Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Reuters news service is reporting that Saudi Arabia, and their Foreign Minister specifically, have said in the last day or so they have not been contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's decision to cut oil production once again. As a result, today I am introducing a resolution urging the President communicate to OPEC that oil production be increased, and I intend next week to ask for its immediate consideration.

I am very troubled by the comments of the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. In fact, what Reuters has reported is the Saudi Foreign Minister was asked whether the United States had expressed its disappointment over OPEC's cut in production and the Saudi Foreign Minister said at the time:

I didn't hear from this Bush administration. I'm hearing it

from you that they are disappointed.

This is very troubling. Up and down the west coast of the United States our constituents are getting mugged by high oil prices. We have to have an administration that is willing to put some heat on OPEC to step up oil production at a critical time, particularly as we move in this country to the high driving season. These high gasoline prices are devastating to consumers. They are going to be very harmful to our economy overall, particularly job production. It is consumer spending that is driving the Oregon economy, and if we continue to see our consumers shellacked with these high gasoline prices, it is going to be harder and harder for us to create family wage jobs and generate business growth.

I am hopeful my colleagues will support this resolution I am introducing today and which I am going to ask for immediate consideration of next week. The reason I am hopeful for such bipartisan support is this resolution, in terms of its substance, is identical to one introduced on February 28 of 2000, with our current Secretary of Energy, our friend Spencer Abraham, as one of the principal sponsors. Back then it was clear our colleagues thought it was important, particularly with influential Senators on the other side. Then the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, also the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, Senator Santorum, and a number of our distinguished colleagues were cosponsors of that legislation. The feeling was then it was important to put some heat on OPEC. It was important to make it clear it was the position of the Senate that OPEC boost production.

Of course, that is what then-candidate George W. Bush said, that it was important to boost oil production. Yet with the comments of the Saudi Foreign Minister in the last day or so, I think it is very clear at best it is not a case of getting a full court press, in terms of this administration, on Saudi Arabia and on OPEC.

I will tell you, if ever there was an administration that had some bargaining chips to play with Saudi Arabia in terms of boosting oil production, it is certainly this administration. If you look at what happened after 9/11, in terms of people being helped out of the country, various issues with respect to declassifying Government documents, it is very clear Saudi Arabia has been treated pretty darned well by this administration. If ever there was an administration that had some bargaining chips to play in terms of trying to get OPEC to increase oil production, it is certainly this administration. Yet the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, just in the last day, he wasn't even contacted by the Bush administration with respect to oil production.

Let me also say there are some other troubling signs, and why I feel so strongly about the Senate next week passing the resolution I am introducing. When Secretary Powell was in Saudi Arabia about 2 weeks ago, he also had a chance to talk about the oil crunch and how it is so harmful to American consumers. The press release that came from the U.S. Information Agency--this is again another document coming from our Government--indicated the Secretary and the Crown Prince and Foreign Minister talked about a variety of subjects, terrorism and governmental reforms, but nothing was said about oil prices. What we have, and I have said this before, is OPEC is going to stick up for OPEC. OPEC is not going to stick up for the American consumer. If you think OPEC is going to stick up for the American consumer, then you think Colonel Sanders is going to stick up for the chickens. It is not going to happen. It is the job of our administration to stick up for the consumer, and when the Saudi Foreign Minister says he hasn't even been contacted, that he heard from reporters the administration was disappointed, that is not good enough. It is not good enough for my constituents where consistently we are paying some of the highest prices for gasoline in our country, where we faced anticompetitive practices like redlining and zone pricing for years. It is not good enough where you have a situation such as we have in Bakersfield, CA, where a very large refinery has been closed. They didn't even look for a buyer. There is a lot of oil in the area.

The American people are entitled to some answers. They are certainly entitled to an administration that does what then-Governor George W. Bush said was important, and that was to fight for the consumer, to push OPEC to increase production. Instead, what we learned from the Saudi Foreign Minister is the administration has essentially just sat on its hands.

I was following the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky a bit ago. He makes the point, and it is certainly one that makes sense to me, that what is good for then-President Clinton should be good for President Bush. What I say to my friend is the same principle ought to be applied when it comes to a Senate resolution on OPEC and high oil and gasoline prices.

I hope we will have a good debate in the Senate in the days ahead with respect to our policy as it relates to OPEC and oil production. A number of

our distinguished colleagues were there when this resolution was considered earlier: Senator Grassley, Senator Santorum, our current Secretary of Energy, a good friend of mine, Senator Abraham. I also note the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, Senator Chafee, was also a cosponsor of that resolution.

I am hopeful we will be able to do as the Senator from Kentucky said and that is apply the same principle to this administration as was applied to the Clinton administration. Every administration ought to be pushing OPEC to increase oil production. We certainly ought to take action when the Saudi oil minister was saying he wasn't even contacted.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Reuters news service. The title of this article is ``Saudi Says Not Heard From Bush Over OPEC Oil Cut.''

Mr. President, I will be back on the floor in the days ahead to talk about this critical question. It seems to me what is coming in this country on this oil issue is a perfect storm. The combination of the fact this administration is unwilling to push OPEC over its production cuts, the fact the Federal Trade Commission is unwilling to do anything about these anticompetitive practices or even investigate this refinery closure in Bakersfield, which has great implications for the west coast, all of these factors are coming together to create what I believe is a perfect storm for the gasoline consumer in this country. Given that consumer spending is what is driving our economy right now, we cannot afford to have these high gasoline prices continue or, as I fear, escalate to $3 a gallon.

We will continue to focus on the question of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, swiping oil out of the private sector and squirreling it away into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when it already has a very high level and national security questions are being addressed. But that is not the focus of my comments today. The focus of my comments today is every Member of the Congress ought to be very troubled when the Saudi Foreign Minister says he wasn't contacted by the administration over these production cuts.

We ought to do as was done in 2000 when the Senate, led by a number of our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle who moved ahead on a resolution to boost oil production by OPEC. We ought to do the same now and stand up for the American consumer.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is time for the Bush administration to end its campaign of inaction on gasoline price hikes. Tomorrow, OPEC will vote on whether there should be additional production cuts, and this very morning, the Saudi oil minister said OPEC should go ahead with its scheduled production cut in the month of April.

If they do, that is going to take 1 million barrels of oil off the market per day, when U.S. private oil supplies are already millions of barrels low and when U.S. gasoline prices are at record highs.

