Floor Statements

Mr. President, after years and years of congressional gridlock on the issue of automobile efficiency, I and Senator Bennett of Utah are today bringing to the Senate legislation that is market oriented, bipartisan, and a bill that we believe will bring millions and millions of fuel-efficient automobiles, cars, and trucks to the streets of our country.

We put our Nation on the road to energy independence by rewarding drivers who buy more fuel-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs. These rewards, under the legislation I have drafted with the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, are available on a sliding scale. The more fuel-efficient the vehicle, the greater the reward that the consumer would receive.

We also put the brakes on a needless subsidy to the major oil companies and use the savings that are derived from stopping that windfall to reward consumers in their wallets for helping to end our country's oil dependence. To his credit, the President of the United States has said: You don't need these incentives when oil is over $55 a barrel, as it is today.

I asked the CEOs when the major oil companies came before a joint hearing--I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska in the chair. He will recall at our hearing, the joint Commerce and Energy hearing that was held, I asked the oil company executives of the major companies whether they needed the various tax breaks that were currently offered, and to a person, they said they did not.

I see my good friend from Utah, and I thank him for his efforts to make this legislation bipartisan. What I will do, now that the Senator from Utah has arrived, is briefly describe how our bipartisan legislation works and why we think this will be a major transformation in terms of the cars, trucks, and SUVs on the roads of our country.

Under our bipartisan, market-oriented bill, consumers who buy vehicles that are at least 25 percent more fuel efficient than the applicable standards, called CAFE, would get a rebate of at least $630 and as much as $1,860 for the most fuel-efficient cars. We have separate standards for cars and trucks so the consumers can choose the type of vehicle they want and still get the rebate or the credit as long as they choose a fuel-efficient model.

In the past, the automobile industry has said that fuel economy standards are hard to achieve because car buyers place little value on fuel economy. The new program created by our bill directly addresses that concern by providing rebates to consumers for purchasing fuel- efficient vehicles.

Many in the automobile industry have also said that car buyers don't fully appreciate the value of lifetime fuel savings at the time of purchase. I and Senator Bennett believe this will change that by providing the rebates or the credits through focusing consumer attention on fuel efficiency at the time of purchase.

It will be possible for consumers at the time of purchase to see the type of notice I am holding as a sticker on the window of the automobile. So right at the time of purchase, because of this sticker-- I am holding a copy of it--it will be possible for purchasers to see the real value of fuel-efficient purchases in the automotive sector.

For vehicles that qualify, the rebate or credit amount would be printed on the window sticker, as I have described, and the consumer could claim the rebate as a tax credit on his or her tax return. Alternatively, I and Senator Bennett conceived that the rebate could be transferred to automobile dealers, allowing dealers to provide the rebates to consumers as cash back at the time of purchase.

In our view, the legislation also builds on the incentives that were provided in the Energy bill specifically for hybrid gasoline/electric- powered cars. We believe the approach that we are advocating will be especially popular because it is simpler and fairer. For example, unlike the hybrid credit that is in the energy bill, there is no phaseout of the incentives we propose, based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. Because our legislation eliminates the truly complicated phaseout of the credit that now exists, it is our view that consumers will not be confused as they are today about when they can get a credit and how much it will be. Also, unlike the approach taken in the energy legislation, our bipartisan bill does not pick winners and losers among competitive technology. It takes a technology-neutral approach that allows any vehicle that has superior fuel efficiency to qualify for a rebate, whether it uses hybrid or conventional technologies.

I also want to emphasize why I think it is important that we take bolder action to jumpstart the markets for fuel-efficient vehicles. As I mentioned, there is a phaseout for the incentives today based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. We have tried to get our arms around exactly how many of these alternative-fuel vehicles are going to be purchased this year. Many estimates seem to be just a bit over 100,000. But compare those 100,000 hybrids to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased with the kind of incentives that I and Senator Bennett are proposing. We are significantly increasing, through a marketplace approach, the chance to multiply many times over the number of fuel-efficient vehicles on the streets of our country. The distinguished Senator from Alaska who is in the chair has sat in on many of the debates with me on the Energy Committee where we have heard views expressed about what could be done through a regulatory approach. Those approaches have been fought to gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

What I and Senator Bennett want to do is something very different. We want to use a marketplace approach to significantly jumpstart the market for these fuel-efficient vehicles over the next 5 years. Compare 100,000 hybrid vehicles that are likely to be purchased this year to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased for each of the next 5 years under the legislation we are advocating and we get a sense of the difference in approach and why we think ours is very much needed and can make a break with the policies that have produced gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

Finally, I would wrap up by saying that the legislation I and Senator Bennett are proposing is fully paid for. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, our bill saves $6.8 billion by limiting just one of the tax breaks that the major oil companies have said they no longer need. It is known as the expensing of intangible drilling costs, which includes land acquisition costs, development costs, and the costs of leasing equipment. The Congressional Research Service has called this special break economically inefficient. I looked very carefully at it after the hearing attended by myself and the distinguished Senator from Alaska and others, when I asked the major oil executives if they needed all of the tax breaks that were currently allowed under the code. They said they did not. The President, to his credit, said the major oil companies do not need tax

breaks when the price of oil is over $55 a barrel.

So according to the analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the savings derived by limiting one tax break for major oil companies more than covers the $1.3 billion-per-year cost of the marketplace- oriented rebate and credit program.

To finally sum up, I believe our legislation--we call it OILSAVE--is a winner for consumers, a winner for energy security, and a winner for taxpayers. It is a win for the consumer because it helps our Nation's energy security by the purchase of what could be millions of fuel- efficient cars and trucks and SUVs. It helps us kick our Nation's oil dependence by stimulating the purchase of a number of greener vehicles at home and by limiting a tax break the Congressional Research Service calls economically inefficient. Finally, it is a win for our taxpayers because after the major oil company executives said that they didn't need this break, and the President indicated that with oil at these prices you didn't need incentives, it is possible for us now to jumpstart the marketplace for these vehicles without any additional costs to the taxpayers.

So I hope my colleagues will reflect on the difference between this discussion and the ones we have had previously on the floor of the Senate. The decibel level got pretty high during those past debates. When Senator Bennett and I launched our discussion, it was a different kind of discussion. It was a discussion about how we can find common ground in the Senate, how we can be significantly bolder in the area of automobile efficiency. We have zeroed in on this area, an area I know has been of interest to the Presiding Officer over the years, because automobile efficiency is the ball game as it relates to the issue of energy security. That is where our oil is going.

So I hope our colleagues will be interested in the legislation that we are bringing to the Senate today. The OILSAVE legislation is a departure from the polarized debates we have had in this body.

I want to say, wrapping up, that I don't think I could have a better partner for this particular effort than the distinguished Senator from Utah. He is the chair, as our colleagues know, of the Joint Economic Committee. He has been interested in energy legislation as a member of the Republican leadership for quite some time. I would note that today is his birthday, and he has decided to use this special day, when his family is clamoring for his time, to be part of this bipartisan effort with me. I am very grateful for his involvement in this task, and I would like to yield the floor, if I might.

I also see our distinguished friend from West Virginia here, and if it is acceptable, perhaps Senator Bennett could wrap up for our legislation, and then I know the entire Senate wishes to here the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

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

Mr. President, after years and years of congressional gridlock on the issue of automobile efficiency, I and Senator Bennett of Utah are today bringing to the Senate legislation that is market oriented, bipartisan, and a bill that we believe will bring millions and millions of fuel-efficient automobiles, cars, and trucks to the streets of our country.

We put our Nation on the road to energy independence by rewarding drivers who buy more fuel-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs. These rewards, under the legislation I have drafted with the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, are available on a sliding scale. The more fuel-efficient the vehicle, the greater the reward that the consumer would receive.

We also put the brakes on a needless subsidy to the major oil companies and use the savings that are derived from stopping that windfall to reward consumers in their wallets for helping to end our country's oil dependence. To his credit, the President of the United States has said: You don't need these incentives when oil is over $55 a barrel, as it is today.

I asked the CEOs when the major oil companies came before a joint hearing--I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska in the chair. He will recall at our hearing, the joint Commerce and Energy hearing that was held, I asked the oil company executives of the major companies whether they needed the various tax breaks that were currently offered, and to a person, they said they did not.

