Floor Statements

Mr. President, when Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act, Medicare cost contracts

were kept as a health plan option for seniors. However, Congress also limited the ability of cost contracts to operate in areas if a Medicare Advantage plan decided to offer service in that area and stayed for a year.

Medicare cost contracts are plans that offer more benefits than basic Medicare and are often available in areas in which Medicare Advantage plans are not offered. Many of the thousands of Oregonians who have cost contract plans are in rural Oregon, where there are few options for care. The legislation I am introducing today, ``The Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2005'', would allow seniors to keep their cost contracts longer even if a Medicare Advantage plan is offered. The bill also adds more consumer protection provisions that are similar to those already in law for Medicare Advantage plans. I believe that it is not only important to ensure seniors have choices, but that they can keep the choice that works best for them as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the tragic bombings in London are a sober reminder of how vulnerable America and our allies remain to terrorism. What happened in London last week is likely to be tragically replicated if our country does not act boldly to reduce what ought to be called a terror tax now imposed on the American people.

I call it a terror tax because when we pull up to the corner gas station and pay $2.40 a gallon or so for gas, the reality is a portion of that money is then turned over to foreign governments that ``back door'' it over to Islamist extremists who use that money to perpetuate terrorism and hate.

What I call the terror tax is not posted as a price at our gas pump. We do not see it in our pay stub. It is not calculated in our balance of payments to foreign governments. It is a tax measured not in dollars and cents but in risk and insecurity to the American people. It is as real as everything else the American people put their money toward each week.

Of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans consume each day, almost 12 million barrels of it is imported. That percentage, now nearly 60 percent, is growing. It was only about 33 percent at the time of the Arab oil embargo years ago. Our addiction to foreign oil has nearly doubled in what amounts to just a few years.

In the next few weeks, the House and Senate will be sitting down as part of an effort to write an Energy bill that must take as its priority helping to shake us free of this addiction to foreign oil.

I voted against the Energy bill in the Senate because I felt it did not do enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but I hope, especially at this critical time, on a bipartisan basis during this conference it will be possible to make this legislation better.

I believe it is important to do as much as possible to reduce the terror tax that comes with our dependence on foreign oil. It is not good enough to accept business as usual when our citizens pay record prices at the gas pump, only to see foreign governments wink and nod while terrorist groups make off with substantial amounts of money and use those funds to target the United States. In my view, there is an indisputable link not only between the American dependence on foreign oil and the price our citizens pay at the pump, but between our oil addiction and our vulnerability to attack here at home.

For this reason, as the House and Senate get together to look at a strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I intend to propose five concrete steps to reduce the terror tax.

First, I want the State Department to publish each year for the next 10 years a report on the flow of money paid by Americans at the gas pump to foreign governments that ends up in the hands of Islamic extremists who target America with acts of terror.

Second, since most foreign oil goes to the transportation sector, I want the American automobile industry to be required to increase auto efficiency by just 1 mile per gallon each year for the next 10 years. Think about what a modest step that is--just 1 mile per gallon. Otherwise, the auto industry ought to explain to the American people why they cannot meet this objective that I am calling for that is so important to the national security of our people.

Third, for each of the next 10 years, the Energy Department should publish a list of the most energy-efficient cars in each of the major types of vehicles so the auto industry would have to compete on the basis of the most fuel-efficient automobiles.

Fourth, to increase the responsible production of oil in America, not overseas, companies that increase oil production at existing wells shall receive a 2-percent annual increase in their tax writeoffs for this production for each of the next 10 years that the company increases production from existing wells in the United States.

Finally, this bill must promote new alternatives to oil. I have proposed a no-risk way to kick-start efforts to get hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road within the decade. By creating incentives for selling hydrogen vehicles and fuels, we would pay only for performance. Only actions that put hydrogen vehicles on the road or provide stations to fuel up would qualify for the incentives.

In the nearer term, other alternatives would become readily available. They include cellulosic ethanol made from plant materials grown by American farmers as well as electricity

produced by flexible fuel hybrid electric vehicles that can be plugged in as well as refueled at the pump.

Getting a fair energy bill that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is just about the most red, white, and blue step this Congress could take. It is absolutely critical if we are to do everything possible to ensure our national security. Experts from a range of political stripes agree that the single most important step Congress can take to make America more secure is to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

As a member of the conference committee on the energy bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure these commonsense steps to end the terror tax brought about as a result of our addiction to foreign oil. Doing so is simply a matter of life and death for the citizens we respect so much here at home.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Oregon's 363 miles of coastline are extremely susceptible to tsunamis. Just 2 weeks ago, at 7:40 p.m. on June 14, 2005, the tsunami threat became reality for those living on or visiting the coast. A 7.0 earthquake off the coast of California triggered an automatic tsunami warning for the entire west coast of the United States. The emergency response capabilities of these communities were put to the test. Fortunately, the warning was called off at 9:09 p.m. after it was determined that the earthquake failed to produce a tsunami.

Looking back, a lot of things went right. In Oregon, in cities such as Seaside and Cannon Beach, the alarms were sounded and people evacuated. However, there is a lot more that needs to be done. Models indicate that should an offshore earthquake trigger a tsunami, coastal towns will only have between 12 and 30 minutes before the first wave hits the beach. On June 14, for many people on the coast, the information would have come too late.

