Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have already announced that I will do everything I can to block Senate consideration of the major overhaul of the telecommunications laws until it contains language to ensure there cannot be discrimination on the Internet.

Last week, I outlined a number of examples of the kind of discrimination that could take place unless there is language known as Net neutrality in the legislation. I am going to give additional examples this morning of what will happen if discrimination is allowed on the Net. I also intend to start laying out answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about Net neutrality.

The major phone and cable companies that are now spending enormous sums trying to prevent Net neutrality so outspend the folks who share my views that I think it is important for the Senate to get a sense of what is going on. That is why it is my intent to come to the floor of the Senate again and again and again to outline what is at stake with respect to ensuring that the Internet is kept free of discrimination.

Let me begin by first addressing this question of what exactly is Net neutrality. If you listen to some of the so-called experts about communications, they would suggest this is so complicated, so arcane, so difficult for anybody to understand, you ought to let the lawyers and the lobbyists sort this out. Of course, that is traditionally what has gone on in this field. You have lawyers and lobbyists being paid very handsomely to battle it out with each other, usually in Washington, DC, or in courtrooms across the country.

Somehow, the typical person, the typical citizen, who has become empowered using the Internet, does not get to participate in these discussions. I will tell you, Mr. President, I do not think the American people are going to buy that any longer. The Internet, which, of course, has opened up so many doors for our citizens in terms of health care and business opportunities, education, and culture, has also ensured they get a lot of information about these communications debates that used to be reserved for lawyers and lobbyists.

The people of this country--and the hundreds and hundreds of organizations that want to keep the Internet discrimination free--are no longer going to accept a notion that a handful of insiders in Washington, DC, can have these debates about the future of the communications systems they depend on, and that the people of this country will have to take what these so-called experts decide. So this is going to be a debate, in my view, that is going to be driven by the grassroots of this country, by thousands of people getting involved and coming to their legislators, and others, to talk about the future of telecommunications--why so much communication power is concentrated in so few hands.

I am going to try to advance this debate here on the floor of the Senate every so often so we can make sure somebody is getting the message out about what is at stake, other than those big cable and phone companies that seem to be spending almost $150 for every $1 spent by folks who share my views.

The first question I want to talk about this morning is what exactly is Net neutrality? It is not that complicated. It is a pretty straightforward proposition. What Net neutrality means is you cannot discriminate on the Internet. The people who are against Net neutrality--I call them ``the discriminators'' because that is their agenda--want to discriminate. They want to be in a position to play favorites. They want to say: We will give certain people a good deal, both in terms of service and all the considerations that go into folks making their choices on line.

I do not think we should have that kind of discrimination. I think it ought to be, as it is today, possible for our citizens to go with their browser where they want to go, when they want to go, and everybody would be treated equally. That is the way it works today. I do not think there ought to be any changes.

Today, somebody pays a fee to get on the Net. They go where they want,

when they want. And if you want to buy something online from Harry & David--their wonderful fruit, which we know a lot about in the State of Oregon--you pay your Internet provider for the connection, Harry & David pays its Internet provider for its connection, and that is that. Once you pay your Internet access fee, no one stops you from shopping at Harry & David because you did not pay an extra fee.

Without a clear policy preserving Net neutrality and ensuring there is no discrimination on the Net, the Net would be forever changed. And, in my view, it would be forever changed if discrimination is allowed on the Internet.

So that is why I have indicated I am going to use every procedural tool I have as a Senator to block Senate consideration of the telecommunications overhaul until it ensures there is Net neutrality and no discrimination online.

Now, a second question I am often asked is people want to know, as a consumer: How will Net neutrality affect me? For starters, keeping things the way they are, keeping Net neutrality, is not going to change anything about the Net for millions and millions of our consumers who rely on it. Net neutrality has been the way we have enjoyed the Net since day one. And it is only in the last year that there has been this new front opened up where folks say: We have to be allowed to discriminate. It has only been in the last year where the basic nondiscriminatory nature of the Internet has been under attack.

So it is not going to change the world for the consumer if Net neutrality is preserved. But I will tell you, it is surely a troubling question for consumers if we do not have Net neutrality. Consumers, in my view, without Net neutrality, would immediately feel the effects. They would have fewer choices, and they would pay higher prices. And I am going to try, again, to use some examples this morning of why that is the case.

Currently, consumers pay a fee for connecting to the Internet. The fee is for a certain amount of bandwidth. The more bandwidth you buy, the faster the speed with which you connect to the Internet. So with a dial-up connection at 56 kilobits per second of bandwidth, it is going to take a lot longer to get your favorite Web sites than with a high- speed connection at 6 megabits per second. That is why some folks call broadband high speed. A broader bandwidth can accommodate more bits, and they can move faster down the pipes. A growing number of our citizens want the higher speed or broadband connection to the Net.

If the large phone and cable lobbies are able to stop Net neutrality, consumers would no longer have access to all the content available on the bandwidth they buy. Rather, those that provide content on the Net-- and that is everybody with a Web site, from small nonprofits and universities to large corporations--would be forced to pay the big phone and cable companies an extra fee for access to the consumer's bandwidth. If they did not pay or could not afford to pay these extra fees, their content would be waylaid, it would be off on the Internet slow lane.

This would mean consumers would have fewer Web site choices. Some small businesses that depend on the Net for sales, in my view, will end up closing down. Many of the bloggers--and we know that now blogging is awfully popular; these are folks who write just to be heard--they are going to find it hard to continue without Net neutrality if they have to pay those extra fees. Nonprofits--I am not sure we will see all their Web sites. At the end of the day, without Net neutrality, consumers will be left with fewer choices.

That is not all that consumers will be left with. Because the loss of Net neutrality is double-barreled discrimination, consumers would also be left with higher prices. Those companies that choose to pay fees to the larger phone and cable companies are going to pass those fees on to the consumer. The price of goods sold online is going to rise because companies will pass on the fees to consumers. And because no one can determine now how high the fees are going to go, no one can predict how high the price of goods sold online would go either.

So that is a little bit of what all this means to the typical consumer. It does mean, in my view, higher prices and fewer choices for the reasons I outlined. But I thought I would continue what I started last week; that is, bringing some specific examples I think we will see on the Internet if there is an absence of Net neutrality.

The first example I am going to cite this morning is somebody I am going to call Josh Nelson. Josh Nelson wants to get Internet broadband for himself and his family at home. ``Local Cable'' is the only choice for Internet access, and we will say it charges $49.99 for a 6 megabit per second connection.

In a world with Net neutrality, when Josh buys his connection from ``Local Cable,'' he gets to visit any Web site he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. If he wants, for example, to download movies from the popular Vongo for $10 a month, he can do that. If he wants to search the Web using Yahoo or book a family vacation online at Travelocity, Josh can do that, too.

Under the bill that has come from the Senate Commerce Committee--the bill that does not protect Net neutrality--Josh will not be able to do any of those kinds of things I have described unless content providers pay a new priority access fee on top of the $49.99 Internet access charge Josh already pays, and the fees the content providers pay to get on the Net.

Unless Travelocity pays the additional priority fee, booking that vacation at Travelocity could take 20 minutes to process because they are not paying the extra fee to ``Local Cable'' for priority access. Downloading movies at Vongo could cost more as well, could cost $20 rather than $10 because Vongo is passing on the costs of paying ``Local Cable'' the priority access fee.

Josh at this point--and this is as sure as night follows day in terms of what is ahead--is going to want to switch to another broadband provider, given all these extra costs he would have to eat. But he is stuck. There are no other choices for many people across the land.

The second example I want to outline involves somebody I am calling Mary Smith. Mary goes on line now through a broadband connection with a local Bell company to purchase a television from her local electronics store, Barnes Electronics. In a world with net neutrality, when Mary goes to Barnes Electronics web site, the site works properly and she can purchase the new television with ease. Under the legislation that came from the Senate Commerce Committee, it is going to be a different world for Mary. When she types in the web address for Barnes Electronics, the site may not immediately load. Instead a page could load asking her if she would prefer to shop at Big Box Electronics web site which paid the local Bell to interrupt Mary's browsing. After clicking no, she is directed to Barnes Electronics web site. However, the site takes a long time to load and she becomes so frustrated, she says: Well, I will just go shopping at Big Box and eat all those higher prices.

In each of these examples, those who own the pipes extend their reach to the detriment of the American people. According to the business plans--and these have not exactly been hidden--of the big phone and cable companies and what they tell Wall Street, the kind of world I describe is what we are heading for. Without net neutrality, neither of the people in the examples I just outlined would enjoy the Internet the way they enjoy it today.

One last question for purposes of this morning. I am often asked now: If we have net neutrality, does that mean we are not going to have sophisticated communications networks built in my neighborhood? Of course, we all want these sophisticated communications systems. Folks want them in Georgia, in Oregon, across the land. We all understand the value of constantly trying to upgrade our communications systems. Nobody wants policies that create disincentives to building new and improved communications networks. For years cable companies have been digging up the streets in neighborhoods across the land to build more sophisticated networks, even though net neutrality protections were in place. For all these years, when we have said we were not going to allow discrimination on the Internet, we have had the cable companies out there digging up the streets putting in these systems. So it is not as if we don't have some evidence of what you can do when the Internet is free of discrimination.

We have seen these sophisticated networks built by cable companies right now. They are doing it when there is an absence of discrimination on the net. The reason I cited this is, it proves that if consumers demand it, the communications companies are going to build it because they can make a profit. The Bells, for example, would rather build a network with discrimination in it because they can make billions of dollars of extra profit. That is why they are threatening not to build networks and to try to hold hostage consumers and businesses across America. I don't think that is right. There is concrete evidence that this notion that we will not have sophisticated communications networks unless we allow discrimination on the net makes no sense at all.

I have tried to make a focus of my career in public service to keeping the Internet free from discrimination. It has paid real dividends already, particularly in regard to taxation. I was a Senate sponsor of the legislation that prohibited discrimination in taxes on line. When we started, it was a very simple proposition. We would see, for example, that if you bought a newspaper on line, you paid taxes. But if you bought the snail mail version of that newspaper, you didn't pay any taxes. So Congress came together on a bipartisan basis and said: We are not going to allow discrimination and taxation with respect to the Internet. We have done it. It has made sense.

