Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect National Parks through collaborative efforts on lands inside and outside of National Park System units. My bill passed the Senate in the 109th Congress, but unfortunately did not have an opportunity to pass in the House before the end of the Congress. Today, I reintroduce the bill hoping that it can expeditiously pass again in the Senate and continue on to pass in the House.

This legislation is based on very successful watershed protection legislation enacted for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, now commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment. The Wyden amendment, first enacted in 1998 for Fiscal Year 1999, has resulted in countless Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management cooperative agreements with neighboring state and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private lands. It has not required additional funding, but has allowed the agencies to leverage their scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the Federal dollars to stretch farther.

The legislation I introduce today will allow the Park Service to use a similar authority to attack natural threats to National Parks, such as invasive weeds, before they cross onto Parks' land. The National Park Service tells me that if they have to wait until the weeds hit the Parks before treating them the costs for treatment rise exponentially and the probability of beating the weeds back drops exponentially.

Examples of projects the National Park Service would pursue with this authority, as well as the groups with which they would partner, are attached. I am pleased that Senator Akaka is joining me as an original co-sponsor of this legislation and I hope my other colleagues will join me as co-sponsors of this legislation and in ensuring its swift passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of projects be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I said we would work to improve the Medicare Part D benefit ever since we voted for its passage. Senator Snowe and I think one of the most egregious errors in the Medicare drug benefit was to write into law that the Secretary cannot have bargaining power under any circumstances. That is why today we are introducing the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2007. This legislation lifts the prohibition on bargaining power and requires the Secretary to negotiate on behalf of seniors.

We believed that one of the most important things missing from the Part D benefit was cost containment--and allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices would be an important cost containment measure. Our legislation clearly prohibits price setting or the creation of a uniform formulary. What our legislation allows Medicare to do is to be a smart shopper--just as any consumer would be--by allowing Medicare to go in the market and use its clout just like any other big purchaser.

Under our proposal, the Secretary could negotiate in any circumstance, but must negotiate in several instances: for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent; drugs for which taxpayer funding was substantial in its research and development; and for any fallback plan the Secretary must provide. In addition, our legislation requires the Secretary to provide a fallback plan if there is not comprehensive coverage, including coverage for the so-called donut hole, available in a region.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated there might be savings achieved if the Secretary could negotiate for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent. To be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, to be able to strengthen the program and to help seniors truly save, we must look toward using every logical tool to lower costs. Not to try to achieve lower prices in areas identified as potentially saving the program, taxpayers and seniors would be foolish.

I don't know of a single private entity, whether it's a timber company in my home State of Oregon, or a big auto company, who when they're buying something in bulk doesn't say, hey pal, how about a discount? So why shouldn't Medicare, if it needs to negotiate, have that authority just in case? Why wouldn't we want to assure that Medicare can be a smart shopper?

I look forward to working with my colleagues as the Senate Finance Committee works on this issue.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect National Parks through collaborative efforts on lands inside and outside of National Park System units. My bill passed the Senate in the 109th Congress, but unfortunately did not have an opportunity to pass in the House before the end of the Congress. Today, I reintroduce the bill hoping that it can expeditiously pass again in the Senate and continue on to pass in the House.

This legislation is based on very successful watershed protection legislation enacted for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, now commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment. The Wyden amendment, first enacted in 1998 for Fiscal Year 1999, has resulted in countless Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management cooperative agreements with neighboring state and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private lands. It has not required additional funding, but has allowed the agencies to leverage their scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the Federal dollars to stretch farther.

The legislation I introduce today will allow the Park Service to use a similar authority to attack natural threats to National Parks, such as invasive weeds, before they cross onto Parks' land. The National Park Service tells me that if they have to wait until the weeds hit the Parks before treating them the costs for treatment rise exponentially and the probability of beating the weeds back drops exponentially.

Examples of projects the National Park Service would pursue with this authority, as well as the groups with which they would partner, are attached. I am pleased that Senator Akaka is joining me as an original co-sponsor of this legislation and I hope my other colleagues will join me as co-sponsors of this legislation and in ensuring its swift passage. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a list of projects be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I said we would work to improve the Medicare Part D benefit ever since we voted for its passage. Senator Snowe and I think one of the most egregious errors in the Medicare drug benefit was to write into law that the Secretary cannot have bargaining power under any circumstances. That is why today we are introducing the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act of 2007. This legislation lifts the prohibition on bargaining power and requires the Secretary to negotiate on behalf of seniors.

We believed that one of the most important things missing from the Part D benefit was cost containment--and allowing Medicare to negotiate for drug prices would be an important cost containment measure. Our legislation clearly prohibits price setting or the creation of a uniform formulary. What our legislation allows Medicare to do is to be a smart shopper--just as any consumer would be--by allowing Medicare to go in the market and use its clout just like any other big purchaser.

Under our proposal, the Secretary could negotiate in any circumstance, but must negotiate in several instances: for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent; drugs for which taxpayer funding was substantial in its research and development; and for any fallback plan the Secretary must provide. In addition, our legislation requires the Secretary to provide a fallback plan if there is not comprehensive coverage, including coverage for the so-called donut hole, available in a region.

The Congressional Budget Office has stated there might be savings achieved if the Secretary could negotiate for single source drugs for which there is no therapeutic equivalent. To be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, to be able to strengthen the program and to help seniors truly save, we must look toward using every logical tool to lower costs. Not to try to achieve lower prices in areas identified as potentially saving the program, taxpayers and seniors would be foolish.

I don't know of a single private entity, whether it's a timber company in my home State of Oregon, or a big auto company, who when they're buying something in bulk doesn't say, hey pal, how about a discount? So why shouldn't Medicare, if it needs to negotiate, have that authority just in case? Why wouldn't we want to assure that Medicare can be a smart shopper?

I look forward to working with my colleagues as the Senate Finance Committee works on this issue.

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

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

Mr. President, if you walked down the main streets of Oregon or Rhode Island or anywhere else in our country and asked what a secret hold was, my guess is that most citizens would have no idea what it was, or maybe they would think it is some kind of hairspray or maybe a smackdown wrestling move.

But the fact is that a secret hold is one of the most powerful tools that exists in our democracy. I and Senator Grassley have worked for a decade to ensure that if a Senator puts a hold on a piece of legislation, they would have to do it in the open. They would have to do it in a way that was considered accountable. A hold in the Senate is, in fact, what it sounds like; it keeps a piece of legislation or an important measure from coming up. In some instances, it can affect millions of people and billions of dollars.

It would be one thing if a Member of the Senate, such as the Senator from Rhode Island or the Senator from Iowa, felt very strongly about something and they came to the floor and said: I am going to do everything I can to block it because I don't think it is in the public interest and I am opposed. That is one thing. It is quite another thing for a Senator to exercise the power and to keep something from even coming before this body in total secrecy. When he was asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said, ``That's where the money is.'' The reason I and Senator Grassley have called for openness with respect to holds is we believe the secret hold is where the power is.