I am pleased that the Tsunami Preparedness Act, S. 50, of which I am a consponsor and strong supporter, will pass the Senate by unanimous consent today. The world has recently seen how potentially devastating a tsunami can be. America needs to take steps to prepare and be ready. Oregonians are acutely aware that, at some point, a tsunami could hit the coast of the United States. This bill will give our coastal communities opportunities that weren't afforded the victims of the tragic tsunami in Southeast Asia last year. It will harness the brains and expertise of universities, like Oregon State University and Oregon Health and Science University, to improve our tsunami detection and warning system and to make available the resources necessary to adequately prepare, inform, and protect U.S. citizens.

The U.S. has the tools to establish a top-notch national tsunami warning system and hazard mitigation program. Oregon universities are leading the way in tsunami research, and the practical applications of this research must be used. Our region, and the other vulnerable areas in the Nation, will benefit from better knowledge about the tracking, forecasting, and effects of tsunami waves. I look forward to the implementation of the Tsunami Preparedness Act and to reviewing the first annual report to Congress on the status and progress of work on this issue.

The committee amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1101

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Madam President, because we have a number of Senators on the floor--I am happy to defer to my senior colleagues, but if we could establish a kind of queue? I know Senator Leahy has a statement. I am interested in speaking on CAFTA. I ask the distinguished Senator from Montana, could we see if we could get an order among the Senators who are on the floor?

Mr. President, I have decided to support CAFTA. Because I know I will have a lot of welts on my back for it, I want to take a few minutes to describe how I arrived at my decision.

A special concern to me is that if CAFTA is rejected, China will have yet another opportunity to grow its economy and strengthen its economic base at America's expense. Why Americans would want to do that defies logic.

China is already an economic juggernaut. But as of now, they are not going to get duty-free exports to Central America. Only the United States has that prospect, and only with CAFTA-DR. If America walks away from this agreement, does anyone really think the Chinese will sit on the sidelines? As the kids say, ``hello!''

The Chinese would love the opportunity to get an economic toehold in our backyard. I, for one, don't think we ought to give them that opportunity. Personally, I believe we ought to be more vigilant in terms of watchdogging trade with China than we have been. That is why last week I pushed the Bush administration to immediately move to do a review of the proposed purchase of Unocal by China's state-run oil company under the Exon-Floria law, to examine the national security and economic implications of a deal that is essentially unprecedented.

If you are a free trader--and I am willing to be called that--you ought to protect your interests. That is why I favor, for example, doing a vigorous review of that proposed purchase of Unocal, and I also propose standing up for our interests in Central America rather than walking away from the region and handing the Chinese yet another golden economic opportunity to strengthen their economic base. In my view, it will be an opportunity we have given up, and gratuitously so.

My view is that with respect to international trade, we ought to make things and grow things in the United States of America and then sell them around the world. Particularly, I want to sell more value-added products made in the United States of America. There is an opportunity in Central America to sell those value-added products made in the United States such as health care equipment, energy production and conservation goods, computer chips, communications gear--a whole host of products. The reason I say that is that the Presidents of various countries in Central America have written me indicating they are prepared to now make those purchases. They are interested in U.S. suppliers.

Some have asked, how is someone in Central America going to have the money to purchase these health care products and chips, computers, and communications gear? The reality is, the first purchases will be made by governments in Central America. The governments have indicated to me they are the ones that want to spend on our value-added products: computers and chips and energy-production devices.

For example, Honduras is starting a ``Telephony for All'' program. They intend to increase dramatically the number of telephones, wireless devices, and the various technologies that will allow them to be part of the information age. We ought to make sure those products are made in our country and sold there. We will have an opportunity to do more of that under this agreement, which will allow us to send American exports into Central America duty free.

Now, I would be the first to say this is not the agreement I would have written. For example, I feel very strongly about using the Jordan Free Trade Agreement as the model for labor and environmental standards. I think it is a major mistake that was not done. I also think our inability to get a strong trade adjustment package into this legislation is something the Senate will greatly regret.

I see my good friend from Montana on the floor, Senator Baucus. He has championed Trade Adjustment Assistance, along with myself and Senator Rockefeller and Senator Coleman. We got 54 votes in the Senate not long ago for our bipartisan legislation to try to assist workers who are adversely affected by trade.

It seems incomprehensible that we cannot modernize this program. It is decades old. It ought to be extended to service workers. There is bipartisan support for it in the Senate. It would be yet another message to the workers of this country, who are out on the shop floors, that we are concerned first and foremost for their well-being.

So I am going to continue to come back and prosecute this cause with the Senator from Montana. The chairman of our committee, Senator Grassley, knows full well how strongly Senator Coleman and I feel about it, because it is unacceptable to me there is not a trampoline for workers who are adversely affected by trade to get other family-wage jobs. We ought to have that opportunity for them to bounce back when they are adversely affected by trade. We have it in other areas. The failure to extend it to service workers, who could be affected by this and other trade agreements, I think is a major mistake.

There are other changes I would have wanted, particularly in the pharmaceutical area. I think this legislation is not well conceived in that it clearly favors brand names over generic ingredients. But I will say to colleagues that even with these concerns--the inability to have a modernization of the trade adjustment program and some of the labor issues addressed in the way I would--it is a bigger mistake to reject this agreement. If you reject this agreement, you send a message to China: You ought to head for Central America as fast as you can because you have an opportunity to get a toehold in America's backyard.

You are denying the opportunity to a lot of American exporters, people in Oregon and other states who make those value-added products, the high-skill, high-wage products and technologies to sell those goods in Central America.

