposal we have developed is simpler because it is easier to understand and use. Our legislation will include a simplified 1040 form, one page, 30 lines for every individual taxpayer.

The folks at Money magazine, the financial publication, took this one-page 1040 form, and they were able to fill out their taxes in 15 minutes.

We also make the tax system flatter by collapsing the current system of six individual tax brackets down to three brackets of 15, 25 and 35 percent. We create a flat corporate rate of 35 percent.

The plan is fairer because we do more to make it possible for middle- class folks to get ahead. We are able to give a tax cut to millions of middle-class families because we eliminate scores and scores of special-interest tax breaks, close those loopholes, that, in effect, drain the country of revenue and never find their way to helping the middle class.

We make a radical statement about tax law in our legislation. We say something is out of whack when the cop who is walking the beat in this country pays a lot higher tax rate than the person who makes all their money in the stock market. I wish to make it clear: we want everybody to get ahead, we want everybody to do well, we never want to penalize success. But let's make it possible for all Americans to share the American dream and not just the fortunate few.

Under the current Federal Tax Code, all income is not treated fairly. My colleague in the other body, Congressman Emanuel, and I would change that. We are not interested in soaking investors. We believe in markets. We believe in creating wealth. But we want everybody to be able to share in that wealth, and under the Fair Flat Tax, they would be able to do it.

The Fair Flat Tax adopts the flat tax idea to provide real relief to the middle class through fewer exclusions, exemptions, deductions deferrals, credits and special rates for certain favored businesses, very often, breaks that have been added to the Tax Code because those powerful interests have lobbyists that the middle-class folks we represent do not.

We triple the standard deduction for single filers from $5,000 to $15,000 and 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 their filing will be simplified. We do keep the key deductions most used by middle-income folks across the country. We keep the deduction for mortgage interest and charity. We keep the credits for children, for education, and earned income.

Nobody would have to calculate their taxes twice under the Fair Flat Tax Act. Our proposal eliminates the individual alternative minimum tax which could ensnare as many as 100 million taxpayers by the end of the decade. We eliminate an estimated $20 billion each year in special breaks for special interests.

Eliminating those breaks would sustain current benefits for our men and women in uniform, our veterans, our elderly, and our disabled, as well as those tax incentives that promote savings and help our families pay for medical care and for education.

I think an especially important feature of the Fair Flat Tax Act is it corrects one of the most glaring inequities in the current tax system; and that is regressive State and local taxes. Under current law, low- and middle-income taxpayers get hit with a double whammy. Compared to wealthier folks, 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 the wealthier pay only about 5 percent.

Because many low- and middle-income taxpayers do not itemize, they get no credit on their Federal form for paying State and local taxes. In fact, two-thirds of the Federal tax deduction for State and local taxes goes to those with incomes above $100,000 a year. Under the Fair Flat Tax Act, for the first time, the Federal Code would look at the entire picture of one's taxes, at an individual's combined Federal, State, and local tax burden, and give a credit to low- and middle- income individuals to correct for regressive State and local taxes.

Repealing some individual tax credits, deductions, and exclusions from income--along with eliminating some of those special interest favors in the corporate Tax Code--enables larger standard deductions and broader middle-class tax relief.

What this means is that, according to the Congressional Research Service, under our legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers would see their taxes go down. The Congressional Research Service has advised us that on average, middle-class families and individuals with wage and salary incomes up to $150,000 would see tax relief. Let me repeat that. We are talking about on average, tax relief for middle-class families and families with wage and salary incomes up to approximately $150,000. Middle-class folks in our country would get a tax break.

The legislation also makes concrete progress toward deficit reduction. Certainly, there is a long way to go to stop the hemorrhaging in the Federal budget, but this legislation makes a decent start by allowing us to start lowering the Federal deficit in 2011. It is essentially a revenue-neutral kind of system. But certainly, as we look to the future, this is going to allow us to start lowering the Federal deficit.

I also point out, by simplifying the Code, there are going to be other benefits. For example, we have heard a great deal about the tax gap in the Finance and Budget Committees. It is one of the most serious problems our country faces as it relates to finance in America. Upwards of $300 billion of money that is owed to our government is not collected. Given the fact we have a system today where people are able to flout the rules, change the system, why not go to a simpler system that makes it harder for individuals to cheat and easier for the IRS to catch those who do?

If you look at what I have proposed, the Fair Flat Tax Act--a 1040 form that is only 30 lines long--it is going to be a lot harder to cheat the system under a proposal such as this, and it is going to be a lot easier for the IRS to catch those who try to take advantage of something such as this.

I believe the Fair Flat Tax Act can make a significant contribution in helping this country collect those taxes that are owed and raise a significant amount of revenue from a source that does not increase taxes. What we are proposing with our fair flat tax legislation is a win for everybody except those who would try to rip off the system.

I am introducing the Fair Flat Tax Act of 2007 today to provide Americans a plan based on common sense principles that can make the Tax Code work better. We are going to have a system that is simpler and we are going to have a system that is fairer because it closes scores of those special interest loopholes. It gets rid of the despised alternative minimum tax, and it gives everybody a chance to get ahead in America.

It is not about class warfare. It is not about pitting one group against another. It is about giving everybody the opportunity to be a winner and to get ahead to provide for their family and ensure that when they are successful, their success can allow them to do well financially.

I do think it is important to make sure those who work for a wage get fair treatment. That has not been the case today. I want investors to do well. We all look to the stock market as a major barometer of economic prosperity in our country. But let's make sure everybody has an opportunity to get ahead. Something is seriously wrong when somebody who works for a wage gets hit with a lot higher tax rate than somebody who makes their money as an investor.

I hope we can go forward in a bipartisan way on the issue of tax reform. I am extremely disappointed the Bush administration has not chosen to follow up on tax reform. I think it is especially unfortunate, given the fact the President had a commission that had a number of good ideas as it relates to tax reform. I certainly did not agree with all of them, but let me talk about one example of how the Congress could work with the Bush administration in a bipartisan way.

I have shown this fair flat tax form I am proposing for a reason; and that is, because I think it is an ideal way for the administration and Democrats and Republicans to work together. My form is 30 lines long-- 30 lines long--and you can fill it out in under an hour. The President's commission had a form that is maybe six, seven lines longer--just a handful of additional lines. For purposes of Government work, there is virtually no difference between the simplified form I am proposing and what the President's commission has called for. We could get Democrats and Republicans together to work on tax reform and come up with a simplified form in a matter of days.

There is very little difference between what I am proposing and what came out of the President's commission.

But what is going to be important is that the President reach out to Democrats and Republicans in the Congress and say: Look, I want to work with you on simplifying the Tax Code. I want to work with you to hold down rates for everybody by closing out some of those special interest breaks. I want to see everybody have an opportunity to get ahead.

That certainly is what President Reagan did in 1986, when he worked with another tall fellow who served on the Senate Finance Committee, our former colleague Senator Bill Bradley. I went to school on a basketball scholarship. My jump shot is not quite as good as Bill Bradley's, but I sure know the value of bipartisan teamwork.

So today, the day before taxes are owed, I want to renew my offer to the Bush administration to work with them on the issue of tax reform. It is a natural for bipartisan leadership. We have a model; and that is, the reform of 1986, where, again, they simplified the system. They cleaned out the clutter. They got rid of some of those special interest loopholes. They held down rates for everybody. It was good for our country. We can do that again.

The fair flat tax legislation I am introducing today provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to come together to fix the Tax Code in 2007, the way Democrats and Republicans did back in 1986, when the late President Reagan and Bill Bradley came together and led a bipartisan effort.

I think it is time to do that again. Most people clean out their attic every 20 years or so. We ought to clean the Tax Code every 20 years as well. I think we know how to proceed. The question is whether there is political will. I urge the Bush administration to work with Democrats and Republicans in the Congress because the current tax system, which has subjected our citizens to so much hassle and bureaucracy over the last few months, does not have to be that way. There is an alternative. I have presented one. The President's commission has presented one. Democrats and Republicans working together can do better.

I urge the President to look to the Congress, leaders of both political parties, to move forward on tax reform in the days ahead.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hatch and Senator Rockefeller as cosponsors of our bipartisan amendment.

Mr. President, it is my intent to take a couple of minutes to lay out the reason it is so important to pass this county payments amendment this morning. Then I plan to yield 5 minutes to my good friend and teammate on this issue, Senator Craig, and then it is my intent to close for our side.

This issue of county payments funding is literally an issue of survival for rural counties across this country. It is going to determine whether the Federal Government will keep a more than 100-year obligation to rural communities or whether the Federal Government is going to turn its back on these communities and allow them to become national sacrifice zones.

Mr. President, 100 years ago, the Federal Government entered into an agreement with rural communities in exchange for creating national forests and restricting how local communities manage their forest lands. The Government would provide a partial payment so those local communities could pay for essential services, such as law enforcement and education. But the most recent law guaranteeing those payments--the law the distinguished Senator from Idaho and I wrote, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act--has expired. If the law is not extended--the safety net payments rural communities need in order to carry out essential services--without those dollars, there will be havoc in rural communities across our country.

The votes the Senate is going to soon take are going to decide the future of a lot of these rural communities, and there are two approaches. First, there is the approach Senator Craig and I and a bipartisan group of 17 Senators favor that is flexible, that ensures we don't make the decisions in Washington, DC, we don't micromanage these local communities but give them the flexibility at the local level to make choices that make sense for them.

This legislation is sponsored by both Republican Senators from Idaho, both Democratic Senators from Washington State, and many others. We have a broad coalition. The National Association of Counties, labor groups, education advocates--all have said that the approach that makes sense for them is our bipartisan amendment, and they have not been in favor of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina.

I am now going to make 5 minutes from our time available to my friend and colleague, Senator Craig. I thank him again for his support.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Idaho for an excellent assessment of where we are now, both with respect to the need here and our bipartisan amendment.

Here is what it is going to come down to, colleagues. There are going to be two different approaches. One is offered by the Senator from North Carolina, the other is a bipartisan one offered by many Senators, and I and Senator Craig have outlined it. Ours is supported by the groups that have the most expertise in this area: the National Association of Counties, educators, labor organizations, and those who are on the ground.

The Senator from North Carolina seeks to dictate from Washington, DC, how this program would operate. I will just say to the Senate, it seems to me what is best for Ashville, NC, may not be best for Amity, OR. Let's make sure these local communities have the freedom to make choices, make judgments with respect to essential services in the law enforcement area and in the roads area. I pointed out yesterday that if the approach offered by the Senator from North Carolina were to prevail, we couldn't, for example, do upkeep of rural roads, which get very snowy in the winter. If we don't make improvements in them, the kids aren't even going to get to the schools, which is the point my colleague from Idaho has mentioned as well.