For all those who claimed there were going to be dire consequences, that the States and localities wouldn't have any money, that it was going to kill the traditional retailer, the main street retailer, we haven't seen any of that. The Internet Nondiscrimination Act as it relates to taxation has made a huge difference. I worked with Senator Allen on the other side of the aisle on that. Our mutual friend, former Congressman Chris Cox, who now heads the Securities and Exchange Commission, he and I began this effort when he was serving in the other body. We have seen already, with respect to ensuring that the net is free from multiple and discriminatory taxes, why it makes sense to keep the Internet a discrimination free zone.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we want to bring discrimination back to the telecommunications world, which is what this telecommunications overhaul will do, unless net neutrality is protected. The major cable and phone companies have spent more than $40 million since January of this year to make the American people think that net neutrality is what they call a lose-lose proposition. I am here to say that the absence of net neutrality will be the lose-lose proposition. The American people will see discrimination in Internet content, higher prices for consumers, and that is why hundreds of organizations that span the political spectrum, who disagree with each other on virtually everything, have come together to say: We are going to pull out all the stops to try to protect the Internet from discrimination.

I do not want to see the American consumer face the double barrel discrimination on the net of reduced choices in content, diminished services, and the additional prospect of higher prices. As a result, it is my intent to keep my hold on this major telecommunications rewrite until it ensures true net neutrality and an Internet free of discrimination.

Mr. President, I also congratulate our colleagues who have worked tirelessly to ensure the authorization of the exceptionally important Voting Rights ct. This law plays a critical role in ensuring that the right of all Americans to vote is protected. I intend to speak more extensively later on about the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up to 20 minutes after the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, I modify my request and ask unanimous consent

that after Senator Obama speaks, and after a Republican has spoken after Senator Obama, that I could be recognized for up to 20 minutes at that time.

Mr. President, that is exactly the kind of scenario I envisioned, and I appreciate that from the Senator from Georgia, and renew my unanimous consent request.

Mr. President, often when the Senate passes something unanimously, it means that the matter is not so important. That is not the case today. The Voting Rights Act is about as important as it gets. Senators of both political parties deserve great credit for bringing this vitally needed legislation to the floor of the Senate today. I have come to salute those inside and outside the Senate for their work to bring this extraordinarily important issue before the country and before the Senate and to make an appeal to Senators and those outside the Chamber to work for more.

In the past three successive elections--2000, 2002, and 2004--there were scores of accusations of voter intimidation, rigged voting machines, conflicts of interest among elected officials, and other serious electoral abuses. Many newspaper articles, State and Federal governmental investigations, private studies and scores of lawsuits have described in considerable detail the toll that election abuses now take on our democracy. As much as it is an accomplishment that the Senate will be voting to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act today, that law cannot cure many of the problems that we have seen in the last three election cycles. But there is a proven system that can reduce many of these abuses, and I hope in the days ahead the U.S. Congress will take steps to promote it. It is known as vote by mail.

My State of Oregon adopted this election system back in 1998, with nearly 70 percent support of our State's voters. It has been a resounding success any way one looks at it, and it has not been seen in any way as a kind of partisan tool that advantages one particular party or one particular philosophy.

What I want to do this afternoon is describe briefly how Oregon's vote by mail system works and then talk about why the Senate ought to be taking steps to promote it nationally as a way to deal with some of these problems that have swept across our land over the last three election cycles.

In Oregon the system works in this way. At least 2 weeks before election day, election officials mail ballots to all registered voters. The voters mark their ballots, seal and sign those ballots, and return them by mail or by placing them in a secure drop box. Election officials count the votes using optical scanning machines that confirm the signature on the return envelope matches the signature of the voter on file. Each county also provides optional onsite voting booths for individuals who need special accommodations or prefer to vote onsite.

The bottom line is that vote by mail can address many of the problems that plague this country's elections. For example, with vote by mail, there is no waiting in line in the polls for hours. All through our country over the last election we heard complaints about

people having to wait in line, often for hours and hours on end. It doesn't happen with vote by mail. Each voter receives a ballot in the mail. They can complete it at home, at work, or wherever is convenient for them. And you don't have the problem of people waiting in line for hours and hours to exercise their franchise.

With vote by mail, no one would get the run-around about which polling place they are supposed to vote at. The ballots are mailed to the citizen's home. If, for some reason, a voter's ballot does not arrive 2 weeks before the election as it is supposed to, the voter has enough time to correct the problem, get their ballot, and then cast it. Americans who face the toughest time getting to the polls, such as citizens with disabilities and the elderly, report that they vote more often using vote by mail. Women, younger voters, stay-at-home moms also report that they vote more often using vote by mail. Once again, it is an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to deal with a very serious problem that we have seen over the last few election cycles.

Citizens wouldn't get the run-around at the polling place when they show up on election day to vote and are told: ``You really shouldn't be here; you ought to be there.'' ``We can't really tell you where you ought to be.'' ``We have all these people in line, and we will try to help you later.'' All of that is eliminated through vote by mail because folks get their ballot at their home.

Third, with vote by mail there is less risk of voter intimidation. A 2003 study of voters in my home State showed that the groups that would be most vulnerable to coercion now favor vote by mail. Over the last few elections, we saw again and again our citizens saying that they feared coercion. They were concerned about intimidation in the exercise of their franchise.

We have documentary proof in our home State, a specific study that I have cited, that citizens who are most vulnerable to intimidation and coercion feel more comfortable voting by mail.

Next, with vote by mail, malfunctioning voting equipment is a thing of the past. Everyone heard the stories in 2004 of citizens who said they voted for one candidate only to see the electronic voting machine indicate that the voter had cast a ballot for somebody else. Irregularities such as this cannot occur in vote by mail. Each voter marks the ballot, reviews it, and submits it, the ballot is counted, and it becomes a paper record--a paper record that is used in the event of a recount.

I happen to believe that we must have a paper trail for every ballot that is cast in our country. It is wrong that there is at present no such paper trail. Every time I have a community meeting, people bring up: why can this not be done? It is just common sense. My home State has led the way to ensure that through our vote-by-mail system there is a paper trail.

With vote by mail, the risk of fraud is minimized. When an Oregon county receives a voter's marked ballot, the ballot is then sent to elections workers trained in signature verification who compare the signature on each ballot against the person's signature on their voter registration card. This can be done quickly and easily because each voter's registration card has been electronically scanned into the system. No ballot is processed or counted until the county is satisfied that the signature on the ballot matches the voter's signature on file. If someone tries to commit fraud, they can be convicted of a Class C felony, spend up to five years in prison, and pay $100,000 in fines.

Vote by mail can help make the problems of recent elections a thing of the past. In doing so, it will make our elections fairer and help reinstill a confidence in our democracy, which frankly, has been lacking.

There are a number of other reasons why I think our country ought to be doing everything possible to encourage citizens to adopt vote by mail. This approach increases election participation. For example, vote by mail helps make voter turnout in Oregon considerably higher than the average national voter turnout. Oregon experienced a record turnout of more than 70 percent in the 2004 Presidential election, compared to 58 percent nationally.

Vote by mail, we find, gets more citizens involved in the issues because folks get their ballots weeks before the final day when their ballot is due, and they have the time to quiz candidates, examine issues that are important to them, and do it in a deliberate fashion that gives them more time.

Next, vote by mail has produced huge savings at the local level for election costs. Vote by mail reduces those election costs by eliminating the need to transport equipment to polling stations and to hire and train poll workers. My home State has reduced its election- related costs by 30 percent since implementing vote by mail. So we have the results. We have the results to show the rest of the country why we ought to be encouraging across the land vote by mail.

In a survey taken 5 years after we implemented this system, more than 8 out of 10 Oregon voters said they preferred voting by mail to traditional voting. I am confident that the rest of our country would embrace it the very same way.

What this is all about, and why I have taken time to discuss our approach, is that I think it is very much in line with both the spirit and the text of the Voting Rights Act. America needs to make sure that no eligible voter, based on color, creed or any other reason, would be disenfranchised. What we are doing in the Senate today by reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act is the right thing. It is clearly a step in the right direction for these difficult times. But I do think much more can be done to improve the election process. I intend to press at every possible opportunity for a way to encourage an approach that has empowered people in my home State in a manner that has far exceeded the expectations of even the biggest boosters. It has been totally nonpartisan.

In Oregon, we were amused in the beginning of our discussion about vote by mail. At the beginning of the discussion, it seemed that a fair number of Republicans were for vote by mail, but a number of Democrats were skeptical. Then, after I won the Senate special election in 1996-- and Senator Smith and I have laughed about this often over the years-- there was an about face, and it seemed then that Democrats liked vote by mail and Republicans were a little cautious. Our State's citizens said enough of all this nonsense and overwhelmingly voted, on a bipartisan basis, to say this is just plain good government, and this is the way we want to go.

I think the Oregon story can be copied across the country, and I am going to do everything I can to encourage it. The Supreme Court declared in the Reynolds v. Sims case:

[i]t has been repeatedly recognized that all qualified

voters have a constitutionally protected right to vote . . .

and to have their vote counted.

Promoting vote by mail across our land will help make this constitutional right a reality. I encourage my colleagues to look and study the approach we have used in our State, an approach that will advance the spirit of the Voting Rights Act. Support the Voting Rights Act today and work with us to build on its incredible importance in the days ahead.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the Smith unanimous consent request for a half hour?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to join my colleague at this time to discuss the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act that Senator Smith and I are introducing today.

Mr. President, first, I want to say how much I appreciate Senator Gordon Smith. At a time when our citizens all across the land and in our home State of Oregon believe there needs to be more bipartisanship, Senator Smith doesn't just talk about it, he is consistently willing to meet me more than halfway on critical issues, and he does that with other colleagues in the Senate.

As we begin our time discussing this legislation, I want to let him know how much I appreciate the chance to cooperate with him once again. As he stated, we did put the issue of catastrophic health coverage at the top of our bipartisan agenda for the Senate session.

What it comes down to, Mr. President, is that Senator Smith and I believe it is a moral blot on our Nation for a country as good and rich as ours to send millions of its citizens to bed at night fearing they will be wiped out if a serious medical illness hits them. That is the reality. It is the reality for families who have no coverage at all, and it is the reality for families who have some measure of coverage, say, through an employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough.

