Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to propound a unanimous consent request. Late last night, right before the Senate adjourned, I offered an amendment to roll back the oil royalty payments that the companies get unless prices come down or there is a supply disruption. We didn't have an opportunity to debate it at any length. This morning I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman be added at this time as cosponsors of my amendment.

Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on my amendment, which is the pending business, after the Senator from Pennsylvania offers his amendment, which I am told is going to take around 5 minutes or thereabouts. I propound a unanimous consent request we go back to my pending amendment and I be recognized next to speak on it after the Senator from Pennsylvania has had a chance to offer his amendment and speak for about 5 minutes.

Mr. President, the pending amendment which I offered last night and discussed briefly with the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, is before the Senate at this time. It deals with the most expensive and the most needless giveaway that taxpayers ladle out to the oil industry. It is something called royalty relief. I will take a few minutes to explain to the Senate how this works.

The oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. In order to stimulate production when the price of oil was cheap, the Federal Government reduced the amount of royalty payments the companies had to make, certainly a logical argument for doing something such as that when we are not getting the production we need. When prices are cheap and we do not have incentives, then there is an argument for some kind of royalty relief. But now that the price of oil has soared to over $70 a barrel, the discounted royalty payments amount to a needless subsidy of billions and billions of dollars.

Now, to his credit, the President has essentially said, look, we do not need this huge array of incentives for the oil industry when the price is over $50 a barrel. Now we are looking at $70 a barrel. So a program that one could argue on behalf of when the price of oil was cheap has lost all its rationale at this critical time when we, of course, are seeing record prices, record profits, and now record royalty subsidies to the companies, as well.

What we have before the Senate is truly a bizarre situation. The Senate is working on a supplemental spending program that is designated as emergency spending because our Government does not have the money to pay for it. Yet the Senate is still willing to distribute, needlessly, billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

This program, by the General Accounting Office, is designed to lose at a minimum $20 billion. There is litigation underway with the oil companies surrounding this program. If that litigation is successful, it is possible this program will cost our Government $80 billion; $80 billion then becomes twice the amount that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi has in the legislation that is considered emergency spending.

Experts in and out of Government have said recently this subsidy makes absolutely no sense. For example, from the other body of the Congress, Congressman Richard Pombo, the chairman of the natural resources committee, is not a person that anyone would call anti-oil in his views about Government. This is what Congressman Pombo, the chairman of the natural resources committee, had to say a little bit ago about royalty relief: There is no need for an incentive. They have a market incentive to produce at $70 a barrel.

Michael Coney, a lawyer for Shell Oil--again, not a place one would normally look to hear anti-oil rhetoric espoused, said that under the current environment, we don't need royalty relief.

Even the original author of this program, the very respected former colleague Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, essentially the person who put this whole thing together, thinks this program is out of whack.

Senator Johnston said:

The one thing I can tell you is this is not what we

intended.

So I come to the Senate today with a simple proposition. My proposition is, royalty relief can only be obtained if it is needed to avert a supply disruption or prices drop and there is no incentive for people to produce in the United States.

The distinguished Senator in the chair, Senator Coburn, knows a great deal about the oil business. I want to make sure there are incentives for production. But the President of the United States, to his credit, has said you don't need incentives when oil is over $50 a barrel. It is at $70 today.

(Mr. McCain assumed the Chair.)

Not long ago when the oil company executives came before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I went down the line and asked them if they needed the various tax breaks. To a person, they all said no. So now we are seeing a bit of discussion about whether all of these tax breaks are needed by people in the oil business.

It is one thing to talk about new initiatives--and we will be debating a variety of additional approaches, windfall profits taxes and the like--and it is quite another to be spending billions and billions of dollars out the door when those subsidy payments defy common sense, defy essentially what the President of the United States said, that we ought to get out of the subsidy business when oil is over $50 a barrel. That is what I am proposing in this particular amendment.

What it comes down to is the U.S. Government ought to stop adding sweetener to the Royalty Relief Program. At every opportunity over the last few years--and I see the distinguished Senator in the chair has zeroed in on wasteful programs, to his credit, for a long time--at every opportunity we have seen this program sweetened and sweetened and sweetened, all at the taxpayers' expense. To give the Senate an idea of how out of control this particular program is, as I understand it, the previous Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Norton, actually went out and sweetened up the old contracts to provide even more royalty relief at a time when prices, again, were way above the threshold that the President of the United States has indicated we should not be offering subsidies to.

This is an important debate in this whole question of tax breaks and windfall profits tax and the like. It is clearly going to spark a lot of debate and differences of opinion among colleagues.

This, in my view, is not even a close call. When Congressman Pombo from the other body, the chair of the natural resources committee, says we did not need this incentive, when we have people from Shell Oil saying we do not need the Royalty Relief Program, when we have the original author of the program, our former colleague Senator Bennett Johnston, saying this is not what he intended, I sure hope that is a wakeup call to the Senate. This is not a close call.

We are going to see, according to the General Accounting Office, a minimum of $20 billion head out the door as a result of this program.

By the way, it was sweetened up also in the energy conference last year. In fact, it was done almost in the dead of night because nobody could make a case for sweetening up this program anymore in broad daylight. So essentially, with virtually no debate, even last year, in the Energy bill, after the previous Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Norton, had kept adding to the program, the Congress continued to enrich this program and needlessly offered these subsidies.

Mr. President, I think a little bit of history is in order. Certainly, back in the middle 1990s--this program is, essentially, one that is a decade old--you could make an argument for the Government being involved in an incentives effort. Certainly, when the price of energy was low and we needed opportunities to incentivize production, so

be it. That was a case where some targeted efforts on the part of Government to stimulate production could make some sense.

The Government is now out of the targeting business. For example, there are no limits on who gets royalty relief. The President of the United States did not say: Oh, we ought to draw distinctions between people who get these various subsidies. The President of the United States said: We don't need Government subsidies when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel.

So what happened, essentially, after the program got off the ground in the early 1990s is folks who were supposed to be watchdogging the program did not do their job. They did not pay attention to it. So there was an original threshold for this program of about $34. The price of oil today is $70-plus a barrel. They were talking, in the middle 1990s, about $34 being the threshold level for the subsidy.

But what happened is, during the Clinton administration, some folks in the Government agency, the minerals program, who were supposed to be watchdogging this program just missed it. Some have described it as a bureaucratic blunder. However you want to call it, the reality is, Government, in the middle 1990s, was not doing right by the taxpayers. The Government should have been watchdogging this program. They should have seen there would be an effort by some in the oil industry to enrich themselves and use the taxpayer to essentially create an incentive that was unjustifiable and inexplicable, if you looked at what we are seeing today. Yet the money just kept pouring out the doors.

So what we have is a brandnew subsidy--new because it was added during the energy legislation, at a time when the price of oil was already above $55 per barrel. Certainly, the industry cannot make a claim they need this kind of incentive, as they have said in the past.

They have been drilling, and drilling without this particular incentive. In fact, we have seen, fortunately, some increase in drilling and production over the past 2 years without this particular incentive. There is no doubt in my mind, if you look at the record prices and if you look at the record profits, the drilling is going to continue if and when the amendment I have before the Senate is adopted.

I wish to emphasize, this legislation does give the Bush administration a significant amount of discretion in terms of operating the Royalty Relief Program. If the President, if the Secretary of the Interior, for example, determines that an absence of royalty relief would cause a disruption in oil supply, they set it aside, go back to the Royalty Relief Program. If the price of oil were to drop precipitously again, once more, you can provide oil royalty relief. But when the companies make record profits, when they charge record prices, it seems to me they do not need these record amounts of subsidies.

So the supplemental we are on the floor debating now involves $35 billion. The amendment I hope to have adopted today would pick up a significant portion of the costs of the supplemental that have been designated as emergency spending.

If the litigation that is now taking place surrounding this program is successful--and I do not think anyone can divine the results of that litigation--it is possible the Government will be out $80 billion for this particular program. That is twice the amount--twice the amount--of the money this legislation involves.

Now, colleagues--and I see a number of Senators on the floor--this is the granddaddy of all the oil subsidies. This is the biggest and this is the most unjustifiable of all the breaks.

By the way, we have had good ideas coming from colleagues. And probably the best single idea--and the distinguished Senator from Arizona has had an interest in these issues for some time--the Senator from Wyoming has said, to his credit, he wants to target the tax incentives for oil drilling to get more out of existing wells. There is a lot of evidence that perhaps a third of the oil that is in these existing wells is being left behind because we have never retooled the tax laws to get more from existing wells.

So there are good ideas, Mr. President and colleagues, and Senator Thomas from Wyoming deserves credit for one of the best. But I will tell you, there are some real turkeys out there. And one of them is this existing program which provides royalty relief where there is no case to do so. This is an out-of-control program. This is a program which has lost its historical moorings. It made sense in 1995, when the price of oil was cheap, but it sure does not make any sense today.

When I asked the executives who came before the Energy Committee recently--the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell--I asked them specifically if they needed these new incentives. All of them said they did not.

So I am offering this amendment today that prohibits the Department of Energy from providing any additional royalty relief so long as the price of oil is above $55 per barrel. That is the price at which the President said oil companies do not need incentives to explore.

The amendment, as I have indicated, provides an exception in cases where royalty relief is needed to avoid supply disruptions because of hurricanes or other natural disasters or if the price of oil were to fall. But with oil selling for more than $70 a barrel--way above the price for which the President said incentives were not needed--Congress ought to stop giving away more taxpayer money for unnecessary subsidies. We ought to prohibit further royalty relief, use this money to pay down the deficit, as the distinguished Senator from Arizona has suggested on this floor on more than one occasion, and save our citizens' hard-earned tax dollars for more worthy uses.

Consumers of this country are already paying more at work. They are paying more at home and as they drive everywhere in between. It seems to me we certainly ought to give them a break in their personal energy bills before we continue the operation of a program that the General Accounting Office has said will cost taxpayers a minimum of $20 billion and could end up costing taxpayers $80 billion, if the litigation over this program is successful.

Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor. I have not had anybody come to the floor and say they are going to oppose my amendment. If no one does--and I am not going to yield quite at this point--I am anxious--and the chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, has been very gracious in his discussions with me. I am anxious to go to a vote. I know the Senator from Mississippi treats all Members fairly, and I have told him I am ready to go to an up-or-down vote on my amendment and get the Senate on record as making sure we save this money which is being needlessly frittered away.

No one has come to the floor of the Senate to say they object to the amendment. The amendment is very straightforward. It says we are not going to have royalty relief unless the President says we have to have it to avoid a disruption or the price of oil falls. This is a program which does not make sense. We ought to save the money.

I, at this point, would like to propound a request to the distinguished chair of the committee. I would be prepared to allow the Senate to move on to other business if we could agree upon a time when there could be an up-or-down vote on my amendment. Would the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Mississippi, give me his thoughts? And can we enter into an agreement so you can move ahead with the important work you are doing and we can lock in a time for a vote on my amendment?

Mr. President, I am willing to yield so that the chairman of the committee can respond to my question.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, be allowed to respond to my request, and that after he has completed his response I reclaim my time.

Mr. President, I think it is going to be a long day because I intend to stay here and make the case for this outrageous rip-off being eliminated. This is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer money. Colleagues know I always try to work in a bipartisan way. I always want to expedite the business of the Senate.

The last time the Senate looked at energy, after midnight, in the middle of the night, there was an effort to sweeten this program and add more cost to taxpayers that cannot be justified. As I understand it, I may have misspoken on this point; the total amount of the supplemental bill is $100 billion. The cost of litigation over this program, if successful, could be $80 billion. The General Accounting Office estimates that at a minimum, the Government is going to be out $20 billion. My amendment alone could pay a significant portion of what is needed to cover this emergency spending legislation.

The Government is here talking about an emergency spending bill because there isn't the money in order to pay for these essential programs. Yet at a time when we have an emergency spending bill and we don't have the money in order to take care of needs, the Government keeps ladling out billions of dollars. All I want to do is prevent what we saw last year in the Energy bill. We are now going to do it differently. We are going to stay here, and we are going to stay at this discussion until the Senate votes up or down as to whether we want to keep sweetening a program with billions and billions of dollars at a time when there is no commonsense reason for this particular program.

I have come to admire the Senator from Arizona. We serve together on the Commerce Committee. I particularly appreciate his tenaciousness. He has taught me an awful lot about it. Frankly, that is what is needed. Somebody has to stay here and stay at this until we drain this swamp. To continually shovel out billions and billions of dollars, when the President of the United States has said we don't need these incentives when oil is over $50 a barrel, I don't see how anybody can argue for the continuation of this program in its current form.

I said I am not going to chuck the program in the trash can. All I am going to say is, you get royalty relief if the price of oil goes down or we need royalty relief to avoid disruptions. That is a straightforward proposition. It certainly ensures that we go back to what was originally contemplated. Even the authors of this program, people such as our former colleague Senator Bennett Johnston, are scratching their heads and saying: This program is completely out of control. It makes no sense in its current form.

I don't see how you can argue something that at its outset was designed to promote production when prices were cheap. By the way, a lot of the sponsors of this legislation always said this program was cost free. I was amazed to hear that.

Through the Chair, I ask unanimous consent to have Senator McCain propound his question, and when I have responded, I would be able to reclaim the floor.

I thank my friend. Before we got into seafood marketing and the question of earmarks, it seemed to me that your point was a very logical one, sometimes too logical for the Senate. That is, how do you get a vote around here? What I was asking the distinguished chairman of the committee is if we could get agreement to have a vote at a time certain or conceivably to have my proposal included in the next group of amendments to be voted on. But, yes, I say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, without that commitment, I am very much convinced that we won't get an up-or-down vote on this outrageous boondoggle, a huge expenditure of many billions of dollars that as recently as the energy conference, there were no votes. It was done in the middle of the night. It was snuck in after midnight.

The reason why: Because nobody was able to do what I am trying do right here on the floor of the Senate, which is to say, we are going to do this in broad daylight. If Senators want to vote in favor of a program that subsidizes, when we are over $70 a barrel and the President of the United States says we don't need those subsidies, then Senators can so vote.

Very good.

To respond to my friend from Arizona, he is very good at working out arrangements to get votes on these matters that are so important to the public interest. Perhaps it is possible, through his good offices, to persuade Senator Cochran and others that we can make arrangements. I am not anxious to hold up the time of the Senate. By the way, I was here late last night, and I would have been prepared to vote last night. So this Member was prepared to vote last night. I am prepared to vote now. I am prepared to give up the floor as long as there is a commitment that we get a vote. But the handling of this program is a disgrace.

You cannot make an argument for having no accountability whatsoever at a time when billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are used. That is what happened during the energy legislation where in the dead of night, not only was the program preserved, the program was sweetened at a time when the President says you cannot make the case for these kinds of subsidies.

We will continue with this discussion. My door, as always, remains open to colleagues. I would like to think I was bipartisan before it became fashionable to be bipartisan. I note that Senator Kyl is a cosponsor of the legislation. Senator Lieberman has joined on as a cosponsor of the legislation. I remain anxious to work with Senators to get this worked out.

We have been talking a lot about lobbyists. We have had a lobbying reform bill and the Senate has acted. It was not all I wished it were, but at least it was a beginning. Talk about special interests and about the clout of lobbyists, this program is a textbook case of how a handful of savvy lobbyists can hotwire the political process and end up costing taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. The law itself, through the handiwork of all these lobbyists, is full of confusing language, language that has lent itself to a wide variety of interpretations. We are almost running a lawyers full employment program with this particular initiative. It will be in court endlessly, as far as I can tell. It was a program that was sweetened by the administration, even at a time when the President said you didn't need added incentives when oil was over $50 a barrel.

I have mentioned some of the problems we saw in the previous administration. I guess nobody was home watchdogging the particular program there in the minerals department because they were supposed to have a threshold in terms of when subsidies would be dispensed. But what you have seen with this particular program is how a handful of insiders, very clever lobbyists, have been able to get the Government to give away billions and billions of dollars. I don't understand how any Member of the Senate could go home, face a town meeting in their particular community, and make the case for having this program in its current form at this crucial time. Do Senators want to go home, meet with folks in grange halls and senior centers and the like--I just got clobbered on the way to a meeting about these prices--and say, gosh, we have to continue this royalty relief program? Essentially what you have is a multiyear fiasco.