We particularly want to reduce the power of lobbyists who so often hot-wire, the way things work here in the Senate, to block everything through a secret hold that the public knows nothing about. Getting a Senator to put a secret hold on a bill is akin to hitting the jackpot for the lobbyists. Not only is the Senator protected by a cloak of anonymity but so are the lobbyists. A secret hold, in fact, can let lobbyists play both sides of the street. They may have multiple clients. They may have multiple interests, and they can figure out how to orchestrate a victory without alienating potential or future clients. This is one of the most powerful tools a lobbyist can have, and it is particularly powerful at the end of a session in the Senate.

We are delighted that the Presiding Officer, the new Senator from Rhode Island, is here. He will see what it is like at the end of a session. Suffice it to say that it is pretty darn chaotic. Measures and proposals are flying every which way, and through a secret hold you can keep something from ever being heard at all. What I was struck by when I had a chance to come to this distinguished body is that in a number of instances in the past, it has not even been a Senator to exercise one of these secret holds; it has been a member of a staff--a personal staff or committee staff--or somebody else. So what you have is this extraordinary power exercised by someone who doesn't even have an election certificate. I think that is an abuse of power, and that is what I and Senator Grassley have sought to change.

We want to make it clear we are not trying to reduce the ability of a Member of the Senate who feels strongly about a measure to make sure they can weigh in and be heard on that particular concern. Under our proposal, you are not going to have the end of holds. In fact, last year, I put a public hold on something I felt very strongly about.

Mr. President, I am sure the Chair heard about it in the course of his experience over the last couple of years. I felt very strongly about protecting Internet democracy and making sure there wasn't discrimination against those who use the Internet. A piece of legislation passed the Senate Commerce Committee that, in my view,

would be very detrimental to Internet users. Right now, you pay your Internet access charge and you go where you want, when you want, how you want. Nobody faces discrimination. That would have changed under the bill that was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. So I came to the floor of this body a few minutes after it passed committee, and I announced I was putting a public hold on that legislation because I wanted to do everything in my power to make sure that the Internet, as we know it today, would continue. So anybody who disagreed with me--and as the Presiding Officer knows, the cable and phone lobbies were spending millions and millions of dollars on advertising. They could tell who was accountable because while I was exercising my hold, everybody knew about it. It wasn't done in the dead of night, wasn't done by skulking around in a fashion where there was no way to hold somebody accountable. I came to the floor of the Senate.

I see my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Iowa. When he and I started working on this, he said: I am going to try this. I think doing public business in public is the way to go and, by the way, I don't think this is going to hurt. I don't think it is going to bite you. I remember the words of the distinguished Senator from Iowa because he and others have seen it. We have had a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle join us in this effort, including Senator Inhofe, who has been a strong supporter, and Senator Salazar from Colorado, a strong supporter. It is almost as if there is a new openness caucus that has come together in the Senate behind the simple proposition that Senator Grassley has stood for and that is that public business ought to be done in public. Senator Grassley and I have worked for a full decade to bring this about.

We are very pleased that as a result of the bipartisan cooperation between the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and the distinguished minority leader, Senator McConnell, it has been included in the legislation in the ethics bill before the Senate. Senator Grassley and I know that no matter what you put into law, there will be efforts by some, we are sure, to try to find a way to get around it. But I will tell you that we have seen such an abuse of this practice in recent years, where Senators in secret can avoid any accountability at all. It seems to me that this legislation that is part of the ethics package that requires a Senator who weighs in on a measure to be held publicly accountable is long overdue. We have allowed, particularly through the help of the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, that it will be possible for Senators to consult on measures very easily.

Senator Grassley and I have no intention of blocking the ability to conduct those consultations that give Senators an opportunity to learn more about a piece of legislation and work together on a bipartisan basis. But what we do feel strongly about is when Senators weigh in, when they make it clear they are going to block something, as I sought to do--and, fortunately, I was successful on the communications debate last year--when Senators weigh in and they want to block something that can affect, as that particular bill would have, billions of dollars and millions of people, then everyone ought to know who is going to be held accountable.

I see my good friend from Iowa. Similar to myself, he has put a full decade into this campaign for a new openness in the Senate, for more sunlight in the Senate. We will have to continue to prosecute our cause as the debate goes forward, and we still have a conference with the other body. I think the fact that this has been included as a result of the strong support of Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, is a strong blow for the cause of open Government and accountability.

With that, I yield the floor and look forward to the remarks of my partner in this whole effort, the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today reauthorizes a very successful cooperative watershed restoration program that I originally sponsored, and that was originally enacted for the Forest Service, in the Fiscal Year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill. The original legislation lasted through Fiscal Year 2001 after which it was reauthorized by the Appropriations Committees, at my request, through Fiscal Year 2005 and then again through Fiscal Year 2011. My bill passed the Senate in the 109th Congress, but unfortunately did not pass in the House before the end of the Congress. Today, I reintroduce the bill hoping that it can speedily pass both chambers.

The bill making what is commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment permanent authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use appropriated Forest Service funds for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements that benefit the ecological health of National Forest System lands and watersheds. The Wyden amendment does not require additional funding, but allows the Forest Service to leverage scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the federal dollars to stretch farther. During the eight years the program has existed, the Forest Service has leveraged three dollars for every Forest Service dollar spent on these agreements.

The Wyden amendment has resulted in countless Forest Service cooperative agreements with neighboring state and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private watersheds. The projects authorized by these agreements have improved watershed health and fish habitat through the control of invasive species, culvert replacement, and other riparian zone improvement projects. In addition to ecological restoration, use of the Wyden amendment has improved cooperative relationships between the Forest Service, private land owners, state agencies and other federal agencies.

I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will again pass this bill out of the Committee and that thereafter this legislation can again pass the Senate expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today reauthorizes a very successful cooperative watershed restoration program that I originally sponsored, and that was originally enacted for the Forest Service, in the Fiscal Year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill. The original legislation lasted through Fiscal Year 2001 after which it was reauthorized by the Appropriations Committees, at my request, through Fiscal Year 2005 and then again through Fiscal Year 2011. My bill passed the Senate in the 109th Congress, but unfortunately did not pass in the House before the end of the Congress. Today, I reintroduce the bill hoping that it can speedily pass both chambers.

The bill making what is commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment permanent authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use appropriated Forest Service funds for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements that benefit the ecological health of National Forest System lands and watersheds. The Wyden amendment does not require additional funding, but allows the Forest Service to leverage scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the federal dollars to stretch farther. During the eight years the program has existed, the Forest Service has leveraged three dollars for every Forest Service dollar spent on these agreements.

The Wyden amendment has resulted in countless Forest Service cooperative agreements with neighboring state and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private watersheds. The projects authorized by these agreements have improved watershed health and fish habitat through the control of invasive species, culvert replacement, and other riparian zone improvement projects. In addition to ecological restoration, use of the Wyden amendment has improved cooperative relationships between the Forest Service, private land owners, state agencies and other federal agencies.