Folks on the west coast of the United States are getting clobbered by these gasoline price hikes. People in California pay considerably more than $2 a gallon. Folks in my home State of Oregon are close behind, paying an average of more than $1.80 in some of our towns.

There is a perfect storm coming with respect to these gasoline price hikes. The combination of the Bush administration filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the wrong time, the fact we have these refinery cutbacks on the west coast that seem as much to boost profit as anything else, the Federal Trade Commission turning a blind eye to anticompetitive profits, and the shenanigans of OPEC are the factors that are coming together to create what I think could be a perfect storm with gasoline prices of $3 a gallon.

On the OPEC issue, less than a month ago the head of the Energy Information Agency told me OPEC would make up the difference for the oil the U.S. Energy Department is putting in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I have to tell you, Mr. President, if you think OPEC is going to be looking out for the American gasoline consumer, you have to think Colonel Sanders is looking out for the chickens. It simply does not add up.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the administration's insistence on continuing to swipe oil out of the private U.S. market and squirrel it away in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when the American consumer is getting clobbered each week at the gasoline station. The Bush administration needs to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The administration is spending American tax dollars to buy oil at record high prices and put it in the reserve, and apparently they are saying they will not stop it. But, in fact, they did stop filling the reserve when it helped the oil companies. They stopped filling the reserve in December 2002 when the oil companies needed more supply for refineries.

It seems to me the message today is what the administration is willing to do for the big oil companies they ought to do for the American consumer, and particularly the ones I represent on the west coast of the United States.

There is no substitute for leadership when American families are hurting financially and getting shellacked by these gasoline price hikes. It is interesting to note that when the President was a candidate in 2000, he said the President ought to be using his bully pulpit to jawbone OPEC. This administration is not doing that.

Last week, they took credit for oil coming down about $1 a barrel. The fact was, that was a day late and $7 a barrel short because the price is still way above the OPEC price target level.

We come to the floor today to say when the American people are hurting, there needs to be Presidential leadership. These gas prices are hurting my constituents. They are devastating to businesses and to consumers on the west coast, and they are driving up prices for goods and transportation in this country.

We have a proposal. It is to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, No. 1. No. 2, it is for the Federal Trade Commission to get off the dime and look at these anticompetitive practices. I have introduced legislation, S. 1737. If the Bush administration does not like that bill, I would like to hear their proposal. Let's hear what they are going to do to stand up for the west coast consumer.

It seems the administration is busy filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no regard for rising gas prices. They are busy with their campaign of inaction that seems to help nobody but the oil companies and will not direct the Federal Trade Commission to take steps now to protect the consumer. I think the American people deserve better.

I yield the floor.

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

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

I am happy to.

Mr. President, I rise to reiterate how important it is that Congress and the administration act to protect the American people from rising gas prices. I call on the Bush administration to stop its campaign of inaction on this critical consumer issue.

This week the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, will vote on whether to cut their cartel's production by 1 million barrels a day. This vote comes at a time when the American Automobile Association tells us that the national average price of gasoline is the highest it has ever been. Of course, we know it is not yet the peak driving season. In California, consumers consistently pay over $2 a gallon. In my home State, it is $1.80, and in some towns, $1.85, such as Eugene and Medford. Consumers in Oregon are getting clobbered.

The vote OPEC will be making comes at a time when according to the Associated Press private gasoline inventories are already down by 2.5 million barrels. The vote comes at a time when, in spite of these very low supplies, the Bush administration stubbornly persists in filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve instead of steps that I and others favor, which are to put more oil on the market.

In my view, it is imperative that the United States push OPEC in every possible way not to cause further harm to our already injured gasoline market and to vote against any further production cuts. The Lundberg Survey tells us that even if OPEC were to agree this week not to cut production, we would still face skyrocketing prices. Here is how I read that: If OPEC doesn't agree not to cut production, the problem will be that much worse.

When oil prices were high in September of 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush blasted former President Clinton for not pushing OPEC to increase production. Prices at that time were not as high as they are today. And at least the administration at that time was making some efforts to wring some relief out of OPEC. But still then Texas Governor Bush said:

We need to be mindful of the power of strong and consistent

diplomacy. We need to start playing with chips we have earned

in the past on behalf of American consumers.

If anybody has chips to play now in order to get a fair shake for the consumer, it is this President. Certainly he has chips to play with the domestic oil producers who enjoy the tax breaks he favors and environmental breaks and help when those companies are having difficulty supplying their refineries.

With regard to the OPEC vote, we ought to be clear. I hope the President of the United States will follow the advice he gave years ago. I hope he will do everything possible to push those OPEC countries now, telling them they should not allow the gas problem in this country to worsen with yet another production cut. Pushing OPEC to stop a planned production cut is the very least this administration could do for the gasoline consumer. It would be the least that could be done, but at least it would be something. At least it would end the weeks' long, months' long campaign of inaction that this administration has waged as gasoline prices have crept higher and higher and clobbered consumers in every part of the United States.

For several weeks now OPEC's per barrel price has been well above their target per barrel price range of $22 to

$28. OPEC committed to keeping prices in this range. They long ago discarded that commitment, and yet nobody has heard anything from the administration until just in the last week or so, as I and others started calling for answers.

We sure heard from the White House last week when OPEC prices dropped to $35.51 per barrel. They said: Well, we are making progress. But the fact is, that amount is more than $7 higher than the top of OPEC's target price range. So any pressure this administration has put on OPEC is a day late and more than $7 short. Taking credit after the fact for a pittance of accommodation from OPEC is not going to solve this Nation's gasoline price problems, and it certainly is not going to provide the consumer any real relief.

I will tell you what else is not going to help American consumers. That is for the administration to continue to turn a blind eye to the rampant anticompetitive and anticonsumer practices that are plaguing our country's gasoline markets. Scores of communities, including those in my State, have few if any choices for the gasoline consumer. Nationwide the gas market in Oregon and at least 27 other States is considered tight oligopolies where four companies control more than 60 percent of the gasoline at the pump. In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices have driven the independent wholesalers and detailers completely out of the market. They use red lining and zone pricing. The fact is, with these and other practices, the independent stations can't compete. They go out of business, and the oil companies can widen their net to grab even more cash from the consumers.