I see my good friend from Utah, and I thank him for his efforts to make this legislation bipartisan. What I will do, now that the Senator from Utah has arrived, is briefly describe how our bipartisan legislation works and why we think this will be a major transformation in terms of the cars, trucks, and SUVs on the roads of our country.

Under our bipartisan, market-oriented bill, consumers who buy vehicles that are at least 25 percent more fuel efficient than the applicable standards, called CAFE, would get a rebate of at least $630 and as much as $1,860 for the most fuel-efficient cars. We have separate standards for cars and trucks so the consumers can choose the type of vehicle they want and still get the rebate or the credit as long as they choose a fuel-efficient model.

In the past, the automobile industry has said that fuel economy standards are hard to achieve because car buyers place little value on fuel economy. The new program created by our bill directly addresses that concern by providing rebates to consumers for purchasing fuel- efficient vehicles.

Many in the automobile industry have also said that car buyers don't fully appreciate the value of lifetime fuel savings at the time of purchase. I and Senator Bennett believe this will change that by providing the rebates or the credits through focusing consumer attention on fuel efficiency at the time of purchase.

It will be possible for consumers at the time of purchase to see the type of notice I am holding as a sticker on the window of the automobile. So right at the time of purchase, because of this sticker-- I am holding a copy of it--it will be possible for purchasers to see the real value of fuel-efficient purchases in the automotive sector.

For vehicles that qualify, the rebate or credit amount would be printed on the window sticker, as I have described, and the consumer could claim the rebate as a tax credit on his or her tax return. Alternatively, I and Senator Bennett conceived that the rebate could be transferred to automobile dealers, allowing dealers to provide the rebates to consumers as cash back at the time of purchase.

In our view, the legislation also builds on the incentives that were provided in the Energy bill specifically for hybrid gasoline/electric- powered cars. We believe the approach that we are advocating will be especially popular because it is simpler and fairer. For example, unlike the hybrid credit that is in the energy bill, there is no phaseout of the incentives we propose, based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. Because our legislation eliminates the truly complicated phaseout of the credit that now exists, it is our view that consumers will not be confused as they are today about when they can get a credit and how much it will be. Also, unlike the approach taken in the energy legislation, our bipartisan bill does not pick winners and losers among competitive technology. It takes a technology-neutral approach that allows any vehicle that has superior fuel efficiency to qualify for a rebate, whether it uses hybrid or conventional technologies.

I also want to emphasize why I think it is important that we take bolder action to jumpstart the markets for fuel-efficient vehicles. As I mentioned, there is a phaseout for the incentives today based on when a hybrid carmaker sells its 60,000th car. We have tried to get our arms around exactly how many of these alternative-fuel vehicles are going to be purchased this year. Many estimates seem to be just a bit over 100,000. But compare those 100,000 hybrids to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased with the kind of incentives that I and Senator Bennett are proposing. We are significantly increasing, through a marketplace approach, the chance to multiply many times over the number of fuel-efficient vehicles on the streets of our country. The distinguished Senator from Alaska who is in the chair has sat in on many of the debates with me on the Energy Committee where we have heard views expressed about what could be done through a regulatory approach. Those approaches have been fought to gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

What I and Senator Bennett want to do is something very different. We want to use a marketplace approach to significantly jumpstart the market for these fuel-efficient vehicles over the next 5 years. Compare 100,000 hybrid vehicles that are likely to be purchased this year to the 1.8 million vehicles that could be purchased for each of the next 5 years under the legislation we are advocating and we get a sense of the difference in approach and why we think ours is very much needed and can make a break with the policies that have produced gridlock on the floor of the Senate.

Finally, I would wrap up by saying that the legislation I and Senator Bennett are proposing is fully paid for. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, our bill saves $6.8 billion by limiting just one of the tax breaks that the major oil companies have said they no longer need. It is known as the expensing of intangible drilling costs, which includes land acquisition costs, development costs, and the costs of leasing equipment. The Congressional Research Service has called this special break economically inefficient. I looked very carefully at it after the hearing attended by myself and the distinguished Senator from Alaska and others, when I asked the major oil executives if they needed all of the tax breaks that were currently allowed under the code. They said they did not. The President, to his credit, said the major oil companies do not need tax

breaks when the price of oil is over $55 a barrel.

So according to the analysis done by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the savings derived by limiting one tax break for major oil companies more than covers the $1.3 billion-per-year cost of the marketplace- oriented rebate and credit program.

To finally sum up, I believe our legislation--we call it OILSAVE--is a winner for consumers, a winner for energy security, and a winner for taxpayers. It is a win for the consumer because it helps our Nation's energy security by the purchase of what could be millions of fuel- efficient cars and trucks and SUVs. It helps us kick our Nation's oil dependence by stimulating the purchase of a number of greener vehicles at home and by limiting a tax break the Congressional Research Service calls economically inefficient. Finally, it is a win for our taxpayers because after the major oil company executives said that they didn't need this break, and the President indicated that with oil at these prices you didn't need incentives, it is possible for us now to jumpstart the marketplace for these vehicles without any additional costs to the taxpayers.

So I hope my colleagues will reflect on the difference between this discussion and the ones we have had previously on the floor of the Senate. The decibel level got pretty high during those past debates. When Senator Bennett and I launched our discussion, it was a different kind of discussion. It was a discussion about how we can find common ground in the Senate, how we can be significantly bolder in the area of automobile efficiency. We have zeroed in on this area, an area I know has been of interest to the Presiding Officer over the years, because automobile efficiency is the ball game as it relates to the issue of energy security. That is where our oil is going.

So I hope our colleagues will be interested in the legislation that we are bringing to the Senate today. The OILSAVE legislation is a departure from the polarized debates we have had in this body.

I want to say, wrapping up, that I don't think I could have a better partner for this particular effort than the distinguished Senator from Utah. He is the chair, as our colleagues know, of the Joint Economic Committee. He has been interested in energy legislation as a member of the Republican leadership for quite some time. I would note that today is his birthday, and he has decided to use this special day, when his family is clamoring for his time, to be part of this bipartisan effort with me. I am very grateful for his involvement in this task, and I would like to yield the floor, if I might.

I also see our distinguished friend from West Virginia here, and if it is acceptable, perhaps Senator Bennett could wrap up for our legislation, and then I know the entire Senate wishes to here the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President and colleagues, I have put a public hold on the telecommunications legislation that has cleared the Senate Commerce Committee, and I have decided to come to the floor, from time to time, to try to outline why I have committed to block that legislation until the legislation ensures that the Internet will be free of discrimination.

That is what the debate known as Net neutrality is all about. It is something I feel very strongly about. I think as colleagues and the country come to understand more about what this issue is all about, there will be increasing concern about the absence in this legislation of tough, enforceable provisions to ensure that the Internet is free of discrimination.

Now, the lobbyists for the big communications concerns would like Americans to believe this is a very complicated issue. Certainly, there are technical aspects to it. But the bottom line proposition, Mr. President and colleagues, is, today, when you log on, you get to take your browser where you want to go, when you want to go there, and everybody is treated the same. That is what would change under this legislation because it would be possible, under the way the bill is written now, for major phone companies and cable companies to essentially set up what they have described--described in the business press--as a pay-to-play arrangement. It would change the fundamental nature of the way the Internet works today. I happen to think that is a great mistake.

Now, in prior speeches, I have come to the floor to give examples of what the world would look like without Net neutrality for consumers and small business and innovators.

Over the recess, a small business came to me and shared a story that I thought was particularly interesting. It is the story of a company known as New Mexico Chili. The two individuals, a married couple, who established this firm, NMChili.com, set it up as an alternative to the high-priced on-line Southwestern Chili stores that most people were forced to patronize on line. This couple started with a simple idea and a motto, ``Even our prices taste good.''

From the small town of Hatch, NM, home of the world famous Labor Day Chile Festival, people from around the world can now access the wonderful chili that has made Hatch famous. Somebody from my hometown in Portland can go on line and within 48 hours have delivered to their doorstep Hatch's finest mild red chili or hot green chili.

They have been able to achieve all of this because of the open nature of the Internet. They pay their fee to get on the Net and for the bandwidth they use, and the business can flourish. This is because the Net remains neutral and free of discrimination.