It began in 1995. At that time, with the price of energy low, you could make a case for this particular program. But over the years, and particularly in the last few years with high prices, what you have is a situation where you have a program mushrooming in cost, mushrooming in terms of the toll it takes on taxpayers. The Bush administration has even confirmed that the Government will lose billions of dollars in royalties.

So this argument some have made that this program costs nothing--we heard that in the energy debate last year. It is an argument that the Royalty Relief Program costs nothing. Now that is contradicted by the Bush administration itself, which has indicated that it is going to have to waive billions and billions of dollars in royalties.

There is a lawsuit underway, as I have noted. The lawsuit challenges what amounts to one of the few restrictions on the cash drawer the oil companies look to, and I gather that the oil companies have a pretty good chance of prevailing there. So we would see even more money shoveled out the door in the days ahead. Some have called this program one that was noncontroversial. I will tell you that I don't think you can explain this to anybody in broad daylight. That is why the actions with respect to sweetening the program were taken in the middle of the night. After the CEOs of all of the major oil companies have come before a joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committees, saying, in response to my question, that they agreed with the President's position that when the price of oil is more than $55 per barrel, they don't need incentives to explore for oil and gas, I wish one Senator would come to the floor today and say here is why we need the Royalty Relief Program.

I note that I have been trying to get a vote on this particular amendment since last night. Not one Senator has come to the floor and said that they oppose my amendment. I cannot get a commitment for a vote up or down. And given what has happened with these oil interests and this program, that is not acceptable to me, and I cannot imagine that it is acceptable to the American people.

We have a supplemental that is going to cost $100 billion. If the litigation is successful, we will see the Government out of up to $80 billion. The General Accounting Office estimates the minimum cost of this program will be $20 billion. So at some point, it seems to me, the Senate has to step in and say we are going to have some accountability here for taxpayer money; we are not going to sit on our hands when the money pours out the door.

In terms of the timeline, there are a couple of dates that I think are particularly important. In January of 2004, the Department of the Interior apparently expanded the royalty incentives--the incentives the companies would be getting under this particular program. About a year after that, the President of the United States made his statement with respect to what kind of incentives there should be for people in the oil business. He said, as I have noted today, with oil at $70 a barrel, the Government ought to get out of the business. That is the President of the United States. The President said we don't need these incentives. By the way, he made no distinction in terms of the kind of companies involved. He just said the Government doesn't need to be pouring out subsidies when the price of oil is $70 a barrel.

The next key date was in the summer of 2005----

I am happy to yield to my colleague for a question and then continue discussing my amendment.

Mr. President, I am under the impression that I cannot yield to my friend--I certainly would like to--without in essence losing my right to stay on the floor. As I said earlier when we had questions from the Senator from Arizona and others, I would very much like to get a time commitment, because I know the Senator has important legislation he

would like to have considered, and I also see my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. This is not my favorite way of getting the business of the Senate done. But my understanding is I cannot give up the floor to another Senator for purposes of their having consideration of their amendments.

Reluctantly, I tell my good friend, a wonderful addition to the Senate, that I cannot do that at this time. I also see our friend from Arizona here. He may be working his magic with the leadership and the Chair so as to be able to at some point lock in a vote. I would be happy if I could get a commitment that the Senate would vote on this amendment. I would be happy to let colleagues proceed for several hours and have a chance to do their important work.

I note once again that not one Senator of either political party has come to the floor and said they want to defend this multibillion dollar program in its current form. That is an astounding thing. I was very pleased to get Senator Kyl this morning as a cosponsor of the legislation, and Senator Lieberman and others. But what is stunning is in this place you can hardly get everybody to agree to go out and get a soda pop. Yet in discussing this legislation, nobody has stood up and said they are going to defend the Royalty Relief Program in its current form.

Once again, as part of the unanimous consent agreement, I do yield for a question.

Mr. President, let me propound this to the Chair. My understanding is if I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado for purposes of these unanimous consent requests, I would lose the opportunity to be considered, after he discussed this, automatically. My understanding is I cannot yield to the Senator from Colorado without losing my place. Is that correct?

Again, I tell my friend from Colorado that this is not my preferred choice of doing business in the Senate. I was ready to vote last night. I am ready to vote now. I am ready to vote as part of a package of amendments. My understanding is I cannot yield the floor at this time without losing my place. I reluctantly have to decline.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: However much I would like to do what the Senator from Colorado has suggested, I cannot do that without losing my place on the floor, is that correct?

So if the Senator from Colorado propounds a unanimous consent request asking that he be allowed to speak for a couple of minutes so as to be able to offer his amendment, at the end of those 2 minutes, what he has offered is set aside and the business of the Senate would once again be my amendment, the Chair is advising that that could be done?

Mr. President, let me say I am going to have staff work with the Parliamentarian for a bit--my staff and Senator Salazar's staff, and others--to see if we can address the concern of the Senator from Colorado. Maybe we can get a number of Senators involved in this so we can lock in some actual votes.

I would be very pleased to get a commitment from the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, to have my amendment included in the next group of votes. That is a pretty simple request-- something that goes on here very often. It seems to me if we cannot do that, and I am not included, then I guess I have to stay at my post here and say that I think the taxpayers ought to get some protection and we ought to stop the ripping off, the persistent plundering of tax revenue, at a time when the President and everybody else says you cannot justify these kinds of incentives. If I can get a commitment from the distinguished chairman from Mississippi to have my amendment included in the next group of votes, and we will get an up-or-down vote, I would certainly like to save my larynx and let the Senate get about its business.

Yes.

Mr. President, by way of responding to the distinguished Chair, the Senator is not asking for special treatment. What we do in the Senate again and again--it is the common practice, something that goes on every week--is we have debates on amendments and then Senators have those amendments put into a group, and when there has been a group of amendments put together and all Senators on both sides of the aisle have been notified that there will be votes, then there are votes.

That is all that I have asked for. There is no request for a specific time. Do it at 1, 2, 3. Do it whenever we have a block of amendments so we can get on and hear from Senator Cornyn and Senator Salazar, and I now see the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Pennsylvania here as well.

I don't understand why we can't get a commitment that at some point-- what goes on here regularly, that Senators get votes as a group of amendments is considered--that be done.

I come back to the point, having had now considerable amount of discussion, that not one Senator has said they want to defend the oil royalty relief in its current form. I think that is incredible. I certainly expected some opposition. I was pleased when Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman said they wanted to be cosponsors. I expected people to come on over here and oppose it. And I think the reason there is no vocal opposition to this program is exactly what we saw in the energy conference committee last year. You can't defend this program in broad daylight. That is why it was sweetened in the middle of the night. A program that made no sense, was already a boondoggle, got even sweeter with additional sums now going out the door.

I have noted that if the litigation of this program is successful, it is possible that the Government will be out a sum close to the entire cost of the supplemental program.

So I repeat to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, nothing would please me more than to enter into an agreement to allow others to go forward, and my amendment could be voted on in exactly the way the Senate customarily does business; that is, when we have a block of amendments, a group of amendments that Senators have had a chance to discuss and consider, we would then take a vote. But for some reason, we are not going to do that with respect to this multibillion-dollar subsidy program, a program that has the Government subsidizing these companies through royalties when oil is $70 a barrel, and the President of the United States says we ought to be out of the subsidy business when oil is over $50 a barrel.

I have a unanimous consent request ready to go so I can satisfy colleagues. I now see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is here, the Senator from Florida is here, and the Senator from Pennsylvania is here. There are a lot of folks who would like to have a chance to speak, and nothing would please me more than to let them get about that business.

I have not been here as long as the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, but I have not had an instance such as this ever happen to me in the Senate when I ask: Can I get a chance, as part of a group of amendments, or at some point, an up-or-down vote, and no efforts are being made to work something like that out. I think it is unfortunate. I am going to have to remain at my post, and colleagues who want to ask questions--does the Senator from Florida seek to ask a question?--I will be able to respond and reclaim my time.

That is not the amendment that I offer. I will tell the Senator that I am trying to roll back the subsidy program that is the granddaddy of all of them. This is the one that is going to fleece taxpayers the worst. This is the one that the General Accounting Office says at a minimum will cost taxpayers $20 billion.

So the Senator from Florida, who has had a great interest in energy policy and serves on the committee, is talking about something else, but he has made the point again that there are a host of these subsidies. But the billion-dollar program that the Senator from Florida is talking about is peanuts compared to what we are talking about here.

What we are talking about here--I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, is here. He was, I know, a close friend of Senator Johnston, who was the original author of this program. Senator Johnston has said that he didn't intend anything like what this program has turned out to be. Congressman Pombo, the chair in the other body of the natural resources committee, said: You don't need this incentive. Nobody has ever called Congressman Pombo anti-oil. Even the people at Shell Oil say you don't need this kind of incentive in this climate.

The Senator from Florida makes a good point that there are a variety of subsidies that go out to oil companies, but the one that the Senator from Florida is talking about is really small potatoes compared to what we are talking about here. I appreciate the question.

Once again, under our unanimous consent agreement.

Of course. I will tell my good friend from Alaska, I have been surprised that somebody hasn't come to the floor to speak against my amendment or to second-degree it, or anything of the sort. I have been here since last night, I will say--reclaiming my time--I have been here since last night discussing this, and no Senator, Democrat or Republican, has come and opposed the amendment that I am offering. No one has tried to second-degree it.

I think at this time what I would like to do----

I will be happy to.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, just so we can make sure all the dots are connected, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be voted on during the next group of amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am going to withdraw----

Mr. President, I intend to withdraw my unanimous consent request at this time, and my staff is happy to work with Senator Stevens, as we have done on so many issues, to see if we can work something out that is acceptable.

Mr. President, having said that, I want to state once again that I am anxious to work with all of the Senators who are on the floor, and I am sure there are others hovering about the Chamber, to get on with the business of the Senate. All I want to be able to do is what I think is pretty customary in the Senate, and that is to get a vote at some point--at the time when we have the next set of amendments. But clearly, there are those here who don't want to allow that. So I think I will just have to persist.

One additional area I want to focus on, I say to my colleagues, is that I and others, particularly a bipartisan group on the Energy Committee, have been trying to get an explanation from the Interior Department for months and months about what is going on with this program. What we would like to do is see if we could get some accountability.

A number of Senators wrote back in January to express our concerns. We never got an answer. And what I would like to do is highlight a few points of the Senators' concerns because I think, once again, they go to this point about whether there is going to be some accountability in a multibillion-dollar program that has been costly to our taxpayers.

The Senators said, in a January 24, 2006, letter:

There is a series of steps the Interior Department can take

to remedy the flaws with this program. For example--

The letter notes--

you could reinstate the full audits of the royalty relief

program that have been scaled back during the Bush

administration.

Now, as to auditing this program, auditing a multibillion-dollar program that you can't justify at a time of $70-a-barrel oil costs, you would think that having these audits would be pretty much a no-brainer. You would say that the Interior Department, particularly after they have been criticized by their Inspector General on this particular point, would be willing to step up the audits. They would be willing to take some steps, some concrete steps, to make sure that so many taxpayer dollars weren't being wasted. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. We haven't seen the audits that even the Inspector General has called for in the program.

Another step that has been noted by the Senators would require enforcement of existing rules for this program, such as those requiring companies to start paying royalties when market prices reach a threshold level. Again, we have seen no response--no response--to practical, concrete suggestions that Senators have made to make sure we get some accountability into this particular program.

I also note that Senators have indicated they would be supportive of legislation that would require greater accountability for this program so that, in effect, it would be possible for people to see how it actually works in broad daylight. That, too, is probably too logical, and I would only say that given the fact that this program was sweetened--and expensively so--behind, essentially, closed doors last year, it seems to me that at a minimum we ought to have greater openness for this program, additional funding for auditors, and that, too, has not been forthcoming.

So concrete suggestions made by Senators to better watchdog this program and to protect the billions and billions of taxpayer dollars that are needed are highlighted by our challenge right here, which is: As we debate an emergency spending bill, a bill that is an emergency because the Government really doesn't have the money to pay for it, we are still seeing billions of dollars go out the door needlessly.

In addition, the letter from the Senators states:

We are troubled by the suggestion that companies involved

in the program have made differing representations of the

costs to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the

Department of Interior.

These are both Federal agencies. In order for the Congress to carry out its own oversight responsibilities and probe the magnitude of these discrepancies, what the Senators asked is for information with respect to oil and gas prices over the last few years. Once again, it looks to me like a very reasonable kind of request, and I want to highlight again that when you have an out-of-control program, when you have Senators making practical suggestions like having better audits, like having better enforcement of existing laws, saying we ought to follow up on discrepancies in the information that is furnished to the Government, that strikes me as a no-brainer. Every Member of the Senate should say: Of course, we want to watchdog the way these monies are being spent.

I would like to read a little bit about these disparities in the costs of the program. Johnnie M. Burton, Director of the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service--I am just going to read from a report, a news report on it--said the disparities, the differences in the information that was furnished by the industry ``were mostly the result of deductions that the regulations let companies take, reducing the sales price they report to the government.''

Now let's just think about that. The companies take these deductions; that reduces the sales price that is reported to the government; and still the Department of Interior won't step in and say: We are going to try to straighten out these discrepancies in the information about this program.

To read further, the Director of this program said that she, ``had not known and could not explain why companies were reporting higher sales prices to their shareholders and to the Securities and Exchange Commission than to her office.''

Once again, that is an extraordinary statement, a statement that comes from the Director of the Minerals Management Program. And she wraps it up,

when she is asked by the news media to respond--and I will quote here from the news reports:

I can't answer because I don't know. We don't look at SEC

filings. We don't have enough staff to do all of that. If we

were to do that, then we would have to have more staff and

more budget. You know, there is such a thing as budget

constraint, and it has been real tough, let me tell you.

So what we have is the Government not even getting the straight story about the program. You have Senators saying that different representations of costs by the companies are being given to the SEC and the Department of Interior, and yet the person who runs the program says: I don't know, can't do it. Can't get to the bottom of how a multibillion-dollar program operates.

Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, this is the granddaddy of all of the oil subsidy programs. My friend, Senator Nelson from Florida, came to the floor to talk about a particular subsidy he was concerned about and said that the cost of the subsidy was about $1 billion. That is certainly a lot of money to the people of South Carolina and the people of Oregon. This program that I am saying we ought to rein in and get some accountability over involves, according to the General Accounting Office, a minimum--a minimum--of $20 billion. And, if the litigation that surrounds the Royalty Relief Program is successful, we would see the cost to the Government be $80 billion.

I have been at this for several hours. No Senator of either political party has come to the floor and made a case against my amendment. I have been pretty surprised about it. I was pleased to have Senator Kyl and Senator Lieberman sign on as cosponsors of my particular effort. But I would sure like to have a dialogue in the Senate with respect to the program. I think we have a good handle on how to reform it.

We would say: You can have royalty payments when you need them. It is not rocket science. It is very straightforward. If the price of oil goes down, if the President of the United States says we are going to have a disruption of our oil markets, then you can stay royalty relief. It is not a complicated proposition. But all I can conclude is that Senators--we have had a number of Senators come over and yet nobody has said anything against my amendment. That seems to say, well, just chew up our day letting this fellow from Oregon hold forth.

I have not had to do this in my time in the Senate. It is not a whole lot of fun when you have colleagues and friends who obviously put in a lot of work, a lot of time into amendments that they feel strongly about. I have asked on several occasions to see if I could just get an opportunity to have a vote, up or down, in some kind of fashion, at some point when we do the next block of amendments. But we haven't been able to get that agreement, so here we are, working through lunchtime on this particular program.

I will also tell the Senate with respect to where we are right now that the amount of the subsidy that is out there today could increase-- this is in an article from U.S. News and World Report--fivefold. So we are talking about billions of dollars that go out the door today, and if the litigation is successful, then we will see vast additional sums going out.

In the speech that the President made earlier in the week, the President, to his credit, said that he really didn't see the case for subsidies with the price of oil well over $70 per barrel. I don't see anybody making that argument. I don't see anybody making it outside of the Senate. And as I have said over the course of the morning, I don't see anybody making it in the Senate today. I wish somebody would because maybe then we could begin a real discussion and we could get on with what the Senator from Mississippi desires, which is to complete his important legislation. But we have not been able to have that kind of debate, nor have we been able to get a commitment to have this amendment come up as part of a block.

About the only thing we know for certain is we have a program that is completely out of control, and even the original author of the legislation, our former colleague, Senator Johnston, has indicated that.