Senator Smith and I want, in a bipartisan way, to tackle both of those kinds of concerns. That is why we have put forward the legislation we introduced today. I think now is an ideal time for bipartisanship on the catastrophic health coverage issue.

If you look back over the last few years, Senator Kerry, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, had an excellent proposal with respect to catastrophic coverage, and I said so in the course of that campaign. But I also said at the time that I thought our distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, also had a good catastrophic coverage proposal. You could debate the various merits of the Kerry proposal and the Frist proposal--which approach involved a little more government, which approach involved the private sector--but at the end of the day, for the purposes of government work, they were pretty darn similar.

So when Senator Smith and I sat down after the 2004 election, we said let's finally get this done. Democrats and Republicans have been talking for years about how to make sure that all our citizens have a safety net under them so that they will not get wiped out from medical illness. We settled on this approach, which we thought would give us the opportunity to try some fresh, creative ideas for protecting our citizens.

Let me give an example of what happens in, for example, South Carolina, Oregon, or anywhere else in this country. If you have a small business with six people working there, and one of them gets sick, that essentially blows up the whole health premium structure for all six of the employees.

What we ought to look at is something called reinsurance. Under reinsurance, that employee who gets sick could get a bit of help for their high bills through a modest role for government, and if government steps in, in that kind of instance, you have an opportunity to hold down all of the costs for the entire six-person firm. So we should have been looking at reinsurance years ago, but because Senator Smith, who chairs the Senate Aging Committee, has been examining these questions and has worked with me, now we are going to have a chance to tackle it in a way that I think is going to give us the opportunity to get the job done.

We are also very concerned about people who have no coverage at all. So what happens if you have no coverage at all is folks walk into a hospital in Oregon or in South Carolina, usually they show up in the emergency room, and the hospital has to absorb those costs. What we would do is give that person who now has no coverage at all the possibility of actually buying some private coverage in the marketplace with a bit of a subsidy in order to be able to have coverage that would pick up at least a portion of those bills that the hospital is now absorbing.

At the end of the day, those are the two principal kinds of instances we are facing--folks who have some coverage through a private employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough, and folks who don't have any coverage at all. Under that approach, we would like to make it possible for them to get into the private insurance market, protect them from catastrophic illness. We think we can do it with a modest subsidy coming from government.

My sense is that we are now looking at health care on two tracks in our country. The first track is a track that suggests we can take steps right now in areas like catastrophic coverage to protect our citizens. There are other ideas I have advanced during this Congress. For example, Senator Snowe and I have now gotten a majority of Senators to agree with our proposal to lift the restriction so Medicare can bargain and hold down the costs. That, like the question of catastrophic coverage, is a step you can take right now. Let's protect our citizens from the catastrophic illness and let's hold down the costs of medicine. Those are practical, bipartisan approaches that can be taken today. We ought to pursue them and get them done.

I also think there is another track to health care. I noticed that Senator Hatch was on the Senate floor. He and I were the authors of the legislation creating the Citizens' Health Care Working Group that is going to look at opportunities to make sure that all Americans have decent, affordable coverage. We have only been on that issue for more than 60 years--going back to the 81st Congress, in 1945, and Harry Truman. I have said let's also work on that second track that involves getting all Americans under the tent for essential and affordable health care coverage.

That obviously isn't going to get done in the next 15 minutes. But if the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, as Senator Smith and I have sought to do on the catastrophic issue, and as Senator Hatch and I have sought to do on a broader approach to look at health care that works for all Americans--if we team up and look at health care on those two tracks, I think we can make a great contribution for our country.

There are no costs going up in the United States like medical bills. We spent $1.7 trillion last year on health care. There are 290 million Americans--I guess we are approaching 300 million. When you divide $1.7 trillion by 290 million Americans, it comes to something like $25,000 that could be sent to every family of four in America with the amount of money now being spent on health care.

So while we are spending enough money, my sense is that we are not spending it in the right places. Once again, Senator Smith has given us an opportunity to think creatively about better ways to approach the use of the health care dollars. I was pleased when Senator Smith suggested in our legislation that we also make it possible to include a focus on health care prevention. We are not doing enough with health care prevention in this country. The Medicare Program shows that pretty well. Medicare Part A, for example, will pay huge checks for senior citizens' hospital bills, but Medicare Part B pays virtually nothing for prevention to keep people well. That makes no sense. We need a sharper focus on health care prevention, and one of the things that I think is attractive about Senator Smith's leadership on this issue is that he has said even in the context of looking at catastrophic health care, let's put a sharper focus on prevention. We are going to make it possible in this legislation to do that.

I note we have other colleagues on the floor. I have secured time to focus on the Voting Rights Act legislation later in the afternoon, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk for a few minutes about the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act Senator Smith and I are introducing today. We have focused on a number of issues in a bipartisan fashion over our years in the Senate, but this has the potential to be the biggest as it relates to the needs of our citizens at home.

We want to make sure when folks go to bed at night, they don't have to fear they are going to be wiped out financially by a serious medical illness. This legislation moves us one step closer toward the goal. We hope many colleagues on both sides of the aisle will want to support the legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I today are introducing the

Medicare Prescription Drug Lifeline Act. This legislation provides a solution for those seniors falling into the coverage gap, also known as the doughnut hole of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The doughnut hole occurs when the spending for a senior's drug expenses reaches $2,250: at the point, the senior is on their own until their spending for prescription drugs reaches a total of $5,100, where the benefit picks up again. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that nearly 7 million seniors will fall into the coverage gap this year.

Seniors who enter this ``no man's land'' of spending face the same problems seniors faced before the drug benefit even began: they skip doses, they don't take all their medicine to make it stretch, and they are forced to choose between their food and fuel costs and their prescription drug costs.

This legislation would take three steps to deal with this problem: First, the Secretary of HHS would be required to let seniors know they are approaching the coverage gap. Second, it would allow seniors, when they are notified that they are reaching the coverage gap, to switch plans to avoid the gap. Finally, the legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to examine ways in which the benefit could be redesigned to eliminate the gap without increasing Federal spending. Together, these provisions will give seniors a lifeline to coverage.

Senator Snowe and I both voted for the legislation that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When we did so, we pledged that we would continue to work to improve the benefit. Senator Snowe and I have teamed up together on many occasions to try to reduce the cost of the prescription drug program by giving the Secretary the same power other Government officials have to bargain for better prices. Our legislation has won a majority of votes in the Senate, and we intend to continue to press for that power.

The latest effort is aimed at another shortcoming in the law: finding a way to help seniors avoid falling into the coverage gap. Senator Snowe and I believe that our legislation will help seniors a straightforward way to avoid the gap.

Congress needs to address both these issues and we will continue our strong commitment to seniors by working to improve the drug benefit.

Mr. President, how much time remains under the Smith unanimous consent request for a half hour?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to join my colleague at this time to discuss the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act that Senator Smith and I are introducing today.

Mr. President, first, I want to say how much I appreciate Senator Gordon Smith. At a time when our citizens all across the land and in our home State of Oregon believe there needs to be more bipartisanship, Senator Smith doesn't just talk about it, he is consistently willing to meet me more than halfway on critical issues, and he does that with other colleagues in the Senate.

As we begin our time discussing this legislation, I want to let him know how much I appreciate the chance to cooperate with him once again. As he stated, we did put the issue of catastrophic health coverage at the top of our bipartisan agenda for the Senate session.

What it comes down to, Mr. President, is that Senator Smith and I believe it is a moral blot on our Nation for a country as good and rich as ours to send millions of its citizens to bed at night fearing they will be wiped out if a serious medical illness hits them. That is the reality. It is the reality for families who have no coverage at all, and it is the reality for families who have some measure of coverage, say, through an employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough.

Senator Smith and I want, in a bipartisan way, to tackle both of those kinds of concerns. That is why we have put forward the legislation we introduced today. I think now is an ideal time for bipartisanship on the catastrophic health coverage issue.

If you look back over the last few years, Senator Kerry, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, had an excellent proposal with respect to catastrophic coverage, and I said so in the course of that campaign. But I also said at the time that I thought our distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, also had a good catastrophic coverage proposal. You could debate the various merits of the Kerry proposal and the Frist proposal--which approach involved a little more government, which approach involved the private sector--but at the end of the day, for the purposes of government work, they were pretty darn similar.

So when Senator Smith and I sat down after the 2004 election, we said let's finally get this done. Democrats and Republicans have been talking for years about how to make sure that all our citizens have a safety net under them so that they will not get wiped out from medical illness. We settled on this approach, which we thought would give us the opportunity to try some fresh, creative ideas for protecting our citizens.

Let me give an example of what happens in, for example, South Carolina, Oregon, or anywhere else in this country. If you have a small business with six people working there, and one of them gets sick, that essentially blows up the whole health premium structure for all six of the employees.

What we ought to look at is something called reinsurance. Under reinsurance, that employee who gets sick could get a bit of help for their high bills through a modest role for government, and if government steps in, in that kind of instance, you have an opportunity to hold down all of the costs for the entire six-person firm. So we should have been looking at reinsurance years ago, but because Senator Smith, who chairs the Senate Aging Committee, has been examining these questions and has worked with me, now we are going to have a chance to tackle it in a way that I think is going to give us the opportunity to get the job done.

We are also very concerned about people who have no coverage at all. So what happens if you have no coverage at all is folks walk into a hospital in Oregon or in South Carolina, usually they show up in the emergency room, and the hospital has to absorb those costs. What we would do is give that person who now has no coverage at all the possibility of actually buying some private coverage in the marketplace with a bit of a subsidy in order to be able to have coverage that would pick up at least a portion of those bills that the hospital is now absorbing.

At the end of the day, those are the two principal kinds of instances we are facing--folks who have some coverage through a private employer, but it doesn't stretch far enough, and folks who don't have any coverage at all. Under that approach, we would like to make it possible for them to get into the private insurance market, protect them from catastrophic illness. We think we can do it with a modest subsidy coming from government.