I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will again pass this bill out of the Committee and that thereafter this legislation can again pass the Senate expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing in this new Congress a bill to advance a cause for which I have been fighting for over 10 years now. The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act would extend the current Internet tax moratorium, so that the Internet can remain free from burdensome and discriminatory taxes.

Legislation to keep the Internet free from these taxes has passed the Senate 3 times since 1998 with sunsets that required consecutive extensions. A permanent moratorium on Internet taxation passed through both the Commerce and Finance Committees in the 109th Congress yet failed to get action on the Senate floor.

I come to the Floor again, bringing up Internet Taxation, because the moratorium on Internet Taxation is set to expire on November 1st of this year. In only 11 months, if Congress does not act, the moratorium on Internet Taxation that has allowed the Internet and e-commerce to flourish will cease to protect American consumers and American businesses.

I don't want those who use the Internet to end up like our ancestors: they were told the Spanish-American War telephone tax was ``temporary,'' and that the tax was just needed to pay for the war. That war ended two centuries ago, and Congress is just now getting around to getting rid of the tax!

The last time I checked, the Internet shows no sign of riding off into the sunset, or becoming obsolete. You can bet that once discriminatory taxes are slapped on Internet users, those discriminatory taxes won't be going away any time soon either.

If you want to figure out how much discriminatory taxes could be, just look at your phone bill. Taxes and government fees already add as much as 20 percent in surcharges to consumer's telephone bills.

If you take a gallon of milk to the checkout counter and pay tax on the purchase, the clerk can't turn around and charge you another tax if you're going to use the milk in your cereal and another tax if you're going to put milk in your coffee. But that's what will happen to the Internet if the ban is not made permanent. You'd still pay all the telephone taxes and all the franchise fees on cable, but on top of those you'd pay even more taxes for the same service when you sign on to the Internet!

Discriminatory and double taxation of the Internet has been banned for 8 years now. In all that time no one has ever come forward with evidence to show that the failure to impose discriminatory taxes has hurt them. No one has demonstrated why taxes that cannot be imposed in the offline world should be imposed on identical online transactions.

Western Civilization may not end if the Permanent Internet Freedom Act is not passed, but you have to ask how many times Congress has to revisit, re-litigate and re-approve a law that has been this effective. It is time to make the Internet Tax moratorium permanent.

I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McCain from Arizona and Mr. Sununu from New Hampshire for introducing this legislation with me today. They both fought tirelessly alongside me and our former colleague, Mr. Allen from Virginia, to get the moratorium extended in 2004. I am pleased that they are now replacing Mr. Allen as my bi-partisan partners on this important piece of legislation. It is my hope that the three of us, working with the rest of our colleagues, can get this all-important piece of legislation passed early this year so we do not have to worry about it as the November 1st deadline fast approaches.

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing in this new Congress a bill to advance a cause for which I have been fighting for over 10 years now. The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act would extend the current Internet tax moratorium, so that the Internet can remain free from burdensome and discriminatory taxes.

Legislation to keep the Internet free from these taxes has passed the Senate 3 times since 1998 with sunsets that required consecutive extensions. A permanent moratorium on Internet taxation passed through both the Commerce and Finance Committees in the 109th Congress yet failed to get action on the Senate floor.

I come to the Floor again, bringing up Internet Taxation, because the moratorium on Internet Taxation is set to expire on November 1st of this year. In only 11 months, if Congress does not act, the moratorium on Internet Taxation that has allowed the Internet and e-commerce to flourish will cease to protect American consumers and American businesses.

I don't want those who use the Internet to end up like our ancestors: they were told the Spanish-American War telephone tax was ``temporary,'' and that the tax was just needed to pay for the war. That war ended two centuries ago, and Congress is just now getting around to getting rid of the tax!

The last time I checked, the Internet shows no sign of riding off into the sunset, or becoming obsolete. You can bet that once discriminatory taxes are slapped on Internet users, those discriminatory taxes won't be going away any time soon either.

If you want to figure out how much discriminatory taxes could be, just look at your phone bill. Taxes and government fees already add as much as 20 percent in surcharges to consumer's telephone bills.

If you take a gallon of milk to the checkout counter and pay tax on the purchase, the clerk can't turn around and charge you another tax if you're going to use the milk in your cereal and another tax if you're going to put milk in your coffee. But that's what will happen to the Internet if the ban is not made permanent. You'd still pay all the telephone taxes and all the franchise fees on cable, but on top of those you'd pay even more taxes for the same service when you sign on to the Internet!

Discriminatory and double taxation of the Internet has been banned for 8 years now. In all that time no one has ever come forward with evidence to show that the failure to impose discriminatory taxes has hurt them. No one has demonstrated why taxes that cannot be imposed in the offline world should be imposed on identical online transactions.

Western Civilization may not end if the Permanent Internet Freedom Act is not passed, but you have to ask how many times Congress has to revisit, re-litigate and re-approve a law that has been this effective. It is time to make the Internet Tax moratorium permanent.

I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. McCain from Arizona and Mr. Sununu from New Hampshire for introducing this legislation with me today. They both fought tirelessly alongside me and our former colleague, Mr. Allen from Virginia, to get the moratorium extended in 2004. I am pleased that they are now replacing Mr. Allen as my bi-partisan partners on this important piece of legislation. It is my hope that the three of us, working with the rest of our colleagues, can get this all-important piece of legislation passed early this year so we do not have to worry about it as the November 1st deadline fast approaches.

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

Mr. President, I have placed a hold on the nomination of Roger A. Martella, Jr., to be general counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Consistent with my policy of publicly announcing whenever I place a hold on a nomination, I want to notify my colleagues of my objection to allowing Mr. Martella's nomination to be considered under a unanimous consent agreement and to take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues why I am doing so.

After many years of delay, the EPA has finally proposed regulations under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from toxic air pollutants from cars and trucks and other mobile sources. But instead of proposing a rule that would protect all Americans from these toxic emissions, EPA's proposal would essentially turn the Pacific Northwest into an environmental sacrifice zone.

EPA's analysis shows that the biggest risk from these pollutants comes from benzene which is naturally found in petroleum products and ends up in the gas tanks of our cars and in the gas cans in our garages. Some of the highest levels of benzene in gasoline are found in the Northwest. In fact, our region of the country has the highest average levels of benzene in gasoline in the United States, more than three times higher than gasoline here on the east coast.

Benzene is a known carcinogen. Exposure to benzene has been shown to cause leukemia and poses other health risks, such as genetic changes. Although the EPA has never set a health standard for benzene in the environment, the Department of Environmental Quality for the State of Oregon has, and we have levels of benzene in Downtown Portland that are 20 times higher than the State's standard. The majority of this benzene comes from gasoline. So it should be good news that EPA is finally acting to regulate the amount of benzene in gasoline.