I want colleagues to know I have met with a lot of those companies and the governments in Central America. I would like to see us bring them together. There is no reason why energy production and conservation products made in our country, and computers and chips and health care technologies, should not be sold in Central America, when the governments in that part of the world are prepared to make major purchases.

Let's do more to try to make sure those purchases come from American exporters rather then Chinese exporters. I urge colleagues to support the agreement.

I concur with my colleague and ask through the chair that the managers of this bill fix this small but important typographical error in conference on this bill with the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, across this country, on couches in front of televisions and video game consoles, a silent killer called obesity is stalking America's youngsters--in epidemic numbers. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing a bipartisan bill, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', to jump-start a nationwide, community-based campaign against this menace and help our children grow up healthy.

In my home State of Oregon, obesity may well become the number-two killer of our citizens--after tobacco, also the number-one killer nationally. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, fully 22 percent of the adults in Oregon are obese and 60 percent are overweight. Even more tragic, and why we are here today, is that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says at least 31 percent of low income children between two and five years of age in Oregon are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. A lot of those overweight kids are going to become overweight and obese adults if we just sit on our hands today. Our children are beginning to show signs of devastating diseases that will only lead to a life-long illnesses and increased health care costs. And no statistic can measure the emotional toll that illness takes on a child, their families and others who love them.

The Frist-Wyden legislation, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', will work to turn the tide against childhood obesity in two ways. First, it will give teachers, parents and other community leaders a one-stop shop to fight obesity. The Congressional council created by this bill will launch a comprehensive website to help everyone from Physical Education teachers to scout leaders learn what's working in schools and public-private programs. It will also offer information about how to connect with those successful programs and how to adapt them in their own schools.

For example, when a teacher wants to see what can be done to help kids get 30 minutes of activity, something that studies have shown helps to combat childhood obesity, that teacher could go to the website and see what others in a similar situation have done. They would be able to see there are partners like Nike who are willing to step up to the plate and help with programs. But that teacher might also see that physical activity is only one part of the solution and they might find ways to bring in the nutritional aspect as well through other programs that have already proven successful.

The website will also offer help in establishing goals for cutting childhood obesity at that school or in that community--and all these plans will have been evaluated by outside experts for their effectiveness.

Second, after two years, the Congressional council turns the work over to a brand-new foundation. The foundation will keep the one-stop website up and running. But at the same time, they'll be able to raise money, and use it to reward programs that work and fund programs that are sorely needed where childhood obesity threatens most.

Here's an example of how the second component of our bill would work: say an urban school wants to work on getting kids to choose vegetables instead of French fries. When they visit the Web site, they may find a successful program about actually growing fresh vegetables--so they don't think vegetables just come from a freezer or a can. The Foundation will have the wherewithal to do more than just share that information--they may be able to provide the seed money, literally, for a school garden that will grow fresh produce, and change the way those children look at food.

It is not realistic to think that children won't be in a situation where unhealthy choices for foods and snacks are available. The goal ought to be to help them know what the healthy choices are, how to balance what they eat and drink and to know that they need exercise. And the Foundation can keep pursuing those goals for the long term.

I believe that our bipartisan bill is significant for two reasons. First, it emphasizes both sides of the equation--the need for proper nutrition and the need for physical activity. Second, it and because it will create an immediate, one-stop resource, in the form of a Web site, about what we know is working now so that individuals can begin to mobilize their communities and help their children. These are also important steps in assisting our children to become healthy adults.

All of us have the same, simple goal here: getting America's children healthy. There are a lot of folks competing for our kids' attention in this arena. A lot of the competition is pretty attractive: food that's not so nutritious but sure tastes good, and video games that don't burn any calories but can occupy you for an entire afternoon. It's tough for kids to make good choices on their own. That's why it's time to mobilize this nation--and particularly this Congress, by way of legislation--to beat the epidemic of obesity plaguing our children.

Mr. President, across this country, on couches in front of televisions and video game consoles, a silent killer called obesity is stalking America's youngsters--in epidemic numbers. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing a bipartisan bill, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', to jump-start a nationwide, community-based campaign against this menace and help our children grow up healthy.

In my home State of Oregon, obesity may well become the number-two killer of our citizens--after tobacco, also the number-one killer nationally. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, fully 22 percent of the adults in Oregon are obese and 60 percent are overweight. Even more tragic, and why we are here today, is that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says at least 31 percent of low income children between two and five years of age in Oregon are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. A lot of those overweight kids are going to become overweight and obese adults if we just sit on our hands today. Our children are beginning to show signs of devastating diseases that will only lead to a life-long illnesses and increased health care costs. And no statistic can measure the emotional toll that illness takes on a child, their families and others who love them.

The Frist-Wyden legislation, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', will work to turn the tide against childhood obesity in two ways. First, it will give teachers, parents and other community leaders a one-stop shop to fight obesity. The Congressional council created by this bill will launch a comprehensive website to help everyone from Physical Education teachers to scout leaders learn what's working in schools and public-private programs. It will also offer information about how to connect with those successful programs and how to adapt them in their own schools.

For example, when a teacher wants to see what can be done to help kids get 30 minutes of activity, something that studies have shown helps to combat childhood obesity, that teacher could go to the website and see what others in a similar situation have done. They would be able to see there are partners like Nike who are willing to step up to the plate and help with programs. But that teacher might also see that physical activity is only one part of the solution and they might find ways to bring in the nutritional aspect as well through other programs that have already proven successful.

The website will also offer help in establishing goals for cutting childhood obesity at that school or in that community--and all these plans will have been evaluated by outside experts for their effectiveness.