My sense is that we are now looking at health care on two tracks in our country. The first track is a track that suggests we can take steps right now in areas like catastrophic coverage to protect our citizens. There are other ideas I have advanced during this Congress. For example, Senator Snowe and I have now gotten a majority of Senators to agree with our proposal to lift the restriction so Medicare can bargain and hold down the costs. That, like the question of catastrophic coverage, is a step you can take right now. Let's protect our citizens from the catastrophic illness and let's hold down the costs of medicine. Those are practical, bipartisan approaches that can be taken today. We ought to pursue them and get them done.

I also think there is another track to health care. I noticed that Senator Hatch was on the Senate floor. He and I were the authors of the legislation creating the Citizens' Health Care Working Group that is going to look at opportunities to make sure that all Americans have decent, affordable coverage. We have only been on that issue for more than 60 years--going back to the 81st Congress, in 1945, and Harry Truman. I have said let's also work on that second track that involves getting all Americans under the tent for essential and affordable health care coverage.

That obviously isn't going to get done in the next 15 minutes. But if the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, as Senator Smith and I have sought to do on the catastrophic issue, and as Senator Hatch and I have sought to do on a broader approach to look at health care that works for all Americans--if we team up and look at health care on those two tracks, I think we can make a great contribution for our country.

There are no costs going up in the United States like medical bills. We spent $1.7 trillion last year on health care. There are 290 million Americans--I guess we are approaching 300 million. When you divide $1.7 trillion by 290 million Americans, it comes to something like $25,000 that could be sent to every family of four in America with the amount of money now being spent on health care.

So while we are spending enough money, my sense is that we are not spending it in the right places. Once again, Senator Smith has given us an opportunity to think creatively about better ways to approach the use of the health care dollars. I was pleased when Senator Smith suggested in our legislation that we also make it possible to include a focus on health care prevention. We are not doing enough with health care prevention in this country. The Medicare Program shows that pretty well. Medicare Part A, for example, will pay huge checks for senior citizens' hospital bills, but Medicare Part B pays virtually nothing for prevention to keep people well. That makes no sense. We need a sharper focus on health care prevention, and one of the things that I think is attractive about Senator Smith's leadership on this issue is that he has said even in the context of looking at catastrophic health care, let's put a sharper focus on prevention. We are going to make it possible in this legislation to do that.

I note we have other colleagues on the floor. I have secured time to focus on the Voting Rights Act legislation later in the afternoon, but I am very pleased to have the opportunity to talk for a few minutes about the Catastrophic Health Coverage Promotion Act Senator Smith and I are introducing today. We have focused on a number of issues in a bipartisan fashion over our years in the Senate, but this has the potential to be the biggest as it relates to the needs of our citizens at home.

We want to make sure when folks go to bed at night, they don't have to fear they are going to be wiped out financially by a serious medical illness. This legislation moves us one step closer toward the goal. We hope many colleagues on both sides of the aisle will want to support the legislation.

Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I today are introducing the

Medicare Prescription Drug Lifeline Act. This legislation provides a solution for those seniors falling into the coverage gap, also known as the doughnut hole of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The doughnut hole occurs when the spending for a senior's drug expenses reaches $2,250: at the point, the senior is on their own until their spending for prescription drugs reaches a total of $5,100, where the benefit picks up again. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that nearly 7 million seniors will fall into the coverage gap this year.

Seniors who enter this ``no man's land'' of spending face the same problems seniors faced before the drug benefit even began: they skip doses, they don't take all their medicine to make it stretch, and they are forced to choose between their food and fuel costs and their prescription drug costs.

This legislation would take three steps to deal with this problem: First, the Secretary of HHS would be required to let seniors know they are approaching the coverage gap. Second, it would allow seniors, when they are notified that they are reaching the coverage gap, to switch plans to avoid the gap. Finally, the legislation requires the Government Accountability Office to examine ways in which the benefit could be redesigned to eliminate the gap without increasing Federal spending. Together, these provisions will give seniors a lifeline to coverage.

Senator Snowe and I both voted for the legislation that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit. When we did so, we pledged that we would continue to work to improve the benefit. Senator Snowe and I have teamed up together on many occasions to try to reduce the cost of the prescription drug program by giving the Secretary the same power other Government officials have to bargain for better prices. Our legislation has won a majority of votes in the Senate, and we intend to continue to press for that power.

The latest effort is aimed at another shortcoming in the law: finding a way to help seniors avoid falling into the coverage gap. Senator Snowe and I believe that our legislation will help seniors a straightforward way to avoid the gap.

Congress needs to address both these issues and we will continue our strong commitment to seniors by working to improve the drug benefit.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Emily Katz, a legislative fellow in my office, to have floor privileges while the Senate considers the Voting Rights Act.

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 for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, last week a group of Senators announced they had reached an agreement to open more offshore areas to oil drilling. For the first time, they would allow nearby States, under their proposal, to share in the oil royalties from drilling in Federal waters.

I have come to the floor tonight to say that while I am very hopeful the Senate can come to agreement on a plan that provides significantly more relief to the areas that have been ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, I am also hopeful that the Senate will use this opportunity to finally address a current program, a current royalty relief program, that is out of control and is diverting billions of dollars away from the Federal Treasury.

What the Senate is going to confront, apparently next week, is the prospect that while there is a royalty relief program now that needs to be fixed and has not been fixed, the Senate is going to start a new royalty relief program.

Usually, the first thing you do is fix the program that is not working today before you start anything else. Apparently, some would not be supportive of that taking place. I am one who sees this otherwise.

I also think if you can fix the current royalty relief program, where the Government Accountability Office says $20 billion to possibly $60 billion is being wasted, you could use that money from the current program--that even the sponsor, our respected former colleague, Senator Bennett Johnston, says is out of control--you could use that money from the current program, that wastes so much money, and get some of that to these areas that have been ravaged by Katrina.

There were two floods, in effect, that the Congress must now confront. First, we have to help rebuild the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama that were destroyed by the storm surge of August 29 of last year. But the second flood that needs to be stemmed is the flood of billions of dollars of oil royalties that have gone into the pockets of the world's largest oil companies at a time when they have enjoyed extraordinary profits. They have enjoyed tremendous profits. We have seen extraordinary prices, and yet they continue to get these great subsidies.

As I say, if we can clean up the current royalty program, which is so inefficient that even its sponsor thinks is out of control, we will have more money to help these flood-ravaged areas of the gulf that are the legitimate concern of all of my colleagues from those States.

The existing oil royalty giveaways have grown over the years to become the biggest oil subsidy of all and one of the largest boondoggles that wastes taxpayer money of any Federal program.

The General Accountability Office estimates that at a minimum the Federal Government and the taxpayers are going to be out $20 billion in lost revenues. If the Government loses pending lawsuits, that amount could reach as high as $80 billion. This comes at a time when, according to the Congressional Research Service, the oil companies are enjoying record profits.

It will be very difficult to explain to the American public how Congress can be proposing to allow additional billions of dollars of royalty money to be given away before it first puts a stop to what is already going out the door.

Now, in opening this discussion tonight--I expect the Senate will look at this formally next week--I want to be very clear in saying that I understand the need of the gulf States to secure Federal funds to restore their coastlines and rebuild their communities. There is no question that Katrina and Rita flattened New Orleans and other communities up and down the gulf coast, and that there is a clear need for all Americans, including my constituents at home in Oregon, to be part of going to bat for our fellow Americans.

But I do hope, fervently, that as the Senate looks to find additional resources for these gulf States, the Senate will not be given a false choice between either aiding the gulf States or standing up for the public interest in the face of the outrageous oil company windfalls now being paid for today. We can and should do both.

Helping the victims of Katrina is not mutually exclusive from helping taxpayers. It is possible to do both. And as

I have outlined, if you clean up the oil royalty giveaway that is on the books today, that is so inefficient, you can take those dollars and give some of them to folks in the gulf States that are suffering.

Mr. President, my seatmate, Senator Landrieu, for whom I have the greatest respect, is from the great State of Louisiana, and she and other colleagues from the gulf States have come to the floor again and again and again to describe eloquently the devastation their States have faced from these hurricanes. Senator Landrieu has been a tireless advocate for her State. They have made a compelling case why Congress and the American people ought to provide real assistance to these communities.

Like my colleagues, like Senators of both parties, I want to help the hurricane victims in the gulf rebuild. But I also do not want to continue wasting taxpayer money in unnecessary giveaways to oil companies that have been raking in gushers of cash in the past few years.

As I indicated earlier when we talked about this subject at length on the floor of the Senate, the mistakes that were made in the current royalty relief program have been bipartisan. Certainly, the Clinton administration muffed the ball back in the 1990s when they did not step in and put a solid price threshold on this program. That caused a significant amount of money to be given away. But the mistakes made by the Clinton administration were compounded by Secretary Gale Norton in the Bush administration, and also by the Congress in the energy bill, which continued to sweeten the current royalty relief program.

So citizens and taxpayers have a bit of history: The current oil royalty relief program, which is such a colossal waste of taxpayer money, began when oil was $19 a barrel, and has been continuing at a time when oil has been well over $70 a barrel.

So I think it is important for the Senate to look at ways to provide additional help to the needs of the gulf States without turning a blind eye to this boondoggle that is on the books today--the oil royalty giveaway program that came about in the 1990s.

A possible solution to the current predicament is to use some of the money from the program, which does not work, to try to provide an additional boost of funding for the gulf States at present. Reforming the current royalty program could provide more money for areas hit by hurricanes and possibly other urgent priorities.

As long as we are on that subject, I would very much like to see some of the money that now goes to this inefficient oil royalty giveaway program used for the Secure Rural Schools legislation that is so important in my home State and much of the West and the South.

The oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. But in order to stimulate production of oil in our country--this was back when oil was $19 a barrel--the Federal Government has been giving oil producers what has been known as royalty relief for some period of time.

Royalty relief is a nice way of saying that the oil companies are taking something from the American people without paying for it. That relief now amounts to billions of taxpayer dollars that are given away to companies that do not need them.

In fact, the President has said that with the price of oil at $55 a barrel, companies do not need incentives at all to drill for oil. That is the President of the United States, not some anti-oil advocate. The President of the United States has said that you do not need incentives with the price of oil above $55 a barrel. In fact, with prices shooting up to more than $75 a barrel--more than $20 higher than the price the President said meant there should not be any subsidies--I do not see how you can make a case at all for the current out-of-control oil royalty giveaway.