As Senators think about this, I would like to also stress that this is not some kind of welfare program. I know many Senators are still not up on all the details. They do not live and breathe this subject on a daily basis as Senator Craig and I do, but these are not handout payments. This is not welfare. This is part of a 100-year deal which came about when the Federal forest system was created.

As we move on our side to the end of our presentation, I would like for folks to understand what the stakes are in rural communities and give some accounts from my State that are very similar to what Senators are hearing from officials in their States.

In my State, for example, the sheriff of Grants Pass--and I was recently there for a community meeting--told me that without county payments funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public safety. The approach that is offered by the Senator from North Carolina wouldn't make it possible for those local law enforcement officials to be on the front lines in terms of fighting crime, in terms of fighting meth, which is a scourge in so many communities across our country.

The county commissioners of Curry County, a beautiful community on the Oregon coast, report that without county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their county altogether. They have already begun discussions with our State about dissolving the county. You can be sure if county payments funding is not available, those discussions will continue and, in my view, based on a recent community meeting there, I am of the view that their county may not survive.

Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect of losing county payment funds, have already been releasing prisoners. So when people talk about what this issue can mean and what it really comes down to in local communities, this isn't an abstract issue in Coos County, OR. They have released prisoners--they have released prisoners--and they are going to lay off people who have had 25 years of service in that community. There are reports in the newspaper that they have already been terminated from their jobs, and I believe that we are going to see, in other communities across this country, similar problems.

I understand my friend from Idaho would like me to yield to him, and I am happy to do so.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, I think the Senate has had a chance--and I thank particularly my friend from Idaho for coming to the floor today-- to get a sense of what this issue is all about. I close by saying that Senator Craig and I and all those who have been involved in this issue understand that as a result of this updated, modernized approach to the Secure Rural Schools Act, we are going to make sure the rural communities of this country can survive and help them make a transition into other areas.

Senator Craig and I held many hearings and have heard from rural communities about how they would like to have very strong thinning programs. This is something you don't know a whole lot about in Baltimore, Mr. President, but we have a lot of overstocked stands in our part of the country. If you don't thin them out, it makes for a big fire risk. If you thin them out, you bring the communities together-- labor folks, environmentalists, and others--and you deal with the fire risk and get the material to the mill. Plus you put people to work.

Senator Craig and I and others on our committee are prepared to have those kinds of programs. However, if these rural communities can't survive, and I am of the view that many of them won't without this amendment, then we are not in a position to look at the next steps, which are approaches like I have outlined for thinning and biomass, where we take the woody waste off the forest floor, which makes for clean energy. Senator Craig and I have heard a great deal of testimony about that.

I hope our colleagues will support the bipartisan amendment that Senator Craig and I have talked about this morning, along with 17 of our colleagues, and reject the Burr amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the debate time on the two amendments--the Wyden amendment, the bipartisan amendment and the Burr amendment--be extended until 11 a.m. and that the time be equally divided, which would mean, I think, we would have 10 minutes on our side so that I and Senator Craig would continue this discussion and then the distinguished Senator from North Carolina would have 10 minutes as well. I make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, I wish to continue the discussion on the point made by our friend from North Carolina. He is going to be the ranking member on the forestry subcommittee. He and I are going to sit next to each other for a great many hours during the course of this session of the Senate. I know there are going to be many times when we agree because that has certainly been the case during our long years of service, both in the House and it is now an honor to serve with him in the Senate.

I wish to pick up on a couple of points. Senator Craig, in the very important discussion he had with the Senator from North Carolina, pointed out that North Carolina already spends every dollar of their county payments money. The distinguished Senator from North Carolina indicated his concern about the 40-percent graduation rate in one of his school districts. But the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina will not provide an additional dollar for that school district because under his State statute, every dollar of county payments his State gets already has to go to schools, and the amendment would not change that.

I think this has been a very instructive discussion. As Senators consider the next 15 or 20 minutes of this debate, I want to come back to where the organizations that are most intimately involved in this program, on a day-to-day basis, stand.

The Senator from North Carolina made mention of our support from labor. We are very proud to have a strong cross-section of labor groups that are aligned with our proposal. But in addition, the support from the National Association of Counties and the National Governors Association for our bipartisan effort is particularly important. I wish to read a little bit from the National Association of Counties' letter to myself and Senator Craig. It says, with respect to Senator Burr--and the National Association of Counties does not talk about anonymous Senators. They are very much aware of who is involved in this debate. The National Association of Counties wrote:

While well-intentioned, we fear the Burr amendment is ill-

conceived and would result in negative consequences.

They go on to say:

The Burr amendment requires ``new money'' to be spent on

education. This would deny communities and their elected

leaders to set their own priorities, superimposing a

Washington, DC, one-size-fits-all mandate on those rural

forest counties already severely restrained by the presence

of tax-exempt federal land.

This is a particularly important point and a very telling one about this debate. I think the Senator from North Carolina and I have been in scores of discussions over the years where the charge always was it was the Democrats who were coming up with this ``big Government, run from Washington, DC,'' kind of approach. Here we are with a bipartisan amendment that I, as a Democratic Senator, spent a lot of time talking about with local communities, and the counties say they

favor our approach because it does give them the flexibility on the ground--in Asheville, NC, and Amity, OR, across the country, to make the choices that are best for them rather than to have somebody inside the beltway take out a cookie cutter and stamp all these programs as if one size fits all. That point in the National Association of Counties' letter strikes me as extremely important as well.

The counties also go on to say:

. . . .it appears that the Burr amendment would shift the

hard-won increase to PILT funding [the payment in lieu of

taxes program offered by the Wyden Craig amendment] away from

the counties' general funds to schools, which was never the

purpose of the PILT Act.

I say to my colleague, we are going to hear a lot of testimony about this in our forestry subcommittee as well. The changes in the PILT Program, in particular, so that every county with Federal land can get a boost, are going to be especially helpful as we make this transition.

Of course.

My understanding is that the Senator's amendment does not affect it.

Does not.

My sense says the county folks had some difficulty following the Senator's amendment as it went through its evolution. But what we do know is our amendment clearly protects the PILT funding, and that is why it is preferable on all counts.

Now, continuing with what the counties have had to say: We are also concerned that the Burr amendment interferes with the authority States have had since 1908 to allocate forest reserves funds, authority explicitly and deliberately retained by Congress in title 1 of the Secure Rural Schools and Communities Self-Determination Act.

This point from the counties is especially critical because it goes to the 100-year obligation with respect to county payments. We can debate who has better ideas about PILT. We think we do. That is why so many Senators have been attracted to our proposal, because of the additional support for PILT. But what the counties go on to say here is they are concerned about the 100-year precedent with respect to Federal forest systems.

Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has been very gracious. We are dividing the time. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time to the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a cosponsor of the amendment, and I thank him for his many hours of support in putting this together.

Would the Senator from North Carolina yield?

We continue to look at the language. I think it goes back to the reason the counties and the Governors were so troubled by it. Where in my friend's amendment does it say it applies only to increases in funding? Because, as we read it, it would apply to all of the funding in section (2) of the amendment, subsection (d) payments received by a State under subsection (a) and distributed to eligible counties shall be only for public schools----

Mr. President, does our side have any additional time?

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Washington. When we go to the two amendments on the Secure Rural Schools Act under the order, I have a couple of minutes and the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Senator Burr has a couple of minutes. But since there was this opportunity as a result of the graciousness of Senator Murray, I wish to mention a letter that came in from the sheriff of Douglas County, which is in southwestern Oregon. This is an area he is policing, the sheriff notes, that is slightly larger than Connecticut. In other words, his county is extraordinarily large.

If this money is not forthcoming, funds that would be made available under the county payments, this is what the sheriff says will take place:

There are no Troopers. We are running out of deputies. And,

if we lose access to this Federal funding, the people will

essentially be left to provide their own public safety. There

is no fallback position for the citizens.

The sheriff goes on to say:

This is not a matter crying wolf or exaggerating our

problems. This is quite simply the fork in the road where we

make a choice. Does local government in rural Oregon cease to

exist, or are we partially and temporarily spared in hopes of

securing some means of providing for ourselves?

I think the comments from Chris Brown, the Douglas County sheriff, which just came in, say it all. What the legislation we are going to be voting on in a few minutes is all about is ensuring the Federal Government keep its obligation to rural communities, where the Federal Government owns most of the land. This is not welfare. I have tried to go into how this came about several times in the course of the debate over the last couple of days. The reality is that when the Federal Forest System was created more than 100 years ago and these rural communities were in a position where they could not maximize their revenues from these lands, the Federal Government struck an agreement. The Federal Government said: We will be there to at least partially offer funding for the essential services such as those that Chris Brown, the Douglas County sheriff, has written to us about.

The reality is, the distinguished Senator from Washington knows--and we are very pleased that she is a cosponsor with 18 other Senators in the bipartisan ``county amendments'' legislation--we have huge problems in our part of the world, with serious drugs, particularly methamphetamine. What Chris Brown is saying, this Douglas County sheriff, with respect to his area--which is, as he notes, as large as the State of Connecticut--is that he is going to be essentially defenseless in terms of protecting public safety for his folks in southwestern Oregon without this funding. He is not alone. The sheriff of Grants Pass told me recently that without this funding he is looking at the prospect of calling out the National Guard.

We will have our debate for 2 minutes each when we go to this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to support the bipartisan group of 19 Senators and vote for the Wyden amendment and reject the Burr amendment. In voting for the Wyden amendment and rejecting the Burr amendment, Senators will be standing with the National Association of Counties, the National Governors Association, the 1,500 member organizations of the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition and labor groups from across the land.

The Burr amendment purports to affect only the increase in funding but, as was pointed out in this morning's debate, the Burr amendment affects all funding, new and existing. As a result, the Burr amendment would stand in conflict with numerous State laws. The new formula in the bipartisan Wyden amendment is fair, fully paid for, and would ensure that America's rural communities can survive. I urge my colleagues to not walk away from the Federal Government's 100-year promise to rural America. Support the Wyden amendment and reject the Burr amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time to my friend and cosponsor, Senator Craig.

Mr. President, I urge the Senate to vote against the Burr amendment because it significantly undermines what the Senate just voted for. The Burr amendment purports to affect only the increase in funds, but, as was pointed out in this morning's debate, the Burr amendment would affect all funding, new and existing, and as a result, the Burr amendment would stand in direct conflict with numerous State laws.

What the Burr amendment would do is disrupt funding decisions and local government operations around the country. In many localities, county governments and school districts operate separate and distinct budgets. Under the Burr amendment, local government decisions would, in effect, be overturned and we would go to a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate instead of local communities deciding about their future and their kids' education. Their hands would be tied in Washington, DC.

I urge the Senate to reject this bureaucratic straightjacket and vote no on the Burr amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment--is the distinguished Senator from North Carolina intending to manage this legislation?