The Federal Trade Commission, when they have looked at these practices in the past, have admitted that they are anticompetitive and drive prices higher. They just say they don't have the power to do much about it. I don't think that is true. To be fair, the past administration didn't do a whole lot either when it came to going to bat for the consumer to stop these oil company anticompetitive practices. But this administration has proven that if they want to make something happen administratively, they certainly can do it. They have done that in area after area.

It seems to me that if the administration will end its campaign of inaction to stop the price-pumping shenanigans of private oil companies, they could certainly take steps now to help the American consumer.

In December of 2002, they stepped in to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep more oil on the market, when the oil companies couldn't keep their refineries full. But now when American consumers are paying $2 a gallon at the pump, we don't see any effort to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So the fact is, what this administration is unwilling do for the driving public, they are willing to do for big oil.

What ought to be done in the face of this campaign of inaction? Certainly, you can make a start by having congressional action. I sponsored S. 1737, which would give the Federal Trade Commission additional tools to promote competition in these very tight markets. They would have the power to issue cease and desist orders to prevent companies from gouging consumers. That is a vehicle that can be used right now to help the American consumer. We are certainly going to have problems in the days ahead. And even the oil companies admit that the market won't solve the problems on its own.

Last August a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. Last November the Energy Information Administration also issued a report on the causes of last summer's record high gas prices.

They said--and this is the position of the Federal Government-- ``There is continuing vulnerability to future gasoline price spikes.''

The Congress needs to act now before gasoline rises to $3 per gallon, and we are hearing that from some independent oil industry analysts.

The administration, however, has the power to act now. They need to be on the phone. They need to be pushing OPEC today. They need to get off the dime at the Federal Trade Commission, where action can be taken administratively. Rising gas prices don't just hit families in the pocket during the weekly fill-up; those rising gasoline prices are producing a disturbance and causing ripples throughout our economy. There are huge consequences of this price manipulation.

When gasoline costs more, businesses' transportation costs go up. Their profits go down. So either the price of the goods they sell to consumers has to go up, or the number of people they employ must plummet. So higher gas prices either mean bigger costs for consumer goods, or fewer jobs in an economy that certainly cannot afford to lose any more.

Let me close by saying that I hope my legislation, S. 1737, will pass in the days ahead. Right now, consumers are getting socked at the pumps in person. That is not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to any Member of the Senate. It is time to stand up to the status quo.

It is time for the Bush administration to take the lead. They ought to do it with OPEC and with the Federal Trade Commission. If the administration doesn't support the proposals I offer today, they ought to end their campaign of inaction and offer their own. I hope we will have a chance to debate this on the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a draft legislative proposal I have developed and am soliciting comment from people in my State to add 160,000 acres of new wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest.

The year 2004 is momentous for wilderness in Oregon. It marks the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 20th anniversary of the last Oregon wilderness bill. Perhaps most importantly, 2004 marks the bicentennial of the single most important exploratory committee ever launched by the Federal Government and that is the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

One way to mark this very special time would be to enact a new Oregon wilderness bill, which I could conceive of as the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2004. In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, I believe it would also be appropriate to add four free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System.

In the last few years, Congress has protected some of my home State's most important treasures: Steens Mountain is now home to 170,000 acres of wilderness. The Little Sandy watershed is now part of the Bull Run Management unit and will help provide drinking water for over 700,000 Oregonians. Soda Mountain has been designated a national monument. Fort Clatsop National Memorial has been expanded, and this year it may be designated as Oregon's second national park.

The draft I have been discussing with my constituents would take a fresh look at protecting the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge. These forests symbolize the natural beauty of my home State. They provide the clean water for the biological survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, and of course the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for millions of Oregonians and all of our visitors.

Mount Hood is the highest mountain in my home State. Captain Clark described it as ``a mountain of immense height, covered with snow,'' while John Muir described Mount Hood a bit more poetically as ``one glorious manifestation of divine power.''

``Wy'East'' is the American Indian name for Mount Hood. Before Lewis and Clark came to what we now know as my home State, these forests and species they supported in turn supported native Indians for thousands of years. These are the forests that connect the high elevation snowfields with the rich, diverse lower valleys that produce our famous salmon which were described as so plentiful one could walk across the river on their backs.

Although the history of Mount Hood and her environs are fascinating, the need to designate these areas as protected wilderness and wild and scenic rivers is best expressed by the very modern stories of increased pressures from development and recreational use that are at the heart of our State's future.

The need to protect and build on Oregon's wilderness system that is as important now as it was in 1804, 1964, or 1984. There are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness on the Mount Hood National Forest. I believe it would be appropriate this year, 2004, to discuss a draft bill which would almost double that amount by designating approximately 160,000 new acres of wilderness thereby lessening the pressures of overuse while also staving off the threat of development.

Today, the economic role of these important public lands has shifted. Communities on the highway to Mount Hood often market themselves as the ``Gateway to Mount Hood,'' and see this as a special opportunity to improve their tourism.

They should. On weekends, crowds of Oregonians come out of the cities seeking a natural and often wild experience. In the 20 years that has elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--20 percent in my home county of Multnomah, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 41 percent in Clackamas County.

With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, it seems to me that very often we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike the south side of Mount Hood. I can tell you the public outcry was staggering.

So it seems to me, rather than to tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, the solution lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy our great places. I have heard from community after community that they fear a threat to their local drinking water or the need for further protections from development. Congressional statutory designation as wilderness provides the only real protection of the historic, scientific, cultural, environmental, scenic, and recreational values that contribute to the quality of life of which the people of my State are so proud.

The protection of the special Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians, and especially my colleagues in the Congress.

I have had a chance already to discuss this with Senator Smith. He and I always work in a bipartisan way. As always, he has been very gracious with respect to saying he would work with me and will join me in listening to the people of Oregon.

I have also been pleased today to be able to talk to Congressman Walden, who is the new chair of an important subcommittee who will be in a position to listen to the people of our State, take their ideas, and take their input on this draft. I also have talked to Congressman Blumenauer today, who represents the congressional district that I was so proud to represent for 15 years in the House of Representatives.

I believe the four of us in particular will take the time now to listen to the people of our State, the county commissioners, the environmentalists, the

entrepreneurs, the chambers of commerce, the Governor, various State- elected officials who have an interest in this issue, and other interested parties and work to try to get this important work done in the right fashion.