Unfortunately, EPA has proposed a regulatory scheme that will simply not ensure that these levels are reduced as much as they need to be, and let me explain why.

First, EPA rejected the idea that there should be a maximum level of benzene in gasoline. The current Federal requirements for reformulated gasoline contain a maximum threshold for benzene. The State of California's fuel standards include a provision limiting the percentage of benzene in gasoline sold in California. Canada has a benzene limit. Korea has a benzene limit. Japan has a benzene limit. The European Union has a benzene limit. And according to a recent article in the industry trade press, Vietnam is going to establish a benzene limit. But not EPA.

Instead, what EPA has proposed is the establishment of a national average for benzene in gasoline. Every refinery or gasoline importer is theoretically supposed to sell gasoline that meets this average standard, but there is no maximum level and EPA has coupled this requirement to a credit-trading system. Under EPA's scheme, refineries that make gasoline below the standard will get credits that they can give away, trade, or sell to refineries which make gasoline above the standard. Many refineries that make gasoline with high benzene levels would never have to meet the EPA standard. And again, because under the EPA proposal there would be no maximum level of benzene in gasoline, many refineries are expected to make little, if any, reduction in the amount of benzene in their gasoline and rely instead on credits to meet the standard. According to EPA, five refineries producing gasoline over the EPA standard would take no action whatsoever to reduce their benzene levels.

The reason this is all so important is that Americans don't get their gasoline from a gasoline terminal filled with ``average'' gasoline. They get their gas from regional refineries and distributors. In Oregon, we get almost all of our gasoline from refineries on Puget Sound in the State of Washington--refineries which, for the most part, produce gasoline with high benzene levels. Even if everything worked as EPA intended, benzene levels in gasoline in the Northwest would be 40 percent above the national standard. However, the plain fact is that there is no assurance that gasoline in our region will be cleaner because EPA leaves the decision of whether the refineries in Puget Sound reduce their benzene levels up to the companies that own those refineries. If oil companies decide that it is in their economic interest to simply buy their way to compliance by using credits instead of investing in equipment that will actually reduce the amount of benzene in our gas, EPA says they can. The only thing that EPA will care about is that those companies have begged, borrowed, or bought enough credits to meet the national average. And we will continue to have the same high levels of benzene we have now. In fact, without any sort of overall cap on the amount of benzene that can be in gasoline, benzene levels in our gasoline in the Northwest could even go up.

I have focused my remarks on the impact that this proposal has on the Northwest, but it is not just a problem for the Northwest. Other parts of the country will also have gasoline with benzene levels over the national standard, and without any maximum level of benzene no American can be sure of how much benzene might be in their gasoline and in the air they breathe.

I also want to emphasize again that under the EPA approach, it will be the oil companies that decide whether they reduce their benzene levels at any given refinery, not EPA. If EPA's analysis is correct, a single major oil company, which EPA identifies only as ``Company No. 2,'' would be responsible for producing more than a third of all of the gasoline exceeding the proposed national benzene standard. Rather than make the investment in benzene control and removal technology, EPA, from the beginning, simply expects this company to use credits to meet the standard for all of this high benzene gasoline. Who is Company No. 2 and why is EPA proposing to give them this license to pollute?

This would all be bad enough if EPA hadn't actually thought about these problems. They acknowledged in their rulemaking process that there would be regional inequities. They examined alternatives for setting maximum levels of benzene that should be in gasoline. In one case, they looked at the additional cost to Americans of imposing an average maximum level of benzene of 1.3 percent as part of the standard in order to address these problems. EPA's own analysis concluded that this would cost consumers in my region of the country less than one- half of 1 cent a gallon and Americans, nationwide, an additional 5/ 1000ths of a cent per gallon

of gasoline. That is not five cents. That is .005 cents. The bottom line is that EPA is proposing to allow my constituents to breathe more toxic emissions and face greater risk of cancer so that oil companies can save a fraction of a cent per gallon of gas.

I am not going to sit back and let EPA just go ahead with this rulemaking without complaint. The Office of General Counsel is the chief legal advisor to EPA. Mr. Martella was the principal deputy general counsel when this rule was proposed. He is now the acting general counsel. I am placing a hold on his nomination to send as strong a signal to EPA as I can at this time that they need to take another look at their own figures. They need to take another look at their own regulatory analysis. The regional problems that they identified would occur in setting up a national cap-and-trade program are real problems and must not be ignored. They need to come up with a real solution. Until they do, I will object to any unanimous consent agreement to allow Mr. Martella's nomination to come to a vote in the Senate.

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

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

Mr. President, a new public opinion poll shows that Americans are particularly concerned about the restriction that keeps Medicare from bargaining to hold down the costs of the medicine older people purchase.

In fact, a new poll yesterday indicated 93 percent of the American people want this restriction lifted--and for obvious reasons. The fact of the matter is, millions of older people simply cannot pay their skyrocketing prescription drug bills and they want to know why the Government isn't doing more to contain these costs.

Fortunately, we have been able to make a little bit of headway on this issue in the Senate. Senator Snowe and I, in particular, earlier this year, got the support of 54 Senators, a majority of the Senate, to lift this restriction and take stronger action to hold down the cost of medicine.

Medicare is sort of like the guy going to Costco buying toilet paper one roll at a time. The Government is not acting like a smart shopper. The Government is not taking practical steps like everyone in Tennessee, Oregon, Iowa, or anywhere else, to use bargaining power to hold down the cost of this essential for older people, prescription drugs.

We have made a bit of headway. I have been particularly pleased the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, made it clear this would be a top priority for the Senate to take up when we begin our work early next year.

Given that and in hopes that the Senate can come together on a bipartisan basis--and I believe the approach Senator Snowe and I have been taking for the past 3 years can now get over 60 votes in the Senate--I take a few minutes tonight to outline a bit as to how it would work if this restriction was lifted and Medicare could genuinely act to hold down the cost of medicine.

So let's start with the example of a new drug coming out on the market for cancer, and it is an expensive drug. Let's say this drug that many seniors will need will cost $100,000. At present, each of the plans that offers the prescription drug benefit has to negotiate for the few people in each of those plans who might need the new drug.

If the legislation Senator Snowe and I have been advocating became law, the Secretary could negotiate on behalf of all the people in the Medicare private plans who need the drug. That way, there would be new leverage for older people in the private marketplace to hold down the cost of medicine. If you had a small number of people in a private plan, say, in Tennessee, and a small number of people in a private plan in Oregon, and a small number of people in a private plan in Iowa, the Secretary could negotiate on behalf of all of those people in Medicare's private plans. That could mean real savings to folks in Tennessee and folks in Oregon and folks elsewhere who right now do not have a lot of leverage in the private marketplace.

Now, think about the implications of this proposal. Nobody is talking about price controls. Nobody is talking about a one-size-fits-all run- from-Washington, DC, approach that would freeze innovation.