Second, after two years, the Congressional council turns the work over to a brand-new foundation. The foundation will keep the one-stop website up and running. But at the same time, they'll be able to raise money, and use it to reward programs that work and fund programs that are sorely needed where childhood obesity threatens most.

Here's an example of how the second component of our bill would work: say an urban school wants to work on getting kids to choose vegetables instead of French fries. When they visit the Web site, they may find a successful program about actually growing fresh vegetables--so they don't think vegetables just come from a freezer or a can. The Foundation will have the wherewithal to do more than just share that information--they may be able to provide the seed money, literally, for a school garden that will grow fresh produce, and change the way those children look at food.

It is not realistic to think that children won't be in a situation where unhealthy choices for foods and snacks are available. The goal ought to be to help them know what the healthy choices are, how to balance what they eat and drink and to know that they need exercise. And the Foundation can keep pursuing those goals for the long term.

I believe that our bipartisan bill is significant for two reasons. First, it emphasizes both sides of the equation--the need for proper nutrition and the need for physical activity. Second, it and because it will create an immediate, one-stop resource, in the form of a Web site, about what we know is working now so that individuals can begin to mobilize their communities and help their children. These are also important steps in assisting our children to become healthy adults.

All of us have the same, simple goal here: getting America's children healthy. There are a lot of folks competing for our kids' attention in this arena. A lot of the competition is pretty attractive: food that's not so nutritious but sure tastes good, and video games that don't burn any calories but can occupy you for an entire afternoon. It's tough for kids to make good choices on their own. That's why it's time to mobilize this nation--and particularly this Congress, by way of legislation--to beat the epidemic of obesity plaguing our children.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes and then allow my friend and colleague to conclude on behalf of the Sununu- Wyden amendment.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sununu-Wyden amendment to strike the so-called incentives title of this legislation because I believe this title is a blank check for boondoggles. The fact is, we are now at the point when some of the special interests in this country are going to be triple-dipping. They are going to get tax incentives as a result of the tax cut; they are going to get loan guarantees under the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska; and this amendment, this section that we seek to strike, offers additional loan guarantees.

These loan guarantees are not only costly, they are also risky. American taxpayers would be required, under title XIV, to subsidize as much as 80 percent of the cost of constructing and operating new and untried technologies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the risk of default on these projects funded by guarantees is between 20 percent and 60 percent. The amendment that Senator Sununu and I offer today would block this unwise and risky investment and stop throwing good taxpayer money after bad.

I see our friend from Tennessee is here. He heard me discuss this to some extent in the Energy Committee. I have believed that this legislation is already stuffed with a smorgasbord of subsidies for various industries. As I touched on earlier, the buffet of subsidies is so generously larded that you are going to have industries in this country come back for seconds and even third helpings from this taxpayer-subsidized buffet table.

You look for examples: the Hagel amendment, which provides secured loan guarantees for virtually the same projects and technologies as title XIV loan guarantees; coal gasification, advanced nuclear power projects, and renewable projects receive up to 25 percent of their estimated costs for construction activity, acquisition of land and financing. There is no need to double the subsidies for these projects with the incentives under title XIV as well.

I want to be clear. I am not against incentives for new technologies. That is why, as a member of the Finance Committee, I supported the energy tax title that provides tax benefits for a variety of energy technologies, ranging

from fuel cells and renewable technologies to fossil fuel and nuclear energy. So I am already one who has voted, at this point in the debate, to say that we ought to have some incentives with respect to these promising industries.

But what concerns me is the double- and triple-dipping. There is an important difference between the tax incentives that I supported in the Finance Committee and the loan guarantees under title XIV. The tax incentives that were produced on a bipartisan basis in the Finance Committee reward those who produce or save energy. By contrast, the loan guarantees subsidize projects whether they produce energy or not.

As I mentioned, the Congressional Budget Office says there is a very substantial risk of failure. I might even be persuaded to go along with the 25-percent subsidy provided by the Hagel amendment to help kick- start new energy technologies, but I don't think it is a wise use of taxpayer money to provide up to an 80-percent subsidy for the very same projects that would also get a 25-percent subsidy under the Hagel amendment.

Just with that example alone, you are talking about some projects that would receive a subsidy of 105 percent.

With respect to who reaps the benefits from these extraordinary loan guarantees, we know a variety of interests would. In my area of the country, we still remember WPPSS, the nuclear powerplants where there was a huge default and we had many ratepayers very hard hit. Our ratepayers are still paying the bills for the powerplants that were planned years ago but were never built. Skyrocketing cost overruns led to defaults. The collapse shows that Federal loan guarantees are a gamble that taxpayers should not be forced to take.

I am very hopeful my colleagues will support the Sununu-Wyden amendment. At this point, I think it is fair to say that we have voted for multiple subsidies for a lot of the industries that we hope will help to some degree cure this country's addiction to foreign oil. But at some point the level of subsidies ought to stop. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield.

Mr. President, when it comes to subsidies, without the Sununu-Wyden amendment, some of the country's deepest pockets will be triple-dipping. These industries get subsidies under the tax title from Finance. That is dip 1. The Hagel amendment, yesterday adopted, provides loans. That is dip 2. Title XIV that we seek to strike provides loan guarantees of up to 80 percent. That is dip 3. I urge Senators to join all the country's major environmental groups, all the country's major organizations representing taxpayer rights and support the bipartisan Sununu-Wyden amendment.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect National Parks through collaborative efforts on lands inside and outside of National Park System units.