Under the Energy bill that was signed into law last summer, the companies were given new subsidies in the form of reduced royalty fees. The way that came about is we did not have any floor votes, we didn't have extended debate as we are having this morning; it was done after midnight in the conference committee. It was done after the claim was made that this would not cost anybody anything. That is pretty farfetched. The General Accounting Office says it will cost a minimum of $20 billion.

The Senate has indicated that we are concerned about the practices of lobbyists. I say to Senators, this is a classic case. This is one you would write in the textbooks, of how a small group of lobbyists can figure out a way--essentially behind closed doors and in the dead of night when people are not exactly following debate about energy policy, after midnight--to work their will. So I am doing something I have not done in the Senate and that is to say I am going to stand here and try to do my very best to protect taxpayers. I think it is critical right now, when we are dealing with emergency spending legislation. This program alone uses up a decent portion of the tab for this piece of legislation.

Colleagues have talked a bit about tax breaks and the like, but we have not had any real discussion before today about royalties under the Minerals Management Program. That is what we are talking about here. The House discussed it in its legislation. I think that is why we ought to discuss it.

I don't think this is going to harm in any way the incentives to produce oil in this country. We certainly need to do that. We are as dependent on foreign oil as we were 20 years ago. I personally think getting a new energy policy is about the most patriotic thing we can do in our country. Getting a new energy policy is about as red, white, and blue as it gets. But you sure don't get a new energy policy if you are going to keep sweetening, with billions of dollars, a program that doesn't work, a program that has lacked oversight, lacked accountability.

By the way, I have mentioned it has been bipartisan. I see the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens. I have highlighted the fact that the previous administration, the Clinton administration, somewhere, someplace in the bureaucracy, was not watchdogging this program, was not watching the threshold that was needed to ensure that this money would be used wisely.

By the way, they were talking about $34 a barrel at that time. Now the price of oil is over $70 a barrel. The President of the United States says we don't need subsidies when it is over $50 a barrel.

My hope is we can get this Minerals Management Program under control. It needs to be under control. The bill that came over from the House addresses the royalties issue as well. I think it is time for the Senate to step up. This is a subsidy that is not needed at this time. I wish some Member of the Senate would come to the floor and say, Let me tell you why the subsidy is needed. We have three Senators on the floor and certainly a lot of others have been coming through at various times, but Senator Johnston, who made the case years ago that this program was needed in the 1990s--I think Senator Stevens probably knows the most about the history of the program of any of us--I think Senator Johnston's argument in the 1990s was the gulf coast was hurting. The gulf coast had gotten clobbered. Senator Johnston and others were concerned about how things were going to go in the future. The price of energy had dropped very dramatically. The concern of Senator Johnston was that you were going to see very little investment unless you had changes in the Government's policy.

I know people at that time--I have seen the press reports--were comparing the Gulf of Mexico to the Dead Sea. We are not faced with anything like that. In fact, the program worked well in those middle 1990s.

Now we have a very different situation. Now we have a very different climate. In fact, those are virtually the words that were used by one of the lawyers from the Shell Oil Company. The lawyer from the Shell Oil Company said we don't need royalty relief in this kind of environment, in this kind of climate.

I hope we will get the Senate to dig into the merits of this. I have read the comments from news reports, from Senator Johnston. Senator Johnston told the press recently:

The one thing I can tell you is this is not what we had

intended.

Given all of the fuzzy and confusing language that was in this program, what we have seen is the companies, those that have tried to milk this program in every way possible, have been able to do it. I was particularly troubled by some of the changes the Secretary of Interior, Secretary Norton, made administratively. But I think the Senate, in going forward with this discussion, ought to reflect on some of the comments that have been made by people who I think have been about as supportive of the oil industry as they possibly could be. In the other body, the chair of the natural resources committee, Congressman Pombo, says:

There is no need for an incentive. They've got a market

incentive to produce at $70 a barrel.

Think about that comment of Congressman Pombo. Congressman Pombo is saying there is no need for incentives right now.

I wanted to be sensitive in my amendment to the fact that things can change. We always have to deal with that in any legislative proposal. What I said is, look, the President of the United States says we could have a supply disruption. If the President of the United States says, for example, that with prices going down we need to reinstitute the program, so be it. But that apparently is not acceptable to some here in the Senate so we cannot get an opportunity at some point to get a vote.

But this is high-stakes stuff, folks. This is not small sums of money. Senator Nelson raised a question that was important to him about a particular subsidy program he was concerned about. It involved $1 billion. But as a number have noted, if the legal battles that are taking place right now about the Royalty Relief Program are successful, we are talking about upwards of $30 billion in additional royalty relief over the next few years. How much more do we need to prod those who care about this to look at reforming this particular program? Certainly they don't need more incentives to go out and drill. Nobody needs to prod the oil industry in that regard. We have seen a great deal of effort on the part of the Senate to make it attractive to be in the energy business. But what I am seeking to do, with the support of Senators Kyl and Lieberman and I know other Senators, is to get this program under control, is to have some accountability. It seems to me what we are faced with is essentially a trifecta of subsidies.

First, you have the companies getting tax breaks. The Joint Tax Committee has estimated that the costs of those would be in the vicinity of $10 billion. I am beginning to think we are making some headway on that particular point because we are hearing Senators on both sides of the aisle say they want to review those tax breaks. When we had the executives come before the Energy Committee, I went right down the row and asked each one of them if they needed the tax breaks in the new Energy bill. When it got to broad daylight, they said they didn't need those particular tax breaks. So I think we are making some headway.

I then went to the Senate Finance Committee and was able to get a modest reduction in the tax breaks the companies would get. That is now in the reconciliation bill. I think it is the only actual cut in tax breaks the companies have gotten in quite some time. I am hopeful that will make its way into the reconciliation legislation. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have been extremely helpful in that regard.

But the first part of the trifecta is essentially the tax breaks. I am hoping we can get Senators of both political parties at a minimum to review them, review them comprehensively--something that hasn't gone on. Yesterday, to their credit, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus indicated they would begin that particular review.

The second part of the trifecta is we have mandatory spending programs. That was one that Senator Nelson spoke about earlier, one that involves $1 billion.

Then we come to the Royalty Relief Program, which is the big daddy, the granddaddy of all the subsidy programs. That is the one I have said I am not going to let the Senate duck any longer.

It appears both the Chair and the ranking minority member have left the floor. I think that is unfortunate because I want to try to work out an effort to move ahead on this. But I will continue.

Again, under our unanimous consent.

I thank the distinguished Senator. I know the Senator, having chaired the Appropriations Committee, is anxious to try to work this out. My door is open to try to do that. If the Senator can do what apparently we couldn't get worked out with Senators McCain, Salazar, Nelson, and others, no one will be happier than I.

I want to note exactly what the amendment does. It blocks the Federal Government from sweetening the already sweetheart royalty deals that are being dispensed under this legislation. This is needed because even as the prices have shot up, the previous Secretary of Interior was giving more royalty relief to the companies. It has been reported in the press that the Secretary of Interior made the incentives more generous by raising the threshold prices. Her action allowed drillers to escape royalties in 2005, when prices spiked to record levels. She also offered to sweeten the contracts that were not generous enough, in her opinion.

Think about that one. She went back and offered to sweeten the contracts that she felt were not generous enough, contracts the drillers signed before the new regulations were approved. What this amendment does is it prohibits the kind of sweetening of the deals for those who are drilling when prices are high.

When prices are high and we have no threat of disruption, then I am saying the Government has to step in and watchdog this program and do a better job for the taxpayers.

These are royalty deals which are already laden with sugar. They do not need any further sweetening. What is needed in the Senate is for the Senate to say now we are going to do what has not been done; we are going to step in and protect the taxpayers and the American people.

Under this amendment I am trying to get up in front of the Senate, the next Secretary of Interior would not be able to do what was done last year and give away more royalty relief when oil prices are above $55 per barrel. That is what we are all about today.

I hope we will have discussion of other aspects of the oil business. I know that colleagues have amendments of a variety of types they wish to offer.

But these are the sweetest deals in town. They are laden with sugar. They do not need any further sweetening. And at some point you have to ask, Is the Senate ever going to draw the line and have some real accountability in this program?

I have now been speaking about this for probably close to 3 hours. No Member of the Senate has spoken in favor of running the Royalty Relief Program the way it is. I want to repeat that. After 3 hours of debate and a chance for anybody here in the Senate to come and say, Look, I think it is important, I think we ought to keep the program the way it is, nobody in the Senate has come before this distinguished body and made the case for this program on the floor of the Senate.

I think that says it all. Nothing could better illuminate the history of this out-of-control program than the fact that nobody has opposed it here or has opposed my amendment on the floor of the Senate.

The way decisions are made with respect to this program is like what happened with the conference committee in 2005 on the Energy bill. After midnight, when nobody would have a chance to see what was going on, an argument was made that this doesn't cost any money. A couple of Senators were present. They said, You have to be kidding. There has been one Government report and audit after another of

this program. Nobody can say with a straight face that this program costs nothing. Yet that was the argument made after midnight in the energy conference. So this legislation kept getting sweeter and sweeter and sweeter.

Billions of dollars are at stake. We already have record prices. We already have record profits. The question becomes, Are we going to have record royalty payments?

I think it is important now for the Senate to draw the line. I want to make sure the Senate is aware of how my amendment would work. Right now the oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. To stimulate production when the price of oil was cheap, the Federal Government reduced the amount of royalty payments the companies had to make. Now that the price of oil has shot up to over $70 a barrel, the discounted royalty payments amount to a needless subsidy of billions and billions of dollars.

So the practical effect of all of this is the Senate works on a supplemental spending program. It is called an emergency because the Government doesn't have the money. That is why we are in this situation today. We have an emergency. The Government doesn't have the money, but yet the Senate is still willing to look the other way when billions and billions of dollars go out the door at a time when the President of the United States has said you don't need subsidies when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel.

Experts in and out of the Government share my view that this subsidy defies common sense. I have described the views of the chairman of the natural resources committee, Congressman Pombo, who talked about what the folks at Shell Oil have said. Former Senator Johnston wrote this particular program. There isn't anybody defending this program in its current form. That is the amazing part of this debate. Nobody has stood up and said, I want the Royalty Relief Program to operate just the way it is. I thought for sure we would have some discussion about this topic. I thought somebody would actually stand up and oppose what I am talking about. Somebody might say, Look, just because you say it is the granddaddy of all subsidies doesn't mean it doesn't do any good. But nobody has done that. In the course of speaking at some length about this particular program, nobody here in the Senate has said they want to come to the floor and defend it. I think that tells a whole lot about the situation we are in.

By the way, I think it says a lot about whether the Senate is willing to hold these companies accountable and is going to watchdog the program which costs billions and billions of dollars.

We have all had our phones flooded with folks concerned about the price of oil. I heard a discussion from the distinguished Senator from Arizona who said that earmarks were the top question he had heard about from citizens. Like the Senator from South Carolina, I have an enormous amount of respect for the Senator from Arizona. But I think while earmarks are certainly important--and I don't want to get into some kind of competition about what is the most important--I can tell you everything I am seeing right now is that gasoline prices is the issue the American people want to address.

I want a new energy policy. I am anxious to work with colleagues to do so. As I have spoken here on the floor of the Senate, I would say arguably the best idea we have seen in energy as it relates to production comes from our friend from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, who has pointed out that we are probably not getting a big chunk of the oil production out of existing wells. It is an amazing thing; experts in the field say we may be losing as much as a third of what is out there in existing wells. If you go and get that oil, first, you begin to add to the production that all Senators want to encourage but also you do something that is sensible for the environment because you don't run the risk of additional environmental problems.

As we have looked at on the Commerce Committee under the distinguished chair, Senator Stevens, there is a lot of new technology in the oil business. So it is possible to capture some of the gases that are emitted and better protect the environment. There are good ideas for getting a fresh energy policy and certainly increasing production.

As I have said publicly and privately, I think Senator Thomas is one of the best. But there are also some programs that make no sense. This one doesn't. This one is the biggest of them all. If the Senate is serious about reining in these practices that drain our Treasury, which is a factor in our having to come to the floor and ask for emergency spending programs, then I think we have to tackle this kind of program.

Government subsidies--sure, you can make a case for them when the price is low, when you have to stimulate production, and when our economy needs a shot in the arm. But billions of dollars of royalty relief for the companies with these kinds of prices? I don't get it. I don't think it is even a close call. Perhaps that is why we have not seen anybody come to the floor and argue on behalf of doing business this way.

My amendment would ensure that you have royalty relief when it is needed. When you need royalty relief, under this particular amendment-- when there is a supply disruption or when prices fall--you would be able to have that relief. But it ought to be targeted. It ought to be targeted as it was in the middle 1990s. That was a period when the price of energy was way down. Parts of our country that could produce oil were hurting. There was a judgment made before my good friend from South Carolina and I were in the Congress, there was a judgment made in the middle of the 1990s to say, all right, let us give these companies a break. If they go out and take some risk, if they will go out and drill and take those chances as you do as part of the free enterprise system because the Government wanted to encourage production at an important time, there was bipartisan consensus that it be done.

The author of the program, Senator Johnston, our former colleague from Louisiana, put together an impressive coalition to get it passed. As I have quoted Senator Johnston here on this floor recently, what we have isn't anything close to what was intended. He was kind of baffled about the whole thing. He said the whole thing is confusing.

It is time for the Senate to say that on the biggest subsidy program, the one that costs the most, which is going to be greater, as far as I can tell, than all of the subsidies combined, and if the litigation involving this program costs approximately what the whole supplemental costs, this is the program we have to deal with.

I don't think it passes the smell test to keep dispensing billions and billions of dollars of royalty relief at this time from the taxpayers' wallet. This is a program that was useful a decade ago. But nobody could say that we need these kinds of incentives at this time.

Back when they were talking about this program in the middle 1990s, the price of oil was in the vicinity of $34 or $35 a barrel. That was the threshold they were talking about at that time. Now the price of oil is twice the threshold that was used back in those days, in the 1990s.

This is a program that it seems to me the Senate has to step in and start watchdogging. One of the reasons I have come to the floor of the Senate today is because the Department of the Interior won't even answer questions from Senators. After there were news reports earlier this year, a number of Senators asked very practical questions. They wanted to know about additional audits; they wanted to make sure there was an effort to enforce the law; they pointed out discrepancies in reports on this program; that the Securities and Exchange Commission was given one set of facts and statistics and the Department of Interior was given another set of facts and statistics. Think about that. We now have companies not even using the same information the Government has so the Government can watchdog the program. Then they go over to the person who heads the Minerals Management Office, which runs this particular program, and what that person says is, Gosh, we don't know. We don't have the auditors. We can't keep track of this. We are not people with expertise. I guess I could see that point if it were involving a small program; in other words, you would be talking about something with

a modest sum of money, and they said they did not have enough auditors. Senators could work on a bipartisan basis and beef up the program. But it was not an emergency because you were talking about a much smaller amount of money. We know the phrase a billion here, a billion there starts to add up to real money. Everett Dirksen talked about millions; now we are talking about billions.

The point is, this is not a small program. This is one of the biggest programs, $20 billion minimum. The General Accounting Office says $20 billion minimum is involved. If the litigation surrounding this program is successful, it could approach the amount that would pay for the entire emergency supplemental program. That is pretty amazing.

One program subsidizing the companies with royalty relief--and no Senator has come to the Senate over the last few hours to defend the operation of the program in its current form--one program can pick up the tab for most of the emergency supplemental. Yet we cannot get a vote up or down as part of any kind of practice that resembles what the Senator from South Carolina and this Senator have customarily seen in the Senate.

We have a discussion over a batch of amendments. Usually a big batch of amendments takes a reasonable period of time. I have done this. The Senator from South Carolina has done it scores and scores of times. Then the amendment you offer is put into a package of other amendments, and there is a vote at a time when Senators of both political parties have been notified and all Members are aware of what is coming up in the Senate. We cannot do that. Somehow, we cannot do that.

I see the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, has returned. I have propounded a variety of different questions to see if we could at some point do what is the customary practice in the Senate, which is at some point have a vote, at some point that is convenient for all who want to offer their amendments. As far as I can tell, we are not having any discussions about how to do that. I have not heard any discussions about others who want to amend this in some way. We have, essentially, a one-sided discussion. This side would very much like to see if we can move forward and get about the business of the Senate.