I know the distinguished Senator from Tennessee has been particularly interested, as I have, in taking approaches that promote innovation in the science and biomedical fields. What I have just described, which is something that could be done under the approach Senator Snowe and I have been advocating, will not freeze research, will not freeze innovation, but will make darn sure the senior citizens of this country and the taxpayers of this country have a new opportunity to hold down the cost of medicine and also protect the wallets of our taxpayers.

Let me give another example of how this approach can contain the costs of medicine. Let's say we have an older person in Portland, OR, or Miami or New York. They are in a metropolitan area, and in the metropolitan area they may have a choice of major plans because a lot of folks are vying to get a part of the ``big city'' market with a lot of older people. So let's say one of the seniors is in an HMO, a health maintenance organization, or they are in something called a PPO, a preferred provider organization, or maybe they are in a drug-only private plan. All of those private entities may be looking for ways to hold down the costs, but if one of those private plans does not get the same deal the other big private buyers get, then one of those plans can ask Medicare to step in at that point. In effect, one of those private plans that is not getting a fair shake in the marketplace can say to Medicare: Hey, look, we are not getting a very good deal when it comes to negotiating for our seniors. At that point, Medicare could step in and say: We are going to assist in that kind of bargaining process.

I happen to think just the fact Medicare is in a position to have that leverage--if the private marketplace is not willing to bargain seriously, is not willing to negotiate seriously--just the fact there would be that kind of leverage for Medicare can help to be a force to contain the cost of medicine for older people.

So here again I have cited an example of how you can hold down the cost of medicine without price controls, without national formularies and approaches that could constrain innovation, just by using plain old common sense and bargaining power, the way every business does in North Carolina, Tennessee, and across the country.

Now, finally, it seems to me we ought to be thinking about the fact that with many older people, they will have a private retirement package as well. So a lot of those seniors are concerned about their overall health care bill, knowing they are going to get some help from Medicare and some help from a private health package as well. But if you hold down the costs of the Medicare plan, then you are going to have more money in the pockets of older people as they try to cope with their extra out-of-pocket costs.

So when the Medicare plans save seniors money on medicine, that is simply less cost the retiree plan has to make up. Seniors are going to be looking at their overall bill, and they want to know that every step possible is being taken to hold down their Medicare expenses, as Senator Snowe and I have been advocating for the last 3 years, because if that is done, there is simply less cost for the retiree plan to make up.

Containing the costs on the Medicare side has the potential to help keep costs down for employers insuring their retirees. So if you do that, you are also going to provide some relief to the taxpayers of this country because included in the original Medicare bill are a lot of subsidies designed to help employers keep insuring their retirees so a lot of older people do not just get pushed back entirely into Medicare when their employers ought to be helping them. By containing drug costs through Medicare and containing some of the costs for those employers, then the need for taxpayer dollars to shore up those employer plans goes down.

What is the bottom line? We are going to be able to help seniors not through a Government cost-containment approach but by empowering those who are supposed to advocate for them in the private marketplace. That is what 54 Members of the U.S. Senate have voted for. It is a comprehensive, market-based, cost-containment approach. It will help older people in the marketplace if they are part of a small plan. And the Secretary is in a position to negotiate on behalf of all of those in those small plans, say, for an expensive cancer drug. It could help the older person in a big city where some plans are getting a good deal but one senior is not. At that point, the senior wants somebody to make sure there is some extra clout in the marketplace.

Finally, I think what Senator Snowe and I have been advocating over these last 3 years will help employers and taxpayers as well. If you hold down the costs on the Medicare side, that is going to mean the employers--the employers--of this country are not going to have to come up with as much

money on their side to protect their retirees. Containing costs on the Medicare side clearly has the potential to keep costs down for employers insuring their retirees.

So now, as the Senate begins to schedule for early next year and Senators look at the variety of issues that are coming up, I hope they will look in particular at this concept which has won the support of 93 percent of the American people. I think most Americans just scratch their heads and say: How in the world could the Government say the only people in the United States--the only people in the United States--who will not bargain to hold down the costs of medicine are those running Medicare?

If you are in North Carolina and you are in the technology sector or you are in Oregon in the natural resources sector, the first thing you try to do is use your bargaining power and get the most for your dollar. You act as a smart shopper. And people have been flabbergasted that Medicare is the only ``person'' out there shopping without using every bit of clout that would be available to older people in the marketplace.

That is why this evening I wanted to take a few minutes to outline specifically how the changes Senator Snowe and I have been advocating for the last few years would work. They are common sense. They use the marketplace to protect the wallets of senior citizens and our taxpayers. I am particularly pleased Senator Reid has indicated this would be a high priority. Fifty-four Members of the U.S. Senate have already voted for it. I hope next year--as people begin to understand, with the examples I have given tonight and others, how this would work--my hope is early next year a significant step will be taken finally to hold down the costs of the medicines that are essential for this country's older population.

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

Mr. President, when many Americans think of voting, they think of long lines, malfunctioning equipment, closed polls, or even worse, fraud. That's why so many Americans don't bother to vote. But in my home State of Oregon, folks vote by mail and these sorts of problems are a thing of the past.

So today I come to the floor to talk about the sorry state of the Nation's election system and discuss my bill, the Vote by Mail Act of 2006.

There is nothing more fundamental than the right to vote. It is the foundation on which our democracy rests. Weaken the right to vote and you weaken America.

It's been almost 6 years since the 2000 Florida hanging chad debacle. And yet, problems with America's election system--and waning confidence in that system--persist.

This year's primary elections were no exception to the rule:

In Montgomery County, MD, polling places opened late because election officials forgot to distribute the access cards necessary to run the voting machines. Voters resorted to filling out provisional ballots and when those ran out, they used photocopied ballots and even scraps of paper.

Next door, in Prince George's County, MD, a handful of errors-- computers incorrectly identifying voters' party affiliation, electronic voter registration lists freezing up, and voting machines failing to transmit data--delayed results of a hotly contested election and may result in a lawsuit.

Long lines, a lack of machines at certain polling places, and other irregularities cast a black mark on Ohio's 2004 Presidential election results. Unfortunately, this year's primary elections were also plagued by problems. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio's largest county, thousands of absentee ballots were incorrectly formatted for electronic scanners and had to be counted by hand. And problems with about 10 percent of the paper ballots cast meant that they couldn't be counted at all.

In Cook County, IL, new voting technology created headaches at hundreds of voting sites around the county, which delayed results in a decisive county board race.

And in Tarrant County, TX, voting machines counted ballots as many as six times, which meant that 100,000 more votes were recorded than were actually cast.

These are just a few recent examples of election system snafus that have raised concerns about voting system accuracy and reliability, concerns that have led some states to reconsider their election plans.

Last week, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich suggested that the state scrap its new electronic voting system and return to paper ballots. Earlier this year, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico got rid of his touch-screen voting machines. Connecticut's Secretary of State did the same. Both states have decided to use paper ballots and optical scanners instead of electronic machines.

But as Florida reminds us, paper isn't perfect either and right now-- electronic or paper--you can expect there to be lot of problems come November 7th.