I am not the only person who is making this argument. For example, in May, a few weeks after I spent about 5 hours on the floor talking about this program, the other body, the House, held a historic vote to put an end to taxpayer-funded royalty giveaways to profitable oil companies. The House of Representatives, the other body, voted overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, to put a stop to this waste of taxpayer dollars.

So what I spent 5 hours talking about on the floor of the Senate earlier this year--and Senators were saying: What is the point of this? What are going to be the implications? I think it is important to note that a few weeks after I took that time on the floor of this great body, the other body voted overwhelmingly to cut these unnecessary subsidies.

Even officials in the oil industry are saying that you cannot make a case for this multibillion-dollar subsidy at this time. The architect of the program, our respected former colleague, Senator Bennett Johnston, has said that what has taken place with respect to the royalty relief program is far removed from what he had in mind when he wrote the program.

Now, I believe the Senate ought to have another opportunity to debate and vote on the oil royalty issue, just as the other body did this spring. I was unable, earlier this year, despite being close to 5 hours on the floor, to even get an up-or-down vote on my proposal to stop ladling out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies to the oil industry.

It seems to me if the U.S. Senate is going to vote on a new royalty scheme that will involve, again, enormous sums of money, the Senate certainly should have the opportunity to vote on reforming the existing program at that time.

We are, of course, in the middle of the summer driving season. This is a time of the year when our citizens drive more, as they go on summer vacations, when demand for gas goes up, and when prices at the pump continue to escalate. I am sure our citizens, who are now facing the highest gas prices ever at this time of the year, will be interested to know when the Senate will have a chance to vote on the question of whether, at this time of record prices, oil companies making record profits should continue to get record taxpayer subsidies in the form of royalty relief.

Along with several colleagues, I have written to the distinguished majority leader asking for the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote on ending royalty relief to profitable oil companies before the August recess. I will continue to press for a floor vote on reforming the oil royalty program at the earliest possible opportunity. I am going to do everything I can to see that this vote happens in a fashion that will expedite aid to the people and communities in the Gulf States who await our best efforts.

It is my understanding that the legislation to open up more offshore areas to oil drilling will come up under expedited procedures next week. I am going to work with colleagues who I know have a great interest in this. I have already spoken with Senator Kyl, for example, who helped me greatly when we tried to roll back the oil royalty program earlier this year. I have also spoken with Senators Lott and Landrieu and Chairman Domenici. I will continue to have those discussions. I simply wanted to take the time tonight, with the Senate having completed business for the week, to go through some of the implications of this offshore oil drilling program that will be debated next week.

What it comes down to is, before you start a brandnew program that will involve vast sums, you ought to clean up one that is on the books today and is currently out of control, wasting billions of dollars, according to the Government Accountability Office. Secondly, if you clean up the program that doesn't work today, you save some dollars and you can apply them to those devastated gulf States which have such a great need.

I intend to talk about this further next week. I do think it is time for the Senate to start thinking about the implications of what happens if you start a new program and you haven't fixed the one on the books today that even its author thinks is completely out of control and far removed from what he intended.

Mr. President, today we must reach across the aisle and make a strong bipartisan statement supporting embryonic stem cell research and challenge our scientists to use embryonic stem cells to see if the promise of treatments and cures can be made a reality for the many around our country and around the world who look to this research for hope.

The Web site of the National Institutes of Health says it most clearly. That Web site states embryonic ``stem cells have potential in many different areas of health and medical research. To start with studying stem cells will help us to understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. . . . Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.''

Scientists believe that Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and spinal cord injuries are some of the areas that could be helped through embryonic stem cell research. I see no reason embryonic stem cell research should be treated any differently than other research.

Some say embryonic stem cell research has not helped to date. Some point out that there has not been much success in stem cell research since it began in 1998. This kind of research has been only done for less than 10 years. That is a nanosecond when it comes to scientific research. In comparison, Congress passed the National Cancer Act in 1971. This was legislation to make ``the conquest of cancer a national crusade.'' That legislation greatly accelerated the pace of cancer research and its translation into treatment. However it was not until 2005, when cancer deaths in the United States declined for the first time since 1930, when the United States started tracking cancer deaths. In the intervening years treatments evolved to help people fight cancer and live longer and better with the disease.

Those opposed to this research say that supporters of embryonic stem cell research have overpromised the benefits of the research. Without expanding the research beyond the bounds of current policy, people will never know what might have been.

California, New Jersey, Illinois, and a few other States have stepped up to help fund research, but they should not be expected to carry this burden alone. H.R. 810 will give clear the way for researchers to use Federal funding to access other cell lines than the 22 currently approved lines and provide access to other critical tools needed so research in this promising new area can be accelerated to the benefit of all. I urge support for H.R. 810.

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

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I came to the floor of the Senate and announced I will do everything in my power to block consideration of the major communications overhaul legislation until it includes language that specifically ensures what is called Net neutrality.

Now, since this is a new concept, and certainly much of the country probably has not heard these words before and Senators have been asking questions about it, I am going to begin this morning, and intend on other instances to continue the discussion, to start talking about why Net neutrality is so important and why I will do everything in my power to block legislation, major communications legislation, unless it ensures that Net neutrality is preserved.

The bottom line about this concept is pretty simple. It means there will not be discrimination on the Internet. Today, after you pay your access charge, your Internet access fee, you get to take your browser and you get to go where you want, when you want, and everybody is treated the same: the mightiest person in the land, the most affluent, and somebody, say, in rural Georgia or rural Oregon who does not have a lot of power and does not have a lot of wealth.

The Internet has been a huge step forward, in my view, for democracy, for the proposition our country is based on which is to give everybody a fair shake, where everybody is treated equally. It has meant a real bonanza for our citizens in areas such as education, health, business-- a whole host of fields. There needs to be a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet. And without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate online, in my view, the Internet would be changed forever, for the worse. I intend to do everything in my power to keep that from happening.

Since I came to the floor to announce that I will do everything I can to block this legislation in its current form, the phone companies and the major communications lobbies in this country have launched an all- out advertising blitz. They are now spending millions of dollars trying to win passage of this legislation that does not include protection for Net neutrality. They are spending millions of dollars so they can make billions of dollars when they implement a two-tiered system online.

They have been telling Wall Street about their plans for some time. The Wall Street Journal, for example, outlined a pay-to-play plan that the phone companies and the cable companies have been talking about in a fairly open kind of fashion.

All this discussion suggests there is something of a looming shortage of bandwidth. Of course, bandwidth is the speed at which all the information on the Web travels to the user. But what has not been given enough attention thus far, and what I will talk about this morning and in the days ahead, is that the real Net neutrality fight is not primarily over bandwidth but who is going to call the shots in this country about content on the Web. Content is all the information that is out there on the Web. It includes music, movies, e-mails, newspaper articles and Web sites.

Bandwidth speeds are getting faster and faster, allowing all this content to reach the users faster. But bandwidth without content is akin to a swimming pool without water. It is there, but you cannot do anything with it. So the real Net neutrality fight is going to be about content.

Now, those who control the pipes--the way you get to the Internet-- also want to control the content. The reason for that is because content is king. What good is one gigabyte Internet connection if you cannot get to the Web sites you want to visit? Legislation that does not have strong Net neutrality protections will mean the American people will face discrimination in content.

The Internet has thrived precisely because it is free of discrimination. It has thrived because consumers, and not some huge cable or phone company, get to choose what they want to see and how quickly they get to see it. I do not think there is anything odd about fighting against a bill that will take control of the Internet away from the American people.

What the cable and phone executives propose is that instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content, at the same price, they are going to be in a position to cut sweetheart deals, to give somebody they favor a better break than somebody whom they do not look upon in the same way. Those who own the pipes do not want to be told they cannot discriminate. They do not want to be told by the Congress, or anybody else, sweetheart deals are off limits.

What I have done is tried to look at the Senate Commerce Committee legislation and compare it to the kinds of concerns I think the American people are going to have with the legislation in its current form. So what I would like to do now is outline three examples of what could happen in our country if communications legislation that allows discrimination on the Internet was allowed to go forward.

The first example involves what I am calling the Barns family. The Barns family owns a struggling electronics store. Sales have been hammered lately because a new ``big box'' electronics store opened up down the road. George Barns' son Mike came up with an idea to save the store. He said: We can reach new customers. We will start a Web

site to sell our products on the Net. In a world with Net neutrality, the Barns family would pay to access the Internet, create a Web page, and they would be off to the races with their business and looking for opportunities.

Under the Commerce Committee bill, in order for the Barns family to launch their Web page in the fast lane so they could get priority access to customers, they could have to pay an additional fee to hundreds, if not thousands, of Internet access providers across the land. Priority access fees are a drop in the bucket for that ``big box'' store that is already hurting the sales of that small business run by the Barns family. If the Barns family can't pay the extra fees, they lose their business to the ``big box'' store, both offline and online. You see how small businesses and people who are trying to make a contribution to the economy compete in the free markets; you are going to see how they are going to have difficulty under this legislation.

The second example involves somebody whom I am calling Joe Green. Joe wants to get Internet broadband in his new apartment. Local cable is the only choice for Internet access, and it charges $32.99 for a 1.5- megabyte-per-second connection. In a world with Net neutrality, when Joe buys his connection from local cable, he gets to visit any Web site he wants, when he wants, how he wants. If he wants to download a song, say, from iTunes for a buck, he can do that. If he wants to search the Web using Google or buy a DVD player online, Joe can do that, too. But under the legislation that came from the Commerce Committee, Joe may not be able to do any of those things unless he pays a new priority access charge on top of the $32.99 Internet access charge he is paying already. Unless he pays the additional priority fee, a Web search at Google could take 5 minutes to load because Google is not paying the extra fee to local cable for priority access. Downloading a song--say the download Joe wants to make at iTunes--could cost him more than the buck he is paying because iTunes is passing on the cost of paying local cable the priority access fee that you could charge if the Commerce Committee bill goes forward as written. Joe wants to switch to another broadband provider but guess what. In a lot of communities, there is no choice. Joe is stuck. This is example No. 2 of how the American people are going to get hammered if discrimination is allowed online under this legislation.