I have outlined the key questions about a program which is a classic example of what happens when you do not have the Government watchdogging the taxpayers' wallet. The money does not fly out of the sky and land in Washington and all of a sudden get used for one program or another. This is taxpayers' hard-earned money.

We have a situation in South Carolina, Oregon, and elsewhere where people are getting clobbered at the pump. They are all up in arms about the cost of gasoline. We have these record prices at the pump. We have record profits people constantly read about, and the CEOs get pensions. Some of the pensions the CEOs are getting come to sums that are greater than whole communities, as far as I can tell, in terms of their pension relief. So citizens hear about this sort of thing and want to know what the Congress is doing to straighten out the priorities.

What this is about, folks, is straightening out the priorities. I don't think the priorities ought to be to have a minimum of $20 billion used for a royalty relief program when the price of oil is over $70 a barrel. The priorities ought to be for the kinds of things the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and his counterpart on the Democratic side have been working to get done. We do have emergencies. We have emergencies we have to address. I want to see it done. I will tell the Senate when we are subsidizing an amount that could possibly come to the full cost of this supplemental, this cries out for the Senate to step in.

I am going to do everything I can do and will continue to try to engage colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can do what is necessary to protect the public; that is, essentially reining in a program that has been driven by a small number of lobbyists. A small number of lobbyists for a small number of companies has figured out how to make off with the bank. That is essentially what has happened. We have a program that very few know much about.

When it hit the newspapers a few months ago, Senators and others were up in arms. It is fair to say very few knew a great deal about how the program operated. Those headlines--``General Accounting Office Says Minimum of $20 Billion Will Be Lost''--should have served as a wake-up call.

After we saw those news reports, Senators began writing letters, some of them bipartisan, saying to the Department of Interior: Give us the facts about the program. They said: We have read all these reports indicating what a waste of money, what a colossal waste of money this is. Give us the facts.

The Department of Interior has stonewalled Senators who are trying to get the facts about how the program works. The Senators pointed out the discrepancies in the information furnished. Senators pointed out there did not seem to be people watching this program and watchdogging it, but still no response from the Department of Interior.

So we get to the point, it seems to me, that somebody ought to come to the Senate and describe how an industry that is finding profit everywhere it looks ought to be given more relief from the Federal taxpayer. That is what it comes down to. This industry is doing exceptionally well. Everyone understands the importance of energy production. We understand the importance of seeing it produced in the United States. But the good ideas for getting production going in this country are not ones that drain the Treasury of billions and billions of dollars. The good ideas are the kinds of ideas offered by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, who talks about getting more production out of existing wells. That is the kind of thing we ought to be doing to get a new energy policy, a red, white, and blue energy policy that is patriotic.

Frankly, our energy policy does a great disservice to those who honor us by wearing the uniform overseas. I know the Senator from South Carolina has been a great advocate for those people. When I meet with folks in the military, I say: You have honored us with your extraordinary service by wearing the uniform and putting your health and the well-being of your family on the line. I want to get a new energy policy so it is less likely that your kid and your grandkid will be off in the Middle East fighting another war where people are saying it is about oil.

We owe it to those courageous people who honor our Nation by wearing the uniform to get them a fresh energy policy from ideas such as those offered by Senator Thomas. This program is not one of them.

I see one of my cosponsors of this legislation in the Chamber. I am ecstatic he has arrived in the Chamber, and I yield to him under the unanimous consent agreement.

The Senator has summed it up very well. And at least reduce royalties.

The Senator is absolutely right. It is Congress that kept ladling out this money and the President, to his credit, has been making the point that these subsidies are not needed.

The General Accounting Office has said this program will cost, at a minimum, $20 billion. I am looking at the headline of the newspaper that ``GAO Sees Loss in Oil Royalties of At Least $20 Billion,'' but one of the calculations has been $7 billion.

That is over 25 years. And the cost, if the litigation that is underway is successful, the evidence indicates that could add up to $80 billion. The entire supplemental is $100 billion, so depending on how this litigation turns out before too long, the amount of money involved could be close to the cost of the entire supplemental.

Again, I think the Senator has summed it up. The price of oil has doubled in the last 5 years. The Senator from Arizona asks about last year. I think, again, speaking off the top of my head, it was somewhere in the middle sixties somewhere, the price of oil per barrel. But I think the bottom line is, the Senator from Arizona is correct, it is now well over $70 a barrel. And that is vastly higher than the amount the President says would warrant an incentive.

I am very grateful for the Senator from Arizona getting into this discussion because what I have tried to do is ensure we will have royalty relief when it is needed. Essentially one of two conditions would be met, and then you could have the royalty relief resume. One is, as the Senator from Arizona has said, the price of oil falls and you do need incentive.

The other, which, in effect, gives the President of the United States the last word, is a stipulation that allows the President, through the Secretary of the Interior, to say--if we need to prevent a disruption of supply; if the President determines we would have a disruption of supply at this crucial time when our country is at war--then the President of the United States can say: We will resume the Royalty Relief Program because we need this incentive for production; it is my judgment that without this Royalty Relief Program we would have a disruption in supply.

Mr. President, before he leaves, I hope the Senator can stay a bit longer as well because I so appreciate his insight and input on this issue.

The Senator from Arizona has been making these points ever since--in the Finance Committee and in the Energy Committee we were talking about this legislation. And you and I and others said: Let's think through now how to use scarce taxpayer resources wisely. Let's take out a sharp pencil and say there are going to be some areas that you set aside, and there are going to be some areas you promote.

I have been talking about Senator Thomas's efforts at some length here today because I think Senator Thomas gets it in terms of what we ought to be looking at as far as our long-term needs in terms of production.

The Senator from Arizona said we should be taking our hat off to people who produce energy. I certainly second that. And I am glad the Senator has done that. I want to say I think what we are trying to do in our amendment--and you and I and Senator Lieberman in particular--is we are saying not only do we want to be supportive verbally of what people are doing to produce energy in our country, but we want to say, as we have outlined in the royalty relief amendment we are talking about here, is they can get royalty relief when it is needed. In other words, this is not a bunch of verbiage where people come over to the floor of the Senate and say: Oh, maybe you will be able to do this; maybe you will be able to do that.

I think what we have spelled out, as a result of your thoughtful questioning, is that when relief is needed--either the prices are down or we have a threat of disruption--not only are we going to say we are for the producers, we are going to back it up, and they will be in a position of being able to secure that royalty relief support.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona for additional questioning.

I thank my friend from Arizona.

I would also say with respect to this issue of relevance, not only would we be able to save a significant chunk of the tab for this overall emergency supplemental, but the House, the other body, at page 64 of their bill, talks specifically about the Minerals Management Service. So we are already seeing some concern, at least on the part of the other body, that the Congress ought to be looking at this program.

So it is my hope--and you were talking about making sure there is an effort to watchdog this program. Now is when you watchdog it because the spigot is on, and it is gushing taxpayer money. It is gushing taxpayer money at a time when the Government does not have it. And the Government's lack of funds has forced the distinguished Senator from Mississippi to come and work on an emergency spending measure because the Government does not have any money.

So I think that highlights why this is so important. And, once again, well into 3 hours of discussion on this, I want to review for colleagues that we have not been able to work out an arrangement to get a chance to vote on this as part of a batch of amendments. No Senator has come to the floor to speak against this amendment. No Senator, neither political party, has said this amendment is off base.

What we just heard from the distinguished Senator from Arizona, who sits on both the Finance Committee and the Energy Committee, is that we need this. We need this to make sure we watchdog the use of taxpayer dollars. This program worked in the 1990s.

It boosted oil production substantially. We were all glad to see it. But the fact is, the President says we can get the production now without these kinds of subsidies when the price of oil is over $70 a barrel. I am hopeful we can continue to work--I see the chairman of the full committee, Senator Cochran, here to get it worked out--so that we could do what is customary in the Senate, and that is make this amendment part of a batch of amendments.

I do want the Senate to know a little bit about the payment terms of this program and how this program works in terms of royalties and rentals. I will read a little bit from a Congressional Research Service report that describes it. The leases are conditioned upon payment to the Government of a royalty of at least 12.5 percent in amount

or value of oil or gas production that is removed or sold from the leased land. Leases subject to rates in effect after December 22, 1987, generally pay a 12.5-percent royalty, but this percentage can increase if a lease is canceled because of late payments and then reinstated. The Secretary of Interior also has the power to reduce the oil royalty on a noncompetitive lease if it is deemed to be equitable to do so.

Once again, we are talking about very favorable terms for the companies. We are talking about noncompetitive leases. We are talking about something I don't think anybody sees in the private sector in Mississippi or Louisiana or Oregon, but yet that is the way we do business in this particular program.

The Congressional Research Service goes on to say: For oil and gas leases, the royalty must be paid in value unless the Department of the Interior specifies that a royalty payment in kind is required. Once the royalty has been paid, the Secretary is required to sell any royalty or gas except whenever, in their judgment, it is desirable to retain the same for the use of the United States.

That is the heart and soul of how this program works. The Secretary is given this extraordinary waiver authority to suspend or reduce rentals and royalties under certain conditions. Unfortunately, we have seen some problems in terms of the Secretary using that discretion. That is one of the reasons I have come to the floor and raised this concern.

Senators know who is getting the profits. I have tried to talk about the trifecta: The profits that are being made, the mandatory spending that goes out the door in terms of this program. Then we have the granddaddy of them all, the question of royalty relief. What it really comes down to is the Senate's saying, after years of decisions being made about this program behind closed doors, we are actually going to have a debate about this and at some point work out a way to take a vote on it. I don't think that is an unreasonable position.

This is a program that is out of control. This is a program that ensures that billions of subsidy dollars will fly out the door, even when the President says it is not necessary. The price of oil is $70 a barrel plus right now. The President said hold the line on the subsidies when it is over $50 a barrel. The Royalty Relief Program holds no lines.

Essentially, the Royalty Relief Program is a wish list for a handful of very powerful interests who have figured out how, behind closed doors, to have their way with the program. This is the sweetest of the sweetheart deals. It needs to change. I would like to see a Senator come to the floor and defend the Royalty Relief Program as it is presently constituted. This involves billions and billions of dollars.

For example, think about what we could do for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. That is a program about which many Senators have been concerned. Think about what we could do for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program if we reconfigured the Royalty Relief Program to one essentially based on need, with prices going down, or supply disruption being the only factors in making a decision about whether to have the royalty relief.

We could have plenty of money left over for deficit reduction, even after helping the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

The Senator from Mississippi has a bill that has a number of provisions in it I strongly support. But budgets are about choices. As a Senator, I cannot explain to the people of my State how a program like this is going to be run like business as usual. When billions of dollars are shoveled out the door, when independent audits continually site the lack of controls, when the companies that look to this program give one set of facts to one agency and another set of facts to another agency, that is unacceptable. That is what I want to change. I guess we will be here on the floor of the Senate a while in order to try and get it worked out.

I am reading again from news reports. The General Accounting Office has said that the best case for the amount of money that would be lost to the American taxpayer is $20 billion. The press has already reported that this would involve an instance where energy prices are over what is called the so-called threshold in the years ahead. The companies that have sought this have won a huge victory at taxpayers expense. They have won legal victories in the past. All the more reason for Congress to step in and establish some accountability and ground rules. There are prospects that if they win their next lawsuit, we could be spending another $50 or $60 billion over the years ahead on top of the most optimistic projection for the cost of the program, which would be $20 billion. We are talking about big sums of money.

I would like to read from a report that shows how conservative these numbers are. The New York Times said, in an analysis of this program, that the General Accounting Office based its estimate on the assumption that crude oil would sell for about $45 a barrel, a level well below what was then the $66 cost in the futures market. So these are very conservative projections. I am concerned that with the General Accounting Office lowballing the cost of the program, the tab to the taxpayers will be much greater than anyone has envisioned.

I hope Senators will want at some point to come to the floor and see if we can work out a way to vote, look at further suggestions and revisions. If they don't, we will have to stay at it and continue to talk about this issue.

I want to address one of the issues that came up in the discussion over the Energy bill, that somehow this program wasn't going to cost taxpayers any money. Folks said that with a straight face. They said: No, it is not going to cost people any money. We are going to have to figure out a way to deal with this issue.

They said: It is not going to cost people any money. That statement was made by some of the supporters of the program back in 1995. They said in 1995 this would produce revenue for taxpayers, and they were concerned that people were somehow saying otherwise.

The reality is, this has not been a no-cost program. This has been a pricing program. This is a program that is going to cost the taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. It is the biggest of the programs. I am still struck by the discussion that we had with Senator Nelson earlier. Senator Nelson was concerned about a program that cost a billion dollars. That is a lot of money to taxpayers, a billion-dollar subsidy. Here we are talking about a program that could go to $80 billion. Senator Cochran's supplemental comes in, I believe, in the vicinity of $100 billion. Depending on how the litigation plays out, the amount of money involved comes to an amount equal to what will be spent in this emergency supplemental.

This is a subsidy that is more than a dubious use of taxpayer resources. This is a subsidy for which there is no logical argument at all. We are not seeing low prices. We are not seeing an investment climate with ominous signs over it--quite the opposite. We are seeing an investment climate in energy that is certainly promising. If we look at stocks and profits and the like, energy prices have been very high. We are not talking about crude oil selling for $16 a barrel. Back in 1995, that is what they were talking about. They were talking about crude oil selling for $16 a barrel.

Let's think about that. In 1995, when this program was originated, when there was a discussion about how to proceed and move ahead, the price was $16. Now we have prices at over $70 a barrel. How can one argue that a program that was conceived at a time when we were talking about prices of under $20 a barrel is needed when the price of oil is over $70 a barrel? That is what we are dealing with here, and that is why I and others want to rein in this program.

To furnish all of this royalty relief on top of the record profits and on top of the record cost, I don't get. I don't get how, when you have the industry prospering as it is today, and taxpayers, particularly the middle class, feeling the crunch, how do you make the argument that you ought to use taxpayer dollars this way?

I have introduced tax reform legislation targeted to the middle class. The reason I have is that the middle class today is being squeezed as we have never before seen. Certainly, we have not seen it in the last 50 years. For the last 50 years, when corporate profits

have gone up, when you have seen increases in productivity, the middle class has benefited. We have seen them enjoy the fruits of expanded profits and productivity. We are not seeing that today.

The middle-class folks from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Oregon are getting shellacked. This bill cannot do everything that is needed for the middle class, certainly, but it seems to me what we can say is the middle-class person should not see their tax dollars used for a program such as this that is totally out of control. I wish to see middle-class folks get a break. When I have my community meetings at home--and, like other Senators, I get to every part of the State--I have these open meetings and folks can come in. Almost always the second word is ``bill.'' First, it is medical bill, and then gas bill, then home heating bill, then mortgage bill, then tax bill. The middle-class folks cannot keep up.

So if the Senate keeps this program going in its current form, as opposed to what I am trying to do, which is to reconfigure it, target it to where it is needed, what will happen when Senators go home and middle-class people ask them about what is being done? In effect, what is happening is that tax dollars from middle-class people, at a time when they need a break and some relief--they would have to say that essentially they go into the coffers of the Government and then out they go in terms of billions of dollars of royalty relief, when the President of the United States says it is not necessary. That doesn't make any sense.

This is essentially a debate about priorities. What I think we ought to be doing, especially on this middle-class issue, where people making $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, or $70,000 have been hit so hard and they are living payday to payday--that is how middle-class folks get by. They get their paycheck and they use it until the next one comes along. The Federal Reserve said not long ago that middle-class people have seen virtually no increase in their net worth over the last 5 years.

Whose side is the Senate on? Are we on the side of those who want to keep milking this Royalty Relief Program, at a time when it is not needed, at a time when we are seeing record profits and record costs or are we on the side of middle-class folks? I want to be on the side of middle-class folks. I want to better protect the use of their tax dollars. This is the most flagrant waste of tax dollars I have seen in a long time. That is why no Senator comes to the floor of this body to defend it.

This is such an exorbitant expenditure. This is such a waste of taxpayer dollars that no Member of the Senate wants to come to this floor and defend the way this program is now being run. That is what it comes down to. Nobody wants to defend it, but somehow we cannot work out a way to get a vote and to actually see where the Senate stands on whether this program ought to continue as it is, or whether the Senate is willing, as I am proposing, to try to change it and make sure that instead of special interests and lobbyists being able to hotwire this whole program behind closed doors and talk to people at the Department of Energy, that we stand up for the public. It is all about choices.