This legislation is based on very successful watershed protection legislation enacted for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land management, now

commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment. The Wyden amendment, first enacted in 1998 for fiscal year 1999, has resulted in countless Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management cooperative agreements with neighboring State and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private lands. It has not required additional funding, but has allowed the agencies to leverage their scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the federal dollars stretch farther.

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

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

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect National Parks through collaborative efforts on lands inside and outside of National Park System units.

This legislation is based on very successful watershed protection legislation enacted for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land management, now

commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment. The Wyden amendment, first enacted in 1998 for fiscal year 1999, has resulted in countless Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management cooperative agreements with neighboring State and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private lands. It has not required additional funding, but has allowed the agencies to leverage their scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the federal dollars stretch farther.

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

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

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici. I ask unanimous consent to call up at this time an amendment I filed with Senator Dorgan, No. 792.

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

I thank the distinguished chairman for his thoughtfulness.

Absolutely. It is my intent to speak on this amendment I offer with Senator Dorgan and then lay it aside. My hope is we can work something out. I know Senator Collins and Senator Levin are working on something and desire to work with you, as well. If we bring it up now, we can start the discussion on it and work something out.

I see Senator Bingaman. He has been so thoughtful throughout the process as well.

Mr. President and colleagues, the reason I have come to the floor today is because oil prices per barrel are now at an all-time record high. If you scour this legislation, it is hard to find anything in it that would provide relief to the American consumer any time soon. It is my hope as we go forward with this debate, at a time when prices are in the stratosphere, that we work in a bipartisan way and at least provide some help in this legislation for the consumer who is getting clobbered by these historically high costs.

What especially concerns me is it seems to this Member of the Senate that the Federal Government actually makes the problem of high oil and gasoline prices worse every day. Every single day, the Federal Government, through its policies, is compounding the problem the consumers are seeing at the pump because it has been the policy of the Federal Government to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the worst possible time--when prices are at record-high levels.

When the prices are at a record-high level, it seems to me this is not the time to be taking oil out of the private market and putting it in the Government reserve. It just does not make economic sense to add more pressure to what is already a very tight oil supply. Reducing the supply of oil on the market, of course, leads to higher oil prices. That is simply supply and demand. Because oil accounts for 49 percent of the cost of gasoline, that means higher prices for consumers at the pump. For the life of me, I do not see how it makes sense for consumers, who are already paying sky-high prices at the pump, to then have their Government force them to pay higher prices by taking oil out of the private market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So it does not make sense for the consumer, and, in my view, it does not make sense for taxpayers as well, who have to pay record- high prices for the oil that is taken off the market.

Now, this is not just my opinion. The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony last year by experts who said the policy with respect to filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are so high jacks up costs. I asked John Kilduff, senior vice president of energy risk management at Fimat USA, whether the SPR fill rate of 300,000 barrels per day was contributing to oil price increases. Before the committee that day, which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, chairs, and our friend, Senator Bingaman, is the ranking minority Member, when we were all in our committee, the expert witnesses said they do believe these policies are contributing to oil price increases. Mr. Kilduff specifically stated:

A fill rate of 100,000 represents, obviously, 700,000

barrels for a week. At 300,000 it is 2.1 million barrels. A

2.1 million barrel increase in U.S. commercial crude oil

inventory in a particular weekly report would be a big build

for the particular week and would help with downward pressure

on crude oil prices.

So I would say to colleagues that this notion that this is something the Senate can just let the Secretary of Energy do what he wants is belied by the expert testimony we have had before the Senate Energy Committee where experts specifically said that a fill rate of several hundred thousand barrels per day is contributing to oil price increases.

As far as I can tell, under the policy we are now seeing at the Energy Department, it does not matter how high the prices are, they are just going to keep filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They will continue to take oil off the private market no matter how high the prices get.

I would just like to say, Mr. President and colleagues, I am not talking about taking oil out of the Reserve. I know people very often bring that up. I am just saying it does not make sense to have the same fill rate when you are talking about historically high prices because that very high cost of filling it at that point directly hurts the consumer at the pump.

On Friday, and again today, when the price of oil skyrocketed to the highest price ever recorded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, our Government has continued to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Earlier this spring, when gasoline prices set an all-time record high of $2.28 for a gallon of gas, the Energy Department continued to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So I say to those who have reservations about what I am advocating, I would simply ask, how high do prices have to go before we stop pursuing policies that drive the prices even higher? At some point, there should be some limit when it comes to the Federal Government actually compounding the difficulties consumers are having at the pump.

Under the language currently in the bill, there are no limits. There seems to be some language about ``excessive'' costs, but there is nothing that actually blocks our Government from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if the price goes even higher than the current record price of $59.23 per barrel. So I want to repeat that. Even if the price goes to $60 or $70 or $80, there is nothing that would force our Government to change its policy of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at these very high prices. So with no restrictions in sight, I guess the Government can just continue indefinitely to fill the Reserve with these record prices.

To address this problem, my amendment directs that the Secretary of Energy suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the prices go above the record-high level in the market and stay above that record-high level for 10 consecutive trading days. The suspension of filling would continue until the price of oil falls back down for 10 consecutive days.

I also note the House of Representatives at least is trying to move in the direction of a bit of consumer protection because they have included a prohibition against continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the price drops below $40 per barrel. Under my amendment, current SPR filling could go forward. But additional filling would be halted when prices are at record-high levels unless there is some consumer protection for our citizens.