Let me offer a third example I have developed as I looked at the Commerce Committee bill on overhauling our communications law. The third example involves somebody I have been calling Sally Smith. She is a young computer programmer. She has a great new algorithm for a Web browser that is going to help people access information on the Net faster and in a more user-friendly way. In a world with Net neutrality, Sally can get her idea all over the tech Web sites that exist across the country, and people are going to be able to test it out. If all the people out there in the tech world like Sally's idea, word of her innovation would spread over the Web, across the land, and across the world. Millions of people would be able to download her new Web browser. But under the legislation coming from the Commerce Committee, Sally Smith could be stymied.

In addition to what she is already paying for Internet access, Sally is going to have to come up with yet more money to pay for priority access to the Internet fast lane that she so desperately will want in order to test her idea. If she wants her browser to succeed, she is going to be forced to fork over new priority access fees because she knows no one is going to go looking in the slow lane for a good new Web browser.

I came to the floor--I have already announced my hold on this legislation, and I will do everything to block this bill until it ensures that the Net in the future will be free of discrimination-- because I wanted to go beyond my original statement to talk about how, under this bill, those who own the pipes to the Net, the phone and the cable people, could extend their reach under this legislation to put a stranglehold on Internet content. According to the business plans, plans that have been published in the Wall Street Journal, that is the direction in which we are headed.

Without Net neutrality, the people in these examples I have highlighted--a struggling entrepreneur, somebody getting started in their new home or apartment, a young computer programmer--are going to have real problems getting access to the Web and being able to afford the services that are now within their reach.

The big cable and phone lobbies want the public to think Net neutrality is what they call a lose-lose proposition. My view is, no Net neutrality will be the real loss for consumers. It will mean double-barrel discrimination, discrimination in Internet content, and higher prices for the consumers. That is why scores of groups all across the country, all across the political spectrum--groups and people who, I dare say, disagree almost always--are united behind the proposition that the Internet should be free of discrimination.

We are going to hear a lot about this issue in the days ahead. We are going to be told constantly that the phone and cable people will not build out the network unless they can sock the consumer and the small businesses with higher access charges. The way the system works today, where there is a true free marketplace, where the mightiest is treated online in the same way someone is treated who doesn't have a lot of money, doesn't have clout, that is the best way to grow the network, to expand communications opportunities, preserve the free marketplace so that people, after they pay that Internet access charge, can go where they want, when they want.

Certainly a lot of our competitors around the world, people with whom we will be competing in the marketplace, treat everybody the same online. I can't figure out how we can expect to be competitive in the global marketplace if we start singling out, as I have described in the examples, the small businesses and entrepreneurs for what amounts to two-tiered communications services. They are not going to be able to compete. I want to make sure that somebody who is in a garage, say, in Texas, Oregon, or some other part of the country has the same opportunity to compete against people who are dreaming big in countries around the world.

As we discuss this communications issue, there will be a lot of talk about how this is a battle between big communications lobbies--say, the Verizon company and Google. It is sometimes portrayed as a fight between these overdogs, people who have a lot of clout and want to divide up the pie and get more for themselves. Verizon and Google can take care of themselves. They have deep pockets. They have lots of clout. But what I am concerned about are the future Googles, the people who are dreaming, the people with the startups, the people with innovative, cutting-edge ideas who have been able to go online and, as a result, have been successful. That is what the American dream is all about. That is what has made the Internet so exciting. It has created opportunities for those people who are a long way from major financial markets and who don't have deep pockets.

I do not want to see the American people face double-barrel discrimination and higher prices on the Net. I don't want to see them not have what they have today, which is a fair shake for all. Equal content gets equal treatment. I am going to stay at it with respect to this legislation as one Senator until we get true Net neutrality principles in the communications bill, until we ensure that the Net is free of discrimination.

The reason Net neutrality has become such a lightning rod in the debate about communications is that the Internet is the ball game. The 1996 telecommunications bill barely touched on the Net. In 2006, the Net neutrality debate on the Internet is the ball game because the Internet is how we are going to get all our communications in the future. It means we are going to look first to the Internet, and because it is so central to the future of communications, the Senate ought to insist that the Net be kept free of discrimination. We have done that in the area of taxation. I and other colleagues have said we are not going to allow multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet. We ought to make darn sure that it is done in this area as well so that

consumers don't get walloped with unnecessarily high prices and deteriorating service.

I will continue the fight to hold up this legislation until, for all time, the Net is free of discrimination.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.

Mr. President, I think we all know that during this part of the session the Senate is going to spend considerable time focusing on energy issues. That is certainly warranted because, if there is one thing that can be agreed on, getting a fresh energy policy is just about the most red, white, and blue step our country can take at this critical time.

During the course of this debate, one issue that is sure to come up is the issue of oil company profits. The oil companies have consistently said that they need these very large profits in order to have the funds to drill and explore for new energy sources. I certainly feel strongly about developing new energy sources and increasing production, but I have been concerned about the role of government. At a time when the oil companies are making record profits and charging record prices, Congress has still been making available record subsidies. To get some clarity on this issue, I believed it was important to get the Congressional Research Service, the independent authority, to look at these issues, to analyze the question of exactly where the oil companies are putting this gusher of revenue they have accumulated recently. The findings in the new report the Congressional Research Service has given to me are striking.

What the Congressional Research Service has found is that the return on equity of the major oil companies has gone up in the last few years six times; the amount of cash reserves of the major oil companies have has gone up, over the same time, about six times; but the amount of money the companies have devoted to exploration and capital investment has only doubled. So what that means, the bottom line, is that the major oil companies are only putting back in the ground a modest fraction of what they have been siphoning away from consumers at the pump across our country.

What I would like to do is break down this report and talk about where I believe Congress ought to go on a bipartisan basis in the years ahead.

On the issue of return on equity, I asked the Congressional Research Service to examine the years of 1999 to present. They found that, with respect to return on equity for the oil companies, it was about 4.5 percent in 1999 and it is nearly 30 percent as of last year. That is an increase of more than six times over the last 6 years. The Congressional Research Service also looked at the cash reserves of the largest oil companies over the last 6 years. They have found that this, as well, has gone up sixfold. So the companies are clearly sitting on gushers of cash from higher oil prices and higher gas prices that consumers are now paying across the country.

I believe it was then appropriate to have the Congressional Research Service analyze what the oil companies are doing with all of this money. Certainly the companies have made the argument that they are investing these profits in exploring for oil and developing new energy technology. That certainly is part of the story, but it is far from the whole picture.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the major oil companies have approximately doubled their exploration costs and their overall capital investment over the past 6 years, but that rate of increase is just a fraction of how much their cash reserves and their return on equity have grown over that period. In addition, Congressional Research Service experts indicate that much of the oil companies' capital investment has been for operating expenses, not for increasing production, and much of what they seem to have invested in exploration has gone for overseas exploration.

Again, you come back to what I think is the clear conclusion of this particular analysis: The American people are seeing the oil companies put back in the ground just a modest part of what the consumer is coughing up at gas pumps across the land.

One of the questions I hope we will ask over this next period of the Senate being in session is, Why are the oil companies not putting some of their burgeoning cash reserves into investment in other technologies, particularly new renewable energy technologies which could help the oil industry diversify and help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy? We ought to examine that issue, and certainly what the Congressional Research Service has done for my office makes a different contribution with respect to this debate and one that I think warrants thorough examination.

The Congressional Research Service looked, for me, at the 10-K reports the oil companies file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That is the information which Exxon and BP and Shell and Chevron and ConocoPhillips, Valero and Sunoco and Total report to their investors and to Wall Street. But what is in those 10-Ks that are given over to the Securities and Exchange Commission is not the story the oil companies seem to be telling the American people. The oil companies have been running ads in newspapers, claiming that their profits are in line with those of other industries. For example, the American Petroleum Institute has been running a newspaper ad showing the oil and natural gas industry's earnings of 5.9 cents on a dollar of sales, which is just above the 5.6-percent average for all industries. But suffice it to say, how many of the industries listed in these oil company ads are getting the 30-percent rate of return on equity that the Congressional Research Service has found in the report that I make public today?

The oil industry wants the public to believe that the record profits they are making are in line with other businesses, but it seems to me the Congressional Research Service analysis of the oil companies' own reports to the Government tells a very different story. This is particularly important right now because I believe the American people deserve a true accounting of what has been going on behind the numbers at the gas pump and where their hard-earned money has been going for the past several years. The report I release today on oil company financial data shows the oil industry's profits are not only greater than the profits of other businesses, but they also show how the oil companies have not been straight with the American people.

I also think it is timely to have this information about oil company profits because of the debate in both the Senate and in the other body about oil royalty giveaways to the oil industry. At a time of record prices, when oil companies are making record profits that are above what other industries are earning, the question is, Should the oil companies continue to get record subsidies from the taxpayers?

In May, the House of Representatives held a historic vote to put an end to taxpayer-funded royalty giveaways to profitable oil companies. The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis to put a stop to this waste of taxpayer funds. Just a few weeks before that House vote, I spent nearly 5 hours trying to get a vote here in the Senate on exactly this issue. But despite that extended discussion, I was unable to get an up-or-down vote on my proposal to stop ladling out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies to the oil sector.

I believe the Senate ought to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the oil royalty issue, and it seems especially timely after the new report the Congressional Research Service has supplied to me. With the Government Accountability Office estimating that tens of billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost as a result of the oil royalty program, this issue is too important to duck.

Over the next few weeks, as the Senate debates energy, I am hopeful that the Senate will think carefully about the findings of the independent Congressional Research Service. The Congressional Research Service analysis indicates to me that the oil industry in their advertisements and other promotions is not being straight with the American people. The Congressional Research Service has given us a good sense of where the oil sector is actually putting their money, and at a time when their rate of return on equity--30 percent--is certainly very strong and we look at where their cash reserves are--and they are sitting on piles of money--we are not seeing those dollars put back into exploration and development here in our country so we can have a new red, white, and blue energy policy that makes us independent from sources of foreign oil.

Let's work to have a debate in the Senate based on the facts. The Congressional Research Service has now given us illuminating information about what the facts are. Let's make better use of taxpayer dollars than to give away tens of billions of dollars in royalties in a program that began when oil was $19 a barrel and now frequently is well over $70 a barrel. This is a time for the Senate to come together on a bipartisan basis to look at these issues carefully. The Congressional Research Service report provides an opportunity to get the facts out-- the real facts--about what is going on in this critical sector of our economy.