I have been very proud to have been involved in two natural resource efforts in the last few years where people thought the polarization was so great that you could not get anything done. With respect to the county payments legislation Senator Craig and I teamed up on a matter that was absolutely critical to funding schools and roads. We worked in a bipartisan way, listened to people, and got an important piece of legislation passed.

We did the same thing with respect to forest health legislation earlier in this Congress. People said we couldn't get a bill out of the Senate. A lot of people of good will, including the Presiding Officer tonight, came together and we got 80 votes for it in the Senate.

When you listen to people, it is possible to get important natural resources legislation passed. I think it would be very appropriate to take the draft I am now circulating to the people of Oregon, spend the necessary time listening to people of our State, and turn it into legislation that could be considered formally by the Congress and perfect it in the coming weeks and days ahead. Congress ought to try to pass this legislation after listening to the people of my home State. The grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations if we can come together and approach this in a bipartisan way.

That is what I am committed to doing based on my conversations today with Congressman Walden and Congressman Blumenauer, the Members who are most affected by the legislation, and Senator Smith who has joined me so often. I am convinced our delegation is committed to doing this job right, recognizing that 2004 is a momentous year for wilderness in our State.

I would very much like to see the people of our State, working with our congressional delegation, coming together and passing a Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2004. We have a lot of work ahead of us in the days ahead, but we are committed to approaching this in a responsible and bipartisan fashion. I want to tell the people of my State I think it would be exciting to make sure that we could take steps in this session to ensure that, for the millions who will come to visit Mount Hood in the days ahead, we have acted to preserve the grandeur of this spectacular treasure.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for taking this time. I want to spend a few minutes trying to put in context the debate about Mr. Clarke's new book. It seems to me that first and foremost this debate is about more than ``he said/she said.'' Invariably that is what these discussions become fairly quickly. I want to review a couple of instances that have caused me to be particularly concerned about the way the Clarke book has been handled.

When former Ambassador Wilson was concerned that the administration had no evidence that the Iraqis had attempted to buy yellow cake from Nigeria, there was a very significant effort to try to discredit him. When former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, a close friend of the Vice President, in effect talked about the administration going after Saddam Hussein, everybody in the administration said he was all wet as well. Now we see the same tactic employed against Mr. Clarke, who served both Republican and Democratic administrations, beginning with the Reagan administration.

Having worked closely with Mr. Clarke on a number of issues relating to cyber terrorism, Mr. Clarke has been very critical of actions taken by executive branch officials of both political parties.

My sense is that, when you look at what people such as former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have said over the years, you don't go with a story unless you have two independent sources to confirm it. What you have this morning is Mr. Clarke in effect confirming Secretary O'Neill's account of the administration's focus on Saddam Hussein.

That is particularly important. These are two people with a long history of working in Washington, DC. Both of them have been fiercely independent. Both are known for calling the issues on the basis of how they see them. In effect, you have Mr. Clarke now confirming Secretary O'Neill's account with respect to the focus on Saddam Hussein.

There is an old saying that all roads lead to Rome. It seems the administration so often clearly believes that no matter what the evidence was at any particular time, essentially everything led to Saddam Hussein.

It is clear that Saddam Hussein, throughout his leadership in Iraq, consistently looked for opportunities to inflict pain and trauma on the people of that country. It is beyond question that this was an evil individual. But at the same time, it is critically important that we be in a position to follow the facts.

I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have always tried to work in a bipartisan way. I see the Presiding Officer of the Senate, Mr. Smith. He and I together have tried to set an example of bipartisanship. That is the way we need to proceed in this critical area. When you have the Clarke book backing up what former Secretary O'Neill said, that ought to set off alarm bells. That ought to set off alarm bells with respect to exactly how information is filtered now in the executive branch.

I am hopeful we will see this independent inquiry get to the bottom of the situation and find out exactly what transpired after this critical situation with the attack on our country. It is important that our Nation get the facts. It is important that they are found in a dispassionate fashion. Now with this new book by Mr. Clarke making it clear that he shares the judgment of Secretary O'Neill, it ought to renew a concern in the Congress and a concern on a bipartisan basis that this country has a right to know, this country has a right to the facts. Certainly the question of responsibility for 9/11 is an issue the American people should be able to see in a dispassionate fashion, what really happened and how it happened. If anything, the events of the last week reaffirm in my mind how important it is that the American people get the real story.

I yield my time. I note the Senator from North Dakota is on the floor as well. He and I have worked together on many issues. Certainly on the foreign policy arena, we share the view that these issues have to be worked on in a bipartisan way. I will continue to focus on the evidence and focus on that evidence no matter where it leads.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, gasoline prices are soaring to the highest levels ever and once again the response of the Federal Government is to do nothing. I have come to the floor today because I believe the gasoline consumer is about to be hit by a perfect storm, a combination of refinery cutbacks that boost profits, the fact that oil is being moved into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no plan to protect the consumer from resulting shortages, and the prospect of even higher OPEC prices when OPEC cuts production possibly in June, just at the start of the high travel season. I want to discuss this today because inaction in the face of spiraling gas prices is the worst possible response Congress and the administration could have at this time.

Higher oil and gasoline prices act like attacks on our consumers, causing them to defer spending in order to pay for gasoline. Right now, consumer spending is the principal ingredient driving our economy. If consumer spending declines, economic recovery is going to be delayed and there is the chance of the economy sliding further into a recession.

I know gasoline prices are already as high as they have ever been, and the perfect storm I see coming in the days ahead is going to soak consumers for even more money at the pump with the prices already staggering.

According to the American Automobile Association, the national average price of gasoline is $1.72 per gallon. That is just 2 cents short of the alltime high set last August and, of course, it is not even the peak driving season. California prices are consistently way over $2 per gallon. The prices in my State are consistently in the ballpark of $1.80. I will outline this afternoon

why I believe it is likely to get even worse.

One major oil company, Shell, has announced it is deliberately shutting a 70,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Bakersfield, CA. This refinery is critical to the entire West Coast market. The fact is, when Shell permanently constricts gasoline supplies and drives up prices along the West Coast, our area, which already has staggeringly high unemployment, is going to be hit very hard.