At a unique time in our country's history, when we are seeing an extraordinary economic transformation, when the people of Louisiana, Oregon, and Mississippi are not just competing against somebody down the road and we are competing against tough global markets--those in China and India--I want to see us change our priorities. I want to see us pay for this legislation responsibly.

Senator Cochran has a bill that in many respects, I believe, makes a lot of sense. I am anxious to go forward with his legislation and see, on a bipartisan basis, how we can deal with the emergency needs of our country. What I am not willing to do, however, is to look the other way on this program any longer. I am not willing to do it. We may have a vote at some point. Maybe I will prevail and maybe I will not. When I talked to Senator Cochran this morning, we were talking about the way the Senate works. The Senator from Mississippi has always been very fair in the past. He said: Look, the Senate debates and then the Senate has, through its customs and rules, a way to ensure that the Senate takes a position. That is all I am asking. I am asking that the Senate do what it customarily does. What we do, as far as I can tell, practically every single week we are in session--almost every week I have been here, we deal with a variety of issues that come up from Senators in the form of amendments. The amendments are debated and then the Senators have an opportunity to have the Senate go on record on their particular amendment as a part of a group of measures that are considered. That is not what is going on here. I am curious why.

I wish we would hear from some who possibly oppose the legislation why we cannot do what is done virtually every week in the Senate, which is to have a debate, have a discussion, and then the Senate makes a judgment on whether a particular amendment or effort is meritorious.

I see the distinguished Senator from Washington, who is such a wonderful advocate for the Pacific Northwest. She has done extraordinary work, particularly on infrastructure, on port security, on making sure we have good investments in transportation. You cannot have big league quality of life with a little league transportation system. So what we find is when the Senator from Washington wants to see scarce dollars go into infrastructure and into port security, and a number of the valuable areas she has been advocating, we cannot do that because a minimum of $20 billion is going to be lost to this particular program, and if the litigation is successful, it will be $80 billion.

So, again, this is going to come down to choices. I like the kinds of choices the distinguished Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, has been talking about. I think she said we ought to focus on middle-class folks, we ought to focus on infrastructure, we ought to focus on a handful of choices in a difficult budgetary climate. But it is not going to be possible to have the resources the distinguished Senator from Washington has been talking about if you continue to throw money out the door in a wasteful fashion. That is what it is all about.

This is not very complicated. It has been documented. How the Senate can essentially stiff the General Accounting Office on its recommendations to get some controls on this program is beyond me. I guess that is still what some wish to do. But I am going to do everything I can to prevent it. This program, as Senator Bennett Johnston said some time ago, is not what was intended. Those are not my words. Those are not the words of Senator Kyl or Senator Lieberman, my cosponsors of this particular effort. Those are the words of the author of the legislation, who hails from the same State as the distinguished Senator in the chair. So with the author of the program saying it wasn't intended, with people all across the political spectrum saying you don't need royalty relief in this particular climate, I wish to see the Senate take a position up or down as to whether this kind of royalty relief is needed.

If the Senate doesn't, it seems to me what the Senate is saying is we will do business as usual, in terms of all of these subsidies. In other words, we talk a lot about tax breaks and the like and what we might be doing on some of them. This is the biggest subsidy. This is No. 1. This is the one that counts if we are serious about all of the speeches that are given about cutting back needless subsidies to the oil sector. Senator Nelson summed it up very well. He was concerned about spending a billion dollars in terms of a subsidy program that was ill-advised. I think Senator Nelson is on track, and I am anxious to find out more about the program he is concerned about. But that is a tiny fraction of what is at issue.

So I think if the Senate is concerned about changing our energy policy, at a time of record profits, at a time of record prices, it cannot duck the big ticket items. You cannot say you are serious about using taxpayer money more prudently and then pass on the programs such as this one at the Minerals Management Office that count. In particular, you should not duck them when all of the evidence indicates that the historical rationale for starting this program in the 1990s, with low prices and a need to boost production, isn't present any longer.

I see colleagues on the floor. I see my friend from Colorado, Senator

Salazar. He did extraordinary work in what was called, I think, the Gang of 14, I believe, in terms of getting the Senate to come together on some judicial nominations. Perhaps he can work his great talent into finding a way for us to move ahead now. Senator Murray is also one who is no weak soul in terms of parliamentary procedure. I see two good friends on the floor.

I am happy to yield to my friend under the unanimous consent agreement.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I am very anxious to accommodate the distinguished Senator from Colorado. I will tell colleagues I am vastly more interested in accommodating my colleague than anyone can imagine at this point. But my understanding, and I need to have this clarified by the Chair, is that if I were to do what the distinguished Senator from Colorado has asked, I would lose my opportunity to automatically come back to the floor; is that a correct interpretation?

Mr. President, I hope it is not because I would love to do exactly what the Senator from Colorado has asked.

That is probably one of the most encouraging things I have heard in hours.

If I can respond, just to ensure that we are absolutely correct on this point, what I would like to do--and, hopefully, we can work it out in a matter of minutes----

Without losing my right to the floor immediately after the question; of course, I yield.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

I am only stating this reservation to be able to propound a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. If the unanimous consent request is propounded exactly as the distinguished Senator from Washington has so stated, would it be possible for the Senator from Colorado to offer his amendment and then the Senate would automatically return to consideration of my amendment?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Washington to modify her unanimous consent request so that at the conclusion of Senator Salazar's offering his amendment, not only would I be recognized but that we would again be dealing with my specific amendment so I would not lose the opportunity to come back to my amendment which is before the Senate after Senator Salazar has completed. So it would require a unanimous consent modification.

Mr. President, I very much regret the action of the distinguished Chair of the committee because I am extremely interested in having the Senator from Colorado be able to offer his amendment, and I thought that what the Senator from Washington did was very constructive.

I repeat, this Senator seeks no special treatment. I have been trying since last night, when Senators went home and I came to the floor to offer it, to do something that goes on in the Senate every single week. I know of no week since I have been in the Senate when the Senate has not done what it is that I hope to work out very quickly so that Senator Salazar can offer his amendment.

We have debates--mine, Senator Salazar, and others--and then the various amendments are clustered together so that at some point the Senate goes on record. I haven't asked for anything other than that.

The Senator from Mississippi has talked about various issues I have not addressed in any way. What I have said is, I would like to see the Senate do with my amendment what the Senate does every single week the Senate is in session, which is to bring together a group of amendments. That is all I am asking for and still hope to work out.

I yield to the Senator from Colorado for the purposes of his question.

Mr. President, I say to my friend, I wouldn't just like to take a breath, I would like to take multiple breaths at this point. Unfortunately, what we have been told by the Chair is that it is not possible to work out some kind of format so that at some point, as part of a batch of amendments, mine could be considered.

As to the question the Senator asked about working with the distinguished Chair of the committee, I will tell you that half an hour before the Senate came in, I called the distinguished Chair of the committee, and I asked that we do exactly what the Senator from Colorado said. In other words, I was concerned about just this scenario. And so about 9:30 or so, I called the distinguished chair of the committee, Senator Cochran, and said: I am willing to do somersaults to work this out so as to be fair to all Senators because having watched this program grow and grow behind closed doors, and watch this sugar-ladened program get sweeter and sweeter over the years, I have seen all the big decisions made behind closed doors. So fearing exactly what the Senator from Colorado has talked about, I called the chair of the committee at 9:30 in an effort to try to work this out.

Ever since 9:30--and now I guess we are about at 2 o'clock--that has been my interest. It will continue to be my interest.

The Senator from Colorado says I ought to have an opportunity to take a breath. I will tell him, I wish it was more than one.

Without losing, again, my place, of course.

Mr. President, if I can reclaim my time, the Senator from Mississippi is a person of enormous integrity. I agree with the vast majority of what the Senator has said with respect to our conversation. The only part I take exception to is I did not ask to be put to the head of the line. I have never asked to be put to the head of the line. I told my friend from Mississippi that I had offered the amendment last night, so it was the pending business, and I said, fearing exactly what we have seen, that I was open to just about any possible way to do what the Senate always does, and that is to have amendments considered, have them put in to a batch, and voted. So I simply want to say, because I do have the highest regard for the Senator from Mississippi, that I agree with the vast amount of what he has said, but I do take exception to the part where I asked to be put ahead of other Senators. I said I am open to working this out in any way. Frankly, I don't really care whether it is even in the first batch of votes that the Senate would take. If we can work it out so it is in the second batch of votes, fine by me as well.

I see now we have the Senator from New Mexico here who knows more about this program than anybody else, frankly, on the planet. I am glad he is here, and I hope we can have a discussion about this, because I have been troubled by the fact that we are not having debate about it, and maybe the presence of the Senator from New Mexico will get us to the point where we can get to a vote.

Senator Kyl and I both serve on the committee. Like you, Senator Cochran, Senator Domenici is very fair. He and I have disagreed on loads of issues. When I think of Senator Domenici, I always think of fairness--always. That is what I am interested in, having become a part of all of this. To me, fairness--fairness--is when the Senate has a debate, and we have had that now for many hours, and amendments are pulled together in a cluster, and I am open to being part of the first cluster or the second cluster. And maybe there are other ways to work this out. I would have been very pleased to have done what Senator Salazar and Senator Murray are talking about.

Would the Senator from New Mexico like me to yield to him for a question? I yield to the Senator, again, under the unanimous consent agreement.

Is the Senator asking a question?

I do. And in response specifically to the Senator, nothing in the amendment says that threshold couldn't be lower. Of course, the threshold should be addressed in a responsible way. All we are saying is that we are not going to shovel taxpayer money out when it is over $55 a barrel. But nothing in my amendment says the threshold couldn't be lower, and that is why it better targets the resources and would do something about it.

Again, the General Accounting Office is not some group with a political ax to grind; it is the Government Accountability Office, the people we hire as our auditors who have been talking about all the waste in this program.

As the distinguished chair of the committee knows because he has seen the letter from the Senators, this program is so riddled--so riddled-- with questionable issues, the companies don't even give the same facts to the government. They say one thing to the Securities and Exchange Commission and say another thing to the Department of the Interior, and the Department of the Interior people say: Well, we don't know what to make of it.

So I am very glad the Senator is on the floor, and if the Senator would be willing to work with me, I am interested in trying to do what Senator Kyl and I and Senator Lieberman have been working on with this bipartisan amendment. But in response to the particular point made by the chairman of the committee, nothing in this amendment says that the threshold couldn't be lower, and obviously it needs to be.

I think now the Senator from Colorado is next, and I yield to him.

Reserving my right to object, Mr. President.

Mr. President, again, wanting very much to accommodate the Senator from Colorado, could the Chair clarify that if we did what the Senator from Colorado is talking about exactly as he has so stated, that after that group of amendments, I believe it was six that the Senator from Colorado talked about, we would return to the amendment that I am offering being the pending business of the Senate?

Mr. President, I want to again highlight that this Senator very much wants to accommodate the Senator from Colorado and to do exactly what he is talking about--what I wanted to do hours and hours ago, but the chair of the committee is the one who has objected. I called the chair a half an hour before we went into session, knowing that we were really looking at the prospects of this kind of gridlock because I know the decisions about this multibillion-dollar boondoggle have always been made behind closed doors.

When I offered this amendment last night, and it was pending when he came in this morning, I knew there was the potential for this. I called the Senator from Mississippi a half an hour before we went into session this morning in an effort to try to work out what is done in the Senate all the time.

I see Senator Dodd here who is our leader on the Rules Committee and knows vastly more about this than I. But what I tried to say is let's do what is done in the Senate every single week. You consider a big batch of amendments, and at some point after both sides have been noticed, then you go to a vote. You go to a vote so that both sides are aware of what is going on.

I have also offered here that I wouldn't even be in the first cluster of amendments that were considered. So that, again, even though my amendment was pending last night, when we came in, we could have colleagues get the first votes. Colleagues would get the first votes before my amendment. But what I am forced to conclude, and why I am going to stay here and try to stand up for taxpayers, is that virtually nothing is acceptable other than what we saw in the Energy Conference agreement where oil royalty relief got sweeter for a handful of companies, after midnight, in the middle of the night, with no accountability.

This is a program with a minimum cost of $20 billion. If the litigation involving this program is successful, the tab for this program will be $80 billion. That is virtually the amount we are talking about in terms of emergency spending.

So the Senate is looking at the bizarre situation of having an emergency supplemental because the Government doesn't have the money. Yet even though we have an emergency supplemental, we are sending out the door billions and billions of dollars that the General Accounting Office has deemed wasteful. I don't think that makes sense.

I am willing, again, to yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, what Senator Salazar and I are both saying is we do not want to be at the head of the line, but we want to have a place in the line, which is the custom of the Senate. The custom is that you have these debates, you have these discussions, and at some point the leadership on both sides gets together. I see the distinguished leader, Senator Reid, and Senator Durbin. What happens is they get together with Senator Frist and Senator McConnell after everybody has had a chance to discuss their amendments. Then at some point you get in the queue.

I have enormous respect for the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. That is why I called him a half hour before we even went in today, in an effort to try to work this out. He consistently says I want to be at the head of the line; I want special treatment.

I don't want to be at the head of the line, but I think at some point Senators ought to have a place in line. My amendment was offered late last night because I stayed here, again anticipating the possibility of this. So it was pending when we came in.

So Senators are very clear, I am interested in working out what Senator Salazar wants to do. I am interested in amendments being clustered as we traditionally have done in the Senate. What I am not willing to do is this: At a time of record profits, at a time of record costs, I am not willing to sit by while record amounts of royalty relief are handed out while all of the independent auditors say it ought to be stopped.

I have read to my colleagues, for example, that in the other body the chair of the natural resources committee, Congressman Pombo--hardly anti-oil, as our good friend, the chair of our Energy Committee, knows; Congressman Pombo has consistently been proproduction--Congressman Pombo says we don't need this incentive for production. Those are his words, you don't need an incentive for production at a time when oil is $70 a barrel.

Senator Dodd and Senator Dorgan have a variety of approaches they want to explore with respect to the Tax Code, and Senators will weigh in, one way or another. There is a trifecta of programs now. There are tax breaks, there is mandatory spending, and there is royalty relief, which is the granddaddy of all of these breaks. I do not see how we can justify sweetening this sugar-laden giveaway again and again and do it behind closed doors.

I have been out here I guess upwards of 4 hours. I sure wish this were not necessary. I would certainly like to do what Senator Salazar has been talking about, which is get an order for these amendments and all of us find a reasonable place in line. But I am not going to sit by while taxpayers get fleeced again. I am just not. I may lose when it comes time, if we can get one, to vote, but until then I am just going to hold forth.

We have colleagues here. Senator Dodd, for example, knew the author of the program very well. Senator Bennett Johnston was the author of the program. Senator Bennett Johnston has said nothing like what we have seen was what he intended.

There are no people arguing on behalf of doing business as usual, as I guess some in the Senate want to consider. But all of the independent experts--the lawyers for Shell oil company--again not the first place you look for anti-oil kinds of arguments--the lawyers for Shell oil company say you don't need this kind of break in this sort of climate. So you have Congressman Pombo, you have the folks from Shell oil company, you have the author of the program, Senator Bennett Johnston-- all of them weighing in.

If the litigation that is now underway with respect to this program is successful, I would say to colleagues, the tab for this program could be $80 billion. The emergency supplemental is $100 billion. So over the life of this program, it could come to a very significant fraction of what we need to do in terms of the emergency spending. The distinguished chair of the committee is on his feet, and I am glad to recognize him for a question at this time, keeping my place here on the floor.

To respond to the chairman, I am very much aware. It is clear that some of those in the Clinton administration--and I have talked about this at some length. Frankly, those omissions by midlevel people in key level positions in the Clinton administration have contributed mightily to this problem. If they had been doing their job and been watching this threshold question, we would not be in this problem.

I think the chairman knows, I believe energy policy has to be bipartisan. We have the distinguished Senator from Tennessee in the chair. I have been talking to him for some weeks on an innovative approach we would like to explore. I want to do business in a bipartisan way. I think I was bipartisan, frankly, before it even became fashionable around here. But I am telling you this has to end. I am glad the Senator from New Mexico has brought up the point about how we got into the situation.