I ask unanimous consent that the report of the Congressional Research Service be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I commend Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus for moving quickly to have the Senate consider the nomination of Henry Paulson. I am convinced he is the right man at the right time. It is my intent to strongly support his nomination and vote for him later in the course of this afternoon.

My hope, in particular, as Henry Paulson moves to this vital position, is that he will move quickly to set in place a strategy for reforming our Tax Code. Suffice it to say, a lot has happened to our tax system since 1986, the last time the Tax Code was overhauled.

For example, since 1986, there have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code. It comes to three changes for every working day for the last 20 years.

There are substantial questions with respect to fairness in the Tax Code. I am one who feels it is critically important that every American have the chance to build and accumulate wealth. That is pretty hard to do, given some of this country's tax policies.

For example, this spring, Warren Buffett, who is the second wealthiest person in the United States, told me he was going to be paying a lower tax rate than his receptionist. That is not right. I am not interested in soaking anybody. I am not interested in any kind of class warfare. But I want middle-class people to be able to get ahead as well.

For the first time in decades, we have seen corporate profits go up. We are glad to see that. We have seen productivity go up. We are glad to see that. But middle-class people are not seeing much growth in their wages. They are living paycheck to paycheck.

As Hank Paulson goes to the Treasury Department, I know he is interested in coming up with a fresh approach to the Tax Code, an approach that can allow us to simplify it, get a fair shake for middle- class folks and all Americans. I particularly commend our ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, because I think Senator Baucus, in talking about global competitiveness and what it is going to take to create high-skill, high-wage jobs for Americans in the global economy, has done some of the heavy lifting on this key issue by spending a lot of time over the last few years looking at these issues, talking to people on both sides of the aisle, with business leaders and the like. I commend Senator Baucus because he has laid some of the key groundwork to discuss tax reform as a result of his focus on global competitiveness.

I also thank Chairman Grassley for his discussions with me and with the committee. We have begun to look at corporate issues in this area. Senator Grassley, as he begins the effort to look at tax reform, particularly because of the bipartisan way in which he has led our committee, is a person ideally suited to work with Senators

on both sides of the aisle and the administration, for us to build a strategy with a new Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, to get this job done.

Suffice it to say there will be some very tough issues. Look, for example, at the issue of State and local jurisdictions and the differing tax treatment we have for these jurisdictions. A State that may have high taxes, such as New York, looks at this differently than a part of the country that does not have the same dependence on revenues from that source.

With the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus and a new Secretary of the Treasury who is going to look to bring people together, look at how we can modernize the Tax Code so we can make the kind of decisions that are necessary to give our citizens a better quality of life in a global economy. We are up to it.

We do not have a lot of time. The next 6 months, particularly the time between now and January, is key. That is why I have been so pleased Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus have been interested in looking at these issues. As a result of their examination of these topics, we can lay the groundwork so the administration next January could work with Senators on both sides of the aisle, work with the other body and work with the Senate, and we can enact comprehensive tax reform.

There will be a host of other issues we will have to look at. Obviously, health care, the fastest rising expense in the American economy, is dramatically affected by the Tax Code. I happen to think there are some good ideas on both sides of the aisle with respect to tax treatment of health care expenditures in our economy. We are spending over $150 billion through the Tax Code on American health care. I don't think we are getting our money's worth. In too many instances, we are subsidizing inefficiency. This is certainly going to be a controversial area.

Democrats and Republicans, under the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, and the new Secretary of the Treasury can dig into that issue.

The last point I mention, in the Commission that was set up that was chaired by Senator Mack and Senator Breaux, there are some good ideas the Congress can pick up on, working with the administration. Certainly, I don't agree with all the Commission has proposed, but let me give a couple of examples.

In legislation I have authored, the Fair Flat Tax Act, I have made it clear I want a Tax Code that is simpler, fairer and flatter. If you look at what the President's Commission has come in with, there is some opportunity for common ground. For example, in my Fair Flat Tax Act, there is a 1-page 1040 form, something a typical person can fill out in about half an hour. The administration's version, the one that came out with the advisory committee, is probably six, seven lines longer. I have a 30-line, 1040 form; theirs is six or seven lines longer. Big deal. For purposes of Government work, we can find common ground in a hurry in order to have a simpler Tax Code. That alone would be a real contribution for the American people.

On the question of making the Tax Code flatter, there are six brackets today in our Tax Code as it relates to the individual side of the code. My proposal involves three brackets. It is a progressive structure. Essentially, it is the same one that Ronald Reagan started with when he looked at tax reform. The President's advisory commission comes in with four brackets. Once again, big deal. We can find common ground as it relates to making the Tax Code flatter.

There are differences of opinion, certainly, in other areas. I have mentioned trying to get a fair shake for middle-class folks. We all understand what Henry Ford said about capitalism. Henry Ford was an industrialist. He said he wanted to do well, but for him to do well, his people had to have enough money to be able to buy cars.

Middle-class folks are getting hammered in a way today that makes it hard for them to make a lot of these purchases that are essential to them, which is why they wrack up so much debt. I think both political parties can find common ground on this tax issue.

For example, Henry Paulson yesterday talked about the value of low rates. I certainly agree with his interest there. Marginal rates are particularly important. It was something Ronald Reagan recognized in 1986. Senators on our side of the aisle, including Bill Bradley, said exactly the same thing. We can get the rates down. We can ensure fairness for middle-class folks.

What we are going to need is leadership. We are going to need it in a hurry. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus are going to do everything they can to find common ground on this issue. I am very pleased that Henry Paulson, who could certainly find other things to do in his life besides public service, is willing to step up and take on this effort. He will have to move very quickly to drive this tax reform debate. As I pledged to him in my private meeting and said again yesterday, I am interested in working with him and the administration in a bipartisan way. There is a lot of good faith and a lot of interest in this issue. It is a key consideration in how we are going to create high-skill, high-wage jobs for Americans in the future and enhance the quality of life for middle-class folks.

Henry Paulson is the right person at the right time. He is going to have a lot to do, and he is going to have to do it in a hurry. I intend to work with Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus to ensure we have an opportunity, on a bipartisan basis, to tackle these big economic issues in the right way. Right at the top is tax reform.

I urge colleagues today to indicate their strong support for Henry Paulson, head of the Treasury Department.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the major telecommunications legislation reported today by the Senate Commerce Committee is badly flawed. The bill makes a number of major changes in the country's telecommunications law, but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse.

This one provision threatens to divide the Internet into technology haves and have-nots. This one provision concentrates even more power in the

hands of the special interests that own the pipelines to the Internet. This one provision codifies discrimination on the Internet by a handful of large telecommunications and cable providers. This one provision will allow large, special interests to saddle consumers and small businesses alike with new and discriminatory fees over and above what they already pay for Internet access. This one small provision is akin to hurling a giant wrecking ball at the Internet.

The inclusion of this provision compels me to state that I will object to a unanimous consent request to the Senate proceeding with this legislation until a provision that provides true Internet neutrality is included.

This bill means the American people will no longer be able to use the Internet free from discrimination. Sure, the time it takes you to access the Web might be slower with dial-up, or you might zoom around the Web at warp speed, but you get to choose the speed. Today, whatever speed you chose doesn't make any difference in which sites you can visit. You still get access to any site you want. This is the beauty and the genius of the Internet. The Net is neutral.

The days of unfettered, unlimited, and free access to any site on the World Wide Web, what I call Net neutrality, are being threatened. Those who own the pipes, the giant cable and phone companies, want to discriminate in which sites you can access. If they get their way, not only will you have to pay more for faster speeds, you will have to pay more for something you get for free today: unfettered access to every site on the World Wide Web. To me, that is discrimination, pure and simple.

The Internet has thrived precisely because it is neutral. It has thrived because consumers, and not some giant cable or phone company, get to choose what they want to see and how quickly they get to see it. I am not going to allow a bill to go forward that is going to end surfing the Web free of discrimination.

The large interests have made it clear that if this bill moves forward, they will begin to discriminate. A Verizon Communications executive has called for an ``end to Google's `free lunch.' '' A Bell South executive has said that he wants the Internet to be turned into a ``pay-for-performance marketplace.'' What they and other cable and phone company executives are proposing is that instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content at the same price, they will set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites. Without net neutrality protections, this bill is bad news for consumers and anyone who today enjoys unlimited access to all of the Net's applications, service and content.

There is no doubt in my mind that American consumers and small business will be the losers in this fight if this bill is allowed to move forward. Right now, a computer science major at the University of Oregon is working on the next big thing for the Internet. But she will never get the chance to get the next big thing out there if she cannot pay the big fees that will be charged tomorrow for the same Internet access she gets for free today.

Right now in Pendleton, OR, there is a small family wheat farm where dad is monitoring the fertilizer on their crop via a new Web service program that his son bought. If the network operators have their way, this Web service will get so expensive that it will be out of reach for this family farmer.

As a Senator who has devoted himself to keeping the Internet free from discrimination, from discriminatory taxes and regulations to assuring offline protections apply to online consumer activities as well, I cannot stand by and allow the bill to proceed with this provision. The inclusion of this provision compels me to inform my colleagues that I will object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to move to consider S. 2686, the Communications Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act.

There are other provisions in this legislation, such as the one relating to my proposal for the creation of kids television tiers, that are problematic, but none of them rises to the same level of concern as the one relating to network neutrality. Therefore, I will object to any further action on this telecommunications bill until it includes a strong net neutrality provision that will truly benefit consumers and small business.

Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I have spent over a decade fighting to ensure that when a Senator puts a hold on or blocks a major piece of legislation that there is accountability. We have required, under our proposal, that holds are publicly announced. Because I feel so strongly about this way of approaching holds, I have come to the floor tonight to announce that I intend to object to any unanimous consent request for the United States Senate to move to consider S. 2686, the telecommunications reform legislation that came from the Senate Commerce Committee a bit ago.

The reason I have come to the floor to make this announcement is that I believe this legislation is a license to discriminate on the Internet. Right now, we all know that when you use your browser, you get to go where you want, when you want, how you want. The Internet's special quality is that all content is treated equally. It is my fear that, as a result of this legislation without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet, and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be changed forever against the public interest.