Earlier this month, at a Senate Energy Committee hearing, I asked the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration whether the closing of Shell's Bakersfield refinery could boost West Coast prices even higher. That day he agreed that could be the result of that refinery shutting down. Yet, in the face of these kinds of problems, the response of the Federal Government is simply to sit on the sidelines.

Shell's announcement of its decision to close the Bakersfield refinery claimed in a statement that there is simply not enough crude supply to ensure the viability of the refinery in the long term. Recent news articles have reported that both Chevron/Texaco and State of California officials estimate that in that valley where the Bakersfield refinery is located, there is a 20- to 25-year supply of crude oil remaining. In fact, Bakersfield, CA, reported on January 8 of this year that Chevron/Texaco plans on drilling more than 800,000 new wells in the valley, which is 300 more new wells than last year. The fact that Texaco, Shell's former partner in the Bakersfield refinery, is increasing drilling in the area calls into question this claim by Shell that a lack of available oil supply is the real reason for closing the Bakersfield refinery.

Shell also claimed that its decision was not made to drive up profits, but the company admitted to the Wall Street Journal that there will be an impact on the market. Of course, the impact is going to be to drive up prices even higher. The question for the Senate, and why it is so important for us to act now, is, How much are these prices going to go up and when is the Senate going to finally stand with those who have to make these gasoline purchases?

In 2001, I revealed internal oil company documents that showed major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for stifling competition and boosting their profits. These documents raised significant questions about whether American oil companies are trying to pull off a financial triple play: Boosting profits by reducing refinery capacity, tagging consumers with higher pump prices, and then going out and arguing for environmental rollbacks and additional financial incentives.

I say, and I want to use this to make clear why I think it is important the Senate should act, that I believe these practices I described in 2001 are still ongoing today as gasoline prices rise even higher and consumers suffer even more. In memos detailed in a report I issued then, oil companies articulated a desire to reduce oil and gas supply.

One document from Texaco reads:

Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing

supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline in order

to increase prices and grow profit margins. Oil company

competitors also discussed--

Discussed with each other, Mr. President--

mutual opportunities to control oil and gas supply, thus

keeping markets tight.

In one case, they were trying specifically to prevent the restart of a closed refinery in southern California. One company document revealed if the refinery in question, Powerine, was restarted, the additional gasoline supply on the market could bring down gas prices and refinery prices by 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon and it called for a ``full court press'' to keep the refinery down. The Powerine refinery's capacity was 20,000 barrels per day. The Bakersfield company Shell wants to shut down has a capacity of 70,000 barrels a day. If oil companies in the mid-1990s thought a much smaller shutdown would raise the price of gas by 2 cents to 3 cents, you can't tell me the shutdown of a refinery with 3\1/2\ times the capacity will not have an even larger impact on prices at the pump.

What makes Shell's decision to close its Bakersfield refinery especially curious is it seems the company has done virtually nothing proactively to find a buyer. But, to date, in spite of my requests and the requests of others, the Federal Trade Commission has made no effort to stop or even slow plans for Shell's refinery closure. The Federal Trade Commission has been arguing they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out blatant collusion, setting out a standard that is virtually impossible to prove against these very savvy oil interests. But in this case the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to act because the Agency allowed two megamergers to go through that directly affect the refinery Shell now plans to shut down. The Federal Trade Commission had a chance to act when it allowed Shell to acquire full ownership of the Bakersfield refinery in 2001 from a Shell-Texaco partnership.

The Federal Trade Commission had another chance to act when it allowed Shell to acquire Pennzoil-Quaker State in 2002. Then last November, when Shell announced it was closing the Bakersfield refinery, the Federal Trade Commission had a third chance to act, using its continuing authority to reexamine these earlier mergers.

I say it is time to get the Federal Trade Commission off the sidelines and onto the side of the consumer who is getting shellacked at gasoline pumps all across America. Today I am calling on the Federal Trade Commission to exercise its continuing authority over these past mergers and to either block the shutdown of Shell's Bakersfield refinery or to otherwise keep refineries in that area viable. That set of decisions will affect the entire west coast gasoline market. At a time when our economy is being hit so hard, it is absolutely critical to the public interest.

The Energy Department ought to be doing more to address the problem of high gasoline prices, but at a minimum the Energy Department should not be making the problem worse. When Secretary Abraham was asked recently about the problem of rising gasoline prices, he told reporters he was extremely concerned but did not specify the Department would do anything. One thing that could be done by the Department that would help address the problem is the Energy Department could stop making the current supply situation worse by taking oil from the tight U.S. market to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without any protections for the consumer.

On February 12, as crude and gasoline prices were spiking up, the Bush administration awarded five new long-term contracts to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These new contracts will run from April through the summer, the very time period where prices typically shoot upward. If the Bush administration were concerned about high gasoline prices, the Energy Department could have either delayed awarding these long-term contracts or arranged to defer the delivery of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as was done last winter, to minimize the impact on the market and on the consumer. But now the administration is taking oil off the market and moving it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no concrete plan to protect consumers from the higher prices this action will cause.

Earlier this month, Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Agency told me OPEC would be making up the difference in supply for oil that is being moved into America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So you have a situation where the administration, through the Energy Information Agency, is telling people to not really sweat these OPEC decisions. But now OPEC is telling us they are going to cut production by 1 million barrels a day. This morning we hear they might hold off until June instead of making cuts in April. But even if they do that, the OPEC production cuts would come at the beginning of the summer travel season. So certainly OPEC is engaged in some doubletalk. For some time they have not kept their promise to hold oil prices within their own target price range. In fact, some members of OPEC just want the price range increased.

Some in OPEC say they are concerned prices are too high. Yet this cartel is taking oil off the market. Others are saying they see a glut of oil on the market, justifying the production cut. These are mixed signals, but the message for our consumers is clear: OPEC is certainly going to do what is

best for OPEC, not what is best for the American consumer.

My bottom line is the Federal Government certainly is challenged, in terms of stopping OPEC from cutting production. But certainly the Federal Government can take steps and take steps immediately to make sure there is competition in our gasoline markets so consumers are not getting ripped off at the pump.