Mr. President, I would be happy to do that.

Amendment No. 709

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the bipartisan amendment I will be offering as soon as we have a manager on the other side to conduct business.

Mr. President, in a few minutes I will offer a bipartisan amendment to address the great needs of rural communities across this country. It is an amendment I will offer on behalf of myself, the distinguished Senate majority leader, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee; my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith; Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Domenici, and a large additional group of Senators of both political parties who wish to see reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act which is also known as the County Payments Program.

Mr. President and colleagues, without this amendment, there is a very real prospect small counties in the rural West are going to fall into the Pacific Ocean. These small counties are now standing on the abyss because without county payments funding, they simply are not going to be able to pay for critical services such as law enforcement and rural education.

In Oregon, the sheriff of Grants Pass told me without county payments funding, he may have to call out the National Guard to protect public safety. The county commissioners of Curry County report that without county payments funding, they may have no choice but to dissolve their county altogether. Local officials in Coos County, just at the prospect of losing county payments funds, have already released prisoners from their jails. Local communities in many other States face similar hardships.

Some Senators may not yet be fully aware of what the county payments law is about, so I am going to give a brief explanation of how the program has come to be.

County payments are not welfare, but they are a more than 100-year- old Federal obligation that goes back to the creation of the Federal forest system. The deal was if Federal policy prevented local communities from maximizing their revenues from their forests, the Federal Government would provide a partial payment to these local communities so they could pay for essential services such as law enforcement and schools.

As environmental values changed in the 1990s, and these payments grew even smaller, Senator Craig of Idaho and I wrote the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. That law compensated these rural communities for part of what they needed to pay for essential services. The act has worked extraordinarily well and expired at the end of last year.

In this amendment, our large bipartisan coalition--and I read only a number of the Senators from both political parties who are sponsoring this amendment--our large group seeks to put in place a new updated lifeline to small rural counties. County payments would be extended for 5 years and a new formula put in place to provide greater funding to more than 80 percent of the counties in our country. The formula is based on the current funding formula for county payments and the acreage of U.S. Forest Service and eligible Bureau of Land Management lands, along with a mechanism to focus support on those communities where there is greatest economic need.

In addition to the County Payments Program, this amendment also assists States with a similar program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. This is a program which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from

Federal lands in their State. For the first time in modern history, this program will receive full funding, and it will result in additional support for each county with Federal land.

I note at this time, particularly, the exceptional work done by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who, with Senator Bingaman and so many of our colleagues of both political parties, has been involved in these efforts. As a result of those combined efforts, this amendment is paid for with all funding beyond 2007 paid for by closing tax loopholes that have been identified by Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

This bipartisan amendment is supported by a diverse coalition, including the National Association of Counties, many labor organizations, and education advocates across the country. I urge the Senate this afternoon to recognize the exceptional urgency of this situation and to support the bipartisan effort to reauthorize the County Payments Program and to strengthen the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program.

Rural communities across this country have been hit with a wrecking ball. With the change in environmental values, we have seen many of them, as they look to diversify their economies, reach out and find new industries, yet they have still had great difficulty in paying for essential services.

As they try to meet these challenges--and I am committed, as chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, to work on finding new economic opportunities for these rural communities--the country should not turn its back on rural America as it looks to come up with vibrant, new economic prospects for the future.

These laws--the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act and the law that puts in place the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program--provide essential funding and will be a lifeline as these communities work to transition into additional areas that make sense for resource-based economies.

Today, these small communities are asking the Senate to help them from falling into the abyss. The blow to rural communities, if they lose county payments, will be a crippling blow that, in my view, some rural counties simply will not be able to recover from.

Mr. President and colleagues, let us remember rural America as we consider this legislation. I hope Senators of both political parties will join the very large block of Democratic and Republican Senators who offer this amendment today.

Mr. President, we are waiting for a manager on the other side. A number of colleagues, particularly the Senator from Illinois, has been very gracious and very patient. I think what I wish to do is yield at this time. When a manager comes, we will resume deliberations.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for his patience.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has indicated he would speak very briefly. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois could speak for his 5 minutes, and with the floor manager coming on to the floor, that we could then turn to the county payments legislation after the Senator from Illinois has spoken for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my bipartisan amendment on county payments and the payment in lieu of taxes.

I would be happy to proceed, but I recognize the manager on our side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up our bipartisan amendment on County Payments and the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.

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

Mr. President, a great many Senators of both political parties have signed on as cosponsors of this legislation: the distinguished Senate majority leader; the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus; chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman; Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Stevens, Bennett, Cantwell, Boxer, Murray, Crapo, Tester, and Murkowski. A great many Senators have agreed to be cosponsors.

My understanding is that, perhaps, in a few minutes the Senate is going to be given a choice of two approaches on how to deal with this issue: the approach that I and a large bipartisan group of Senators are offering this afternoon or an approach that will be offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, our colleague, Senator Burr, which, in my view, is very restrictive and, unfortunately, it is not in line with what Senator Craig and I sought to do on a bipartisan basis back in 2000.

Our law that was enacted at that time was called the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. Unfortunately, as I understand it, the proposal offered by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina would, for example, make it very difficult for local law enforcement to get some of these essential dollars that have been absolutely critical to public safety for all these years.

My view is that, under our bipartisan proposal, local law enforcement would have at least a fair measure of the resources they need to fight methamphetamine in local communities across the country. Our colleague from North Carolina, in his approach, would not make that possible.

So I hope that, as colleagues consider this debate, they will vote in favor of the amendment I offer this afternoon, on behalf of the large group of Senators of both political parties who have been intimately involved in this program for many years.

Our amendment is fully paid for through the good work of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and I hope our colleagues will vote for our amendment and will reject the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, which is much more restrictive and, unfortunately, forgets the second part of the legislation that is so vital to rural communities and that is law enforcement and roads and other essential services.

I had a chance to speak on this earlier, so I will be brief. Other colleagues would like to speak as well. The reality in rural America and the rural West is that communities are about to fall off a financial cliff.

They are going to lose these essential funds that have been part of a Federal obligation for more than a hundred years. It is not a welfare program. It is not some kind of a handout that goes to rural communities in the West. These are communities where the Federal Government owns most of the land. The local community is not allowed to maximize its revenues on those lands because the Federal Government has essentially said we are not going to treat them as private property, where you generate a sale and revenue and you pay for essential services.

So the Federal Government entered into an agreement more than a hundred years ago to provide compensation to those local communities where the Federal Government owned most of the land. What our bipartisan group wants to do is update and modernize that obligation that was incurred more than a hundred years ago when the Federal forest system was established.

Our amendment would resolve the budget crisis that is confronting rural communities by fully funding the County Payments Program for 2007, and then we set in place a formula that was negotiated for many months through a large group of Senators.

I have the chart indicating the new formula that has been put into place. It makes it very clear that Senators understand this program, because of the

will of this body, ought to be modernized. That is what we have done. But in addition to that effort, we have made sure the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program, which compensates States for the loss of tax revenue from Federal lands in that State, would receive support as well. And every county in our country with Federal land would benefit from this particular program. The emergency funding is what gets us over the first year of the program; it is a 5-year program. Senator Baucus has been willing because he feels strongly about making sure when the Federal Government steps in and goes to bat for rural communities, that it will be fully paid for. On the Senate Finance Committee, because of Chairman Baucus's leadership, we are going to raise those funds by closing tax loopholes.

I know my friend from North Carolina is going so speak in a moment. I wish to note, again, a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are supporting this: Senators Smith, Domenici, Craig, Crapo, Stevens, Bennett, and Murkowski. They have all said that this amendment is the way to go if you want to stand up for rural communities. But if you want to make a break with 100 years' worth of history and not even give rural communities the opportunity to get support, as they historically have, for local law enforcement, then Senators can vote for the amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr. I hope my colleagues will not do that.

We are going to have two votes. One will be on the amendment I offered with that large bipartisan group of Senators I listed. I hope Senators will vote in favor of that amendment.

There will be another amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina. For the reasons I have described this afternoon, I hope Senators will vote against that. Keep in mind that under the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, if you have people who are concerned about local law enforcement they are not, under the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina, going to be able to get support as it relates to law enforcement--the needed support to fight meth and to be able to protect public safety in their communities. That is why the large coalition I have described this afternoon is in favor of what I am proposing.

The Senator from North Carolina has come to the floor. I have enormous respect for him. He is going to be the ranking member on the subcommittee. We don't happen to see eye to eye on this issue. I point out that the predecessor of the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Craig, is a cosponsor of this amendment. He remembers the history from back in 2000, when we came together. It is my intent to allow the Senator from North Carolina time to offer his amendment as well, and then at that time I would like to respond to what the distinguished Senator from North Carolina said about his amendment.

I have no objection.

Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona is here, but I wish to briefly respond to the comments of Senator Burr.

When we do vote, again I would highlight that I hope Senators, on a bipartisan basis, for the amendment I am offering on behalf of the large group that includes Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator Craig, Senator Murkowski, and a great many Senators on the other side, virtually every Democrat, will reject the Burr amendment. Here is the difference, and it is striking.

The Burr amendment, offered by our distinguished colleague from North Carolina, sets in place a Federal mandate. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that somehow we ought to decide here in Washington, DC what happens in these local communities. What I have decided, with our bipartisan coalition, is we ought to have an approach that gives local communities a lot of flexibility and a lot of freedom to design approaches that are tailor made to their area.

I have mentioned law enforcement, for example, as one critical area a local community might want to support under the approach I offer with our bipartisan group but which cannot be offered under the approach of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and there would be other examples as well.

For example, if a community was concerned about its roads and was troubled about the prospect that their roads were dangerous, so that, for example, in the snowy seasons it would be treacherous for kids to get to school, under our amendment local communities would have the flexibility to support some of that upkeep for local roads. I have been told in communities such as Fossil, in my home State, they don't think they even have a roads program without the county payments legislation. So there are stark differences between the approach offered by the Senator from North Carolina and the bipartisan approach I am offering today with many of our colleagues.

At the end of the day, the difference is the Senator from North Carolina is offering a Federal mandate which ties the hands of local communities and local school districts, and I gather is one of the reasons some educational advocates have already come out against the amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.

I hope our colleagues will support the approach we are advocating today which gives local communities real flexibility, ensures that the Federal Government is keeping its obligation--its more than 100-year obligation--to these rural communities, but updates it, as we have sought to do with this payment in lieu of taxes provision in our amendment and with the new formula--a formula, as the distinguished Senator from Washington, the manager of the legislation, mentioned was arrived at only through some very difficult negotiations with many Senators involved.

So when Senators vote in a few minutes, I hope they will support the amendment I am offering today, with the large group of bipartisan sponsors, and reject the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina which, in my view, is a Federal mandate that greatly limits the ability to make the best use of these county payments dollars.