Hopefully, these problems won't affect the outcome of any election. I sure hope they don't. But whether they do or not, the Election Day problems that I expect will plague states and counties around the nation will push voter confidence in our election system further into the basement.

It's too late for Congress to do much of anything to fix the problem before the 2006 elections. But we can do something to make sure these problems don't arise ever again.

So today, along with my esteemed colleagues, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, I am introducing the Vote by Mail Act of 2006, a bill that will make Election Day problems a thing of the past and quickly and effectively reinvigorate Americans' confidence in their election system and in their democracy.

The bill creates a three year, $110 million grant program to help interested states adopt vote by mail election systems like the one that Oregon voters have been successfully using for some time now.

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.

With vote by mail, polls don't open late.

With vote by mail, there aren't any long lines at the polls.

With vote by mail, there's no more confusion about where you are supposed to vote.

There's no more debate about whether you are on the voting rolls-- either you get the ballot in the mail, or you don't. If you don't, you have time to contact your election officials to sort it out.

Vote by mail means almost no chance of voter fraud because trained election officials match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter's registration card.

No ballot is processed or counted until everyone is satisfied that the two signatures match.

With vote by mail, you've got a paper trail. Each voter marks up his ballot and sends it in. That ballot is counted and then becomes the paper record used in the event of a recount.

With vote by mail, there's much less risk of voter intimidation. That's why a 2003 study of Oregon voters showed that those groups that would likely be most vulnerable to coercion actually prefer vote by mail.

Vote by mail results in more informed 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.

Vote by mail leads to huge election costs savings because it gets rid of the 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 expect that other states that adopt vote by mail will see the same results.

Vote by mail can help make the problems of recent elections a thing of the past. In doing so, it will make our elections fairer and help reinstill faith in our democracy.

Vote by mail works. And that's why Senator Kerry and Senator Obama and I are introducing the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 today.

It gives States funds that they can use to make the transition away from the traditional voting methods that have led to so many problems, so many concerns, and so little confidence in the American election system.

It gives States funds that they can use to adopt Oregon-style vote by mail with the technical assistance and the guidance of the Election Assistance Commission.

I believe that the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 can fix our election system once and for all.

One final point: the Help Americans Vote Act, also know as HAVA, takes important steps to ensure equal access to voting for all Americans. HAVA's protections are particularly important to voters with disabilities, and it is our responsibility to keep building on that foundation. Nothing in this bill undermines or changes those aspects of HAVA that require vote by mail systems to be just as accessible as any other voting method.

While I think Oregon has proven that people with disabilities can benefit from vote by mail, it is important to keep working with the people who know these issues best to make sure the right to vote is protected. And Senator Kerry, Senator Obama, and I look forward to working with disabled and other civil rights organizations, election reform groups, community organizations and the voters themselves to ensure that the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 further promotes access to the polls for individuals with disabilities.

So I urge my colleagues to seriously consider this bill and urge them to support it. Vote by mail has been an enormous success in Oregon. I am sure that

other States that adopt it will see the same benefits. This bill helps ensure that States have that opportunity.

I asked for unanimous consent that my statement be printed into the Record and I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, when many Americans think of voting, they think of long lines, malfunctioning equipment, closed polls, or even worse, fraud. That's why so many Americans don't bother to vote. But in my home State of Oregon, folks vote by mail and these sorts of problems are a thing of the past.

So today I come to the floor to talk about the sorry state of the Nation's election system and discuss my bill, the Vote by Mail Act of 2006.

There is nothing more fundamental than the right to vote. It is the foundation on which our democracy rests. Weaken the right to vote and you weaken America.

It's been almost 6 years since the 2000 Florida hanging chad debacle. And yet, problems with America's election system--and waning confidence in that system--persist.

This year's primary elections were no exception to the rule:

In Montgomery County, MD, polling places opened late because election officials forgot to distribute the access cards necessary to run the voting machines. Voters resorted to filling out provisional ballots and when those ran out, they used photocopied ballots and even scraps of paper.

Next door, in Prince George's County, MD, a handful of errors-- computers incorrectly identifying voters' party affiliation, electronic voter registration lists freezing up, and voting machines failing to transmit data--delayed results of a hotly contested election and may result in a lawsuit.

Long lines, a lack of machines at certain polling places, and other irregularities cast a black mark on Ohio's 2004 Presidential election results. Unfortunately, this year's primary elections were also plagued by problems. In Cuyahoga County, Ohio's largest county, thousands of absentee ballots were incorrectly formatted for electronic scanners and had to be counted by hand. And problems with about 10 percent of the paper ballots cast meant that they couldn't be counted at all.

In Cook County, IL, new voting technology created headaches at hundreds of voting sites around the county, which delayed results in a decisive county board race.

And in Tarrant County, TX, voting machines counted ballots as many as six times, which meant that 100,000 more votes were recorded than were actually cast.

These are just a few recent examples of election system snafus that have raised concerns about voting system accuracy and reliability, concerns that have led some states to reconsider their election plans.

Last week, Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich suggested that the state scrap its new electronic voting system and return to paper ballots. Earlier this year, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico got rid of his touch-screen voting machines. Connecticut's Secretary of State did the same. Both states have decided to use paper ballots and optical scanners instead of electronic machines.

But as Florida reminds us, paper isn't perfect either and right now-- electronic or paper--you can expect there to be lot of problems come November 7th.

Hopefully, these problems won't affect the outcome of any election. I sure hope they don't. But whether they do or not, the Election Day problems that I expect will plague states and counties around the nation will push voter confidence in our election system further into the basement.

It's too late for Congress to do much of anything to fix the problem before the 2006 elections. But we can do something to make sure these problems don't arise ever again.

So today, along with my esteemed colleagues, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, I am introducing the Vote by Mail Act of 2006, a bill that will make Election Day problems a thing of the past and quickly and effectively reinvigorate Americans' confidence in their election system and in their democracy.

The bill creates a three year, $110 million grant program to help interested states adopt vote by mail election systems like the one that Oregon voters have been successfully using for some time now.

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.

With vote by mail, polls don't open late.

With vote by mail, there aren't any long lines at the polls.

With vote by mail, there's no more confusion about where you are supposed to vote.

There's no more debate about whether you are on the voting rolls-- either you get the ballot in the mail, or you don't. If you don't, you have time to contact your election officials to sort it out.

Vote by mail means almost no chance of voter fraud because trained election officials match the signature on each ballot against the signature on each voter's registration card.

No ballot is processed or counted until everyone is satisfied that the two signatures match.

With vote by mail, you've got a paper trail. Each voter marks up his ballot and sends it in. That ballot is counted and then becomes the paper record used in the event of a recount.

With vote by mail, there's much less risk of voter intimidation. That's why a 2003 study of Oregon voters showed that those groups that would likely be most vulnerable to coercion actually prefer vote by mail.

Vote by mail results in more informed 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.