The bottom line is we cannot continue to allow filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when our economy suffers due to high gas and oil prices without providing some safety valve. Unless this amendment is adopted or unless we can work out a compromise with Senator Collins and Senator Levin and other colleagues who worked on this--unless we can get some legislation in place--there will be no standard for action or any certainty there will be some consumer protection for our citizens when oil prices are out of control.

Now, some may argue there should not be these kinds of price triggers for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I guess that argument is: Let's just leave it to the Secretary of Energy. Well, there are parts of this bill, such as section 313, that do not leave matters to the Secretary's discretion, such as when you are talking about price relief, royalty relief for oil and gas producers. Section 313 of the legislation has clear price levels for when the oil companies get a break from the normal royalty policy.

So what we have here is a double standard. There are price levels to protect oil and gas producers when it comes to their royalties but absolutely no protection for the consumer who is getting clobbered at the pump and who could get some relief if the Government simply did not fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when prices are at a record-high level.

The last point I would make is suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are at a record-high level will not hurt this country's energy security. The Reserve already has more than 693 million barrels now in storage. That is the highest level in history. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is expected to be filled to

its current authorized capacity by the end of the summer.

What is more, a 2003 study by the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee found that increased filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices were high did not increase overall U.S. oil supplies. Instead, because of the higher prices, oil companies took oil out of their own inventories rather than buy higher priced oil on the market. That does not increase our overall oil supply or our Nation's energy security.

So what we have is record prices for the consumer, record costs in terms of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Federal Government, in effect, providing free oil storage for high-priced oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so oil companies can reduce their own inventories and storage costs. That is not energy security; that is just pounding the consumer and taxpayers once more.

For these reasons, I strongly urge colleagues to place some limits on when the Energy Department can fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. When prices are at an all-time high, it seems that to do otherwise denies consumers a fair shake and taxpayers a fair shake. It is my view the Senate can take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and off consumers who are getting squeezed at the pump without compromising our national security. One way to do it is along the lines of the amendment I propose this afternoon.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is clear that legislation is needed to combat the methamphetamine epidemic sweeping my State and much of the country. This drug is destroying the lives of the people abusing it, their families and their communities. For years, the problem has been talked about, but not enough has been done.

To draw attention to Oregon's meth crisis, my colleague Senator Smith and I will be periodically coming to the Senate floor to talk about the meth problem in our State.

Today, I would like to introduce a recent newspaper article from the Oregonian. The June 1 article describes a police bust of ``a massive methamphetamine lab capable of producing 400,000 doses of pure meth at a time--enough to intoxicate the entire adult population of Portland.'' The bust was one of the largest in Oregon history. This is the good news. The bad news is that this lab had been in business for at least five months--producing and distributing thousands of doses of meth.

Despite successes like this bust, the meth epidemic is getting worse, not better. Congress cannot wait any longer to act--we have a duty to address this crisis now. Enough is enough. It is critical that the Congress pass and the President sign the Combat Meth Act, on which Senator Smith and I are original cosponsors. We must also fully fund the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program and the Byrne Grant program. These initiatives provide much needed reforms and much needed funds, which will help give communities in Oregon and across the Nation the tools they need to fight this terrible problem.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Oregonian article be printed in the Record.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence gets back on the national security high wire as the committee continues to work on legislation reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act. I described this process as a high-wire act because success means striking a balance, an equilibrium, between fiercely protecting our country from terrorism while still preserving the privacy and civil liberties that make our democracy so precious.

Chairman Pat Roberts, to his credit, has held several open hearings on this issue. I gladly participated because I believed the open hearings would help to address some of the skepticism about why the PATRIOT Act has almost totally been debated in secret.

Unfortunately, the most important part of the debate, the part where the committee must actually discuss how to walk that high wire, is still going to be done behind closed doors. In my view, this secrecy in going forward will undermine any public confidence that open hearings helped to create.

I have repeatedly and vigorously opposed making these decisions out of public view. Holding the decisionmaking process in secret is a mistake because it makes it harder for citizens to hold elected officials accountable. Holding the decisionmaking process in secret is unnecessary because it is not difficult for the committee to go behind closed doors, certainly, briefly, when necessary, to discuss any PATRIOT Act-related issue that requires secrecy. Holding the decisionmaking process in secret gratuitously feeds the cynicism that citizens have about the Government's true intentions with respect to this law. Keeping these proceedings secret fuels concerns that the committee is making choices that will not stand up to public scrutiny-- deciding, for example, that you can only have security if you sacrifice privacy. In my view, that is a false choice. I simply do not believe that protecting our country from terrorism and securing the privacy rights of our citizens are mutually exclusive objectives.

So here is my bottom line: Give law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to protect our country, but stay away from the fishing expeditions. I do not think anybody will argue with me when I say that Congress passed the PATRIOT Act shortly after September 11, 2001, because it was necessary to move in a hurry. It was clear no one could have conceived of the way in which our country was exposed to attack. It was clear that the Federal Government needed to make major changes in how it fought terrorism, and those were needed immediately.

The best parts of the law tore down the unnecessary walls that had grown up between law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. Today, if you go out to the National Counterterrorism Center, the people on the ground there will tell you that those walls have been torn down, and they have stayed down. So the men and women on the front lines in the fight against terror are, in my view, more effective than they were.