Today I am calling for Congress to take action on a specific, concrete package of procompetition initiatives to help consumers at the Nation's gas pumps. First, Congress needs to direct the Government regulators to act to eliminate anticompetitive practices that currently siphon competition out of gasoline markets. Scores of communities, including those in my home State, have few if any choices for the consumer. Nationwide, the gasoline markets in Oregon and in at least 27 other States are now considered to be tight oligopolies, with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gas supply. In California, where Shell's Bakersfield refinery is located, 4 oil companies control 70 percent of the market. In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices have driven independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called redlining, limits where independent distributors can sell gas. As a result, independent stations have to buy their gas directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand-name stations are paying. With these higher costs the independent stations can't compete.

Last year I sponsored legislation, S. 1732, that would give the Federal Trade Commission additional tools to promote competition in these areas that are essentially small monopolies. Under my bill, in these very highly concentrated markets you would have consumer watch zones. In these zones there would be greater monitoring of anticompetitive practices by the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission would also be empowered to issue cease-and-desist orders to prevent the companies from gouging the consumer, and Congress would stipulate certain anticompetitive practices like redlining and zone pricing are, per se, anticompetitive and oil companies engaging in these anticompetitive practices that manipulate supply or limit competition would have the burden of proof to show these anticompetitive practices are not harming consumers.

There is a vehicle right now. Right today there is a vehicle, S. 1737, Congress could use to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices, because the companies admit the market is not going to solve the problem on its own.

Last August, a report by the RAND Corporation revealed even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. This means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years.

Last November, the Energy Information Agency also issued a report on the causes of last summer's record high gas prices. The Energy Information Agency found, ``There is continuing vulnerability to future gasoline price hikes.'' The industry and the Bush administration both agree gasoline price spikes are going to be a continuing and significant problem. But neither, as of today, is willing to step in and work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to do anything about the problem. I am here to say the Congress needs to act now. This is legislation to act now before gasoline shoots up to $3 per gallon, as some oil industry analysts are predicting.

The reasons Congress ought to act are twofold. Aside from the obvious cost to the consumer at the pump, there are hidden costs to the price manipulation. There is a huge economic impact that will only worsen as prices rise. When gasoline costs more, the costs for our businesses in the transportation area go up. Our businesses see their profits go down. So we have one of two things--either the prices of the goods they sell to consumers have to go up or the number of people they employ is going to plummet. Higher gasoline prices either means bigger costs for consumer goods or fewer jobs in our economy. And certainly in our home State, we cannot afford to see that. This isn't high economic theory. This is basic math.

Just this month, the New York Times quoted a truck driver from Wisconsin saying eventually the added cost of transporting household goods and snacks and other items will once again come back and clobber the consumer. You have a double whammy. Consumers get socked at the pump in person, and then get hit again with higher prices for the goods they buy. That is not acceptable to me, and I don't believe it is acceptable to the American people.

The challenge now is for the Congress to stand up to the status quo in the oil industry. I understand--and certainly nobody would minimize this--this will be a hard row to hoe in terms of taking on these very powerful interests.

When I first introduced legislation that now can be used to protect the consumer from gasoline prices going up to $3 per gallon, various oil interests and Bush administration officials voiced great consternation and argued vociferously that the legislation I believed will protect the consumer was unacceptable to the oil industry and the administration.

I still believe the proposals which I have put forward in legislation and on which the Congress could move now would protect competition and free markets. My legislation doesn't involve big expenditures from Government. It doesn't involve setting up new agencies. It involves bringing some competition and free market forces back to this country and to the gasoline business--particularly in those States where we have these quasi-monopolies.

But for those who disagree with my legislation, S. 1737, which I believe would protect the consumer who is getting clobbered at the gasoline pumps, I issue a challenge. If they think they have a better approach than my legislation for bringing competition and free market forces back to the gasoline market, they have an obligation to come forward at a time when our consumers are being hit so hard at the pump. Unless people who are opposing my legislation are prepared to say the record high gasoline prices aren't a problem, they have an obligation to come forward with their proposals to promote competition. Put an alternative on the table and stand up for the consumer.

I also think Congress needs to address the growing gap between consumer demand for gas and what the oil companies can produce. When supplies are tight and there is no spare gasoline in inventories, consumers are especially vulnerable to supply shortages and price spikes. That frequently causes severe price spikes when refineries shut down unexpectedly or a pipeline breaks, as happened last summer. Congress should ensure consumers are not left stalled by the side of the road or being pounded at the pump by taking steps to keep supplies available in an emergency. One option would be to require major oil companies to maintain minimum inventories to address unexpected supply crunches.

Alternatively, the Federal Government can create a strategic gasoline reserve to provide supplies during refinery or pipeline shutdowns. This proposal would build on the strategic reserves that already exist for petroleum and heating oil supplies.

It seems to me what it all comes down to is the American people deserve better, and they deserve better than the Federal Government being AWOL when our consumers are facing skyrocketing gasoline prices across the country. With a new energy bill expected to come before the Senate in the next several weeks, this is an opportunity to put the Government on the side of the American consumer when they are filling their tanks at the pumps across the land.

I conclude by again commenting on the role of the Federal Trade Commission. This is the agency that is charged by Congress with promoting competition and free markets. Again and again in the energy field they have either sat on the sidelines or simply looked the other way in the face of increasing concentration in this critical sector of our economy. With gasoline prices already soaring at the highest level at this particular time, it seems to me it is absolutely critical for the Federal Trade Commission to reverse its present

course, get on the side of the consumer, and promote marketplace forces and competition in the gasoline business.

I intend to use my seat on the Senate Commerce Committee at every possible opportunity to force the Federal Trade Commission to do the job it has been charged by the Congress to do. It ought to start with looking seriously into the shutdown in Bakersfield, which is going to, in my view, have calamitous consequences for the entire west coast gasoline market. But it also should include a broader look at the implication of concentration in the gasoline business.

I am hopeful that ultimately the Federal Trade Commission will support my legislation, S. 1737, which would promote more competition in the gasoline business. And if they disagree with it, the head of that agency, Mr. Timothy Muris, ought to propose his own alternative.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts coming to the floor because he has done so much to help the consumer in this area. My concern--and I would be interested in the Senator's reaction--is I think the consumer is about to get hit by a perfect storm with the combination of failure to push OPEC, as the Senator has said, to try to help on the production issue, plus the refinery cutbacks that apparently are primarily to boost profits, plus filling the strategic petroleum reserve. With these factors coming together, it seems to me a perfect storm is going to push the consumers' gasoline price at the pump to $3 a gallon.