Mr. President, on Election Day 2006 in Tillamook County, OR, 13 inches of rain fell. Roads were closed. Parts of the county became unreachable. Governor Kulongoski declared a state of emergency. And yet--70 percent of the voters in the county still cast their ballots.

Why? Because Oregonians in Tillamook County and all over the State cast their votes by mail.

Even without weather like this, folks in other States around the country had trouble casting their votes.

In Denver, CO, hundreds of voters were turned away when the database of registered voters crashed.

Nearly a quarter of precincts in Indianapolis, IN, resorted to paper ballots when poll workers couldn't figure out how to connect optical scan voting machines with the new touch-screen models.

In Johnson County, KS, poll workers used hand lotion to prevent the county's touch-screen voting machines from spitting out cards.

In Missouri, poll workers were demanding photo identification despite a court ruling barring the practice.

In Shaker Heights, OH, voters were turned from the polls when electronic voting machines failed to work.

Voters in Washington State received phone calls instructing them to vote at the wrong precinct.

A polling location in New Mexico received 150 ballots instead of 1,500.

The list goes on and on.

The point is, vote by mail has worked in Oregon and not just in this election, but in every election it has been used.

It's a pretty simple system. Voters get their ballots in the mail. Wherever and whenever they would like, right up to Election Day, voters complete their ballots and return them.

Vote by mail makes polling place problems a thing of the past--no more polls opening late and no more long lines.

There's no more confusion about whether you are on the voter rolls. Either you get the ballot in the mail, or you don't and if you don't, you have ample time to contact your election officials to sort it out.

Vote by mail dramatically reduces the chance of voter fraud. Trained election officials match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter's registration card and no ballot is processed or counted until officials are satisfied that the two signatures match.

Vote by mail ensures a paper trail--each voter marks up their ballot and sends it in. That ballot is counted and then becomes the paper record used in the event of a recount.

There's less risk of voter intimidation and that's why a 2003 study of Oregon voters showed that those groups that would likely be most vulnerable to coercion, including the elderly, actually prefer vote by mail.

Vote by mail leads to more educated voters. Because folks get their ballots weeks before the election, they have the time they need to get educated about the candidates and the issues, and deliberate in a way not possible at a polling place.

And vote by mail generates costs savings that can be spent on other priorities like education, law enforcement and roads. Because there is no longer any need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire and train poll workers, Oregon has reduced its election-related costs by 30 percent since implementing vote by mail.

I think the Oregon experience can be copied elsewhere and that's why I am introducing my Vote by Mail Act of 2007 today, which creates a three year, $18 million grant program to help states adopt vote by mail election systems like the one that Oregon voters have been successfully using for some time now.

To participate in the grant program, States must demonstrate that the vote by mail system they intend to implement includes the same elements that have made Oregon's system so successful, including a system for recording electronically each voter's registration and signature and a process for ensuring that the signature on each VBM ballot is verified against that voter's electronically recorded signature. States that decide to participate in the program have the option of adopting vote by mail State-wide, within a group of selected counties, or even in a single county. States transitioning to vote by mail State-wide will receive $2 million. States transitioning to VBM less than State-wide will receive $1 million.

I think that vote by mail will improve the elections in every State that adopts it. But to be sure, my bill instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the benefits of vote by mail and to produce a study comparing traditional voting methods and vote by mail.

I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the Vote by Mail Act of 2007. I believe it can help ensure hassle-free elections and help rebuild confidence in our election system.

Because right now, some folks feel like they are so powerless to do anything to fix things that they throw their hands in the air and walk away. And society suffers. For democracies to work there needs to be public engagement. But that requires a sense of investedness--unless I think of the government as my government, which means it's considering my interests and, more importantly, trying to solve them, it's pretty hard to stay invested.

The sense of resignation, of frustration, even dislocation, expressed by some folks troubles me. And I consider it my job to foster a greater sense of public investment. This means making sure that the government works for everyone and that there are tangible results that you can show people so that they understand that it's their government and that it works for them.

I think election reform like my vote by mail bill accomplishes this goal at the most basic level. Without fair, trouble-free elections, you've got serious problems. You don't even get past go. The public can't have confidence in its government if it doesn't have confidence in the system that elected that government. As we saw in 2000 in Florida, it is extremely difficult to untangle problems after Election Day so you really have to get it right the first time. Vote by mail helps ensures this.

I am pleased to have my esteemed colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry as an original co-sponsor. I am also pleased that Congresswoman Susan David of California is introducing the House companion bill. I am also happy to announce that the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Postal Workers Union, Common Cause, and the National Association of Postal Supervisors are publicly supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, on Election Day 2006 in Tillamook County, OR, 13 inches of rain fell. Roads were closed. Parts of the county became unreachable. Governor Kulongoski declared a state of emergency. And yet--70 percent of the voters in the county still cast their ballots.

Why? Because Oregonians in Tillamook County and all over the State cast their votes by mail.

Even without weather like this, folks in other States around the country had trouble casting their votes.

In Denver, CO, hundreds of voters were turned away when the database of registered voters crashed.

Nearly a quarter of precincts in Indianapolis, IN, resorted to paper ballots when poll workers couldn't figure out how to connect optical scan voting machines with the new touch-screen models.

In Johnson County, KS, poll workers used hand lotion to prevent the county's touch-screen voting machines from spitting out cards.

In Missouri, poll workers were demanding photo identification despite a court ruling barring the practice.

In Shaker Heights, OH, voters were turned from the polls when electronic voting machines failed to work.

Voters in Washington State received phone calls instructing them to vote at the wrong precinct.

A polling location in New Mexico received 150 ballots instead of 1,500.

The list goes on and on.

The point is, vote by mail has worked in Oregon and not just in this election, but in every election it has been used.

It's a pretty simple system. Voters get their ballots in the mail. Wherever and whenever they would like, right up to Election Day, voters complete their ballots and return them.

Vote by mail makes polling place problems a thing of the past--no more polls opening late and no more long lines.

There's no more confusion about whether you are on the voter rolls. Either you get the ballot in the mail, or you don't and if you don't, you have ample time to contact your election officials to sort it out.

Vote by mail dramatically reduces the chance of voter fraud. Trained election officials match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter's registration card and no ballot is processed or counted until officials are satisfied that the two signatures match.

Vote by mail ensures a paper trail--each voter marks up their ballot and sends it in. That ballot is counted and then becomes the paper record used in the event of a recount.

There's less risk of voter intimidation and that's why a 2003 study of Oregon voters showed that those groups that would likely be most vulnerable to coercion, including the elderly, actually prefer vote by mail.

Vote by mail leads to more educated voters. Because folks get their ballots weeks before the election, they have the time they need to get educated about the candidates and the issues, and deliberate in a way not possible at a polling place.

And vote by mail generates costs savings that can be spent on other priorities like education, law enforcement and roads. Because there is no longer any need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire and train poll workers, Oregon has reduced its election-related costs by 30 percent since implementing vote by mail.

I think the Oregon experience can be copied elsewhere and that's why I am introducing my Vote by Mail Act of 2007 today, which creates a three year, $18 million grant program to help states adopt vote by mail election systems like the one that Oregon voters have been successfully using for some time now.

To participate in the grant program, States must demonstrate that the vote by mail system they intend to implement includes the same elements that have made Oregon's system so successful, including a system for recording electronically each voter's registration and signature and a process for ensuring that the signature on each VBM ballot is verified against that voter's electronically recorded signature. States that decide to participate in the program have the option of adopting vote by mail State-wide, within a group of selected counties, or even in a single county. States transitioning to vote by mail State-wide will receive $2 million. States transitioning to VBM less than State-wide will receive $1 million.

I think that vote by mail will improve the elections in every State that adopts it. But to be sure, my bill instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the benefits of vote by mail and to produce a study comparing traditional voting methods and vote by mail.

I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the Vote by Mail Act of 2007. I believe it can help ensure hassle-free elections and help rebuild confidence in our election system.

Because right now, some folks feel like they are so powerless to do anything to fix things that they throw their hands in the air and walk away. And society suffers. For democracies to work there needs to be public engagement. But that requires a sense of investedness--unless I think of the government as my government, which means it's considering my interests and, more importantly, trying to solve them, it's pretty hard to stay invested.

The sense of resignation, of frustration, even dislocation, expressed by some folks troubles me. And I consider it my job to foster a greater sense of public investment. This means making sure that the government works for everyone and that there are tangible results that you can show people so that they understand that it's their government and that it works for them.

I think election reform like my vote by mail bill accomplishes this goal at the most basic level. Without fair, trouble-free elections, you've got serious problems. You don't even get past go. The public can't have confidence in its government if it doesn't have confidence in the system that elected that government. As we saw in 2000 in Florida, it is extremely difficult to untangle problems after Election Day so you really have to get it right the first time. Vote by mail helps ensures this.

I am pleased to have my esteemed colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry as an original co-sponsor. I am also pleased that Congresswoman Susan David of California is introducing the House companion bill. I am also happy to announce that the American Association of People with Disabilities, the American Postal Workers Union, Common Cause, and the National Association of Postal Supervisors are publicly supporting this bill.

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

Mr. President, I begin by commending Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg for doing an exceptionally good job bringing extraordinary professionalism and thoughtfulness to this debate, particularly because Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg have focused on what are the big issues for this country. Relating to the domestic side of the budget--we all know the big international issue is Iraq--the big issues are taxes and health care. One of the most attractive parts of the Conrad budget is that it lays the foundation for this country to look at big fixes to our tax system and to health care.

If we listen to all the technical lingo that comes up over the course of this discussion--pay-go, firewalls, reserve funds; perhaps the staff director, who does such a terrific job, Mary Naylor, may know about some of the intricacies of these terms--it is a complicated world of ``budgetese.'' What we do understand, however, are taxes and health care. The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010. One of the reasons I support the Conrad budget is that it lays the foundation for meaningful tax reform. The Presiding Officer certainly hears this across the country: The tax system is broken. We now have three changes in the Tax Code for every working day. There have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code since the last comprehensive tax reform. We are all getting ready to do our taxes again. Americans this spring will spend more money filling out tax forms than our Government spends on higher education. Senator Conrad has pointed out the problem of tax havens and tax scams. There is an opportunity, as a result of this budget, to come together in a bipartisan way and fix the tax system. We know what needs to be done.

First, we to have clear out all the clutter, the thousands and thousands of loopholes that have been added since the last tax reform effort. Second, we have to simplify the system. I have brought to the Chamber a one-page 1040 form that is in my fair flat tax legislation that I will be reintroducing, and I have had a number of good conversations with our friend from New Hampshire about it. This is a chance for Senators to work together in a bipartisan way. The people at Money Magazine, the financial magazine, took my 1040 form and filled out their taxes in 15 minutes. It will bring about a dramatic change in American taxation. So we clean out the clutter, make the system simpler, and then keep progressivity.