By the way, during the Clinton years when folks weren't watchdogging this program, as I say--the Senator from New Mexico knows a lot more about this than I do--the price of oil was $34 a barrel. We were talking about a price that was a fraction of the cost right now. So what you have is a program that was designed when the price of oil was $16 a barrel. The folks in the Clinton administration muffed the ball in the middle of 1990 when the price was $34 a barrel. Now the President of the United States comes along and says, to his credit, let's knock off the subsidies

at a time when the price of oil is more than $50 a barrel. That is what I am trying to do in this particular amendment.

This program made sense in the middle 1990s, when folks in the oil patch were hurting. Probably Senator Dodd remembers a bit of that history. Senator Johnston, whom we all respect so much, came to people in the Senate and talked about the need for the program. Folks in that part of the country were hurting, and the price of energy was very low. There was a good argument saying there was a role for Government.

I have sat in many hearings with the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee where we talked about the notion that there is a role for the private sector, a role for Government. We want production. What I have done in my amendment is say--Senator Kyl and I got a little bit into this--not only are we going to put a lot of verbiage behind the notion that we are going to support production, what I said is, if there is any evidence this incentive is needed--the President says we will have a disruption of supply--if the price of oil goes down, bingo, the Government can get back into the royalty business. That is what we are trying to do here.

I recall that energy conference committee, I say to my friend from New Mexico. The decisions were made on this particular provision after midnight. I am not even completely sure how it came about. I don't believe I was even in the room. But this time, the Senate is going to take a position, if I have anything to say about it. As colleagues know, I have had plenty to say in the last 4\1/2\ hours. I very much want this worked out so we can get to the point of a vote.

Did the distinguished chairman want the floor?

Let me propound a parliamentary inquiry. I would very much like to do what Senator Domenici, the chair of the Energy Committee, has asked for. If I yield to him to speak for any amount of time, will I lose my place to be able, on the pending amendment, to speak on it? Would the Chair so advise at this point?

Mr. President, my understanding is that puts us in exactly the same position as we had with Senator Salazar. I would like to make the same offer to the distinguished chair of the committee, because I would very much like to respond positively to his request, if we can work with the staffs to propound a parliamentary request to deal with what the chairman, the Senator from New Mexico, has asked. I would very much like to do it. Perhaps we can get our staffs together and perhaps work it out.

Reserving my right to object.

Again I think we have to be very clear on this. If the Senator from New Mexico is granted his unanimous consent request and he speaks for whatever time he desires--frankly, probably more power to you if you go longer--if he speaks for whatever time the Senator from New Mexico desires, does it automatically come back to me to speak on my pending amendment? That is what I am asking the Chair.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry?

I wish to be clear that what the Senator from New Mexico asked for was a request to speak for 5 minutes and then we would return to consideration of my amendment specifically in its current form, and I would be recognized to speak on my amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for propounding that unanimous consent request because I think now it is clear what has happened in the Senate; that is, it will not be possible to get an up-or-down vote at any point on rolling back this outrageous boondoggle that wastes taxpayer money.

My good friend from New Mexico made the point, and I want to kind of summarize it because I think we are getting close to being able to wind down.

Of course, I yield to my friend.

The distinguished Democratic leader is exactly right. We have done summersaults since last night. I called the chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, half an hour before we went in in an effort to try to work it out. I have been supportive of Senator Salazar's request. But what we saw in the last few minutes is the ball game--you can't get a vote up or down in the Senate on a ripoff of taxpayer money. It is not me who concluded it; the General Accounting Office has done that. The Shell Oil Company says we don't need this particular incentive right now.

In the other body, the chairman of the natural resources committee says you don't need it. Even the author of the bill says it is not working as he intended.

But what we saw as a result of the request of the Senator from Nevada is that the Senate is not going to take a position on the granddaddy of all oil company subsidies. This is the biggest, folks. This is the one that really counts.

I want to respond briefly to the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici essentially said a little bit ago that there were great problems in 1998 and 1999 with some in the Clinton administration who weren't watchdogging the program. I very much share the chairman's view. I talked about this probably two or three times over the course of the morning and early afternoon.

Where I take exception with my friend, however, is he essentially said the Clinton administration caused all of these problems, and along came Secretary Norton who cleaned it up. That was essentially the argument.

I would like to read verbatim and then enter into the Record a discussion in the New York Times of what happened under Secretary Norton. While I respect the chairman of the committee tremendously, I want the Senate to know what happened over the last few years.

Gale Norton, who stepped down this month as Interior

Secretary, moved quickly to speed up approval of new drilling

permits. Starting in 2001, she offered royalty incentives to

shallow-water producers who drilled more than 15,000 feet

below the sea bottom. In January 2004, Ms. Norton made the

incentive far more generous by raising the threshold price.

Her decisions meant that deep-gas drillers were able to

escape royalties in 2005 when prices spiked to record levels

and would probably escape them this year as well.

Continuing to quote:

She also offered to sweeten less generous contracts the

drillers had signed before the regulation was approved.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

There we have it, folks. In essentially the late 1990s-- 1998-1999--as the distinguished chairman of the committee has pointed out, the Clinton administration dropped the ball. No question about it. It was costly to taxpayers.

But I have just read a recitation of how the Secretary of the Interior compounded the problem and how on her watch the sweetener got even sweeter. The price of oil was still shooting up. The price of oil had doubled over the last few years, and she just kept ladling out the sugar. It just kept coming.

Then, on top of it, we had the energy conference agreement between the House and the Senate. So on top of the problem that we see stemming from the last administration and then Secretary Norton sweetening the pot even more, we then had in the energy conference agreement additions to the royalty program, additions at a time when clearly they were not in the public interest.

I think we are close to being able to move ahead in the Senate. I want to have some discussion with the floor manager, the distinguished Senator from Washington.

But what we have seen in the last few minutes as a result of the unanimous consent request propounded by the Senator from Nevada is that this Senate will not be allowed to vote at any time on the granddaddy of all of the subsidies. We have tried to work out arrangements to have a vote that would be fair to both sides. I have propounded a variety of requests through the Chair in an effort to do it. But somehow for some reason continuing this outrageous use of taxpayer money seems to be the big priority around here.

I am staggered. I can't understand. I cannot understand why the Senate would say at a time of record profits, at a time of record prices, it would want to continue to dispense record royalty relief.

The President of the United States said, to his credit, that we don't need all of these incentives when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel. This program started when the price of oil was $16 a barrel.

As the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has indicated, the last administration muffed it when the price of oil was $34 a barrel. But Secretary Norton has made it worse. The energy conference agreement adds more sugar on top of it. I wish to see the Senate step in and protect the public.

I see my good friend from Illinois.

I am happy to yield.

I thank the Senator from Illinois for his question. We tried to get into this something like 5 hours ago. It is very helpful to have the Senator from Illinois asking exactly the question he has asked.

The way this program works is that the oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. In order to stimulate production when the price of oil was cheap, the Federal Government reduced the amount of royalty payments the companies had to make.

It is my view and the view of all of the independent experts, including our former colleague in the House, Congressman Pombo, who chairs the Committee on Resources, it is the view of all of these experts across the political spectrum that with the price of oil soaring to over $70 a barrel, the discounted royalty payments amount to a needless subsidy of billions and billions of dollars. The General Accounting Office has estimated that at a minimum it would be $20 billion. There are projections because there is litigation underway.

For some oil companies, even this is not enough, so they keep litigating and trying to get more and more and more. There are estimates that if the litigation is successful, the Government would pay $80 billion just in royalty relief. And that $80 billion would pay a significant fraction of the entire cost of this emergency spending bill.

I think the Senator has said it very well. In a climate such as this, when prices are high, they get to privatize their gains and socialize their losses. This makes no sense at all. This is a program designed for a period when production was down and the price of oil was very low.

What I have tried to do--because I have spent a lot of hours sitting next to the distinguished chairman of our committee, the Energy Committee, who points out, and correctly so, that energy is a volatile part of our economy--I made an exception so that if the President of the United States says there is going to be a supply disruption or the price of oil falls back down again, bingo, we are back to looking at royalty relief.

The Senator from Illinois puts it very well.

To drive home the point, I say to the Senate, particularly the Senator from Illinois who did great work on the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, we could have taken care of the needs of the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program plus have money left over for deficit reduction if we were to stop this wasteful expenditure of taxpayer funds.

The Senator asks a very good question. This is the granddaddy, this is the biggest subsidy the Government gives--to the oil sector.

The General Accounting Office, which did a review of this, indicates that a minimal projection is $20 billion for the cost of the program. If the litigation is successful, it is up to $80 billion.

What we have is, at a time when middle-class folks, the people who are living paycheck to paycheck and being squeezed as hard as they are, at a time when our Government ought to be looking at trying to give them a break, give them a bit of help, what we are seeing is the middle-class folks have their tax dollars flow into the Federal Government and go out in terms of royalty relief at a time when the price of oil is vastly above the amount the President has indicated. It is for that reason I felt so strongly about this.

I also point out this is a program that grew under Secretary Norton. After the initial mistakes with the previous administration, it was added to by the energy conference legislation between the House and the Senate which sweetened the sweetheart deal even more.

I am saying this is enough. We do not need record royalty payments on top of record profits and on top of record prices. I have said I will draw the line. I have not done anything like what I have done today in the Senate since I have been here. I have had the pleasure of serving with the distinguished Senator from Illinois for a long time, going back to the days when I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. I have never done anything like this. I regret this tremendously. But we have to protect the taxpayers of this country.

I am happy to yield if the Senator from Illinois has anything further.

That is exactly what I have been seeking since last night when I called the distinguished chairman of the committee, and what I indicated, contrary to what has been said in the Senate, I am not seeking any special treatment. I have not been seeking to be put first in the line. What I have been seeking is what I have seen virtually every week since I have been in the Senate.

The distinguished Senator from Illinois is an expert in the rules, and it is my understanding that what we customarily do, we debate a variety of amendments, then we cluster them into a group, five, six, eight--sometimes the number will vary--and at some point the Senate goes on a vote.

I offered to the chairman of the committee to be put in the second or third cluster. I don't have to go first if colleagues feel strongly about this, but at some point it seems to me we ought to say the Senate is accountable, at a time with record profits and record prices, for a program that is the biggest of them all. That is the Royalty Relief Program.

I am happy to yield further.

I thank my colleague from Illinois. That is essentially my desire.

What we have seen, particularly in the discussion between the distinguished Democratic leader and the chairman of the committee, is it is the intent of those who oppose this amendment that they will not allow a vote. Not now, not at any point. That is what we have learned as a result of the discussion between the distinguished Senator from Nevada and the distinguished chairman of the committee, for whom I have a great deal of respect but simply disagree with on this point.

We have heard people say, I am asking for special treatment, that I want to go first. That is not the case. I respect the rights of all Senators. I offered the last amendment before the Senate adjourned last night which made my amendment pending this morning. I have asked a variety of times now to work something out with Senator Salazar and the chairman of the committee, the chairman from Mississippi, and that is not possible, so the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, called the question. He basically asked, are we ever going to get a chance to vote. It is clear we will not.

That is very unfortunate. In a few minutes--my friend from Colorado has been here and has been so patient--I will probably take one last crack at seeing if we can protect taxpayers' interests and see if we can work something out to do what the Senate normally does, which is to cluster these

amendments. If that is not the case, I could talk until I fell over, frankly, but it is clear the folks who are opposed to this do not want to vote in any way, shape, or form. They are saying at a time of record profits, at a time of record prices, we ought to keep ladling out this money. As the Senator from Illinois said, this is on the people's land. We are talking about oil companies extracting oil not from land they own but from land that belongs to the people of this country.

So a judgment was made in the 1990s, give energy development a break from the price of oil, when the price of oil is low, when production is down. It made sense then. It boosted production in those critical times. However, it certainly does not make sense to argue for a program when the price of oil is over $70 a barrel and you compare that to what we saw when this program originated; the price of oil was $16 a barrel, a fraction of what people are paying, and production was also down at that time.

This comes down to a question of choices. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the taxpayer in an instance where the General Accounting Office has documented what a rip-off this program has become or are you on the side of a handful of special interests that have figured out a way to hotwire this special program that gives them such great advantages?

I wish the case were, as the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, has indicated, the problems were with the Clinton administration and then the next administration cleaned them up, but as I read into the record, the problem got worse. It got worse twice. First, as a result of the actions by the Secretary of the Interior; second, as a result of what was done in the energy conference agreement.

By the way, some of what we heard in the energy conference agreement was just preposterous, not from the Senator from New Mexico, but some in the energy conference agreement said: Oh, this oil royalty program has no cost. It doesn't cost anything at all.

Now, I do not know how in the world you argue that when the General Accounting Office and others have talked about billions and billions of taxpayer dollars flooding out the door. But I think it shows to what extraordinary lengths some will go to protect this program, which is such an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

My goodness, there are a lot of ways you could use $20 billion to $60 billion. How do you explain you are trying to pay for an emergency spending bill when the Government does not have the money to cover the emergency spending and yet you are still shoveling out billions and billions of taxpayer dollars, at a time when the President of the United States, to his credit, has said we do not need these incentives when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel?

So this has been, for this Member of the Senate, a very unique experience. I wish we could get a vote on this amendment. I think this does a disservice to the taxpayers of this country.

I wish to mention what it means in terms of the globe. I, like all Senators, see the men and women who honor us every single day by wearing the uniform for our country. They put themselves in harm's way. They risk their physical health, their mental health, their well-being, and put their families at risk because they honor us every day by wearing the uniform of the United States. It seems to me the people who wear that uniform and are fighting today on our behalf in Iraq deserve an energy policy that is going to make it less likely their kids and their grandkids are going to be off in the Middle East another time in the next few years in a war with implications for oil. To do that, to make our country's energy secure, we have to stop programs that rip off the taxpayers like this Royalty Relief Program.

Now that I see Senator Domenici here, I say to the chairman, I have tried to indicate in the course of the day that, frankly, one of the best things we have been talking about over the last few years comes from a Senator from your side of the aisle, Mr. Thomas. Senator Thomas makes the important point that we are probably losing something like a third of all the oil from existing wells, and we don't have incentives to go and do that drilling from existing wells.

I have been supporting Senator Thomas because I think it is good for production, and I think it is good for the environment, especially right now, because what we have learned in terms of environmental protection is that you can get more out of existing wells, capturing the gases, what is called sequestration, in order to protect the environment.

So I want it understood by colleagues: One, I want to work in a bipartisan way; two, I think that arguably what Senator Thomas has talked about is one of the best new ideas to get a fresh energy policy that is red, white, and blue. But I do not see how you are going to get incentives for the kind of constructive thing Senator Thomas has been talking about if you are shoveling money out the door for wasteful programs like royalty relief.

So I see the Senator from New Mexico is on his feet. I say to the chairman, the distinguished Senator from Colorado had asked I recognize him first. But let us structure this so the Senator from Colorado can ask his question, and then we will structure this so we can hear from the chairman of the committee.

The Senator from Colorado.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I do not want to give up the floor quite yet. I think the distinguished Senator from Colorado, through the Chair, has to ask me the question.

Five hours.

The distinguished Senator from Colorado has not actually propounded a unanimous consent request, but it is very much my interest in accommodating the Senator from Colorado.

I think, frankly, colleagues, to repeat, for those who are just coming in, after the discussion between Senator Reid and the Senator from Mississippi and the objection that was made by the distinguished chairman of the committee, it is evident that it will not be allowed that there be an up-or-down vote on the granddaddy of all of the subsidy programs for the oil industry.

This is the big one. This is the one that counts. And the Senate will not, as a result of the discussion between the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Mississippi, be allowing a vote on it. I believe that is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for taxpayers. It is a bad deal for our country. I do not believe that is the way the Senate ought to be doing business. But that is the judgment of the Senate. I respect the judgment of the Senate.

And let us now----

I certainly want to do that as part of our consent agreement.

I think we are winding down to a close. The Senator from New Mexico is no longer standing, but if he desires to ask a question, I want to give him the opportunity to do it.

Does the Senator from Colorado seek to ask a question?

Reserving the right to object.

Thank you, Madam President.

I am very interested in getting on with this. I do want to show deference to my good friend, the chair of the full committee, Senator Domenici. So what I would like to do next, before we try to finally work this out, is to, again, consistent with the unanimous consent agreement--if the chair of our full Energy Committee, on which I am proud to serve, would like to be recognized for a question, I would be happy to do that.