However, other provisions of the law have sparked serious concerns. Giving Federal authorities broad powers of investigation has raised the specter that the rights of law-abiding citizens might be severely compromised, accidentally or even intentionally. In moving forward, I want to make sure that the right of our citizens to privacy is certainly not compromised intentionally.

I am not suggesting our national intelligence or law enforcement agencies are currently being misused the way they have been during our history--such as in the Watergate scandal. But it is important for us to make sure that appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent unintentional abuses and prevent future even darker episodes in our country's history.

In my view, a proposed addition to the PATRIOT Act, one that certainly warrants open debate, is the administrative subpoena which, in my view, raises the risk of real abuse. I want to make it clear on this subject today, I believe reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act should simply not include new administrative subpoena authority for the FBI.

I am opposed to giving the FBI this authority to write their own administrative subpoenas for foreign intelligence investigations for a number of reasons. Doing so would give the FBI the authority to demand just about anything from just about anybody, with no independent check, simply by claiming that it is relevant to a national security investigation. The FBI already has access to the waterfront of personal information through the FISA warrant process. All they have to do is go before a judge and explain why it is relevant in the most general terms. By giving the FBI the authority to write their own administrative subpoenas, the Congress would be removing this even last modest safeguard.

Administrative subpoenas are currently used by many Federal agencies in many contexts. But, except in a very few limited cases, they are not used for national security investigations. National security investigations are simply different than criminal investigations. They, of course, are conducted in secret and do not require evidence of a crime. This is why there are different rules for the two types of investigations. It is not enough, in my view, to say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The question here is, What is good for the American people? The answer is not administrative subpoenas.

As proposed, these subpoenas would be extraordinarily broad in their scope. They could be used to gain access to your credit records, your video rentals, your medical records, your gun purchases. They could be used to obtain just about anything. These subpoenas would only be seen by a judge if the recipient of the subpoena decided to challenge it. Even if the recipient was properly notified of his or her right to challenge, they might not be in the position to have the time or the resources to even make that challenge.

For example, there are 56 FBI field offices, one in just about every major American city. The head of the local field office could issue an administrative subpoena to a hospital director and ask for all the hospital's medical records simply by claiming they were relevant to an investigation. If the hospital director was busy or did not have the resources to make a challenge, then no judge--no judge would ever see this administrative subpoena. The patients would not even know that their records had been seized. They would be totally in the dark.

Even the FBI acknowledges that the agency can get all the information they could possibly need with the investigative powers they currently have. The only reason they have suggested for supporting this judge- free administrative subpoena is speed. They say that the FISA warrant process is simply too slow for time-sensitive, emergency situations.

This afternoon I would like to propose on the floor of the Senate an alternative. In this year's reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, Congress can balance protection for the public with the right of privacy by creating an emergency use provision to the FISA business records authority. This way, under the proposal I make today, if the FBI needs information right away, the FBI could notify a judge that they

were going to get it--send an e-mail, leave a voice message--and then go get it without waiting for a response. Then they would have 72 hours to apply for the warrant so they could do it after the emergency had been addressed. If the judge felt the FBI had acted inappropriately and decided not to grant the warrant, then the Agency would not be able to use whatever information they had gathered. The idea of adding an emergency use provision along the lines I have described would address the FBI's concern for speed without creating a broad new authority that would remove all the independent checks, even in situations where there were not emergencies.

Although time was not taken in 2001 to thoroughly discuss the privacy issues related to the PATRIOT Act, most of the law's more controversial provisions were made subject to sunset. This was done in hopes of a more thoughtful, informed debate during the reauthorization. The sunsets, in my view, have had an unanticipated benefit. They have made the agency very careful about how it uses the powers that have been granted.

In addition to the proposal that I am making today to give the FBI more authority to deal with emergencies, I believe the Senate should also focus its attention on sharper scrutiny for the sunset provisions in the act. Some of the sunset provisions that have existed have not attracted any controversy. Others have not only attracted controversy, serious questions have been raised about their use and possible misuse. I want to consider some of these provisions in detail today and, in addition to the proposal I have made with respect to giving the FBI emergency authority, I urge firm action to safeguard the American people as the sunset provisions are considered in the PATRIOT Act's renewal.

The provision that has attracted the most attention is probably section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. It is commonly referred to as the library records provision, but in fact it ought to be called the business records provision. Suffice it to say, it is a sweeping one. This provision gives law enforcement access to all types of information from video rentals and gun purchases to tax and medical records. In a nutshell, here is how it works.

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA--which I have referred to several times already--it is possible for FBI agents to go to a judge and request a secret warrant to obtain business records. The person to whom the records pertain is not informed. This means that if the FBI serves a FISA warrant on a bank or hospital, the bank president or hospital director would know about it, but the customers or patients whose records had been seized would know nothing at all.

Before the PATRIOT Act, if the FBI wanted to get one of these warrants, they had to show a judge specific and articulable facts that the records pertained to a terrorist or a spy. The PATRIOT Act lowered the standard, so now the FBI simply has to assert that the records are, in their view, relevant to a terrorism inquiry. To protect innocent Americans, the business records provision needs to be modified in several ways.

First, the Congress should require that the application for a FISA warrant include a statement of facts explaining why the records are relevant to an investigation. Congress should also raise the standard for the most sensitive type of records. The ``relevance'' standard may be appropriate for a hotel or car rental record, but it may be necessary to require the FBI to show hard evidence before giving access to more sensitive records such as medical records.