There is a model for the Senate to follow. Senator Gregg and I heard a bit about it in the Budget Committee. Senator Grassley and I heard a lot about it in the Finance Committee, when then-Chairman Grassley held hearings on tax reform during the last session. That is to take those principles I outlined--clear out the loopholes, hold

down the rates, simplify the system, and keep progressivity--and once again, because of this budget, fix American taxation in a bipartisan way.

It is worth noting that every witness who came before the Senate Finance Committee during the last session to talk about taxation said building on the principles of the 1986 Tax Reform Act were the way to go. Witnesses came to the Budget Committee earlier this year. They all said this was the right direction, to build on the principles of 1986. I have indicated to Senator Gregg--and I am interested in working with him; he was part of the discussions that took place in the Budget Committee--it is worth wrapping this subject up by way of saying the budget that is before us now, the Conrad budget. It allows for the Senate to come together in a bipartisan way to fix the tax system. This is eminently doable.

The President had a commission on taxation. My one-page 1040 form is 30 lines long. The President's is 34 lines long. For purposes of Government work, the two are equivalent. Democrats and Republicans can come together on this, simplify the tax system, do what was done in 1986 to clean out the clutter, hold down the rates, and keep progressivity so that everybody has a chance to get ahead.

We have heard a lot of talk about class warfare. I am sure the Presiding Officer hears a great deal about this topic as he travels around the country. What Americans want is a system that gives everybody the opportunity to get ahead. That is what we ought to be working on. That is what this budget allows.

In addition to taxes, this legislation allows for a bipartisan effort in this Congress to fix American health care, because of the reserve fund that is in the bill and constructive efforts that are going on in the Senate. In all deference to the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, and our other colleagues who are running for President of the United States, there is a feeling that this question of fixing American health care is something that will be dealt with in 2009. I am here to tell the Senate, I believe there is a good chance the Senate will come together in 2007. Five Democratic Senators and five Republican Senators sent a letter to the President, an important letter that involved both sides coming together. The Republicans who signed the letter said: If you are going to fix health care, you have to get everybody covered. If you don't get everybody covered, the costs for those who are uninsured get shifted to those who are insured. That is a statement about universal coverage. It is about 100 percent coverage. Our colleague from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, and others, have some good ideas about how to accomplish that. Republicans moved in a way that is going to allow for a comprehensive bipartisan effort to fix health care. Democrats did as well because the Democrats who signed the letter said: We need to modernize the marketplace. We have a tax system for health care that made sense for the 1940s; it doesn't make sense for 2007. The Tax Code for health coverage disproportionately rewards the most wealthy and promotes inefficiency. That is how the Federal government is spending $250 billion. The Democrats and Republicans came together and said: We want to work in a bipartisan way. Republican Senators such as Trent Lott and Mike Crapo and Bob Bennett and Jim DeMint and John Thune, Democrats such as Kent Conrad, Ken Salazar, Senator Cantwell, Senator Kohl, and myself said: With all due respect to our good friend from Illinois and our colleagues who are seeking the highest office in the land, we are going to do our best to fix health care in this Congress. We have an opportunity with our letter.

The Presiding Officer knows I have introduced S. 334, the Healthy Americans Act. When I introduced that bill, the CEO of Safeway stood with me, Steve Burd, with more than 200,000 employees, as did Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, with almost 2 million members. Back in 1993 and 1994, business and labor were fighting each other. Now they are coming together. What a remarkable transition. In 1993, the business community said: We can't afford health care reform. In 2007, the business community is saying: We can't afford not to fix health care.

We have laid a bipartisan foundation in the Conrad budget for Democrats and Republicans to come together in this session to fix health care.

An issue came up as we were going forward on the reserve fund that highlights that while I think a comprehensive fix of American health care can be done, there are going to be challenges along the way. One of them is how to deal with the CHIP program, the program that helps our youngsters. There is great support on both sides of the aisle for the CHIP program. But there have been some in the Senate who have said: We have to do CHIP and health reform together. We have to do both together, and that is the way to approach it. The universal coverage legislation isn't quite ready to go. I am hopeful it will be ready before too long and that it will be bipartisan. The Conrad budget makes it possible for Senators to come together through a reserve fund for universal coverage.

I also want to make sure that the millions of youngsters who need health care now are not forced to wait. We should not deny those youngsters justice right now, when the need, as the distinguished Senator from Illinois knows, is so great.

What we said in the budget is that after SCHIP is resolved--and I hope it will be very shortly--and we meet those urgent needs of millions of youngsters, then we proceed to the question of bipartisan efforts to ensure there is comprehensive health reform.

Those are the two big issues of our time--tax reform and health care--that relate to the domestic side of the budget. The Conrad budget leaves space for Democrats and Republicans to come together and fix our tax system and fix American health care.

(Mr. BROWN assumed the Chair.)

Under the Conrad budget, and the fair flat tax I have introduced, we could have a one-page 1040 form. People in the State of Ohio--I advise the Presiding Officer, our colleague from Ohio, and we are thrilled to have him in the Senate--could be filling out their taxes on a one-page form, ensuring progressivity, getting rid of the clutter, and holding down rates for everybody. Money magazine, when they took that form, said they could do it in 15 minutes. So all of the people in the State of Ohio and elsewhere who are pulling together their shoe boxes and their receipts right now in order to fill out their taxes, they could have an alternative, something based on a system we know works because Democrats and Republicans came together in 1986 in order to have such a tax system.

The Conrad budget makes it possible for us to enact tax reform even before the Bush tax cuts of 2010 expire.

On the health care side, the same bipartisan effort could occur: Democrats and Republicans could come together and fix health care. We establish a universal coverage fund, a health care reform fund, in this budget. It would allow, for example, for legislation, like the Healthy Americans Act which I introduced, that has brought together Andy Stern of the Service Employees International Union and Steve Burd, the CEO of Safeway, to say: This is where we ought to start. It would allow for the Democrats and the Republicans--who signed a letter to the President of the United States and said: We want to work with you, Mr. President, to fix health care--it would allow for that important effort.

A number of my colleagues on the Republican side have been extremely constructive in working with me and others to get that legislation before the Congress--not in 2009, when the popular wisdom suggests we will talk about health care, but in this session. But before that happens, because of the efforts in the Budget Committee that are included in the Conrad budget, we will first protect and expand the program that ensures justice for children in health care--the CHIP program.

The CHIP reauthorization will come first. Passing CHIP legislation, however, is not going to diminish our efforts to work in a bipartisan fashion on overall health reform.

Both Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad are on the floor now. I just want to let both of them know, and our very talented staff director, Mary Naylor, that I believe they have brought extraordinary professionalism to this effort. They reflect great credit on the Senate in terms of how the two

of them and their staff work on this budget.

I urge my colleagues to support the budget that is before us particularly because it lays the foundation for the Senate to tackle the two big domestic issues of our time, taxes and health care. There are a lot of issues that come before us. Certainly Iraq is the premier issue as it relates to the international front, but the big issues at home are taxes and health care. The Conrad budget allows for Democrats and Republicans to come together on taxes, as was done in 1986 for a system that gave everybody the chance to get ahead.

I know the Presiding Officer, my friend from Ohio, has heard a lot about the whole topic of class warfare and the like. I think the Senator from Ohio hears the same thing I hear at home; that everybody ought to have the chance to get ahead. Everybody ought to have the chance to do it. We could do that with a tax reform program that is fair to all. This budget allows it, and it allows for Democrats and Republicans to come together on health care as well.

I urge my colleagues to support the budget. I commend Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, about the most red, white and blue, patriotic action our Nation could take is to develop a new energy policy that reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. And the biggest source of our oil dependence is transportation--the cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that our citizens drive every day.

That's why I am pleased to be introducing a bill that will help citizens who want to do their part to reduce oil dependence by commuting to work by bicycle. I am joined in sponsoring the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 by Senators Snowe, Collins, Durbin, Menendez, Inouye, Enzi and Sanders.

I know that many people in our country want to do something concrete about our Nation's dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to climb again this spring, more and more people are going to be looking for actions that they can take to free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work every day and get on their bicycles instead.

According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise; avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe.

Yet, they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. And those who commute to work by car or truck can receive tax-free parking benefits provided by their employers. These incentives are great for mass transit commuters or those who drive to work. But they also create a financial disincentive for those riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 will eliminate this financial disincentive and level the commuting field for bicyclists.

The bill extends the fringe benefits that employers can offer their employees for commuting by public transit, car or truck to those who ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of benefit payment up to a specified amount. That way, employers and their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from $40-$110 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the costs of riding their bikes.

This is a fair and modest proposal that will reward employees who ride their bikes to and from their jobs.

Our Senate bill is a companion bill to a bill being introduced by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has dozens of co- sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want to offer to those who take mass transit or drive.

In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national bicycling organizations such as Bikes Belong, Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Transportation Alternatives and hundreds of Capitol Hill employees who commute by bike to work every day.

When you look around our cities, the taxpayers have paid millions of dollars for bike trails in all of America's urban areas and major job markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an extra incentive to make greater use of this public investment to commute to and from their jobs.

I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this legislation to reward citizens doing their part to put us on the road to oil independence by biking to work.

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

Mr. President, about the most red, white and blue, patriotic action our Nation could take is to develop a new energy policy that reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. And the biggest source of our oil dependence is transportation--the cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that our citizens drive every day.

That's why I am pleased to be introducing a bill that will help citizens who want to do their part to reduce oil dependence by commuting to work by bicycle. I am joined in sponsoring the Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 by Senators Snowe, Collins, Durbin, Menendez, Inouye, Enzi and Sanders.

I know that many people in our country want to do something concrete about our Nation's dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to climb again this spring, more and more people are going to be looking for actions that they can take to free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work every day and get on their bicycles instead.

According to recent Census reports, more than 500,000 people throughout the United States commute to work by bicycle. They are freeing themselves from sitting in traffic. They are saving energy and overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. They are getting exercise; avoiding obesity and helping us keep our air clean and safe to breathe.

Yet, they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. And those who commute to work by car or truck can receive tax-free parking benefits provided by their employers. These incentives are great for mass transit commuters or those who drive to work. But they also create a financial disincentive for those riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007 will eliminate this financial disincentive and level the commuting field for bicyclists.

The bill extends the fringe benefits that employers can offer their employees for commuting by public transit, car or truck to those who ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of benefit payment up to a specified amount. That way, employers and their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from $40-$110 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the costs of riding their bikes.

This is a fair and modest proposal that will reward employees who ride their bikes to and from their jobs.

Our Senate bill is a companion bill to a bill being introduced by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has dozens of co- sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want to offer to those who take mass transit or drive.