Reclaiming my time, so the Senate is clear, I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing my amendment. But it is evident, as a result of the discussion between Senator Reid and Senator Cochran, that there is no inclination or willingness on the part of some in the Senate for us to do what we customarily do, which is to take up these amendments, Senators talk about them, and after a number of them are talked about, we cluster the votes, we inform Senators of both political parties, and the Senate is held accountable.

I see the distinguished Senator from Virginia here, Mr. Warner, who, again, has seen many more instances of the Senate trying to work its will than I. But I would only say, in the time I have been here, virtually every week the Senate does what I have been seeking, which is that Senators discuss their amendments, they are then clustered, and at some point the Senate has a vote.

I have made it clear I am not interested in being first in line. I am not interested or committed to being part of even the first cluster of votes. That is not asking for special treatment. That is asking that the Senate do what it has done again and again and again. It is the custom of the Senate but apparently will not be the practice that is followed with respect to this sweetheart deal that wastes billions of taxpayer dollars at a crucial time in our country's history.

I am happy to yield for a question.

Reserving the right to object----

Madam President, I would like to respond briefly to the Senator from New Mexico, who I thought was going to ask a question. I see he is leaving the floor, but I would first say that if the distinguished Senator from New Mexico thinks what I am proposing is meaningless, I can't figure out why so many people have spent so much time and so much effort trying to avoid a vote on it. I don't get that. If this is so meaningless and so useless, it would seem to me we could have disposed of it about 10:15 in the morning.

It is clear that the reason there has been all this opposition to the amendment is because it really does address a key kind of question, and that is saving taxpayers money. If it were meaningless, we could have gone to a vote hours and hours ago. The people who have pushed the hardest for this program have always tried to do it in the shadows. This program was expanded after midnight in the energy conference committee. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico has left the floor, which is unfortunate because I would like to engage him in a dialog.

All that I have sought, as demonstrated through Senator Reid, is an opportunity to vote on this issue.

To once again deal with the key point the Senator from New Mexico has made, nothing in this amendment says the threshold couldn't be lower for dispensing this money. It simply says we should set an upper level that reflects what the President of the United States has said. If this amendment is as meaningless as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has said, let's go to a vote. Let's vote on it and save taxpayers money.

The General Accounting Office says this program is going to cost a minimum of $20 billion. If the litigation is successful, it will be $80 billion. While I have great respect for the Senator from New Mexico, his argument that all of this never costs or saves anything is what we have been hearing for years. We were told in the energy conference agreement between the House and the Senate that this program costs taxpayers nothing. Backers of this program in the debate between the House and the Senate said with a straight face that royalty relief costs taxpayers nothing. Now we have heard an argument that an effort to rein in the cost of this program is meaningless as well. I guess because, once again, we are

hearing that none of this costs money. It doesn't save any money. I guess this program just happens by osmosis.

That is not what the General Accounting Office says. If the litigation involving this Royalty Relief Program is successful and taxpayers are out $80 billion, the people of this country are going to remember this day. They are going to say that the Senate had a chance on a bipartisan basis to do something sensible, and that is to reconfigure this program to ensure that there is royalty relief when it is needed. The legislation says the President can run the Royalty Relief Program if there is any evidence that it would disrupt supply. The amendment says that if the price goes down, of course, the original rationale for this program, royalty relief could be paid.

This amendment puts in place the kinds of safeguards we need for a changing environment in the energy field. What it doesn't do is continue to write blank checks to a handful of special interests who even the author of the program has now described as getting something and being part of a program that was different than what he intended. This is not somebody who is hostile to the program; this is somebody who wrote the law and said this is not what was intended.

I am happy to yield. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for coming to the floor earlier and trying to get the opportunity for a vote on my amendment.

I appreciate the Senator's question, particularly in deference to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and all the help the distinguished leader has given me throughout. I would say that I would stay here all night. I would stay here until they literally had to take me off the floor because I couldn't stay here any longer to save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars on what amounts to the biggest giveaway to the oil industry. This is the one which really counts. Various other programs are a small fraction of the cost of it. I would stay here for as long as it took, if I thought the other side was willing at any point in any kind of fashion to allow an up-or-down vote on whether we are going to be on the side of the taxpayers or whether we are going to continue to side with the oil companies and protect a program which all the independent auditors say is a great waste of money.

But what we have seen over the course of the last 5\1/2\ hours is that the Senate is not going to be able on this issue to operate the way it customarily does, where you have amendments debated and discussed and then they are clustered for a vote. As summed up by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, they think something like this, once again, doesn't cost anything, when everybody who has looked at it independently says it is a huge drain of taxpayer money. I want to protect the middle-class folks and the folks who are hurting, whose taxpayer money flows in to Government and then flows out for this program at a time when the President of the United States has said the subsidy is not needed.

I would stay here all through the night if I thought the opponents were ever going to allow a vote. It is clear they are not.

We are going to come back to fight this another day, just as in the conference agreement, where those special interests sweetened the pot.

I am happy to yield.

Reserving the right to object, and it is not my desire to object, I think the point has been made. This is a sad day for the taxpayers of this country. When folks pull in to the gas station tonight and in the days ahead and they pay these record prices and they see these record profits, I hope they may have heard a little bit of the discussion here today, that while they are getting clobbered at the pump, the taxpayers are spending needlessly billions and billions of dollars, billions of dollars that are being wasted, not by my determination but by independent auditors. I wish that today we could have done right by all those middle-class folks and our citizens who pull up to the gas station. This is the big one, folks, in terms of energy subsidies. This is the one with the most money. This is the one there is no logical case for when oil is $70 a barrel. I am going to be back making this fight again and again, if the people of Oregon are willing.

Madam President, in deference to my colleagues who have been extraordinarily patient in the course of the day, while I do not withdraw my amendment, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is on his way. He wishes to present wrap-up, and then I have an amendment to offer.

Reserving the right to object--and I have no intention to object--my understanding was that I was going to be able to offer an amendment to the bill. I want to make sure that that amendment will be able to go first prior to morning business.

I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. President, the oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. Now, in order to stimulate production of oil in our country, the Federal Government over the last decade has been discounting these royalty fees. These discounts now amount to billions of dollars. It appears that the royalty relief that is given to the oil companies is now the granddaddy of all of the subsidies.

We have been talking considerably on the floor of this body over the last few days about tax breaks for oil companies. The President, it seems to me, to his credit, over the last few days has indicated that he understands that these tax breaks are no longer needed. I was very pleased to see that because when the energy executives came to the committee, I literally went down the row and asked them if they continued to need all of these tax breaks. They don't, but Congress has continued to ladle them out. But on top of these record profits, record prices, and record tax breaks, there is now record amounts of royalty relief granted to the oil companies as well.

Now that the prices have shot up, I don't see how anybody can justify this multibillion-dollar subsidy. The point of this amendment is to say that we are going to get rid of these special oil company discounts, the special breaks that amount to billions of dollars, unless the price of oil comes down, or unless the Bush administration indicates that royalty relief is necessary to avoid supply disruption.

Mr. President, it is astounding that there is a tremendous chorus now of support, saying that royalty relief is needed. Yet nobody seems to be doing anything concrete to roll back these unnecessary subsidies.

For example, to show the bipartisan interest in this, not long ago, a distinguished member of the other body who chairs the resources committee, Richard Pombo, said in a newspaper interview that there is no need for this particular incentive. That is not the head of some consumer group; that is the distinguished chairman of the resources committee, Mr. Pombo, from California. He has said there is no need for this kind of royalty relief. Mr. Michael Coney, a lawyer for the Shell Oil Company, said the same thing. He basically said that in this kind of climate you cannot make a case for this particular kind of multibillion-dollar subsidy.

The architect of the program, our former colleague, Senator Bennett Johnston, has said that what has taken place with respect to the royalty relief program isn't anything close to what he had in mind when he developed this program.

So what you have is a Democratic Member of the Senate saying let's roll back these subsidies unless the Bush administration certifies they are needed to avoid disruption or unless the price goes down, and let's do it because there is a bipartisan consensus that this Royalty Relief Program is completely out of whack.

By the way, Mr. President, I know you have had great interest in the effort to target these subsidies. You and I have talked about it on a number of occasions. Consistently what we find is the way these multibillion-dollar subsidies find their way on to our tax rolls and Government programs is on a bipartisan basis somebody messes up. Somebody isn't watchdogging the way these dollars fly out the door, and that was certainly the case with the Clinton administration.

Previously, there had been a particular provision in the Royalty Relief Program that said when the oil prices shot up, when they went above a certain level--then it was considered about $34 a barrel--the companies would have to, once again, start paying these royalties. But the Clinton administration just wasn't watching the store, wasn't watchdogging this program as they should have, and so they didn't put that particular clause--the clause that protects the taxpayers--into a number of these royalty relief agreements. What has happened is we just had a litigation derby with scores and scores of lawsuits.

Now the General Accountability Office estimates that at a minimum, the Federal Government is going to be out $20 billion. This is the biggest subsidy of them all, and given all of the litigation that has taken place, this subsidy could go up and up.

Under the Energy bill signed into law last summer, the oil companies were given new subsidies in the form of reduced royalty fees for the oil and gas they extract from Federal land, including offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. This particular new subsidy was signed into law when the companies were already reporting these extraordinary profits. We were already seeing the consumer taking a shellacking at the gas pump. It would have been the ideal time for the U.S. Congress to do what colleagues such as Congressman Pombo in the other body are talking about, lawyers for the Shell Oil companies tell the newspapers, what I and others and a bipartisan group who have been interested in this have said for a long time: It doesn't pass the smell test to be dispensing billions and billions of dollars of royalty relief to the oil companies on top of everything else they already receive from the taxpayers' wallet. So what I hope we will be able to do here is roll back this new subsidy.

By the way, the program was useful back when prices were low. For example, it significantly helped in the Gulf of Mexico at a time when prices were low. That is not the case now. As our colleague in the other body, Mr. Pombo, notes, they sure don't need any incentives when the marketplace is providing all the incentives anybody could possibly ask for.

Government subsidies, sure, when the price is low, when we have to stimulate production, when our economy needs a shot in the arm. But billions of dollars of royalty relief for oil companies in this kind of time? I don't get it, and tomorrow I hope a majority of the Senate will share my view and will share the view of other colleagues who have taken a good look at this particular program.

It seems to me this is a time when the Congress ought to say: Let's look carefully at all of these various subsidies and breaks. As the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has said, let's shine some light on it, let's take a sharp pencil out and really make some concrete judgments about what is in the taxpayers' interest.

At a time when consumers are already paying more at work, they are paying more at home, they are paying more when they drive everywhere in between, we ought to be giving them a break in their personal energy bills before we give breaks to the oil companies on the amounts they owe for drilling on our Nation's lands.

With oil selling for more than $70 a barrel, $15 a barrel higher than the price that the President said incentives were not needed, Congress should not be giving away more taxpayer money for more unnecessary subsidies that benefit profitable energy interests.

Let me highlight that particular point and explain why it is so pivotal in this discussion for royalty relief for oil companies.

The President of the United States said that he doesn't see the case for additional incentives and Government benefits to encourage production when oil is over $55 a barrel. Now we are talking about oil at $70 a barrel. We are talking about billions of dollars of new payments to the companies at a time when the General Accountability Office says the minimum tab will be $20 billion. And all I am saying to the Senate tonight is I want to cut off those payments unless one of two things happens: If the price of oil comes down, you bet, let's go back and say we need some incentives for production. If the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, the people who are in the administration who know a lot about the oil business say that we have to have these multibillion-dollar discounts in order to encourage production, my amendment doesn't apply.

In effect, the President of the United States can say we have to have the Royalty Relief Program in order to get the oil industry moving again in our country. But with prices high and no argument for these breaks, not on the basis of my judgment but on the basis of what the President has said in the past, I want to cut off these particular breaks.

I hope my colleagues will want to save our taxpayers money and promote fiscal responsibility. This is a program which is completely out of control. This is a program which has lost its moorings. You cannot defend this, in my view, in front of any group of our citizens. That is why a variety of leaders and individuals in the private sector, many of them coming from the oil industry itself, have said there is no logical argument for royalty relief at this particular time.

Certainly there are going to be some who will say it is never enough. There is litigation going on now where some companies are in court trying to secure additional information. I am looking at a recent article in the press authored by Edmund L. Andrews headlined: ``General Accounting Office Sees Loss in Oil Royalties of at Least $20 Billion.''

We know that the Government Accountability Office isn't an organization with any ax to grind. They are our nonpartisan investigators. Those are the people who take out the sharp pencil and are given the job of actually looking to see if taxpayer money is being used wisely. They have essentially said recently--this year, just months ago--that billions of dollars are going to be wasted with this Royalty Relief Program.

The Interior Department has indicated that they know they are going to lose billions of dollars in royalty payments. I don't see anybody saying that the price of oil is going to fall precipitously anytime soon. If it does, the President and the Department of Energy can essentially waive my amendment. We explicitly say that if the price of oil goes down, if there are any national security questions, any disruptions that threaten supply, the amendment can be set aside.

It is time to rein in these costs that are going through the stratosphere. The Royalty Relief Program is the granddaddy of all subsidies. I hope tomorrow, when the Senate has an opportunity to vote, we will say that we ought to prohibit further royalty relief, unless prices go down or we face a disruption, and save our citizens' hard- earned tax dollars for more worthy causes.

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request for wrap-up momentarily. I will also note, as I have been speaking on this amendment to forego some royalty relief for oil companies, that when we go back in at approximately 10 o'clock, I will continue a discussion regarding this amendment and hopefully have a chance to hear from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the adjournment of the Senate, the Record remain open this evening until 8:45 p.m. in order for Senator Frist or his designee to submit a statement relating to a notice of the suspension of the rules relative to the supplemental bill.

Mr. President, I would very much like to work on an energy policy in a bipartisan way. I think we all understand that the only way to get anything important done in Washington, DC, is to work in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, the same Bush administration that so tragically bungled the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has now bungled its way to $3-a-

gallon gasoline. And in particular, I am concerned that all of the evidence showed that this spring we would have these problems.

The administration, for example, has given Congress a variety of reports about how post-Katrina we would have evidence of a supply problem. With respect to the changeover from MTBE to ethanol, all the evidence was available many months ago. The Wall Street Journal was warning about it--that there would be huge logistical problems for service stations and others to make that changeover.

We know that ethanol--and the Senator from Illinois has been one of the leaders in this effort--is going to play an important role in America's gasoline future. Given that, this should have been an all- hands-on-deck approach at the administration trying to watchdog the transition from MTBE to ethanol. This is an administration with enormous expertise in the oil area. For all practical purposes, this is an administration that is almost marinated in oil. One official after another has a history and a background in this sector. Yet where was the Department of Energy? Where was the Environmental Protection Agency? Where was the Commodity Futures Trading Commission at a key time in our country's energy future?

With all the problems overseas--Nigeria, Venezuela, and Iraq producing a tiny fraction of what they were able to produce before the war--we knew that this was going to be a difficult time this spring.

I talked to a gasoline station owner last night. I pulled up and was faced with the prospect of $3.25 a gallon. That station owner said: Nobody gave us any information at all about how to proceed in this significant switchover from MTBE to ethanol.

They have to clean their tanks. There are tremendous logistical problems and a different role for transportation with respect to trucks and rails versus pipelines. Normally, you would have taken a much longer period of time to make this changeover. That wasn't done.

So the administration should have been there working with the service station owners and the oil companies and a variety of parties to try to minimize the problems when you are having this massive transition in the energy area. So we are going to see instances where people try to exploit the situation. I hope we can get the Federal Trade Commission off the dime and finally go out and take the steps to protect the public from this exploitation.

It was known a year ago that this was a time when we would have a perfect energy storm. We knew we were going to have the equivalent of what amounts to a level 5 hurricane in the gasoline market. Yet the folks in the administration sat on their hands. It did not have to be that way.