Under the Senate Commerce Committee telecommunications bill, this would no longer be the case. This particular couple, in the small town of Hatch, NM, would be forced to pay fees to Internet access providers around the United States in order to have access to subscribers of these providers, or else they could get stuck in the ``slow lane.'' They would be left with two bad choices: If they pay the fees to the providers, they would no longer be able to say ``even our prices taste good,'' as they will be forced to charge customers more in order to continue to make profits. If they do not pay the fees to providers, their Web site would get stuck in what will become the Internet ``slow lane,'' angering customers and causing them to lose business to larger competitors who can afford to pay the fee. Either way, New Mexico Chili, a small business that came to us, would lose, and its customers would lose.

In this example, the large businesses that own the Internet pipes extend their reach to the detriment of small business. According to the business plans of the major phone and cable companies, what they have been telling Wall Street, what is printed in the business press, this is the direction in which they are headed.

Without Net neutrality, without strong, enforceable provisions to ensure that the Internet is free of discrimination, this small firm in New Mexico would not be able to use the Net the way they can today, and there would be thousands and thousands of other small businesses like it.

Now, Mr. President and colleagues, we are going to hear a lot about this legislation in the days ahead. I have been hearing reports, for example, that if you have Net neutrality we are going to have problems for consumers in terms of blocking spam. That is not going to happen. And in the days ahead, I will outline how that is the case, as well.

The newest attack is that Net neutrality would prevent parents from keeping pornographic content away from their children's eyes and ears. That also is not going to happen. That is why organizations with great interest and expertise in the area, groups such as the Parents Television Council, are strongly supporting an Internet that is free of discrimination, an Internet that has strong provisions to protect Net neutrality.

The fact is, an Internet free of discrimination, an Internet that ensures there is Net neutrality is going to allow parents to do the same things they now do in terms of keeping pornography out of their home. And the fact is, I think it is going to give parents new tools in the days ahead to have additional new and exciting options in video programming that is free of the violence and foul language and sexual content that many of them are forced to buy today in order to receive the best educational programming on television. That is because the promise of a competitive Internet television market is going to grow fastest with an Internet that is free of discrimination and an Internet that ensures there is true Net neutrality.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senators who have been active on the legislation, the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the distinguished Senator from Washington, on the Senate floor. It is not my intent to get in the way of their moving this important legislation. So I intend to come to the floor on additional occasions in the days ahead to discuss this issue. I wanted to go through the example of that small business in New Mexico, New Mexico Chili, to outline why they benefit so dramatically with an Internet that is free of discrimination. I also wanted to outline why Net neutrality is so important to the cause of protecting parents and families from pornography and ensuring that those families have the tools to fight spam.

As I have indicated to the Senate in the past, it is my intent to keep my public hold on the telecommunications legislation until strong language is included in that bill that ensures that the Internet, which today operates free of discrimination, treats all customers the same way. Until that is embedded in the legislation that comes before the Senate, I will continue to keep my hold on this legislation.

I know the sponsors of tonight's bill have important work to do.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the life of Monroe Sweetland--a visionary, a patriot, a statesman, and the father of the modern Democratic Party of Oregon. Monroe passed away Sunday, September 10, at the age of 96, having lived a very full life in pursuit of a better Oregon and a better Nation.

An Oregon native, Monroe was born in Salem in 1910. After attending law school, he returned to Oregon, and, following the Second World War, he worked tirelessly on behalf of the Democratic Party of Oregon, rebuilding the party from the ashes. Monroe was a strong Democrat, a proud partisan who stood with his party not out of any desire for influence or power but out of a belief in the values espoused. He seemed to know instinctively that if the party was strong in its values, then electoral success would follow. And on that basis, he worked to rebuild our party from the ground up.

A tireless worker on behalf of others' campaigns, he also held elected office, serving for 10 years in the State legislature, first as a member of the Oregon House of Representatives and then as a member of the Oregon Senate. Prior to that, in 1948, he was elected to the Democratic National Committee.

Given his strong partisan politics, some might think his most notable feat was converting U.S. Senator Wayne Morse, whose seat I now hold, to the Democratic Party--helping Senator Morse to see the light, as it were. But Monroe considered the passage of the Bilingual Education Act of 1968, a product of his work at the National Education Association, his most important accomplishment. What I will remember most about Monroe is the way he lived: his boundless optimism, his energy to get things done and his smile that would warm even the coldest room.

When I spoke with Monroe a few weeks ago, he was still the activist we all knew so well. The last thing we discussed was the November 2006 elections, and, since Monroe was constitutionally incapable of being anything other than optimistic, he did not want to discuss what-ifs about the outcome of the election; he only wanted to talk about the good that the Democratic Party will accomplish when it wins back the majority in Congress this fall.

Oregon and the Nation are better for having had Monroe Sweetland in the world. For 96 years, we were blessed with his presence on this small planet. Although life seems a little dimmer without him, I know my life is better for having known him.

I know Monroe is in heaven, and if I had to guess, I would say it is likely he is up there right now organizing the angels for further good deeds. Nothing on this Earth slowed him down and I don't expect that to change now that he has gone ahead to a better place.

A giant of politics in our State, and an even greater human being, Monroe will be sorely missed by all who knew him, and even more sorely missed, though they may never know it, by those who never had that opportunity.

Mr. President, Mount Hood is a cherished wild place that is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and many non-Oregonians as well. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a new bipartisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2006.'' 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 Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures.

This bill contains many elements of the bill I introduced two years ago while incorporating many of the provisions adopted in the House- passed version of Mount Hood Wilderness protections, HR 5025. My bill builds upon the House version by adding more wilderness, more wild and scenic rivers, and providing a recreation area to allow diverse recreational opportunities. It 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 two 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, 1964 or 1984--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: More Wilderness: 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.

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

Fire Protection and Forest Health: 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.

Developed Recreation: 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: More Wilderness: There are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness on the Mount Hood National Forest. The House legislation

would have added approximately 77,200 acres of new wilderness on the Mountain. The bill I am introducing today increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,385 new acres of wilderness-- incorporating all the areas the House bill included and building upon them.

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 I-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.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: My proposal seeks to protect over 81 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. My bill again incorporates all the House proposed protections and builds upon them.

Mountain Biking: I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. 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.

Fire Protection and Forest Health: 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 incorporates House 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.

Developed Recreation: In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``fee- retention'' 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 House provisions directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

Local and Tribal Relationships: I have also incorporated the House 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 mountains 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.

Soda Mountain Wilderness: In addition, I wish to offer my cosponsorship of legislation to be presented by Senator Smith, creating the Soda Mountain Wilderness and authorizing the voluntary cancellation of grazing leases in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. This bill would establish a 23,000-acre Soda Mountain Wilderness in the backcountry of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. In addition, it provides for the negotiated voluntary grazing permit lease buyout in the Monument. This proposed wilderness area lies at the intersection of the Siskiyou and Cascade mountain ranges, and the Oregon Desert, California chaparral, High Cascade and coastal Westside forests. It is truly where east meets west meets north meets south. This makes it a truly unique and biodiverse ecosystem and a key wildlife corridor--one that is used by ten rare, threatened or endangered species, including the northern spotted owl, Ashland thistle, and the Siskiyou fritillary. It is also home to populations of trout, elk, bobcats, black bears and falcons. The grazing buyout in this bill also provides a win-win situation. It provides a good deal for the ranchers--the negotiated agreement between the Bureau of Land Management grazing lessees and the conservationists includes an agreed-upon conservationist premium to be paid to the lessees. This premium enhances the compensation lessees receive from the federal government as part of the legislation. It also ensures this special place will be protected. I commend Senator Smith for introducing this legislation and am happy to join him in introducing this bill.

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

Mr. President, Mount Hood is a cherished wild place that is often photographed, visited and enjoyed by scores of Oregonians and many non-Oregonians as well. Today, I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Smith, a new bipartisan Oregon Wilderness bill: the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2006.'' 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 Oregonian wish to protect but also actively experience our State's treasures.