In the beginning of these remarks--and it is my intent to be brief--I compliment Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Ranking Member Inouye, with respect to the procedure for how this legislation was considered.

Late last winter I was allowed to come to the Senate Commerce Committee as a former member of the committee and make a presentation with respect to why I thought an Internet free of discrimination was so important. I introduced the first legislation, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act, back in March. Since then I have worked closely with colleagues, particularly Senator Snowe and Senator Dorgan, who have done such a great job championing an Internet free of discrimination. We have all worked for many months in trying to preserve a free and open Internet.

Unfortunately, despite the valiant work of those two Senators, Senators Snowe and Dorgan, and with the help of others, particularly Senator Cantwell, who spoke eloquently about why a free-from- discrimination Internet is so important, they were not successful. So now there is the prospect of major changes in the way the Internet works, changes that will affect millions of businesses and millions of consumers. At a minimum, I believe these changes are so important and mean so much to our country, it ought to be possible for the Senate to slow this down and take the time to consider what the implications are of a badly flawed piece of legislation with respect to its treatment of the Internet.

The failure to include what is called ``Net neutrality'' legislation is failure to keep the principle of keeping the Net free from discrimination. In my view, we run the prospect of dividing the Internet into technology haves and have-nots. What will happen is even more power will be concentrated in the hands of special interests that own the pipelines to the Net. In effect, the legislation codifies discrimination on the Net by giving a green light to a handful of large telecommunications and cable providers to set up what could be a system that will allow for differential treatment.

It means, for example, one small business may get service that won't be as good as another's. That translates, in my view, if it is done by deliberate design on the basis of who can pay, into discrimination.

The failure to include the Net neutrality legislation that Senators Dorgan and Snowe and I and others have worked on for so long is going to allow the special interests to saddle the startup businesses, the consumers, and the innovators with a variety of new and discriminatory fees over and above what they already pay for Internet access.

In my view, what has happened today, failing to include provisions that keep the Net free of discrimination, is like throwing a huge wrecking ball at this extraordinary telecommunications innovation that we all enjoy, known as the Net. The failure to include this provision compels me to

state this objection to going forward on this legislation because I believe the days of unfettered, unlimited access to any site on the World Wide Web is threatened by this bill as written. Those who own the pipes, the cable companies and the phone companies, will be able to play favorites with respect to the sites that Americans can access.

If they get their way, not only will Americans have to pay more for faster speeds, they will have to pay more for how they use the Internet once they choose what speed to access it by, something they get for free today after they pay their basic access charge. In my view, the Internet has been such a great success precisely because it was free of discrimination. It thrives because the marketplace, consumers, small businesses, and others were able to choose what they wanted to see and how quickly they wanted to see it. So I am not going to let a bill like this go forward because it will end surfing the Web free of discrimination.

The large interests that have backed the legislation have written and have already made clear what their designs are. This is not some kind of atomic secret, Mr. President. There have been lengthy articles in the Wall Street Journal, for example, about pay-to-play. It outlined in great detail all of the ways in which the companies could play favorites, could give a break to a business who had a bit more money, and send somebody else who didn't have the funds off to the second tier. Instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content at the same price, what we would have are sweetheart arrangements where certain parties would win and other parties would lose. This, in my view, is bad news for consumers and anyone who enjoys unlimited access to all of the Net's applications, services, and content.

Right now, there is a computer science major at the University of Oregon in my home State who is working on the next big thing for the Internet and has great dreams. I am sure that at universities and in garages in Oklahoma, where the Presiding Officer is from, there are constituents who are also working on the next big thing. My concern is that those dreamers in Oklahoma and Oregon, and the innovators and the people with the cutting edge ideas, would not get the chance to get the next big idea out because they would not be able to pay the big fees that Internet providers will charge tomorrow for them to get priority access to consumers or get stuck in the slow lane. Of course, they are going to be up against people, as they fight to show the worth of their idea, who can pay those big fees and have an advantage over them in the marketplace.

What is especially troubling to me, Mr. President, is it seems that if you have an innovative startup in Oregon or Oklahoma or elsewhere in our country, you are going to be up against these new barriers. But guess what? Our competitors around the world don't have the same kind of barriers with. So what I am concerned about is that if you have a good idea in our country, a promising kind of startup, and you run up against all of these hurdles--these new discriminatory hurdles placed on the Internet--you are going to say, what the heck, I cannot compete in that kind of situation, so I will just take the business overseas.

What I want to do--and I know the Senator from Oklahoma wants to do it--is create high-skill, high-wage jobs in our country. We ought to keep the incentives here rather than making it attractive to take promising ideas overseas. I have been involved in a lot of technology issues, and the principle that I have always thought was most important was ensuring that there is no discrimination.

Today, I was very pleased that the Senate Finance Committee accepted my amendment to make permanent the ban on discriminatory and multiple taxes on electronic commerce. We have been at this since 1996. We passed it three times in the Senate, always by large majorities, and I said let's get at it now and make it permanent so that we give predictability and certainty in the marketplace. I was very pleased that, with the support of Grassley and Baucus, I was able to win passage of that legislation that involved taxes, ensuring that there was no discrimination in the tax and the electronic commerce areas. I was pleased that it passed.

Unfortunately, what was done today in the Commerce Committee by giving a green light to discriminators undoes a lot of what the Senate has done over the last few years in terms of ensuring nondiscrimination in electronic commerce.

We made sensible decisions in the tax arena because we barred discrimination as it related to taxing electronic commerce. Now the Senate Commerce Committee comes along and says we are going to pass on this Net neutrality issue; we are not going to include it, so now there can be other forms of discrimination on the Net. That makes no sense to me, and it seems particularly ironic today, of all days, as the Senate has been trying to prevent discrimination in the taxation area of electronic commerce, to essentially undo that important policy by allowing unprecedented discrimination in the marketplace.

There is another area I think is worth noting as I object to the consideration of S. 2686. We have heard from a number of those opposed to Net neutrality legislation that there has been no problem, that there are no instances of discrimination. No. 1, that is factually incorrect because there is already a major Federal Communications Commission case, Madison River case, and No. 2, the big telecoms and cable companies have already announced their plans to discriminate. I have described the plans in the Wall Street Journal which are not any kind of hidden effort to sneak something by people. The Wall Street Journal describes the plans for differential treatment.

I note, as we consider this issue, the consequences of discrimination. If those who want to discriminate--and my sense is, by their own admissions, they are going to start very quickly--are able to set in place the discriminatory routers and other equipment that would allow them to treat those small businesses and individuals differently, once those routers and other discriminatory systems are in place, it is going to be very difficult to undo them. They will be embedded in that system of pipes and infrastructure which makes it possible for Americans to enjoy the Net. I am not willing to sit by and let all of those discriminatory routers and other kinds of complicated systems that make up the pipes for the Net go into effect without an opportunity for the Senate to really consider the consequences.

We are talking with respect to this legislation and its absence of strong Net neutrality language, about changing policy that has been the bedrock of the telecommunications field for many years--non- discrimination.

This legislation contains a variety of major changes in the country's telecommunications law. I happen to support many of them. But I will tell the Senate tonight that a communications bill that does not embed, and do it clearly, that the Internet will be free of discrimination is legislation that I believe is badly flawed.

This is a complicated subject. There are differing views on Net neutrality and I am the first to admit it. But I think all sides would agree that this is a complicated issue. It ought to be one the Senate takes the time to really think through. And I will make it clear to the Senate that I, for one, feel so strongly about ensuring telecommunications policy continues to be based on principles that bar discrimination that I am taking this action tonight for purposes of carrying out that objective.

Let me state again, it is my intent to object to any further action on this legislation, S. 2686, until it includes a strong Net neutrality provision that will ensure there is a vibrant, healthy Internet for decades to come.

My colleagues, Senator Snowe and Senator Dorgan, did a superb job this afternoon in making the case for our point of view. I am very proud to have been able to work with them. The legislation they introduced is very similar to mine. Unfortunately, the Snowe-Dorgan legislation went down on a tie vote in the Commerce Committee today. However, this discussion needs to continue. I hope the Senate will insist that the way the Internet works today, and particularly its egalitarian nature where everybody uses their browser and gets to where they want, when they want, how they want, is continued for generations to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in the midst of all the serious business that is before the Senate, I and my good friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, wanted to take a few minutes tonight and talk to the Senate about the great pride and joy that Oregonians are feeling tonight as a result of our terrific Oregon State Beavers who have won the college world series.

Showing incredible determination, they would not give up spirit. After losing their first games in both the tournament and in the championship series, the players at Oregon State and the coaching staff came back. They came back to be the first team since 1998 to lose their first game and go on to win the college title.

Senator Smith and I are especially proud because in this day of professional sports seeming to be part of every college environment, most of these players are from Oregon. They come from almost every nook and cranny of our State. They come from the Pacific Northwest, and they represent the best values of our State--particularly hard work and a sense that if you just stay at it and you are persistent, you can get the job done.

We want to salute all the players, and particularly three we are going to be losing--three star pitchers: Jonah Nickerson, Dallas Buck, and Kevin Gunderson. They are going on to play professional next season. But we are going to be back in that world series next year.

I get a chance, along with my colleague, to enjoy so much that makes our State special. We try to team up on a bipartisan basis on some issues. But we are particularly thrilled as Oregonians' two U.S. Senators to make sure that the country sees that when you work hard, you play by the rules, and you don't give up, nearly always good things happen.

Tonight, Oregonians are wearing the orange and black of the Beavers.

I want to yield the rest of my time to my friend and colleague because, as Oregonians' two U.S. Senators, we are savoring this moment along with more than 3 million people who represent our State. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague.

Mr. President, Senator Smith said it very well.

I wanted to wrap up by noting a comment from pitcher Dallas Buck, who was the winning pitcher in the championship game.

When asked about why he stayed at Oregon State instead of going pro out of high school, I quote: ``Best decision I ever made.'' And we happen to think that is the best decision a lot of young people are making in our State, to go to Oregon State University. It is a wonderful university, both for sports and academics.

We are going to salute them, as Senator Smith has indicated, when we get a chance to join them at the White House with the President. That is what makes this so special for us.