I would be interested in the Senator's reaction, and I am anxious to work with him in this effort to push the administration to go after

Madam President, today, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I did this because I have been trying to obtain information concerning EPA's decision to become involved with the City of Portland's combined sewer overflow program since last August. Despite numerous requests, EPA has to this point failed to answer my questions and failed to provide me with the documents I have requested, with the exception of a limited number of documents that EPA would have to provide to any requester under FOIA.

There are legitimate questions about EPA's decision to intervene 10 years after the City signed an enforceable order with the State of Oregon and after the city and its ratepayers have spent more than $500 million to reduce sewer overflows. But to date, I have been unable to get answers to my questions from EPA despite repeated requests.

Last August, I wrote to the Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko requesting answers to a number of questions concerning EPA's decision to become involved with the City of Portland's combined sewer overflow program. I also requested copies of documents about the Portland sewer situation. I never received answers to my specific questions, and I have received only a small number of the documents I requested.

I also submitted written questions following a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on September 15 to then EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, Tracy Mehan. I never received a response from Mr. Mehan, who has subsequently left the agency, or anyone else from EPA.

In October, I received a letter from Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko promising to ``work[] with your staff to identify which of the documents that are not enforcement sensitive or confidential would be most helpful to you.'' Since then, I have received only a slim file of documents that doesn't begin to answer my questions.

Finally, I ask EPA Administrator Leavitt to look into this personally more than a month ago.

Until I receive answers to my questions and the documents I need to exercise my oversight responsibilities over EPA as a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I will continue to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee, I yield myself up to 20 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado was in the Budget Committee and saw our focus on health care issues. He said in particular he was hoping we would have an effort to bring forth ideas that would generate bipartisan support. That is exactly what I hope to do this afternoon. I want to discuss the question of laying the foundation in this budget resolution for containing prescription drug costs.

If you think about what happened in the Budget Committee, there was no topic that generated as much interest and as much concern as the question of health care and particularly Medicare and prescription drugs.

In fact, at one point the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, said: Well, are we going to relitigate the entire prescription drug bill on the budget? Obviously, the budget resolution does not allow for something like that.

I think Chairman Grassley's comments were indicative of the frustration and concern across this country with respect to the inability to hold down the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs.

I want to discuss an idea about which I and others on the Budget Committee have been talking. It is also in the legislation I have been able to work on with Senator Snowe.

What particularly pleased me in the Budget Committee is Senator Gregg, the chairman of the HELP Committee, said he thought this idea had considerable merit. I am hopeful by the time this comes out on the floor, we can do what Senator Allard has been talking about, and that is to have ideas that are bipartisan that deal with these important issues, particularly concerns such as health care where we have this demographic tsunami ahead, that really do address what the American people, and especially seniors, are talking about.

What will be offered before too long is an effort to lay the groundwork in the budget resolution for making sure the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to negotiate for our seniors and hold down the costs of prescription drugs.

For the first time, the Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me on March 3 said:

Giving the Secretary an additional tool--the authority to

negotiate prices with manufacturers of such drugs--can put

greater pressure on manufacturers and could produce some

additional savings.

What I say to the Senate and colleagues is for the first time now, we have the Congressional Budget Office on record stating that giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate prices could produce additional savings for some pharmaceuticals that are purchased by our seniors.

I would hope every Member of the Senate would be sympathetic of this desire to contain costs in prescription drugs at this time. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first, in my view, is the fact we have just seen in recent weeks the prescription drug legislation that passed is going to cost $134 billion more than was estimated.

In light of this dramatic increase, which has come up in a matter of

weeks, in light of the fact we have this demographic revolution ahead, it seems to me it is critical the Senate act responsibly and search for every way possible to assure access to affordable medicines for seniors and to protect the interests of the taxpayers.

I voted for the Medicare legislation. I still have the welts on my back to prove it. I also believe strongly in making sure the private sector has every opportunity to help in lowering costs and delivering needed pharmaceuticals to seniors.

I have always felt there is considerable merit in the approach used by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that uses the private sector to make sure you get a fair shake for Federal employees. But I also think it is important there be backup kinds of tools, that there be additional tools to the private sector approach, and that is why it is so important the Senate, before it completes its business, uses the opportunity to lay the groundwork in this budget resolution to make sure the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in a position to try to wring out the best possible bargain for seniors and for taxpayers on these medicine costs.

Given the fact the Congressional Budget Office has now told us additional savings are possible when we provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to negotiate, it seems to me to be derelict to not have the Senate on a bipartisan basis lay the groundwork for giving the Secretary that authority to negotiate.

I was very much encouraged when the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, said there was considerable merit to this idea.

I see the Senator from Colorado on the floor. He has talked repeatedly about his desire to have bipartisan efforts in the health care area.

In the past, every time in the budget resolution when Senator Snowe was on the committee, Senator Smith, and others, we have been able to do it. This year it was not possible, and that is tragic, particularly in light of the increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals and the increase in the prescription drug costs over a matter of a few weeks.

I am very hopeful now we will have a chance to move ahead on this issue. The approach that will be offered is one I think is consistent with the votes of those who supported the legislation and many who were against it. Many who were against the legislation said they had reservations because it did not do enough to contain costs. Now we have the opportunity, because of what the Congressional Budget Office has told us, to actually rein in the costs of this program. We have seen we can do it in some areas that are very significant. Take single-source medicine. The American Academy of Actuaries has found in many instances these drugs comprise a significant portion of the entire expenditure of the program. I think we can do this in a fashion that ensures access for those who need this medicine.

I have worked so closely with those programs--the National Alliance for Mentally Ill and others--that are concerned about those drugs. We can get these cost savings, ensure access for those individuals, and save taxpayers money. It seems to me if the Congress simply lets pass this opportunity to rein in the costs--and we see the costs of the program have skyrocketed more than $100 billion in a matter of months-- one has to ask oneself, What is ahead? How much more of this program, a program so desperately needed by the elderly, is going to be eaten up as a result of the Senate not taking the steps to rein in the costs?