Finally, there must be an increase in the reporting that is done in this area. Congress's duty to look out for abuses of the PATRIOT Act is often a challenging one. Little reporting is required on the use of some provisions. Details regarding the use of the PATRIOT Act are reported, even when reporting is not required. When there is a report, the information is often classified. National security investigations often need to be conducted in secret, but revealing how often particular techniques are used does not make them less effective. Congress needs this information to perform its constitutional responsibilities, and the fact is too often Congress has been doing oversight over the intelligence community in the dark.

The Intelligence reform bill that passed a few months ago tried to fill several of the reporting gaps, but there are others that need to be closed as the PATRIOT Act is reauthorized. These reports should also be made public, to the maximum extent possible so that the American people can know all that is safely to be known about FBI activity under the law.

One of the major reporting gaps I am concerned about involves what the FBI calls discreet inquiries that the agency uses to obtain library records. The FBI Director, Mr. Mueller, has testified before several Senate committees that, while FISA warrants could be used to obtain people's library records, this has never been done. But the FBI director went on to say that the Agency does obtain library records through what he called discreet inquiries. So I think that the American people deserve to know what a discreet inquiry is. The American people deserve to know how often they are used. And I have asked the FBI to get me this information.

Over a month later, despite multiple requests by the staff of the Intelligence Committee, the FBI has still not provided an answer to the question. Suffice it to say, the longer the Agency waits, in terms of answering the question of how they obtain library records, the more Americans believe that the Agency is stepping over the line and into the lives of law-abiding citizens. Those most directly affected by the library records provision have been expressing strong concerns. The American Library Association recently wrote me:

``[D]iscreet inquiries'' by the FBI put our librarians at

risk of breaking state laws if agents approach them for

information without subpoenas or other properly executed

legal documents and intimidate them into complying with the

request.

I ask unanimous consent the letter from the American Library Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, no one is saying the FBI should not be allowed to conduct voluntary interviews. A voluntary interview is certainly a legitimate and often nonintrusive investigative technique. But the FBI agents must not be out there in effect demanding the records of our citizens without following proper legal procedures. Since the FBI has been so reluctant to discuss the activities relating to these discreet inquiries of libraries, the PATRIOT Act should require the Bureau to report on this topic. At a minimum, they should be required to tell the Congress how this information is being used so the Congress can determine whether the FBI's use of this provision is appropriate.

In several other areas of the PATRIOT Act there should be modifications. A major problem area, for example, is section 505 that deals with national security letters. National security letters are another way for FBI agents to obtain records. Unlike FISA warrants, national security letters do not require the approval of a judge. The FBI has said the national security letters can be appealed, but the current PATRIOT Act does not specifically discuss this. It is often difficult for recipients to learn more about the requests in their letters and their right to refuse since they are usually barred from discussing the letter with anyone, including a lawyer.

In the recent case of Doe v. Ashcroft, the Federal judge found that the FBI had abused this authority by using a national security letter to demand records from an Internet service provider without telling the provider that the letter could be challenged or even that it could be discussed with a lawyer. Congress should reform the national security letter statute to make it clear that national security letters can be challenged, that they can be discussed with a lawyer, and that anyone who receives one has the right to be informed as to their rights. Congress certainly ought to consider adding sunset to this provision.

Section 206 authorizes the FBI to use roving wiretaps in national security investigations. The roving wiretap authority allows the FBI to tap not just a particular phone but any phone the person being targeted might use. Unlike criminal investigations, there is not even a requirement for the FBI to make sure that the person being investigated is using a line. If a suspected terrorist worked in a warehouse, roving wiretap authority could be used to tap a pay phone in that warehouse, and every person who used that phone could have their conversations secretly recorded. This provision, in my view, again, should be modified, and the sunset should definitely be renewed so the Congress has more time to investigate how it has been used.

Finally, some of the tricky wording in several places of the PATRIOT Act needs to be clarified. A provision that looks like a safeguard for civil liberties may expose Americans to unfair scrutiny when they exercise their rights. In several places, the PATRIOT Act prevents the use of various investigative techniques when the investigation is based solely on the first amendment activities of U.S. persons. Our colleague, Senator Levin, has pointed out that simply saying ``solely'' without clarification can create problems and seems to indicate that it is acceptable to investigate Americans largely or even primarily on the basis of their first amendment activities. I am not convinced this safeguard is actually a safeguard. I hope it will be clarified and strengthened throughout the consideration of the PATRIOT Act.

The Intelligence Committee may finish drafting a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in the near future. My sense is the Judiciary Committee will move shortly afterward. It is possible other committees may wish to weigh in on these portions of the PATRIOT Act that fall under their jurisdiction. As we go forward in this debate, as the Congress proceeds to try to walk on that high wire, striking a balance between fighting terrorists ferociously while protecting our civil liberties, I simply say to the Senate this afternoon that the Senate can do better. It is possible, for example, to give the FBI additional emergency power, power that should address the concerns they have raised in the open hearings, without removing the independent checks so necessary in circumstances that are not emergencies.

The bottom line is, let's make sure law enforcement has the tools that are necessary to fight terrorism, to protect the people of our country, but not hang up a sign on this PATRIOT Act reauthorization that says: You hereby have a right to go on any fishing expedition you desire.

The Senate can do better. The job of creating a more balanced protector of security and civil liberties still has work ahead of us. I look forward to working with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to achieve those ends.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that Senator Sununu speak after me for up to 10 minutes as well to discuss bipartisan legislation the two of us have introduced today.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Sununu's remarks, Senator Reed be recognized for 15 minutes.