This bill contains many elements of the bill I introduced two years ago while incorporating many of the provisions adopted in the House- passed version of Mount Hood Wilderness protections, HR 5025. My bill builds upon the House version by adding more wilderness, more wild and scenic rivers, and providing a recreation area to allow diverse recreational opportunities. It 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 two 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, 1964 or 1984--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: More Wilderness: 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.

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

Fire Protection and Forest Health: 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.

Developed Recreation: 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: More Wilderness: There are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness on the Mount Hood National Forest. The House legislation

would have added approximately 77,200 acres of new wilderness on the Mountain. The bill I am introducing today increases wilderness on Mount Hood by designating approximately 128,385 new acres of wilderness-- incorporating all the areas the House bill included and building upon them.

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 I-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.

Wild and Scenic Rivers: My proposal seeks to protect over 81 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. My bill again incorporates all the House proposed protections and builds upon them.

Mountain Biking: I believe that local riders raised some valid concerns, so I did two things. I have proposed Mount Hood National Recreation Area. 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.

Fire Protection and Forest Health: 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 incorporates House 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.

Developed Recreation: In order to facilitate developed recreation opportunities I have adopted the House provisions establishing a ``fee- retention'' 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 House provisions directing the Secretary and the State of Oregon to develop an integrated transportation plan for the Mount Hood region.

Local and Tribal Relationships: I have also incorporated the House 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 mountains 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.

Soda Mountain Wilderness: In addition, I wish to offer my cosponsorship of legislation to be presented by Senator Smith, creating the Soda Mountain Wilderness and authorizing the voluntary cancellation of grazing leases in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. This bill would establish a 23,000-acre Soda Mountain Wilderness in the backcountry of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. In addition, it provides for the negotiated voluntary grazing permit lease buyout in the Monument. This proposed wilderness area lies at the intersection of the Siskiyou and Cascade mountain ranges, and the Oregon Desert, California chaparral, High Cascade and coastal Westside forests. It is truly where east meets west meets north meets south. This makes it a truly unique and biodiverse ecosystem and a key wildlife corridor--one that is used by ten rare, threatened or endangered species, including the northern spotted owl, Ashland thistle, and the Siskiyou fritillary. It is also home to populations of trout, elk, bobcats, black bears and falcons. The grazing buyout in this bill also provides a win-win situation. It provides a good deal for the ranchers--the negotiated agreement between the Bureau of Land Management grazing lessees and the conservationists includes an agreed-upon conservationist premium to be paid to the lessees. This premium enhances the compensation lessees receive from the federal government as part of the legislation. It also ensures this special place will be protected. I commend Senator Smith for introducing this legislation and am happy to join him in introducing this bill.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business until 2:20 p.m.

Mr. President, after the Senate's unfortunate debate about the tragic case of the late Terri Schiavo, I thought the Senate was unlikely to debate this matter any time soon. Unfortunately, it seems there may be another discussion of this matter. In spite of the fact that the American people made it very clear that the Government ought to stay out of these tragic end-of-life matters, new legislation, S. 3788, has been introduced which would, in effect, throw Oregon's Death with Dignity Act into the trash can.

As a result of the introduction of this legislation and my concern that the last thing we need is more Government stepping into these very difficult end-of-life decisions, I am announcing this afternoon that I am placing a hold on S. 3788 which would overturn Oregon's unique Death with Dignity Act and would, in my view, do great damage to the cause of pain management all across our country.

In the past, the Senate has looked at this only in the context of what some describe as assisted suicide. Obviously, there are differences of opinion on this issue. The people in my State have been debating this for well over a decade and twice have made it clear that they believe these decisions ought to be left to the individual and to families trying to cope with these difficult circumstances. They have sent a strong message that death is an intensely personal and private matter and that the Government ought to leave our citizens alone. The Government ought not attempt to override or preempt the individual and family values, religious beliefs, and wishes.

What has been debated in Oregon is not all that different from what was faced in the Senate when there was a discussion about the case of the late Terri Schiavo. I objected on the floor at that time to consideration of the original Schiavo legislation, which was an extraordinary overreach of Federal power, and today I put a hold on S. 3788 which would overturn my State's law.

These are very difficult issues, and many of us are torn with respect to how to handle them. I, for example, opposed physician aid in dying both as an Oregon voter and as a Senator. When my State originally considered the Death with Dignity Act, I worried a great deal about the adequacy of the ballot measure safeguards to protect particularly the poor and the vulnerable. Now we have 8 years of experience with this legislation and, thankfully, my fears with respect to how the vulnerable would fare under this legislation have not been realized, and the realities are that the safeguards in the law have worked quite well in preventing potential abuses.

Had Oregon acted hastily or without thorough examination and debate, I might not be in a position to defend my State's law. But no one can accuse my State of acting precipitously in approving this matter. We have endured several ballot initiatives, court challenges, and, most recently, a challenge that was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Each time, the will of a majority of Oregonians prevailed. It is that will of my State's voters which S. 3788 would overturn.

During the 8 years the law has been in effect in my home State of Oregon, the opponents of the law have combed through the statute looking for potential pitfalls. The law still stands because the notion of opponents that there would be abuses and a stampede to Oregon have not been borne out. In fact, and this obviously could not ever be proved, my sense is that there are probably fewer assisted suicides in my home State, the only State with a statute, than there are in other parts of the country. That is because the real effect of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act has been to generate a significant increase in the use of hospice and to generate a significant increase in the number of people who spend their last days at home with family dealing with these issues on their own. So we have not seen this tidal wave of assisted suicides in my home State, but what we have seen as a result of all of the focus on end-of-life care is a significant increase in folks spending their last days through the compassionate services of hospice programs and help with their families at home.

The reality is there is no constitutional issue at stake in this discussion with respect to State rights. Historically, defining medical practice has been a matter left to the States. What is so ironic is that some who come to the floor of the Senate to talk about State rights are essentially saying they only believe in State rights if they think the State is right.

This is a matter which Oregonians have decided for themselves. It has historically been an issue which has been left to the States.

In my home State, there was a vigorous discussion around dinner tables and at the ballot box, and our State has spoken clearly with respect to where we stand on this difficult issue. I do not believe that a Senator from another State should seek to overturn another State's law based on his personal beliefs.

We are just a couple of months from Election Day in which local, State, and Federal elections will be held. Many States will have numerous ballot measures covering every issue imaginable. Voters need to know they can debate even the most emotionally wrenching issues through the ballot process and have their election results respected. The proposed legislation I have put a hold on, S. 3788, sends voters the message that if Congress doesn't like the conclusion your State comes to through a ballot measure, your vote really doesn't matter. I intend to make sure that the votes of the people of my State, on a matter that has historically been left to them, will count.

You can be opposed to physician aid in dying and be opposed to this legislation as well. The reason I conclude that, is because I believe this proposal will be a huge setback to the cause of pain management in every corner of the country, not just in my home State. Like efforts before it, S. 3788 seeks to undermine my State's law by amending the Controlled Substances Act in order to say that drugs which fall under the Controlled Substances Act cannot be used in physician aid in dying. The Controlled Substances Act, of course, is legislation Congress passed to go after drug kingpins and to make sure that those with access to drugs, including doctors and pharmacists and others, do not distribute them illegally. The penalties in the Controlled Substances Act are substantial. However, the bottom line is the Controlled Substances Act was not meant to throw the will of the people of my State or any other in the trash can with respect to a medical practice involving end-of-life care.

Like past efforts, the legislation I have put a hold on purports to create a safe harbor to protect physicians and others. Sadly, such a safe harbor is meaningless because of the realities patients, families, doctors, pharmacies, and others face when they are trying compassionately to assist a dying patient in that patient's last days. Medicine and the use of controlled substances, particularly in the case of the dying, is an art, not an exact science. It is not as if you can prove scientifically and medically that a dose of a drug in so many milligrams can always relieve pain and half a milligram more is going to result in death. People are different. Each of these medical tragedies is different. The dying often can

withstand doses of controlled substances that would kill a healthy person.

There are many examples that make it clear that interpretations after the fact by law enforcement give physicians great concern with respect to how these drugs are used. Second-guessing will deter physicians, even physicians who are opposed to assisted suicide, from moving into treating pain aggressively.