I want to work in a bipartisan way to turn this around. Unfortunately, the same kind of bumbling and bungling approach that was taken in responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has driven our gasoline prices over $3 a gallon. We ought to come together. I recommended yesterday in a lengthy speech a variety of steps we could take in the short term--for example, helping the States to make this transition to ethanol easier. We can do it in a bipartisan way. If it were not for the bungling of this administration over the last year and its failure to take the steps that could have prevented much of what we have seen, we would not have to come to this point. That is unfortunate. The American people have been gratuitously hammered again. It didn't have to be.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the same Bush administration that so tragically bungled the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has now bungled its way to $3 per gallon gasoline. Unless you were a hermit living in a cave last summer, you couldn't have missed how miserably the administration has failed in its approach to natural disasters. Now it is clear to anyone who fills up at a gas pump that this administration is also failing in its approach to energy. In both cases the administration had advanced notice that a major problem was imminent and in both cases the administration failed to take action to head off the problem before it became a major crisis for the American people.

For Hurricane Katrina, disaster experts had testing that predicted in the spring what could happen, but the administration ignored the warnings of its own experts as major hurricanes were heading toward the gulf coast. If anything, the administration's failure to take action to prevent gas shortages and price spikes is even more indefensible because they had more advanced warning and greater certainty that the problem was coming.

The Bush administration knew last summer--almost 9 months ago--that gasoline shortages and price spikes would hit hard this spring. If ever there was a time to be watchful about oil markets, it has been during the past months as markets have gyrated virtually nonstop with one international crisis after another.

Nigeria has lost a quarter of its output, Iraq's oil production has fallen below prewar levels to its lowest point in a decade, Iran says something warlike about its nuclear program, and oil prices shoot up $10 per barrel, and today Venezuela announced that it will move toward nationalizing its oil industry and will cut output, which should put even more pressure on supply and demand.

Yet even with all of this turmoil in world oil markets, the key watchdogs at the Energy Department, at the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are all absent without leave. No one is home minding the store when it comes to our oil and gasoline markets.

Never before has there been an administration with so much expertise in the oil industry. The President and the Vice President of course know a great deal about the oil sector. The Secretary of State was a director of Chevron and actually has an oil tanker named after her. The list goes on and on. But none of this expertise seems to be being used to help consumers at the gas pump.

The administration's recent inaction in the face of soaring prices is only the latest in a long line of failures. In what is a virtual rite of spring, gas prices typically spike as refineries shut down for maintenance to switch over to summertime gasoline blends. That has happened each of the last several years, and in each instance the administration has done nothing to help consumers at the pump. But this year the administration had good reason to know that a ``perfect energy storm'' would hit the consumer this spring, and it was clear that spikes would be even worse than prior years.

For example, the Wall Street Journal reported on August 12, 2005:

A provision in the massive energy bill that cleared

Congress last week is likely to shrink the nation's gasoline

supplies next spring and could boost prices 8 cents a gallon

or more.

The Wall Street Journal went on to describe the likely impact of eliminating the requirement to use cleaner burning additives in gasoline, saying:

United States gasoline production would fall short of usual

levels by about 158,000 barrels a day--the equivalent of

losing output from four major refineries.

The Wall Street Journal quoted an official from Valero Energy Corporation, the Nation's largest refiner, who said:

The price of gasoline ``will definitely go up,'' estimating

the potential rise at 8 cents per gallon.

Because of the new regulations for gasoline, there would not only be reduced supply but also lots of new hassles in supplying fuel at the local level. Gasoline additives would no longer be added at the refinery and transported in pipelines. Instead, ethanol would have to be shipped separately and blended locally, creating new challenges and new logistical hurdles for getting the fuel to America's gasoline stations.

With all of this disruption and all of these new challenges to address, it was clear to the oil industry that the energy equivalent of another category 5 hurricane would be hitting gasoline consumers around this time of the year. It should have been clear to the Bush administration as well. But following the same game plan they have used for last year's hurricanes, the administration waited until after the storm hit to respond. In fact, gasoline consumers are still waiting for help at the pump.

The two major hurricanes that hit the gulf coast last summer only made this spring's supply situation worse because those storms shut down a number of refineries and reduced oil and gas supplies. Coming in the wake of these storms, the impact of the new gas rules would only tighten further what was already a tight market for gasoline, and it should have been clear to the watchdogs in the Bush administration for months and months.

The record is clear as to what the facts were that the administration had some time ago. First, if the administration had read its own report, it would have known that gulf coast oil and gasoline production would not be fully restored by this spring. Congress knows this because the administration sends weekly reports to the Congress with updates on the situation. Yet again the administration failed to take any action to head off the problem before consumers got hit again.

If the administration had read its own report, it also would have known that the impact of the new gasoline rule would be substantial, equivalent to 2 percent of the Nation's gasoline supply overall, and 10 percent of the supplies in areas with smog problems. This information has been in Energy Department reports as well. Once again, there was no response from the administration.

Finally, if the administration had read its own reports and publications, the administration would have known that finding alternatives to replace these supplies would not be easy. In fact, a study by the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that it would take 4 years for refiners to find substitutes for the most commonly used gasoline additive known as MTBE.

In fact, the new rules are likely to be a double whammy for consumers. They tighten not only domestic supplies but also the availability of imports that were so crucial for supplying U.S. consumers following last year's hurricanes. That means the impacts will be similar to last year's hurricanes. But the same solution to address the problem won't be available this year.

As the president of Petroleum Industry Research Institute pointed out last summer, in the past the United States has imported gasoline from Europe to deal with this particular issue and prevent shortages. But at this point we may not be able to do that since European refiners use

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Snowe, Collins and Cantwell in introducing the ``Bicycle Commuters Benefit Act of 2006''.

I know that I am speaking for many people in this country who want to do something concrete about our Nation's

dependence on oil and gas. They do not think our national energy policy is doing enough. They are eager to do things that make them feel like they can take responsibility for overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to climb this spring and summer, more and more people are going to be looking for something that they can do to free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work everyday and get on their bicycles instead.

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

Yet they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. This incentive is great for mass transit commuters but it discourages people from riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2006 will eliminate this discrimination against bicycle commuters.

The bill extends the fringe benefit that employers can offer their employees for commuting by public transit, to those who ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of benefit payment up to a specified cap amount. That way, employers and their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from $40-$100 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the costs of riding their bikes.

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

Our Senate bill matches HR 807 that was introduced during the first session of the 109th Congress by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has 47 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want to give commuters who take mass transit.

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

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

One week from today, we will start celebrating May as ``National Bike-to- Work'' month. I can't think of any better way to commemorate this special month than by introducing this legislation. I look forward to working with our colleagues to see this legislation pass.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators Snowe, Collins and Cantwell in introducing the ``Bicycle Commuters Benefit Act of 2006''.

I know that I am speaking for many people in this country who want to do something concrete about our Nation's

dependence on oil and gas. They do not think our national energy policy is doing enough. They are eager to do things that make them feel like they can take responsibility for overcoming their dependence on oil and gas. As gas prices continue to climb this spring and summer, more and more people are going to be looking for something that they can do to free themselves from this dependency. The bill I am introducing today gives Americans more incentive to give up the cars and trucks that they drive to and from work everyday and get on their bicycles instead.

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

Yet they are commuting by bicycle at their own expense. Their fellow employees who take mass transit to and from work have an incentive created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century that enables their employers to pay for their bus or subway ride. This incentive is great for mass transit commuters but it discourages people from riding their bikes to and from their jobs. The Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2006 will eliminate this discrimination against bicycle commuters.

The bill extends the fringe benefit that employers can offer their employees for commuting by public transit, to those who ride their bicycles to and from their jobs. Our bill amends the tax code so that public and private employers can offer their employees a monthly benefit payment that will help them cover the costs of riding their bikes, instead of driving and parking their cars where they work. The bill also provides employers the flexibility to set their own level of benefit payment up to a specified cap amount. That way, employers and their employees can decide how much of an incentive they need to stop driving and start riding their bikes. Those who currently ride the bus and/or subway to work would also gain an extra incentive to ride their bikes. Employers can deduct the cost of their benefit payments from their taxable income. This reduces the taxes that they pay to the Federal Government. And, in turn, employees will receive anywhere from $40-$100 per month as a non-taxable benefit, to help them pay for the costs of riding their bikes.

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

Our Senate bill matches HR 807 that was introduced during the first session of the 109th Congress by my fellow Oregonian, Congressman Earl Blumenauer. He has 47 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle and every part of the United States eager to offer bicycle commuters the same incentive that I want to give commuters who take mass transit.

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

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

One week from today, we will start celebrating May as ``National Bike-to- Work'' month. I can't think of any better way to commemorate this special month than by introducing this legislation. I look forward to working with our colleagues to see this legislation pass.

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

Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. I ask unanimous consent to speak this afternoon for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to offer a simple proposition: Congress should act like a coequal branch of Government and vote on whether to keep American troops in Iraq for at least 3 more years. Late last month, the President told the American people that it is his intent to keep American soldiers in Iraq through the end of his term in office. He has never before made such a sweeping commitment. When the Senate voted in October of 2002 to send troops to Iraq, few Americans believed then that the U.S. military would be in Iraq in 2006, let alone 2009 or beyond. Based on what the Bush administration said then, Americans would be justified in thinking that by now Iraq would be free and democratic. Based on what the Bush administration said then, Americans would be justified in thinking that by now Iraq would be stable and self-supporting. Based on what the Bush administration said then, Americans would be justified in thinking that by now the vast majority of U.S. forces, if not all of them, would be safely back home.

Unfortunately, the rosy forecast put out by the White House and the Pentagon in 2002 perished in the harsh reality of Iraq.

The failure to plan for the post-war period has thus far created less security for the world, greater heartache for Iraq, and extraordinary costs for America.

As of today, neither the American people nor the Congress knows how the President intends to get American troops out of Iraq. Instead, virtually every day, the administration offers a new theory for how discouraging events on the ground in Iraq are actually positive signs.

Here is what is indisputable: 2,348 American soldiers are dead, 17,469 are injured, and 262 billion taxpayer dollars have been spent.

If our troops remain in Iraq for at least 3 more years, how many more will die, how many more will be injured? How many more hundreds of billions of dollars will it cost?

By all accounts, the insurgency remains strong and is constantly attacking and killing American soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians. Every day there is another bombing, another brutal image on the TV that reflects the chaos that passes for an average day in Iraq.

Sectarian violence is rampant. The ethnic strife is so grave that Shiites and Sunnis living in mixed neighborhoods are fleeing for the safety of ethnic enclaves.

In recent months, there have been more and more groups of bodies found--hands bound, shot in the back of the head or beheaded--and many Iraqis have come to believe that their own Iraqi Interior Ministry is participating in these death squad-style killings.

According to Ambassador Khalilzad, the ``potential is there'' for all-out civil war. That, my friends, is an understatement. As former Prime Minister Allawi concedes, a low-level civil war is already being waged in Iraq.

The so-called ``enduring bases'' that the Pentagon has built in Iraq certainly create the appearance that the Bush administration intends for the United States to occupy Iraq indefinitely, unnecessarily fostering ill-will among the Iraqi population and throughout the Arab world.

Oil production, household fuel availability, and electricity production are lower than they were 2 years ago. Iraqis have electricity half of each day. About 32 percent of Iraqis are unemployed.

The list of problems that plague Iraq goes on and on.

Supporters of the war tout the Iraqi forces that are standing up and taking responsibility for security. Yet it has been reported that not a single Iraqi security force battalion can operate without U.S. assistance. The Iraqi police force is plagued by absenteeism and militia infiltration. The level of incompetence is high enough that U.S. forces are reluctant to hand over their best weapons to the Iraqis.

You will also hear supporters of the war point to the three elections as proof of progress. Yes, there have been elections. But as the current impasse makes clear, elections are just the beginning. And while those elected have been deliberating for the past 3 months, unable to reach consensus over the makeup of the new Iraqi Government, insurgents have been exploiting the power vacuum to kill, to maim, and to instill terror and fear.

Supporters of the war will also point to our reconstruction efforts. But billions of reconstruction dollars have been misused, misspent, or lost by American contractors, like Halliburton, and Iraqi ministries, including the Ministry of Oil.

While in Iraq recently, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I sat down with representatives of the Oil Ministry to discuss the issue of graft. After I repeatedly pointed to independent analyses documenting the serious corruption problems within the Iraqi oil sector, the Iraqi officials finally acknowledged that there were ``small'' problems with graft in this sector. Considering that oil accounts for more than 90 percent of the country's revenues, this ought to be extremely disturbing to Congress and people all across America.

Just as the President made the case to go to war, he owes it to Congress and the American people to come to Congress and lay out his plan and his budget for achieving a lasting peace in Iraq.

Congress owes it to the American people and the institution to vote.

If the President refuses to come to Congress in the coming weeks with his plan and his budget to win the peace in Iraq, Congress owes it to the American people to vote up or down on whether to keep American troops in Iraq for at least 3 more years.

The President's case for winning the peace in Iraq should address these concerns:

First, how the President can help make the Iraqis self-reliant so that they can defeat the deadly insurgency.

Second, how the President intends to help Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders break the political impasse so that they can form a unity government.

Third, how the President intends to pull the Iraqi people back from the brink of all-out civil war and the specter of another Rwanda or Darfur.

Fourth, how the President intends to help rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure and ensure that Iraqis have access to basic services like electricity and clean water.

And fifth, how the President intends to bring the troops home from Iraq.

If need be, to be sensitive to national security matters, I would not be averse to the Senate moving into Executive Session to consider portions of the President's plan and his budget for securing the peace in Iraq.

I simply ask the President to come to Congress and describe his plan and his budget specifically, and let Congress consider its potential to succeed before the Congress, with its silence, consents to 3 more years of very costly involvement in Iraq.

The vote I call for today, if held, won't be about cutting-and- running. It won't be about who comes up with the best spin. It will be about holding the President and Congress accountable. The vote will hold the President accountable for presenting a plan and a budget for securing the peace. And the vote will hold Congress accountable by making it finally act like a co-equal branch of government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business so I can engage the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in a colloquy.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress convened a bipartisan, bicameral joint inquiry into the activities of the intelligence community before and after the attacks. I had the opportunity to serve on the joint inquiry and I am proud of the work that was accomplished there.

In December of 2002, a report was issued in which we stated that the inspector general of the CIA should ``conduct investigations and reviews as necessary to determine whether and to what extent personnel at all levels should be held accountable for any omission, commission, or failure to meet professional standards in regards to the identification, prevention, or disruption of terrorist attacks.''

The report went on to state that the Director of the CIA should take appropriate action in response to the inspector general's review.

The CIA Inspector General completed his report in June 2005. I was surprised that the report took so long to complete, but I am impressed with its quality. After the report of the 9/11 Commission and the joint inquiry itself, it is one of the most thorough examinations of the intelligence community activity before September 11. It provides a unique perspective and makes a number of findings that in my view should be available to the American people as part of the historical record. It also makes a number of recommendations that should be carefully considered.

The public has a right to see these recommendations consistent with the protection of our national security. The American people should be able to read the report and decide for themselves whether the recommendations of the CIA inspector general have been carried out in a satisfactory manner. Both the chairman and the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee have supported the release of this report.

As Chairman Roberts has put it, ``The deaths of nearly 3,000 citizens on September 11, 2001, gives the American people a strong interest in knowing what the [inspector general] found and whether those whose performance was lacking will be held accountable.''

Despite the chairman's request, the CIA has decided not to act on the inspector general's recommendations at all. Not to act at all. It is important to note that the inspector general did not recommend that certain individuals be held accountable. The inspector general merely recommended that the action or inaction of certain individuals be examined to determine whether they should be held accountable. CIA Director Porter Goss has refused to allow even this initial examination.

Two months ago I wrote to the Director of the CIA, Mr. Goss, asking this report be declassified and released as soon as possible. I notified Director Goss if I did not see any progress within 60 days I would take action to release this report to the public. It has been over 60 days and still the CIA has not responded.

In the interest of making this report public and available to the American people, I ask now unanimous consent the Senate direct the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to make this report available to the American people as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee for his willingness to work with me and for the suggestions and discussions that we have had. I would like to suggest that we bring this issue to the inspector general immediately and ask the inspector general to release this report within 30 days. If the Senator agrees to bring this issue to the inspector general immediately so that staff can begin working with the inspector general's office over the upcoming 2-week recess, and the chairman and I can review their progress when we return, then I would be willing to withdraw my unanimous consent request that this report be made public immediately at this time.

Mr. President, because we are going to work together cooperatively to turn this around in the next 30 days, I withdraw my unanimous consent request at this time and express my appreciation to chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Roberts.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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