The Congressional Budget Office has told us now what is possible, so it really becomes a question of political will. I am very hopeful as the Senate goes about its work over the next few days, we understand here is a chance to build on the legislation that passed. It is not putting in place price controls and some kind of arbitrary ``set the prices from Washington, DC'' kind of regime. I believe private marketplace forces can work. I have seen that in my hometown where we have many older people in managed care programs. But I also want us to make sure the Secretary of Health and Human Services has every appropriate additional tool to try to wring out price savings for both seniors and taxpayers. With the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now telling us for the first time, reversing the position they outlined back in January of this year, I think we ought to make sure we pass legislation that lays the groundwork for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to have the tool, the authority to negotiate prices, that can produce the additional savings for some pharmaceuticals the Congressional Budget Office has outlined.

I want to emphasize to my colleagues this is not price controls. This would not set aside the private sector and the authority of the private sector to negotiate. I happen to think that is constructive. I think we will get some savings. Certainly, the fact some seniors will get their health care medicines and pharmaceuticals through managed care plans and have the kind of buying power that produces will be very useful, and I support that. But I also think on top of that private sector leverage, we ought to give the Secretary the authority to negotiate.

It is, in effect, a fallback tool that can ensure you wring out savings for taxpayers and for older people. I offer in the spirit the Senator from Colorado talked about in the committee--he wanted to see people come forward with ideas, and I say to the Senator from Colorado, I have come forth with an idea.

I have come forth with an idea that the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, says has considerable merit. When there is that kind of opportunity and one faces these escalating costs we have seen just in a matter of weeks, $134 billion more than was originally envisioned, the Congress ought to act.

A number of colleagues have worked very hard on this issue over the years--Senator Kennedy, Senator Feingold, Senator Stabenow on this side. I have been so pleased to be able to work with Senator Snowe and Senator Smith on many of these issues over the years.

I ask my colleagues to reflect on what the Congressional Budget Office has said on this topic. When there are these kinds of increases in prescription drug costs both for older people who walk into a pharmacy and for the entire Medicare Program, $134 billion increase in a matter of months, let's heed the objective analysis of the Congressional Budget Office and make sure we wring out every possible savings for the taxpayers and seniors of this country.

There was a reason why in the Budget Committee no subject was discussed at such length as health care costs. The reason is medical costs are gobbling up everything in sight. There are no costs going up like medical bills. We see that for every possible group.

I am one who believes the private sector can help contain costs. That is why I have been a supporter of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. I also believe when the Congressional Budget Office tells us there are ways to make additional savings by giving Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate a good deal for senior citizens under the Medicare Program, it would be derelict for the Senate not to make sure that opportunity was not picked up on.

We will have a good debate on this issue. I am very hopeful that the words we heard from the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, the idea of giving the Secretary the authority to negotiate prices for seniors has considerable merit and that we can have bipartisan support for the efforts in this budget resolution to lay the groundwork for an approach on prescription drug cost containment.

This is about cost containment. It is not about throwing the whole law in the trash can. It is not about starting over. It is about containing costs. It is about the principal concern older people and taxpayers have all across this country. The Congressional Budget Office has told us we have a chance to contain costs. We ought to lay the groundwork to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Conrad of North Dakota, and also thank Senator Nickles, whose staff has been working with me.

Many Senators know last year we put a tremendous amount of effort in trying to get a bipartisan bill passed to

get our forests healthy again. We have seen much of our country just devastated by staggering forest fires.

A key part of that legislation was to authorize $760 million in hazardous fuels reduction programs. The amendment I have filed--and I will be asking the Senate to vote on it tomorrow--has generated interest among many colleagues of both political parties. It would add $343 million to last year's $417 million for hazardous fuels reductions to reach the $760 million authorization in title I Healthy Forests legislation.

It seems to me what we have seen over the years is essentially a shell game, where various Forest Service programs are robbed in order to fund the hazardous fuels reduction programs and we end up without adequate resources across the board in the forestry area. I am hopeful we will be able to agree with our Republican colleagues on this effort.

Suffice it to say, it was a Herculean task to get Healthy Forest legislation passed last session. I think many thought it was impossible. It seems to me the Senate owes it to the people who are waiting to see improvements in their communities to fully fund this important legislation.

I am going to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this particular piece of legislation. This amendment will ensure we really get some health back into this idea of healthy forests. We are not going to be able to do it if we consistently underfund these programs.

In the past, it seems to me, we played sort of a ``rob one fund in order to fund another fund'' kind of program. That is not going to do the job responsibly for the long term. We are talking about millions and millions of acres that we are going to have to thin in the days ahead.

After the Senate passes historic legislation, legislation that is going to be good for the environment, good for the economy, promote old growth, involve local communities, protect the rights of citizens--for example, being involved in forestry policy--what we have to do is fund this properly.

There will be interest among colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the legislation. I thank Chairman Nickles for being willing to work with me on it, and Senator Conrad as well. On the other side of the aisle, Senators Domenici and Burns are intensely interested in this matter. On our side of the aisle, Senators Daschle, Feinstein, Bingaman--all of us have cooperated with the ranking member, Senator Conrad, and the chairman, Senator Nickles.

My amendment has been filed, and I am hopeful we will be able to pass it without controversy tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Chairman.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 2160 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for her leadership. I wish to make a couple of points. First, there is a staggering amount of economic hurt in virtually every nook and cranny of my State. Our unemployment rate is over 7 percent.

The Economic Development Administration recently announced that for key projects to create jobs in rural areas, small communities are going to have to come up with $22 to get $1 of help for infrastructure, something that can create good-paying jobs.

We are trying to get the transportation bill passed, but with those kinds of measures, we desperately need to extend this lifeline legislation to the thousands and thousands of Oregonians and other Americans who are out of work.

These are folks who simply have nowhere to turn to pay the bills. They are walking an economic tightrope, balancing fuel costs against food costs and fuel costs against medical costs.

Without this extension and without the look-back rule that this legislation would provide, these are folks who are going to fall into the economic abyss. They deserve better.

The fact is, the stock market is doing well. We are glad to see it. We are glad to see profits up at so many of our companies. All of these are pluses for our country. But the fact is, middle-class folks, and particularly the middle class that is unemployed, are feeling pinched like never before. I am very hopeful my colleagues will support this legislation. It is essential to provide a measure of relief to these folks who are enduring so much economic hurt.

I have just gone through a series of community meetings at home, and it came up again and again. So I hope, in the name of compassion, but also in the name of helping these middle-class folks get back on their feet as they look for alternatives, as they look for other positions that pay them enough to support their families, that my colleagues would support this important Cantwell amendment.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2629