During the previous congressional effort to throw out my State's law, the New England Journal of Medicine editorialized against that attempt out of the very same concern I have reflected today about the impact on pain management. The New England Journal of Medicine said:

Many doctors are concerned about the scrutiny they invite

when they prescribe or administer controlled substances and

they are hypersensitive to drug-seeking behavior in patients.

Patients as well as doctors often have exaggerated fears of

addiction and the side effects of narcotics. Congress would

make this bad situation worse.

That is what independent medical authorities said the last time there was an effort to pass legislation like the new bill, S. 3788, and it holds true as well today.

I have appreciated Senator Smith's leadership, my colleague from Oregon on the other side of the aisle, who joins me with respect to the concern about pain management. He and I have introduced the Conquering Pain Act to help provide families, patients, and health professionals with assistance so that no patient would be left in excruciating pain waiting for a doctor's office to open up.

The reality is, as we saw during the debate involving the late Terri Schiavo, Americans have dramatically differing views on this issue, and those views are passionately held. But there can be efforts, successful efforts, to bring both sides together on this issue. I mentioned the Conquering Pain Act Senator Smith and I have sponsored. I also believe there should be changes in the Medicare hospice benefit to extend opportunities for end-of-life care there. Right now, the Medicare law almost forces someone to give up hope for the prospect of recovery in order to get the hospice benefit, and I believe that is unfortunate.

I am almost finished with my remarks. I see my good friend from the State of Kentucky here. I would ask unanimous consent at this time--and see what is convenient for my colleague from Kentucky--for 5 additional minutes to wrap up my remarks, and if that is convenient with the Senator from Kentucky, I would make that unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, again, just to complete that thought, there are ways that both sides in this end-of-life care debate can be brought together. I have mentioned several. What I think is clear, after the Terri Schiavo discussion, is that the American people don't want the Federal Government butting in, interfering, and preempting the ability of families and those in their last days to make these judgments. For the citizens of my State, the Death With Dignity Act has brought about improvement in many areas and encouraged conversations about a wide variety of end-of-life options. Those conversations probably wouldn't have even taken place if the people of my State hadn't voted for this twice. In my State, the end-of-life process has been decriminalized. Recognizing the deeply personal nature of this, the Federal Government should not decide again, as has been considered before, that this should be the province of the Federal Government and not left to individuals and families.

My State has chosen a unique path. Rather than the bitter and divisive debate over physician aid in dying--which this country would have, once again, if S. 3788 moved forward--I would offer that instead the Senate work together on a bipartisan basis to make the end of life a better period for all Americans.

So consistent with the policy I have held of publishing in the Congressional Record a statement whenever I put a hold on a piece of legislation, I am announcing today my intent to object to any unanimous consent agreement concerning S. 3788. The Senate should have learned during the debate over the tragic case of Terri Schiavo that the American people don't want the Government interfering during these very difficult days. S. 3788 would allow just this kind of interference, and that is why I will do everything I can to defend Oregon's law against this congressional overreaching and respect the message the American people sent during the Terri Schiavo debate that there ought to be a right to be left alone.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in August, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nominations of John Ray Correll to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining, Interior Department, and Mark Myers to be Director of the U.S. Geological Services, Interior Department. Previously, in May, I also placed a hold on David Bernhardt, the administration's nominee to be Interior Solicitor. I also objected to any unanimous consent to keep these nominees on the calendar during the August recess. Instead, I asked that these nominations be returned to the White House. I did so because, despite several requests, I had received no assurance from the administration that the needs of people in more than 700 rural counties in over 40 States would be adequately addressed by fully funded county payments. The county payments law, which provides a stable revenue source for education, roads, and other county services in rural areas, is due to expire at the end

of this year. In early 2005, I cosponsored a bipartisan bill, S. 267, to reauthorize county payments for another 7 years. In February, the administration proposed reauthorizing the law for only 5 years, while cutting funding by 60 percent, and funding that reduced portion with a controversial Federal land sale scheme.

During the August recess, the administration agreed to work with us to find a mutually acceptable solution to fully fund county payments for another year. On August 7, 2006, I received a letter from Mr. Mark Rey, Under Secretary for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in which the administration committed to work with me, and my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Craig, to reauthorize the program for the coming year, through a mutually acceptable funding source. This is not a long- term solution, but it will address the needs of hundreds of communities for the short term. Because of the commitment of the administration to work with me, and my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Craig, to reach a solution, I will no longer object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nominations of John Ray Correll, Mark Myers, and David Bernhardt. I will, however, continue to look for the agreed upon funding solution to be proposed from the administration, while looking toward a future long-term solution.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this statement along with Mr. Rey's letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, the plight of countless rural communities in Oregon and across the country may take a turn for the worse due to the impending expiration of the county payments legislation. For this reason, I am putting a hold on the following two Bush nominees to express my continuing dissatisfaction with the administration's lack of attention to the needs of people in more than 700 rural counties in over 40 States: John Ray Correll, Director of the Office of Surface Mining, Interior Department and Mark Myers, Director of the U.S. Geological Services, Interior Department.

In addition, I would also object to any unanimous consent allowing Mr. Correll, Mr. Myers, and Mr. Bernhardt to remain on the calendar. Instead, I request that these three nominations be returned to the White House during the congressional August recess. Rule 31 paragraph 6 of the Senate Rules provides that when the Senate will be in recess for more than 30 days, any nomination in committee or on the Senate Calendar must be returned to the White House unless the Senate, by unanimous consent, allows a nominee to remain on the calendar.

To date, the administration has proposed only one solution to funding county payments, and it is one that many of us find unacceptable. The county payments law, which provides a stable revenue source for education, roads and other county services in rural areas, is due to expire at the end of this year. In early 2005, I cosponsored a bipartisan bill, S. 267, to reauthorize county payments for another 7

years. In February, the administration proposed reauthorizing the law for only 5 years while cutting funding by 60 percent and funding that reduced portion with a controversial Federal land sale scheme.

Senator Baucus and I have proposed a sensible, alternative funding source for county payments. Our legislation fully funds county payments by ensuring that a portion of Federal taxes are withheld from payments by the Federal government to government contractors. The Federal Government currently does not withhold taxes when it pays government contractors. In May, the Republican-led Congress approved a major tax bill that uses our funding provision to instead provide tax cuts for the most fortunate Americans, leaving rural counties with fewer options and growing fiscal concerns.

As I have said before, I will hold these nominees and every nominee coming after them, if necessary, until the administration steps to the plate and delivers some leadership in finding a way to fund county payments.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for working with me on this issue for many months now. Colleagues know that I stood in this spot for almost 5 hours a few months ago to try to put together a bipartisan effort to save taxpayers billions of dollars. I believe we have done that.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the official score that Senator Kyl and I have now received from the Congressional Budget Office, which the Congressional Budget Office has now officially informed us that over the next 10 years, the taxpayers will save $9 billion

Mr. President, the reason Senator Kyl and I feel so strongly about this, this is a program that is out of control. The fact is that even the sponsor of this program, our distinguished former colleague, Senator Johnston of Louisiana, said this program is not operating as Senator Johnston intended.

A brief bit of history is relevant. This program began in the 1990s, when the price of oil was under $20 a barrel. The point of the program, as devised by Senator Johnston, nobody could really argue with. We needed to produce energy, and with the economic situation in that part of the country, folks were hurting. They devised this program.

But no one can make a case for a program that began when oil was $19 a barrel, when the price of it is now over $70 a barrel. We have a situation where the companies are charging record prices. They are making record profits. We certainly do not need record subsidies, particularly at a time when we have a program that even the sponsor of the original effort says is not working.

This is the biggest subsidy in the energy area. This is one of the biggest boondoggles we have seen operated by the Federal Government. The fact of the matter is, there have been mistakes made under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

As I outlined for the Senate several months ago, the initial mistakes were made by those in the Clinton administration which did not lock in the appropriate price thresholds. When former Secretary Norton came into office, she sweetened up the subsidies administratively, and Congress went still further with respect to this program in the Energy bill.

The Government Accountability Office has estimated that at a minimum the Federal Government and the taxpayers are going to be out $20 billion. There is litigation underway that could mean the taxpayers would be out in the vicinity of $80 billion. It is time to draw a line in the sand and ensure that this effort to roll back these subsidies becomes law.