Vote by mail leads to huge election costs savings because it gets rid of the 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 expect that other states that adopt vote by mail will see the same results.

Vote by mail can help make the problems of recent elections a thing of the past. In doing so, it will make our elections fairer and help reinstill faith in our democracy.

Vote by mail works. And that's why Senator Kerry and Senator Obama and I are introducing the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 today.

It gives States funds that they can use to make the transition away from the traditional voting methods that have led to so many problems, so many concerns, and so little confidence in the American election system.

It gives States funds that they can use to adopt Oregon-style vote by mail with the technical assistance and the guidance of the Election Assistance Commission.

I believe that the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 can fix our election system once and for all.

One final point: the Help Americans Vote Act, also know as HAVA, takes important steps to ensure equal access to voting for all Americans. HAVA's protections are particularly important to voters with disabilities, and it is our responsibility to keep building on that foundation. Nothing in this bill undermines or changes those aspects of HAVA that require vote by mail systems to be just as accessible as any other voting method.

While I think Oregon has proven that people with disabilities can benefit from vote by mail, it is important to keep working with the people who know these issues best to make sure the right to vote is protected. And Senator Kerry, Senator Obama, and I look forward to working with disabled and other civil rights organizations, election reform groups, community organizations and the voters themselves to ensure that the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 further promotes access to the polls for individuals with disabilities.

So I urge my colleagues to seriously consider this bill and urge them to support it. Vote by mail has been an enormous success in Oregon. I am sure that

other States that adopt it will see the same benefits. This bill helps ensure that States have that opportunity.

I asked for unanimous consent that my statement be printed into the Record and I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the Vote by Mail Act of 2006 be printed in the Record.

Today I honor Carole Grunberg for her years of service to me and to the Senate. Carole is retiring after serving as my legislative director for more than 10 years. In total, she has 16 years of Senate service along with more than a decade in the House of Representatives. I want to take this opportunity to talk about Carole and how much I appreciate everything she has done for the Nation, the State of Oregon, and me.

When it comes to legislative directors, Carole was truly the gold standard. Her skills and ability to get things done were unsurpassed. She was a master at designing strategies to take a concept, develop it into legislation, and guide it through Congress to become law. And she pursued each of these efforts with passion and commitment until the legislation made it into the statute books.

Known by many as one of this Nation's top ranked squash players, Carole brought that same competitive passion to the Senate's competitive marketplace of ideas and legislation. Keeping the Internet free of discriminatory taxes, recognizing electronic signatures as legally valid, protecting Oregon's vote by mail, retraining service workers displaced by trade, and our ongoing effort to end secret holds are just a few examples of initiatives Carole made into her personal quests.

Carole also brought out the best in our entire legislative team, using an approach that was part den mother and part drill sergeant. She proudly described our legislative staff as the best on Capitol Hill and pushed them to meet that standard every day. But the same big, competitive heart that made Carole expect the best from herself and her staff also filled her with enormous compassion and a burning desire for justice.

Carole always viewed the entire Wyden staff, from the most senior to the newest intern, as part of one team--Team Wyden. And she successfully marshaled all our staff in efforts ranging from shutting down Admiral

Poindexter's Total Information Awareness Program, which basically would have involved holding every American upside down and shaking them to see if anything bad fell out, to crafting my fair flat tax bill to simplify and reform the Tax Code.

Carole's team-building efforts extended well beyond the office. She organized and served as captain for a Wyden Team that ran the 195-mile relay race from Mt. Hood to the Oregon coast. As Carole saw it, there is no better way to build camaraderie than to have a bunch of sweaty runners crammed into a van together for 20 hours.

For someone who is used to spending her spare time running marathons and winning national championship squash tournaments, I don't see Carole's retirement as a glidepath to the rocking chair. She has got too much energy and too much passion to sit on the sidelines for long. I know that she and her long-time partner--and fellow Senate veteran-- Kate Cudlipp, will be making certain that her skills and energy are put to good use. And in whatever she chooses to do, I know she will continue to shine.

Again, I can't thank Carole enough for all she has done for me, my staff, the State of Oregon, and the Nation. She will always be my dear friend and a member of our Team Wyden family. I wish her all the best for the next chapter of her life.

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

Mr. President, all of us in the Senate know that each of the executive branch agencies have an inspector general. Last week, the inspector general at the Department of Interior made an extraordinary statement about the lack of ethics, in his view, at the Department of Interior. I have come to the Chamber this afternoon to discuss that and to bring to the Senate's attention some new developments on this issue.

What the Interior Department's inspector general, Mr. Earl Devaney, said last week is essentially that the Department has lost its ethical compass, and specifically the inspector general stated:

Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the

highest levels of the Department of Interior.

Mr. Devaney pointed to a number of instances where he thought the Department was essentially defending the indefensible and was particularly troubled by the way the Department's royalty efforts--the efforts to collect money owed to the Federal Government--were going forward.

This morning, there are new developments on this issue which are particularly relevant to the Senate's work for the rest of the session. This morning, there was a news account documenting how for some time the nonpolitical auditors in the Interior Department have been raising concerns about underpayment of millions of dollars of royalties for oil and gas leases. What the article says is these auditors, who are nonpolitical, professional people, were overruled by their superiors when they wanted to go out and aggressively protect the taxpayers of this country. Some of these auditors, according to these news reports this morning, were so outraged by the Interior Department's failure to collect the full amount of royalties that were owed the people that they have filed False Claims Act lawsuits against the oil companies for defrauding the Government.

For example, one senior auditor identified an oil company scheme to reduce its royalty payments by apparently selling oil it extracted from Federal lands at a discount, thereby reducing the amount of royalty it paid to the U.S. Treasury. According to the news accounts, the superiors in that instance told the auditor not to pursue a collection of the oil company's underpayments. So the auditor felt that, to get any justice for the taxpayers, he had to go out and file a false claims lawsuit against the company responsible. Apparently, after he did that, he was subjected to retaliation by Interior Department officials, and then he was eventually terminated.

Several additional false claims lawsuits have recently been unsealed as well where, here again, auditors apparently uncovered underpayments but were not allowed to pursue collection of the full amounts owed to the Government. In each of these cases, the Federal Government declined to join the suit to recover on behalf of the taxpayers the money that oil companies allegedly were underpaying for their oil and gas leases.

If this were just one isolated case, you could say that maybe this was a person who just had a bad experience and they are angry at this point. But when you have a number of cases--a number of cases brought by nonpolitical professional people, people who are putting themselves at risk by bringing this out--that issue becomes too important for the Government to ignore.

I am bringing it to the attention of the Senate this afternoon because it goes to the heart of something I have been talking about for many months. In fact, months ago, I spent over 4 hours right in this spot trying to blow the whistle on the fact that it was time to stop stonewalling on this issue of collecting billions and billions of dollars in royalty payments that are owed by oil companies that are extracting that oil from land owned by the people of this country.