In addition, our bill is supported by many regional and national bicycling organizations such as Bikes Belong, Cycle Oregon, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, the League of American Bicyclists, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, Transportation Alternatives and hundreds of Capitol Hill employees who commute by bike to work every day.

When you look around our cities, the taxpayers have paid millions of dollars for bike trails in all of America's urban areas and major job markets. Now, bicycle commuters will have an extra incentive to make greater use of this public investment to commute to and from their jobs.

I look forward to working with our colleagues to enact this legislation to reward citizens doing their part to put us on the road to oil independence by biking to work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the earlier unanimous consent request so I can offer the Wyden-Bond amendment at this time.

Mr. President, I offer this amendment with the distinguished vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I thank him for the many hours he and his staff have put in, working with me on this amendment.

The purpose of the legislation before the Senate today is straightforward: to apply what has been learned from one of the greatest tragedies in American life in order to better protect the American people in the days ahead. One of the tragic lessons of 9/11 is what we do not know can hurt us, and hurt us badly.

Because of the outstanding work of the 9/11 Commission, extensive information about what went wrong has been made public. The national security community has learned from a number of its mistakes, and today is taking concrete steps to make sure what happened on September 11, 2001, does not happen again. There has been a variety of reports that have been issued, critical to our understanding of what happened that tragic day. The bipartisan 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry, on which I was privileged to serve, is one example, as well as the Department of Justice's report on FBI accountability.

There is one essential report that has remained classified. Nearly 2 years ago,

the CIA inspector general submitted a report detailing CIA accountability in the runup to the 9/11 attacks. I am sure that some may and will consider a number of the inspector general's findings unsettling, perhaps embarrassing, but the report is of high quality and it is comprehensive. The CIA inspector general has provided this country with an important perspective on one of the defining moments in American history, and I believe the public has a right to know what went wrong at the CIA, so we can make sure those mistakes are not repeated.

I have spent more than a year working on a bipartisan basis with our friend from Missouri, the previous chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts, to make an unclassified version of this report available to the public. I have repeatedly asked the intelligence community to redact any sensitive national security information in the report's executive summary so that it could be declassified. I have been joined in these efforts, in addition to the assistance Senator Bond has provided, by the current chairman, Senator Rockefeller. I have already mentioned the help of Chairman Roberts for some substantial length of time.

Multiple CIA Directors, as well as the former Director of National Intelligence, regrettably have not been willing to cooperate. Why the leaders of the CIA have been so reluctant to cooperate is not clear to me. Neither former Director Goss nor Director Hayden nor Ambassador Negroponte have ever provided a valid reason for keeping the report, the entire report, classified. In fact, there is no good reason why the CIA cannot declassify this report. The executive summary is concise, and it contains little information about CIA sources and methods. It could be redacted and released quickly. That information is in the interests of the American people.

The amendment, the bipartisan amendment we offer today, would require the Director of the CIA to declassify the executive summary of the inspector general's report on 9/11, removing only that information which must be redacted to protect this country's national security. The amendment requires the Director do this within 30 days. I think anyone who has read the report would agree that this is more than enough time.

I am pleased that the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond, join me as cosponsors of the legislation.

The American people have a right to know what is in this report. Some of the findings may be unpleasant, others may be a source of pride, but at the end of the day the American people have a right to know about how the Central Intelligence Agency performed at a critical moment in this country's history. We need that information made public so as to ensure that there is true accountability. September 11, 2001, is part of this country's history. To hide the truth from the American people is unacceptable.

I urge the adoption of this amendment.

I see my friend from Missouri and thank him again for his patience during the many hours our staffs have been working on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the amendment at this time.

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

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

Mr. President, it has been more than 200 years since Lewis and Clark first laid eyes on Mount Hood. Today, I propose, with Senator Smith, that the spectacular mountain, seen first by our pioneers, should be preserved for all time.

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, which we introduce today, is similar to the bill Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress. It does include several improvements that came about from comments and constructive suggestions

from a variety of groups at home in Oregon.

The legislation also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We appreciate their input and believe their views can help speed the bill's passage.

In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the views of Oregonians, but, frankly, I hear it from folks in the Midwest, where the Presiding Officer lives, and from people from every nook and cranny in this country who have all come to treasure our spectacular mountain.

This legislation contains a number of provisions of the original Mount Hood legislation I introduced in 2004. The bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of our home State. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. They provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx, and the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and the scores and scores of visitors we get from Minnesota and every other part of the country as well.

But the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith differs from the bill I introduced several years ago because it responds to the many comments we have heard. We have received thousands of comments on our proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held at home in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours. Everybody who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood summit that was held at Timberline Lodge, hosted by Congressmen Walden and Blumenauer. My staff and I met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. More comments came from calls and letters from Oregonians who are saying that now, now, now is the time to preserve Mount Hood.

Overwhelmingly, these comments have urged that we build on Oregon's wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood; in 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed; or in 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood. It is time to plan now to protect this treasure for future generations.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited national forest in our country. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated on Mount Hood, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is nonmechanized activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free-flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. We all see Americans coming together to make sure the most special places are protected for future generations.

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike on the south side of Mount Hood. Suffice it to say, the public outcry in opposition was enormous. It seems to me, rather than tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for Mount Hood lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the mountain's great places. We ought to ensure that the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased demand for outdoor experiences, and the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith provides these opportunities. Hundreds of people spoke at the public meetings I held throughout the State. I have received 2,500 written comments urging additional wilderness on Mount Hood. There are a few key areas the citizens continually come back and refer to:

First, by astonishing numbers, they want to see additional wilderness on Mount Hood. A large number of Oregonians didn't think enough wilderness had been included, for example, in the legislation that was considered by the other body.

A second area is mountain biking. Some mountain bikers expressed concern that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Senator Smith and I had many discussions with them to ensure that would not be the case.

Third, fire protection and forest health was something referred to by many Oregonians. Citizens were concerned about the health of the forest. Those living in towns on the mountain and the gorge were concerned about fire protection in their communities, and we sought to address those issues as well.

An additional concern was developed recreation, with some citizens worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, such as skiing, on Mount Hood.

In each of these areas, Senator Smith and I tried to follow up and be responsive to what citizens at home were saying.

With respect to additional wilderness, there are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,000 acres of new wilderness.

The bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness--the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, special trails, lava beds that were created during the Mount Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they came to our great State.

To the north and west of the mountain, we add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges that frame the gorge that we marvel at from I-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in all of North America.

To the southwest of the mountain, we add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas such as those around the extremely popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the city of Sandy, and that city unanimously endorsed the draft proposal.

Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness area. These areas provide a critical link between westside forests and eastside ecosystems. This area is known for its spectacular colors in the fall and the best deer and elk hunting in our entire Mount Hood National Forest.

Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937. Our new 2007 bill adds 2,730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

Second, in the area of wild and scenic rivers, we protect over 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free-flowing rivers. This protects some of the most pristine rivers in our State. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of extraordinary salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been added for protection under our legislation.

Mountain biking is an area where there has been a lot of debate. We believed the local riders raised valid concerns, and we took two steps. First, we proposed the Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres, an increase of over 16,000 additional acres. It is going to offer permanent environmental protection to those beautiful areas, while

providing mountain bikers, recreational users, and others an opportunity to enjoy recreation on the mountain.

Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure that all open mountain biking trails were not included in this proposed legislation.

With respect to fire protection and forest health, we tried to make clear that where there are healthy, older trees, they should not be harvested on Mount Hood or in the gorge. Older healthy stands are most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of overcrowded plantation, second growth that really ought to be thinned. The legislation includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects, and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work.

We happen to think that biomass is one of the most exciting new fields for Oregonians to get into. The opportunity to generate clean energy, help small rural communities, create family wage jobs, is something that we should not miss out on. This legislation tries to tap the potential for progress in the biomass field as well.

Finally, we add fire-safe community zones so that the Secretary of Agriculture will construct a system of fire-safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

With respect to developed recreation, we wanted to facilitate recreational opportunities in this area and thus adopted a provision that came from the other body known as ``fee retention'' that would establish a special account for the Mount Hood National Forest.

In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, we have adopted provisions originally coming, again, from language from the other body directing the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I commend particularly my colleague in the other body, Congressman Blumenauer, one of the real pioneers in thinking about transportation.

Finally, with respect to key relationships with our tribes and our local governmental bodies, we have incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships, emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood area and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountains as they have for generations.

The protections of these important Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I am very pleased--I am summing up, and the Senate has been patient in giving me this extra time--to say that this has been a bipartisan effort by the Oregon congressional delegation. Senator Smith joins me in introducing this legislation. We believe this brings together our county commissioners, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, Chamber of Commerce, State-elected officials, the Governor. All of those who feel so strongly about protecting Mount Hood rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and joined myself and Senator Smith to try to find common ground to make sure that Mount Hood would be protected for all time.

We are looking forward to perfecting the legislation together in the coming weeks and looking forward to seeing a swift adoption by Congress.

The grandeur of Mount Hood and our special treasures is pretty much in the chromosomes of Oregonians. Protecting our treasures is something about which we feel so strongly. Today is a special day for us because, once again, the citizens of our State have come together and have worked with myself and Senator Smith to take action to protect our treasures.

Mr. President, Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. This wild place is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and non-Oregonians. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a bi-partisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007.'' This bill is similar to the one Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress, but it includes several improvements that resulted from comments received from stakeholders. The bill also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which we hope will help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great riverdependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures.

This bill contains many elements of the Mount Hood bill I introduced in 2004, while also incorporating many new provisions to protect and improve the Mount Hood region. This bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors.

But the bill I introduce today differs from the bill I introduced 2 years ago because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing years. I received thousands of comments on proposed Mount Hood legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians.

Overwhelmingly, these comments urged me to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood, 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, or 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood--if not more so. To succeed, we must provide the tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. This bill does both.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited National Forest in the United States. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.''

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. We should ensure the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased use and demand for outdoor experiences--my bill will provide those opportunities.

Of the hundreds of people who attended the meetings I held throughout the State of Oregon, the vast majority spoke in favor of more wilderness. Additionally, I have received more than 2,500 written comments supporting additional wilderness for Mount Hood.

This is what I have heard: First and foremost, I heard that Oregonians in astonishing numbers support protecting Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge with additional wilderness. A large number of Oregonians didn't think that enough wilderness areas had been included in the House proposal.

Some mountain bikers expressed concerns that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed.

Some people were worried about forest health, and those living in towns on the mountain and in the gorge were concerned about fire protection for their communities.

Some people were worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, like skiing, on Mt. Hood.

This is what my bill does to address those concerns: There are currently l89,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,600 new acres of wilderness.

This bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mt. Hood Wilderness-- the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, the historic Tilly Jane trail, lava beds that were created during the Mt. Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they were settling our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, I would add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges framing the Gorge that we all marvel at from 1-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in North America. To the southwest of the mountain I add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas like those around popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the City of Sandy, which unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness. These areas provide a critical link between Westside forests and Eastside ecosystems. This area is known for beautiful fall color and the best deer and elk hunting in the entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge--built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937--to its former grandeur. Our new 2007 bill adds 2730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

My proposal seeks to protect over 79.6 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free flowing rivers. This includes some of the most pristine and beautiful rivers in Oregon. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of superb salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been proposed for protection.

I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres--an increase of over 16,700 acres. It will offer greater, permanent environmental protections to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers and other recreational users an opportunity to continue to recreate in these areas. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure all open mountain biking trails were not included in my proposed wilderness.

I protect wilderness, where there are healthy, older trees that should never be harvested on Mount Hood or in the Gorge. Older, healthy stands are the most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of over-crowded, plantation, second-growth that should be thinned. My bill includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. In addition, I added fire safe community zones so that the Secretary will construct a system of fire safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities, I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``feeretention'' provision that will establish an account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, I have adopted provisions, originally coming from the language passed in the House last Congress, directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I have also incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood region and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountain's resources, as they have for generations.

The protection of these important Oregon places will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians and particularly that of my Oregon colleagues here in the Congress. I am especially pleased that Senator Smith has joined me in developing this bipartisan legislation and putting forth our proposal for wilderness. I am hopeful everyone will pull together: county Commissioners, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, chambers of commerce, State elected officials, the Governor, and the Oregon delegation here in the Capitol. I look forward to perfecting legislation together in the coming weeks, and seeing its swift adoption by Congress thereafter. Then the grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations.

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

Mr. President, it has been more than 200 years since Lewis and Clark first laid eyes on Mount Hood. Today, I propose, with Senator Smith, that the spectacular mountain, seen first by our pioneers, should be preserved for all time.

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007, which we introduce today, is similar to the bill Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress. It does include several improvements that came about from comments and constructive suggestions

from a variety of groups at home in Oregon.

The legislation also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We appreciate their input and believe their views can help speed the bill's passage.

In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the views of Oregonians, but, frankly, I hear it from folks in the Midwest, where the Presiding Officer lives, and from people from every nook and cranny in this country who have all come to treasure our spectacular mountain.

This legislation contains a number of provisions of the original Mount Hood legislation I introduced in 2004. The bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of our home State. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. They provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx, and the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and the scores and scores of visitors we get from Minnesota and every other part of the country as well.

But the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith differs from the bill I introduced several years ago because it responds to the many comments we have heard. We have received thousands of comments on our proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held at home in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours. Everybody who wanted to speak was given the opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood summit that was held at Timberline Lodge, hosted by Congressmen Walden and Blumenauer. My staff and I met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. More comments came from calls and letters from Oregonians who are saying that now, now, now is the time to preserve Mount Hood.

Overwhelmingly, these comments have urged that we build on Oregon's wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood; in 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed; or in 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood. It is time to plan now to protect this treasure for future generations.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited national forest in our country. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated on Mount Hood, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is nonmechanized activities such as hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free-flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. We all see Americans coming together to make sure the most special places are protected for future generations.

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike on the south side of Mount Hood. Suffice it to say, the public outcry in opposition was enormous. It seems to me, rather than tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for Mount Hood lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the mountain's great places. We ought to ensure that the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased demand for outdoor experiences, and the legislation I offer today with Senator Smith provides these opportunities. Hundreds of people spoke at the public meetings I held throughout the State. I have received 2,500 written comments urging additional wilderness on Mount Hood. There are a few key areas the citizens continually come back and refer to:

First, by astonishing numbers, they want to see additional wilderness on Mount Hood. A large number of Oregonians didn't think enough wilderness had been included, for example, in the legislation that was considered by the other body.

A second area is mountain biking. Some mountain bikers expressed concern that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed. Senator Smith and I had many discussions with them to ensure that would not be the case.

Third, fire protection and forest health was something referred to by many Oregonians. Citizens were concerned about the health of the forest. Those living in towns on the mountain and the gorge were concerned about fire protection in their communities, and we sought to address those issues as well.

An additional concern was developed recreation, with some citizens worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, such as skiing, on Mount Hood.

In each of these areas, Senator Smith and I tried to follow up and be responsive to what citizens at home were saying.

With respect to additional wilderness, there are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,000 acres of new wilderness.

The bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness--the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, special trails, lava beds that were created during the Mount Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they came to our great State.

To the north and west of the mountain, we add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield Wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges that frame the gorge that we marvel at from I-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in all of North America.

To the southwest of the mountain, we add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas such as those around the extremely popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the city of Sandy, and that city unanimously endorsed the draft proposal.

Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness area. These areas provide a critical link between westside forests and eastside ecosystems. This area is known for its spectacular colors in the fall and the best deer and elk hunting in our entire Mount Hood National Forest.

Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937. Our new 2007 bill adds 2,730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

Second, in the area of wild and scenic rivers, we protect over 79 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free-flowing rivers. This protects some of the most pristine rivers in our State. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of extraordinary salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been added for protection under our legislation.

Mountain biking is an area where there has been a lot of debate. We believed the local riders raised valid concerns, and we took two steps. First, we proposed the Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres, an increase of over 16,000 additional acres. It is going to offer permanent environmental protection to those beautiful areas, while

providing mountain bikers, recreational users, and others an opportunity to enjoy recreation on the mountain.

Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure that all open mountain biking trails were not included in this proposed legislation.

With respect to fire protection and forest health, we tried to make clear that where there are healthy, older trees, they should not be harvested on Mount Hood or in the gorge. Older healthy stands are most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of overcrowded plantation, second growth that really ought to be thinned. The legislation includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects, and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work.

We happen to think that biomass is one of the most exciting new fields for Oregonians to get into. The opportunity to generate clean energy, help small rural communities, create family wage jobs, is something that we should not miss out on. This legislation tries to tap the potential for progress in the biomass field as well.

Finally, we add fire-safe community zones so that the Secretary of Agriculture will construct a system of fire-safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

With respect to developed recreation, we wanted to facilitate recreational opportunities in this area and thus adopted a provision that came from the other body known as ``fee retention'' that would establish a special account for the Mount Hood National Forest.

In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, we have adopted provisions originally coming, again, from language from the other body directing the Secretary of Agriculture and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I commend particularly my colleague in the other body, Congressman Blumenauer, one of the real pioneers in thinking about transportation.

Finally, with respect to key relationships with our tribes and our local governmental bodies, we have incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships, emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood area and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountains as they have for generations.

The protections of these important Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I am very pleased--I am summing up, and the Senate has been patient in giving me this extra time--to say that this has been a bipartisan effort by the Oregon congressional delegation. Senator Smith joins me in introducing this legislation. We believe this brings together our county commissioners, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, Chamber of Commerce, State-elected officials, the Governor. All of those who feel so strongly about protecting Mount Hood rolled up their sleeves, went to work, and joined myself and Senator Smith to try to find common ground to make sure that Mount Hood would be protected for all time.

We are looking forward to perfecting the legislation together in the coming weeks and looking forward to seeing a swift adoption by Congress.

The grandeur of Mount Hood and our special treasures is pretty much in the chromosomes of Oregonians. Protecting our treasures is something about which we feel so strongly. Today is a special day for us because, once again, the citizens of our State have come together and have worked with myself and Senator Smith to take action to protect our treasures.

Mr. President, Oregon's Mount Hood is a cherished State treasure. This wild place is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and non-Oregonians. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a bi-partisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2007.'' This bill is similar to the one Senator Smith and I introduced in the last Congress, but it includes several improvements that resulted from comments received from stakeholders. The bill also includes input from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which we hope will help speed the bill's passage. In tribute to the great riverdependent journey of Lewis and Clark, our legislation adds nine free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. This reflects the Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures.

This bill contains many elements of the Mount Hood bill I introduced in 2004, while also incorporating many new provisions to protect and improve the Mount Hood region. This bill protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests embody the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors.

But the bill I introduce today differs from the bill I introduced 2 years ago because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing years. I received thousands of comments on proposed Mount Hood legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon. Many of the meetings lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians.

Overwhelmingly, these comments urged me to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system. This goal is as important today as it was in 1804, when Lewis and Clark first viewed Mount Hood, 1964, when the Wilderness Act was passed, or 1984, when wilderness protections were last designated on Mount Hood--if not more so. To succeed, we must provide the tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. This bill does both.

The Mount Hood National Forest is the seventh most visited National Forest in the United States. In the 22 years that have elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in local counties has increased significantly--25 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 28 percent in Clackamas County.

The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, sometimes it seems we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.''

A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. We should ensure the Mount Hood National Forest can meet the increased use and demand for outdoor experiences--my bill will provide those opportunities.

Of the hundreds of people who attended the meetings I held throughout the State of Oregon, the vast majority spoke in favor of more wilderness. Additionally, I have received more than 2,500 written comments supporting additional wilderness for Mount Hood.

This is what I have heard: First and foremost, I heard that Oregonians in astonishing numbers support protecting Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge with additional wilderness. A large number of Oregonians didn't think that enough wilderness areas had been included in the House proposal.

Some mountain bikers expressed concerns that their recreation opportunities not be unfairly curtailed.

Some people were worried about forest health, and those living in towns on the mountain and in the gorge were concerned about fire protection for their communities.

Some people were worried about maintaining a role for developed recreation, like skiing, on Mt. Hood.

This is what my bill does to address those concerns: There are currently l89,200 acres of designated wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. This bill increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,600 new acres of wilderness.

This bill adds the areas surrounding the oldest Mt. Hood Wilderness-- the mountain itself--which was designated in the original Wilderness Act of 1964. These additions include cathedral old growth forests, the historic Tilly Jane trail, lava beds that were created during the Mt. Hood eruptions, and much of the legendary route that Oregon's pioneers used when they were settling our great State. To the north and west of the mountain, I would add the viewshed of the Columbia Gorge to the current Mark O. Hatfield wilderness. These areas encompass the spectacular ridges framing the Gorge that we all marvel at from 1-84 and include perhaps the greatest concentration of waterfalls in North America. To the southwest of the mountain I add lands to the current Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to conserve their diverse wildlife and protect unique recreational areas like those around popular Mirror Lake. These lands include Alder Creek, the source of drinking water for the City of Sandy, which unanimously endorsed the draft proposal. Over to the east are proposed additions to the Badger Creek Wilderness. These areas provide a critical link between Westside forests and Eastside ecosystems. This area is known for beautiful fall color and the best deer and elk hunting in the entire Mount Hood National Forest. Among the areas we are protecting is the newly designated Richard L. Kohnstamm Memorial Area. It is dedicated in honor of Mr. Kohnstamm who restored the historic Timberline Lodge--built originally by the Works Progress Administration in 1937--to its former grandeur. Our new 2007 bill adds 2730 acres of Marion County lands in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness Additions, while removing lands where users identified potential conflicts.