If the oil industry can keep the Senate from voting on royalties, the legislation the House adopted after Senator Kyl and I came to the Senate and discussed it, almost certainly is going to disappear. The negotiations now underway with oil companies, in my view, are going to be dragged out until the last legislative vehicle has left town. Then the companies can walk away from the table and return to feeding at the expense of the taxpayers.

Senator Kyl and I have worked very closely with Chairman Domenici. As always, he has been very fair and very straightforward with us.

With this approach, we have a chance to get a permanent solution to this giveaway of taxpayer money. We will not interrupt the approach that Chairman Domenici has advocated. We hope it will work. It essentially involves negotiations on a voluntary basis. As I have indicated in the Senate before, while I hope that works, put me down as skeptical because it is fairly implausible that the oil companies will simply walk away from billions and billions of dollars at the negotiating table. If it does work, all the better. If it doesn't work, however, Senator Kyl and I believe it is finally time for the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, to lock in a permanent solution.

Colleagues, the President, to his credit, has said, ``You don't need subsidies for the oil industry when the price of oil is over $55 a barrel.'' The President made that statement, and I appreciate him making it. Second, this is an opportunity for the Senate to go back through these various programs, save taxpayers some money, and to do it in a bipartisan way.

Even though the President said we do not need incentives with the price of oil over $55 barrel, we did see the Secretary of the Interior and the Congress continue to sweeten this royalty relief program, even as the price of oil climbed far above the point mentioned by the President at which the oil industry no longer needs subsidies.

We are now faced with the prospect that if we are going to get a permanent solution, now is the time for the Congress to step up.

I, also, point out, given the fact that the Senate has voted in the last few days to start a new program, a program that will involve additional dollars going out to the oil industry, at a minimum, let us say we are going to fix the old program that is out of control before a new program is started. That is common sense.

For the Senate to talk about creating a new program, allowing even more taxpayer money to be given away--and in that case, for 50 years or more--common sense says the Senate should step up before the end of this session and move to permanently fix the old program that is out of control.

The Senate ought to have an opportunity to debate and vote on a permanent solution to ending these oil royalty giveaways. The House has voted to do it. They voted, in a bipartisan way, for the very thing that I spoke at length about in the Senate and that Senator Kyl and I have been trying to change for many months.

I also point out, if we can get the savings by fixing the old program, you can talk about a responsible way for funding new efforts, such as the effort approved by the Senate this week.

I am sure our citizens who now face the highest gas prices ever will be interested to know when the Senate is going to have a chance to vote on the question of, at this time of record prices and record profits, whether we should continue to give away record amounts of taxpayer subsidies that the President of the United States has indicated are not necessary.

If the Senate ducks this issue, I think it will be very difficult to explain to the American people how Congress can be proposing to allow additional billions of dollars of royalty money to go out before it fixes the current out-of- control program.

I have said for some time the Senate should not be forced into a false choice of either aiding the Gulf States or standing up for the public interest in the face of outrageous taxpayer rip-offs.

We can and should do both. Given what the Senate did earlier this week on the new program, it is, in my view, essential to protect taxpayers to accept the bipartisan amendment that Senator Kyl and I offer this afternoon to reform the Oil Royalty Program.

Mr. President, I urge colleagues to support the bipartisan Kyl-Wyden amendment. I would also note--I see Senator Stevens on the Senate floor--that we have a number of sponsors of this bipartisan proposal, including Senator DeWine, Senator Lieberman, Senator Cantwell, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Salazar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Salazar finishes his remarks, and Senators Thomas and Lautenberg finish, I may speak as in morning business. I will revise that. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Salazar is done and Senator Thomas is done and Senator Lautenberg is done, that I may speak, unless another Republican comes to the floor, and that if another Republican comes to the floor, that I be allowed to speak after that in morning business.

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

Mr. President, several weeks ago I came to the Senate to announce I will do everything in my power to block this Senate from considering the major overhaul of the telecommunications legislation until that legislation includes specific provisions to ensure that there is no discrimination on the Internet. A discrimination-free Internet essentially is what the net neutrality debate is all about.

Certainly colleagues have been hearing a great deal about this subject as those who oppose net neutrality have spent millions and millions of dollars trying to convince the American people and the Congress that somehow discrimination on the net is a good thing. They have made a big point of trying to say that net neutrality is a very complicated issue, it is one involving technical issues of communications law, and it ought to be something left to lawyers and lobbyists to sort out in Washington, DC.

That is not good enough for me and I don't think it is good enough for the American people. In fact, more than 500 organizations with views all across the political spectrum have come together to support net neutrality and a discrimination-free Internet.

This is the fourth time I have come to the Senate to outline examples of what will happen if discrimination is allowed on the Internet and also to respond to some of the most directly asked questions about what net neutrality is all about.

Today I begin my discussion with a new development just reported by the Reuters News Service. Reuters News Service reported this week that the profits of the AT&T company were up by 35 percent, bolstered ``by strong growth in wireless and high speed Internet services.''

I am of the view this is excellent news. I want to see American companies be profitable. I believe in markets. I believe in wealth creation. When our companies do well, of course, they pay taxes. They pay taxes to the American Government and that can be used for health care, education, and other services our citizens have such a great interest in. It is free enterprise that makes markets work.

When Reuters reports that AT&T has made a 35-percent profit primarily due to wireless and high-speed Internet services, the digital part of the economy, that is good news.

However, there are other implications with respect to the news this week about AT&T profits. It seems to me what the news highlights this week is that AT&T can make money with an Internet that is discrimination free. They have been arguing, as part of the discussion involving telecommunications, that somehow it will not be possible for them to make the profits that are necessary for broadband and sophisticated communication services to get to all the people of this country.

The news this week shows that AT&T and other companies can be profitable with an Internet that is discrimination free. They do not need to throw net neutrality into the trash can in order to do well. The events of this past week have proved that AT&T does not need to discriminate in order to make money.

To continue with the discussion I have begun over the last few weeks, I also want to go to the question of ``won't consumers just get their broadband from companies that do not discriminate on the net if somehow we don't have net neutrality.'' This is an excellent question. The answer is simple. If there were a competitive market for high-speed Internet services, the market would guarantee net neutrality. Consumers would insist that the Internet remain free of discrimination and they could take their business elsewhere if they didn't happen to approve of discrimination.

Unfortunately, there is not a competitive market today for high-speed Internet. Until there is, strong net neutrality protections are needed. What is the market for high-speed Internet? According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2005, about 30 million Americans had broadband service. However, most of these Americans have a choice of perhaps only two broadband providers, the local phone company and the local cable company.

Some may have only one provider. Others may have no options at all. No choice, limited choice, certainly is not my view of a competitive market. A choice between two is only one step beyond a monopoly. Most experts say at least four providers are needed in a market for it to be truly competitive. Today's market is still a long way away from the kind of competitive model we need to best serve our citizens with the communications services they deserve.

Many of my colleagues have stressed the possibilities of satellite, broadband over power line, or wireless as competitors to what is called DSL and cable. These offerings are not real competitors. Satellite high-speed Internet is too expensive for the consumer to be a real competitor with today's services. Both wireless and broadband over power line are new technologies, and we all hope that someday they are going to develop into competitive options to the phone and cable company offerings. They ought to be encouraged. However, they are still new, and until they become widespread and priced at a competitive level with cable, for example, the market for high-speed Internet will remain limited or will remain a duopoly.

A second question I am often asked is: As a small business, what does all this Net neutrality stuff mean to me? Last week, I came to the Senate floor and explained what it means for consumers. Small businesses, of course, are just one type of consumer in the market. And no Net neutrality is going to mean the same thing for the millions of small businesses that it means for consumers: a double-barreled discrimination with less choice and a higher price. Small businesses also have a second concern: They use the Net not just as a consumer but also as a market for their business. They have Web sites. Small businesses across the country use the Net to market their products. Through Web sites such as NexTag and Yahoo Shopping, small retail shops are able to reach millions and millions of homes that they could not otherwise access. A bed and breakfast, say, in central Oregon, in Bend, OR, is able to market itself on the Net and compete with a Holiday Inn. For the small businesses, the prospect of a two-tiered discriminatory Internet, where they will have to pay priority access fees to network operators, is daunting.