In this case, the Interior Department's inspector general has identified underpayments of just a tiny fraction of what is owed, but it seems to me this highlights how serious a problem this is. It also undermines the argument of the administration and some supporters of the oil industry that this money is going to be collected if the Congress just stays out of it and the executive branch goes after it on its own. That is one of the reasons that apparently we can't get a vote on an effort to collect these royalties here in the Senate, because some have said the executive branch is on this case, they are going to go after it, and they are going to bring in these dollars. Well, today, on the front page of one of the country's newspapers, we are seeing that not only is the administration not going after these royalty payments, but when independent, professional auditors go out and try to collect the money, not only is there no effort to support them, but they end up getting rolled when they try to bring these cases and collect money that is owed to the taxpayers of this country.

Under Federal law, oil companies are supposed to pay the Federal Government royalties when they extract oil or gas from Federal lands or offshore drilling. During the 1990s, to encourage drilling when oil prices were low, Congress provided relief to suspend royalty payments when prices were below certain threshold levels. It was, however, the intent of Congress that royalties would resume when the prices got back above those thresholds. But the leases that were signed during 1998 and 1999 failed to include the price threshold. As a result, a number of oil companies have been allowed to extract oil without paying the royalties that are owed under these leases, even when the oil prices went to record levels, as we saw this past summer.

The Government Accountability Office has estimated that the failure to include price thresholds in just those leases--just the ones I mentioned--could cost the Federal Treasury and the taxpayers $10 billion. What is more--and I think this will be truly eye-opening for the Senate and for the country--is that given the fact there is litigation pending surrounding this program, the loss to the taxpayers could perhaps soar to as much as $80 billion, according to an estimate by an industry source.

That is why I took the time a few months ago to stand on the floor of the Senate for well over 4 hours to make the case of reforming the oil royalty program, and that is why I have come to the Chamber today to bring to the attention of the Senate the concerns that are coming from the professional auditors.

When we debated it, or when I had a chance to raise the concern before the Senate on that occasion and others, I heard some saying that the Interior Department is going to go out and get these funds, they are going to make sure the taxpayers don't get ripped off. We have heard that argument advanced time and time again. It essentially has been stated that the Interior Department has begun the efforts to renegotiate those leases that are costing the $10 billion I mentioned and that Congress can only get in the way by trying to take legislative action.

Well, these news reports that have come out this morning make it very clear that Interior officials are not willing to address the problems with the royalty program on their own. When given the chance to pursue the issues raised by nonpolitical auditors working for the Department, according to this morning's report and these lawsuits, those high up in the Department blocked the auditors' efforts to collect the full amount owed to the U.S. Treasury and to taxpayers.

The Interior Department's negotiations with the oil companies on the 1998 and 1999 leases didn't even start until after Congress included language in the Interior appropriations bills to prevent companies from getting new leases unless they renegotiated their

old leases to include price thresholds. And the mediation process that is now underway between the companies and the Interior Department is nonbinding, so the companies can walk away at any point. In my view, that is why Congress ought to step in now and require the Interior Department to fix the royalty program through legislation.

The companies are doing everything they can to keep this issue from coming to a vote on the floor. That is what happened when I stood in this spot for more than 4 hours a few months ago. The oil companies knew on that occasion that if there was a vote here in the Senate to reform this program which is so out of hand--because even our esteemed former colleague who is from the State of Louisiana, former Senator Bennett Johnston, said the program is out of hand. If we had a vote that day, the vote would have been overwhelming to fix the royalty program. But we could not get that vote because there were some in the Senate who knew that the taxpayers would win, and they didn't want to have the vote. Now the session is about to end. The subsidies are going to continue. Based on this morning's report, auditors who are professional are being overruled by their superiors when they want to get those dollars owed to the taxpayers.

In my view, time is not on the side of those of us who want to put a stop to these senseless subsidies. The oil companies and their supporters know that the time left in this session is limited, so if they can keep the Senate from voting on these royalties, the legislation that the House adopted after my discussion in the Senate will almost certainly disappear when the Interior bill gets rolled into some kind of an end-of-the-session comprehensive bill called, around here, omnibus legislation.

The negotiations now underway with oil companies, that have the most generous deals of all, in my view, are going to get dragged out and delayed and postponed until the last legislative vehicle leaves town. Then the oil companies can walk away from the table, return to claiming those needless subsidies, and I assume fewer auditors will step forward in the future because they will see that there has not been a Congress backing them up.

We have seen the ``run out the clock scenario'' play out before. It happened, for example, on the issue of needless tax breaks to the oil companies. I was able to get legislation through the Senate Finance Committee to begin the effort to roll back some of the tax breaks that the oil companies were getting. These were oil companies getting breaks that even they said they didn't need when I asked them questions when they came before the Senate Finance Committee. But by the time we were done on the tax side, the oil companies had been able to water down much of what I had originally gotten out of committee, and they are still getting billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks that they themselves have testified before the Senate they do not need.

I believe, on the basis of the news reports that we saw this morning and the fact that the inspector general of the Department of Interior has said that anything goes with respect to ethics at the Interior Department, that this Senate ought to step in and protect the taxpayers of this country. This Senate ought to address this problem, which the inspector general has called ``indefensible'' and has, in effect, said the Department is still trying to defend it. My view is that if the Senate ducks this issue, it will be very difficult to explain to the American people how Congress can propose to allow additional billions of dollars of royalty money to be given away before it puts a stop to what already has gone out the door.

The distinguished Senator from Louisiana and my colleague who is my seatmate, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, has sure made a good case to me about the suffering that folks in New Orleans and in her State have endured. But what has been troubling to me is how do you make a case for starting a new royalty program, a new offshore oil royalty program, when you are wasting money on the last one that got out the door? So I will continue to try to make the case, force the Senate to reform this oil royalty program, and I am going to continue to press this every time I think there is a new development in this case.

I urge my colleagues to read the important article by Mr. Andrews in the paper today describing the efforts of these auditors to try to make sure taxpayers do not get stiffed.

It is one thing if one person comes forward. It is another when you have a whole pattern of these cases, by people who are nonpolitical, who are professional people. We have had a bipartisan effort in the Senate to change this. I have been particularly appreciative that Senator Kyl, Senator DeWine, and Senator Feinstein have joined me in past efforts. But we have not been able to offer that amendment and actually get a vote on a bipartisan proposal that would finally clean up this program and protect the taxpayers of this country.

As a result, some of the most profitable companies in the country are continuing to get billions and billions of dollars of royalty relief and giveaways that are paid for by the taxpayers of this country.

It was one thing to start that program back in the days when oil was $19. It is quite different when you have royalty relief, taking hard- earned dollars out of the pockets of our citizens when that relief clearly is not necessary. I urge colleagues in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, to join me in these efforts to clean up this program, stop the outrageous giveaway of taxpayer money, and take a good look at this morning's report. The combination of what the inspector general has said and what these independent auditors have said this morning, in my view, is too important to ignore. The Senate ought to step in and make sure the taxpayers' interests in this country are protected.

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