My proposal seeks to protect over 79.6 miles of wild and scenic rivers on nine free flowing rivers. This includes some of the most pristine and beautiful rivers in Oregon. Among those proposed rivers are the picturesque waterfalls and glacial outwash of the East Fork of the Hood River, and the ancestral hunting and fishing grounds of Fish Creek. Over 17 miles of superb salmon and steelhead habitat on the Collowash River have also been proposed for protection.

I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. This area was so popular in our last bill that Senator Smith and I decided to greatly expand it to include 34,640 acres--an increase of over 16,700 acres. It will offer greater, permanent environmental protections to those beautiful areas, while providing mountain bikers and other recreational users an opportunity to continue to recreate in these areas. Additionally, I made boundary adjustments to ensure all open mountain biking trails were not included in my proposed wilderness.

I protect wilderness, where there are healthy, older trees that should never be harvested on Mount Hood or in the Gorge. Older, healthy stands are the most resistant to fire and disease. However, there is an enormous backlog of over-crowded, plantation, second-growth that should be thinned. My bill includes provisions that would give the Forest Service a mandate to prepare an assessment for promoting forests resilient to fire, insects and disease. This also includes provisions to study and encourage the development of biomass in conjunction with forest health work. In addition, I added fire safe community zones so that the Secretary will construct a system of fire safe buffer zones around the communities of Cascade Locks and Government Camp.

In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities, I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``feeretention'' provision that will establish an account for the Mount Hood National Forest. In addition, in order to help address growth while ensuring access to recreational opportunities, I have adopted provisions, originally coming from the language passed in the House last Congress, directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

I have also incorporated provisions on local and tribal relationships emphasizing the rich history of the Mount Hood region and affirming the rights of Native peoples to access the mountain's resources, as they have for generations.

The protection of these important Oregon places will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians and particularly that of my Oregon colleagues here in the Congress. I am especially pleased that Senator Smith has joined me in developing this bipartisan legislation and putting forth our proposal for wilderness. I am hopeful everyone will pull together: county Commissioners, environmentalists, entrepreneurs, chambers of commerce, State elected officials, the Governor, and the Oregon delegation here in the Capitol. I look forward to perfecting legislation together in the coming weeks, and seeing its swift adoption by Congress thereafter. Then the grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations.

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

Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from Virginia has time reserved at about 3:45. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak up until 3:45, when the distinguished Senator from Virginia has his time allotted.

Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me tell my colleague from Oregon that I very much appreciate his comments with respect to the county payments legislation. The top priority--the top priority--for Oregon's congressional delegation in

this session is getting this program reauthorized.

I wrote this law in 2000 with Senator Craig because it was my view in 2000 that without this program, Oregon's rural communities would not survive. I am here today to tell the Senate that if this program is not reauthorized, there is a serious question today whether these rural communities will be able to survive. Now, I want to bring the Senate up to date on three developments with respect to the reauthorization of this critically needed program.

The distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, Mr. Reid, has been the majority leader for just over 1 month.

I have had many conversations with the majority leader about this program. He vacationed in our beautiful State this summer. He saw the importance of our bountiful forests. I explained to him that the Federal Government owns more than half of our State. He has told me that he is determined to work with me until our State gets a fair shake with respect to this critically important program.

Second--and this is something that the distinguished Senator from Montana knows something about--we have a good bipartisan group of Senators on the legislation I have authored to reauthorize the program. Both Senators from Oregon, both Senators from Washington, and both Senators from California, the distinguished Senator from Montana, and the distinguished Senator from Alaska have all joined us in the effort to reauthorize this program.

Third, as the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, I would like to announce that the first hearing we are going to have in the Forestry Subcommittee is to reauthorize this program. Because it is so important, because it is a lifeline to rural communities across our State, we are making this the subject of the first hearing. We have pink slips going out now, county commissions trying to make decisions about schools and law enforcement. These programs involved are not extras. They are not the kind of thing that you consider something you would like to have. These are programs that involve law enforcement, that raise the question of whether we are going to have school in our State other than three times a week in some of these rural communities. I am committed to making sure that doesn't happen. Senator Smith is committed to it. The whole Oregon congressional delegation is committed to it.

In Curry County, for example, on the Oregon coast, they are looking at the prospect of laying off all nonessential workers, including patrol officers, some of whom would be left to perform only their mandated correction duties. In a few months, they will have laid off 20 percent of their county workforce. My judgment is--and this comes directly from those folks in Curry County--there is a real question about whether they are going to be able to continue as a county without this essential program.

We have seen similar cuts put on the table all through the rural part of our State. A lot of Senators--I know the Senator from Montana knows a little bit about it--can't identify with something like this. In most of the East, they don't have half of their land in public ownership. They essentially have private property. A piece of private property is sold, revenue is generated, taxes are paid. That is how they pay for services. We have not been able to do that in our State because the Federal Government owns more than half of our land.

People ask: How is it--and Senator Smith has touched on this this afternoon--that Oregon depends on these revenues for essential services? Well, God made a judgment that what we ought to do in Oregon is grow these beautiful trees. And, by God, we delivered. That is what we do. And we do it better than anybody else. So we didn't come up with some arbitrary figure back in 2000 and say, well, let's just give the State of Oregon a whole bunch of money because we decided to exercise raw political muscle. It was essentially based on a formula that is decades old, built around the proposition that where the Federal Government owns most of the land, we ought to make it possible for those communities to get help, at least at that time, through timber receipts. But when the environmental laws changed, suddenly those counties were high and dry.

So I went to the Clinton administration. Frankly, I was pretty blunt. I have been blunt with the Bush administration, but I was even more blunt with the Clinton administration.

I said: You don't pass this program, you might as well not come to our State because you are not going to be able to make a case for cutting off this program when those communities are getting hammered through no fault of their own. They did nothing wrong.

What happened in this country is that values changed. Environmental priorities changed. All of a sudden those counties had nowhere to turn. So you are seeing that in Montana, in Oregon, throughout these small communities.

Senator Smith has seen this as well. You can't go to a small community in rural Oregon, such as John Day, and tell them they ought to set up a biotechnology company in the next few months. They are making a big push right now to diversify and get into other industries. But these resource-dependent communities, communities that are looking at the axe falling on them, not in 6 months, not in a year, but coming up in a matter of weeks, they have nowhere to turn. So we consider ourselves the last line of defense.

What we are asking for is what I and Senator Reid, the majority leader, have been talking about. And that is a fair shake for our State, not a death warrant for rural communities in our State, not a program that, in effect, has them shrivel up and disappear. We want a fair shake.

This is an extraordinarily important issue. I just had a big round of townhall meetings across my State. We are all going home for the recess. I will start another round of those townhall meetings in rural Oregon this weekend. What happens at these meetings is you have law enforcement people. I had Sheriff Mike Winter from southern Oregon--I am sure Senator Smith knows Mike Winter--talking to us about what the cuts would mean in law enforcement in rural areas. We are talking about law enforcement, the fight against methamphetamines, which I know the Senator from Montana knows something about. It is a scourge that is clobbering the whole West. We can't leave our communities defenseless. We can't leave our communities without the resources they need to fight meth and these other critical problems.

I have open meetings, one in every county every year. I am sure the Senator from Montana will be starting something like that. Folks in these rural school districts used to come up and say: Ron, we are not going to have school but for 3 days a week if we don't have this program. So what we are talking about is any serious semblance of public instruction in rural communities in our State. We don't see how we are going to be able to achieve it without this particular program.

The consequences here are very real. The consequences are tragic. This is not a question of the Oregon congressional delegation, Senator Smith and myself, crying wolf and coming out and just being alarmists on the floor of the Senate. This is what we hear from our constituents. I heard it at town meetings a little bit ago, just a little over a week. I am going to hear it again this weekend. Suffice it to say, over 700 counties in 39 States are involved. Many of them are in parts of the country where the Federal Government owns most of the land. That is certainly the case in Oregon where we have many rural communities where significantly over half of the land is owned by the Federal Government.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator is right with respect to how critical this question is. As he knows, because he and I have made this a top priority now for quite some time, we didn't get a fair shake in the last session of Congress. I put a hold on several appointments from the Bush administration because I wanted to make sure that they got the wake-up call. I lifted that hold and, frankly, I wish I hadn't because I think they have never put the effort into trying to get this warranted program reauthorized. So Senator Smith is correct in terms of saying that this program should have been reauthorized some time ago. He and I have put it at the top of our priority list.

This is not an abstract question. Decisions are being made by rural school officials, by county commissions at this time. They are looking at cuts that are going to affect our ability to protect the communities from serious matters as it relates to criminal justice, to adequate public education. And we are not talking about extras. We are talking about basics, as Sheriff Mike Winter from southwestern Oregon has noted, and local school officials as well. We want to make it clear just what the consequences are going to be.

I mentioned Curry County on the Oregon coast, for example. A number of our other communities--Douglas County, Lane County, in particular-- are going to see direct and painful consequences as a result of this program and the failure of this program to be reauthorized. County payments legislation is supported by a diverse coalition. We are pleased to see that this is a top priority of the National Association of Counties. A number of labor organizations have also said that they believe this is critically important.

I will just wrap it up by saying that I believe these cuts in payments to rural counties are going to hit the rural part of my State and rural America like a wrecking ball. They are going to pound these communities. And it doesn't have to happen. Senator Smith has made that point. I have made that point. The whole Oregon congressional delegation, every member of our House delegation, we don't have 50 Members representing us in the House of Representatives like California, but we are going to be heard.

I have been gratified that Senator Reid, our majority leader, has been willing to spend so much time with me. He is a westerner. He knows what the impact is in a public lands State. He was in our State. He saw what the forests mean to us. He is an honorable man and a man of his word. He said he would work with me to make sure that our State gets a fair shake. We are going to make sure that message is heard loudly and clearly when we have the hearing in the Forestry Subcommittee. We will make sure the legislation that the Senator from Montana has joined me on will get a thorough hearing at that particular discussion.

I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for being a cosponsor of this bill. We are glad to have him in our bipartisan coalition.

I wanted to wrap up by saying I appreciate Senator Smith's remarks here on the floor. He is going to hear from the Oregon congressional delegation and Oregon Senators again and again and again, until this critical program is reauthorized.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I think, will be pleased with my request.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be recognized at this time for up to 60 minutes and, following that, Senator Murray be recognized for 15 minutes, a Republican Senator be recognized next for 10 minutes, then Senator McCaskill be recognized for 10 minutes, and then Senator Smith be recognized for up to 75 minutes. I will be joining Senator Smith during his 75 minutes. That is my request.