For a small business, the fees that the large Bells and cable companies would charge could have a chilling effect on their ability to do business online. While large businesses can afford to take on these additional costs with only a small hit to their overall profitability, many small businesses are not going to be able to pay these extra fees. This would mean they would either get stuck on the Internet slow lane or have to mark up their prices more than big businesses. Either way, without an Internet free of discrimination, these small businesses are going to be at a competitive disadvantage.

In my previous discussions on the floor, in addition to trying to respond to some of the major questions people are asking about Net neutrality, I have tried to bring out several specific examples of the kind of discrimination that would be allowed under the bill that was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee recently. So today I want to outline two additional examples of what could happen to our small businesses if legislation allowing discrimination on the Net were allowed to move forward.

Let's say, for the purpose of the first example, we have a family known as the Taylors. The Taylors own an inn on the Oregon coastline. Occupancy has been lower lately because a large new national chain hotel opened up down the road. George Taylor's son Mike comes up with an idea to save the inn by reaching out to new customers: They ought to start a Web site to market their inn and take reservations online.

In a world with Net neutrality, the Taylor family, with that small inn, would pay to access the Net, create a Web page, and they would be off to the races, up and running, marketing their business. Under the Commerce Committee bill, in order to launch their Web page in the fast lane so they could

get priority access to customers across the country and around the world, that small business would have to pay an additional fee to hundreds, if not thousands, of Internet access providers around the country. The priority access fees are a drop in the bucket to that big national chain of hotels that is hurting their business, but if the Taylor family cannot pay the extra fees, they are not going to be able to compete.

A second example of how the absence of Net neutrality would hurt small business--this one involves a business owner who I am calling Jessica Myers. Ms. Myers owns a small legal placement firm with eight employees. In a world with Net neutrality, she saves money on her phone bills as a Vonage customer. She buys all her office supplies on line from another small business she found at Shopzilla, and saved thousands of dollars on new computer equipment from Buy.com. Her employees are able to navigate law firm Web pages, learning of open jobs and potential clients to market these openings to.

Under the Commerce Committee bill, Jessica's business is going to see a huge increase in her costs. Vonage no longer works properly, causing her to pay extra for phone service from the local phone company. The office supply store is no longer on line because they could not afford to pay for priority access and cannot compete without it. Her computer equipment at Buy.com is now more expensive, maybe 10 percent more, because Buy.com is passing on the costs they pay the network operators for priority access. Her employees are much less effective because they now spend hours every day waiting for law firm Web sites to load that are stuck in the Internet's slow lane. Her costs go up. Her productivity and her profits go down.

In each of these two new examples I have outlined of the consequences for our small businesses, the large businesses that own the Internet pipes are going to be extending their reach to the detriment of small business. According to the business plans of the big phone and cable companies, and what they have told Wall Street, what has been outlined in the Wall Street Journal newspaper, that is the direction they are heading. Without Net neutrality, neither of the small businesses in the examples I have cited is going to be able to use the Net in the way they do now, and they are going to be disadvantaged at a time when they are a big part of America's future in competing in the global marketplace.

The big cable and phone companies have spent millions--more than $40 million since January of this year--to try to make the American people think that Net neutrality is, to quote one Verizon lobbyist, a ``lose- lose proposition.'' The absence of Net neutrality will be the lose-lose for consumers. Discrimination will be seen in Internet content, and we will see higher prices for consumers. That is why more than 500 groups of all political philosophies and persuasions have come together to draw a line in the sand and say: We are going to insist that the Internet remain discrimination free.

At the end of the day, this issue of Net neutrality, despite what the opponents and the lobbyists want the Senate to think, isn't that complicated. Today, the way the Net works is you go with your browser where you want, when you want, and everybody is treated equally. Those who oppose Net neutrality want to change all that. They want to make it possible for phone companies and cable companies to play favorites. They will be in a position to charge some people more and some people less. They are people who want to change the way the Net works today, which is that everybody gets a fair shake.

And that is, again, the point of my citing this afternoon AT&T's profits that come from wireless services. I repeat, I am glad to see AT&T do well. I believe in markets, and markets are what make our country's free enterprise system go. But AT&T is doing well with an Internet that is based on the principle of equality, Net neutrality, and no American facing discrimination on line.

I see the distinguished Senator from Tennessee here, and he remembers our discussion about taxation and on-line services and on-line businesses. The Senate worked together on a bipartisan basis, and we have kept the Internet free of discrimination as it relates to taxation. I think it makes no sense at all for the Senate to say we are going to let the Internet prosper as it relates to taxation--and taxation is a big factor, obviously, in business opportunities and business sales--it makes no sense to keep the Internet free of discrimination as it relates to taxation and then to throw Net neutrality in the trash can and allow discrimination as it relates to so many other aspects of on-line business and services that are important to the American people.

So this is the fourth time I have come to the floor to discuss this issue. I do not want to see consumers face the double barrel of discrimination and higher prices on line. It is my intent to keep my hold on that overhaul of the telecommunications legislation on until I see that bill has been changed, until I see it has been altered and revised to ensure the core principle of the Internet--that everybody gets a fair shake and that the Internet is free of discrimination. My hold stays until that bill is altered so we can preserve an Internet free of discrimination for all Americans in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I want to commend the distinguished leader from Nevada. He has for a long time championed the needs of consumers. In the West, we understand the devastation gasoline prices have had on our consumers. And his case for a new energy policy, a red, white, and blue energy policy that makes us free of our dependence on foreign oil, is a case he has eloquently made, and made frequently. I want him to know how much I appreciate his leadership before he leaves the floor.

I want to start the discussion about the legislation which is before us now by acknowledging the enormous pain and hurt so many citizens of our Gulf States have endured since Katrina struck their communities. Pictures of this tragedy are seared into our minds at this point. In the Senate, I sit next to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu. She has brought passion, energy, and eloquence to the cause of securing help for those she represents so well as folks in the Gulf States try and get on their feet.

My view is that the challenge for the Senate is to reconcile the need to help those folks hurting in the Gulf States with the urgent need for Congress to legislate fresh, bolder energy policies for our entire country. My understanding is the distinguished majority leader from Tennessee, Senator Frist, will not allow amendments to this legislation. If that is the case, my view is this legislation does not balance the need to help folks in the Gulf States with the urgent need to get that fresh red, white, and blue energy policy for our country's future.

Does the Senate truly believe more shouldn't be done to promote renewable energy? Does the Senate truly believe more shouldn't be done to promote automobile efficiency? Does the Senate truly believe more shouldn't be done to protect consumers from exploitive practices? Does the Senate truly believe taxpayer dollars should be used to subsidize oil companies even though the President, to his credit, has said subsidies aren't needed when the price of oil is over $55 a barrel?

If no amendments are allowed under this legislation, which is my understanding from the statement made by the distinguished majority leader, essentially what the Senate will be saying to the country is if we go off and drill in the gulf a bit, then the country can call it a day as far as getting a new energy policy. I don't think that is good enough.

I support responsible drilling in the gulf. We obviously need more energy production. By any realistic calculus, we know oil will be part of our future and we are going to need to encourage production in a responsible way. In the Senate Committee on Finance, again, working on a bipartisan basis, the Senator from Wyoming, the distinguished Senator who sits on the Committee on Finance, Senator Thomas, has some excellent ideas in terms of encouraging production, particularly getting more oil from existing wells. We do need more oil production. But drilling alone is not the new energy policy this country needs. It is more business as usual.

We have been down this road before. In the 1990s, for example, the Congress passed a royalty program that was supposed to stimulate energy production and be good for the Gulf States and for our country as a whole. What it has done is something very different than what was envisioned. In fact, the sponsor of that legislation, our respected colleague from the State of Louisiana, former Senator Johnston, has said the program, as it has developed, is nothing along the lines of what he envisioned.

The Government Accountability Office has said with the royalty program created in the 1990s when oil was about $19 a barrel--it is over $70 a barrel now--that program that was created in the 1990s is going to cost taxpayers a minimum of $20 billion and possibly as much as $80 billion.

That is the royalty program we have on the books now. As we start this discussion about setting up a new program, I want to make sure the Senate is up on how much money is being frittered away under the mismanaged program that is on the books today. One would think it is common sense to fix the old program before we start a new program. One would think it is common sense to take the savings generated by fixing the old program and applying those savings to paying for the new program before the Senate this afternoon. However, neither of those commonsense steps is being taken. A new program is being considered by the Senate today when Congress has not corrected the old program which even the oil companies acknowledge is not needed today, and even the sponsor, our former colleague, Senator Johnston, has indicated is not working.

I have talked with Chairman Domenici about this. Chairman Domenici has indicated he wants to fix this old program, this old, mismanaged program that has wasted so much of the taxpayers' scarce resources. We all know Chairman Domenici is a straight shooter and forthright and I have appreciated his discussions with me.

However, I don't think the oil companies are going to easily give up this multibillion dollar boondoggle, this sweetheart deal they have obtained. Time is not on the side of those who want to put a stop to the billions of dollars being needlessly dispensed under the 1990s program.

The legislation before the Senate now is one of the last opportunities the Senate will have to permanently fix the broken royalty program that began in the 1990s. Senator Kyl and I have been working in a bipartisan way to change this. There has been action in both the other body, the House, and in the Senate, in the Senate Committee on Appropriations where the distinguished senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, has done an excellent job of trying to advance the cause of stopping these subsidies, but my guess is the legislation the Senate has been able to at least start in the appropriations process may not even hit the floor of this body, and even if it does, the oil companies are very well positioned to run out the clock on the effort in this session of Congress to stop the needless subsidies that were granted in the 1990s.

For example, there is mediation now going on between the companies and the Government, but it is nonbinding, so the oil companies hold all the cards. The appropriations process, of course, only lasts for a year so the companies can run out the clock on that, as well.

Senator Kyl and I spent a lot of time in the Senate making the case for why this was a needless expense, particularly at a time when we have so many other needs in our country. That day, despite the fact I stood in this spot for almost 5 hours, we could not even get a vote on a measure to stop these subsidies that the General Accounting Office has calculated is at least $20 billion and possibly $80 billion.

Put me down as pretty skeptical that the oil companies are going to voluntarily give up these huge sums of money. As of now, in this session, one measure after another has failed in terms of potential steps that could protect the consumer. Let's review: The Federal Trade Commission, the agency that is supposed to protect the consumer and to deal with concentration and mergers in the oil industry, a big goose egg from the Federal Trade Commission. In fact, the chair, Deborah Majoras, has all but said that high prices are essentially good for the consumer because by her theory that will promote more energy production. That is a pretty astounding theory of consumer protection, but Senators can look it up. That is what she said before the Energy Committee.

The agency that regulates commodities? Zip, with respect to dealing with speculative practices, practices that contribute very significantly to the cost of oil. In fact, when oil company executives came before our committee--the distinguished Senator from Alaska will recall--one oil company executive said speculative practices are a big factor in driving up the cost of oil for our consumers. We have not seen anything to reign in those speculative practices.

How about stopping needless tax breaks? When the oil company executives came before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I went down the row and asked each one of the executives whether they needed all these tax breaks. They now have record profits, consumers have record prices, so I made the point, why in the world would you need record tax breaks? The executives, when they had to answer in broad daylight, said they did not need them. Ever since then, I have been trying to roll back some of those tax breaks. The President, to his credit, said tax breaks are not needed when the price of oil is over $55 a barrel, but we have taken only the most modest step. A tiny bit of the tax relief that the oil companies are getting has been rolled back under a proposal I made involving a drilling writeoff that the companies get.

So, Federal Trade Commission, zip; anti-speculative efforts, zip; tax breaks that are needless expenditures that the oil companies say they don't need, virtually nothing. So put me down as pretty skeptical given the fact that in each of those areas the Government has ducked taking on the oil companies. Put me down as pretty skeptical that somehow these oil companies are going to come to the table and walk away and leave behind $20 to $60 billion worth of breaks in royalty relief from the 1990s. I don't think it is going to happen. I hope it does.

Chairman Domenici is very sincere in his views, but given the track record in this Congress of the oil companies being able to escape any kind of effort at those various agencies I have outlined, I don't think the oil companies are going to voluntarily clean up a program in the 1990s that has been so mismanaged. My sense is it is going to be necessary to pass legislation in this Congress to force the companies to give up these needless subsidies.

There is a compromise with respect to how it could be done in a bipartisan way. It is a compromise that I and the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, have been talking about. We actually proposed it to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici. I suggested what we might do is allow the negotiations between the companies and the Government under the 1990s royalty program to proceed for a bit longer. Possibly that will work. I am skeptical, but possibly it will.

But if those negotiations did not produce the savings for taxpayers and the cleansing of this old program that is so important, then we have to be tougher. After a period for negotiations, I would propose as part of a bipartisan compromise that the Senate then insist the companies get no new leases until the old program has been cleaned up. That would bring together some of the ideas advanced by the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Domenici, and some of the ideas Senator Kyl and I and others have offered on a bipartisan basis.

We suggested that be done in this bill. We said: Here is an opportunity in this legislation to permanently fix the old program before you start a new one. We thought it was a chance to take two approaches Senators have been talking about and bringing them together and permanently fixing the program. I believe if the Senate does not do that, the clock is going to run down on the program, and I think, in all likelihood, the Senate, in the beginning of 2007, will be in much the same place it is today. I do not want to see that happen.

I think it is time for a fresh approach with respect to how our country makes energy policy. I think we need to be much bolder and much more creative. I have advanced ideas in this area; a number of Senators have. But we have seen precious little of that kind of bold thinking. What we have seen is essentially business as usual.

I hope colleagues will take a look at the analysis that has been done by the Senate Budget Committee of the impact of the legislation before us today. This is, of course, S. 3711. I asked the Democratic staff of the Senate Budget Committee to do an analysis of the impact of the bill before us today. The

legislation before us now authorizes at least a 50-year commitment. The oil companies, in my view, under this legislation have been able to parlay the suffering of our citizens in the Gulf States into something that I believe could become an unaffordable gravy train.

What the Budget Committee staff found is that between 2017 and 2055, the U.S. Treasury and Federal taxpayers would be out almost $20 billion beyond what is already going out the door under the broken royalty relief program from the 1990s that I have described once again on the floor of the Senate. But beyond that, all bets are off. Lost revenues after that could be as much as $12 billion to $15 billion each year.

So I would ask the Senate: At a time when clearly folks in those Gulf States are hurting, and the Senate ought to step in and be of assistance to them, does it make sense to authorize a 50-year program that, particularly after the initial period, will involve additional sums, additional untold billions of dollars of revenues that could be lost?

The challenge for the Senate now, it seems to me, is, first and foremost, to get some amendments to this legislation. I hope the majority leader, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist, will change his mind. I hope the distinguished majority leader will allow amendments on automobile efficiency, on renewable energy, on protecting consumers from exploitive practices, and protecting taxpayers from needless subsidies. We would not be talking about hundreds of amendments. I think amendments in those four areas would provide an opportunity to strike a balance in this legislation to make sure that urgently needed help is directed to these Gulf States, that efforts are being made to get a new energy policy for our country.

It does not make any sense, to me, for the Senate to say: Let's go drill a bit in the Gulf--and pretty much call it a day. But that is what the legislation in its present form essentially says. It says: At a time when the country desperately needs a new energy policy, when people are clamoring for it at townhall meetings and in chambers of commerce and in virtually every other place a Senator goes, what we are going to say is nothing doing. We are going to say a bit of drilling in the Gulf will cover it, and a bit of drilling in the Gulf can take place, even though billions of dollars are being wasted under a program--a previous program--that was directed to the Gulf States from the 1990s.

I think the Senate can do better. I think the Senate can do better on a bipartisan basis. Senator Kyl and I are ready to propose what we believe could be a bipartisan initiative that would involve recommendations made by the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, ourselves, Senator Feinstein, and others. We think we could save a big chunk of money--billions and billions of dollars--that could be applied to the new program that is being considered by the Senate today.

That is the kind of bipartisan work the Senate should focus on. I look forward to the discussion and particularly hope the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, will change his mind. This subject is too important to bar Senators from offering meaningful amendments and allowing the Senate to get a more balanced energy policy and securing the needs of our citizens.

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

I yield the floor.