Floor Statements

Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to recognize my friend from New Mexico who has spent a lot of time on this bill and has an important amendment.

As we go to the amendments this afternoon--particularly those from my side--I think it is critically important that the bipartisan compromise which was consummated yesterday in a 97-to-1 vote on the floor of the Senate not become unraveled today. This is, in my view, the only bill that can make it to the President's desk. It is a balanced approach on management. It ensures that the public has every single opportunity to participate in the debate about forestry but, at the same time, it does not establish a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every conceivable matter that may relate to the forestry sector.

In particular, it provides for potentially lifesaving hazardous fuel reduction projects in our national forests. We have to respond to what we have seen in California. It is a heartfelt need in that State.

If this legislation as set out in the compromise doesn't become law, what we have seen in California in the last few days, and as we saw in Oregon last year, is going to be what the country faces year after year.

I am very interested in working with our colleagues in an expeditious manner. I thank Senator Cochran again for all of his cooperation. Senator Bingaman has been waiting for a long time.

I intend to work with all of our colleagues on this amendments today. What I especially look forward to is completing the work on this legislation. It was a very exciting development to have yesterday's vote by such a large plurality. It shows what you can do if you stay at it and try to find common ground in an area that is about as contentious as you can find. As Senator Cochran noted, we hope colleagues will bring amendments to the floor and move expeditiously.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry.

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized very briefly after Senator Craig before we go to a vote.

Mr. President, I have already indicated I want to make sure the compromise we voted on yesterday does not unravel. I will support the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico because I believe it will allow us to go forward and make sure the work that the bipartisan group did is not in vain.

The bottom line is very simple: To get the money to put the fires out, fire suppression, you have to go out and steal from every single Forest Service program around and then hope that at some point down the road you are going to get repaid. It makes a mockery out of any effort to responsibly budget in this area. In our part of the world, we see, in effect, funds robbed from nonprofit organizations such as Wallowa Resources, a small nonprofit in eastern Oregon.

My only concern about putting this off is that if we don't deal with this issue now, the question is, When will we deal with it? This is an extraordinarily important question. It will not, in my view, unravel the compromise which I will fight like crazy to protect, despite the fact that I think what the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Idaho have said has considerable validity as well.

I hope we will support this amendment and then figure out in the course of the afternoon some way in which we can find some common ground on this issue. Today the process of just stealing from every program around to fight fires really becomes almost farcical. The Bingaman amendment responds to that. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. President, just very briefly, Chairman Cochran has it exactly right. If there is one thing we want to accomplish in the natural resources area, it is to try to move this bill away from confrontation to collaboration. That is what we tried to do in the bipartisan compromise. I think we can reconcile that with the Bingaman amendment. I urge its support.

Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has made a number of extremely important points, points with which I certainly agree. Having served as chair of the forestry subcommittee and now ranking minority member, I can tell my colleagues the Senator from Washington is absolutely right with respect to her concern about adequate funding. For example, the bill from the other body provided no funding for the thinning projects. This legislation increases funding 80 percent. So her point with respect to making sure there is funding is dead on correct, and I think not only that point but other points she has made are correct.

In spite of that, I do have to oppose the amendment tonight, and I want to take a couple of moments to say why.

First, let me stress how important public participation was to me and to the other Senators who are involved in putting together this bipartisan compromise. If there is one thing, just one, that I want to stand for in my career in public service, it is the right of citizens to participate. That is why I have open community meetings in all my counties. It is why I have sidewalk office hours. It is why, as so many Senators, I try to make myself available as widely and extensively as I can.

So I come tonight to say with respect to this key issue, this key question of public participation, not one current opportunity for public involvement would be lost under this compromise. I say that again. Not one current opportunity for public comment would be lost under this proposal.

There are three alternatives that people would be part of examining and, in fact, the public would have a right to come forward and offer their own. It

seems to me that that gives us a chance to keep the greatness of the National Environmental Policy Act, a statute more than 30 years old, while at the same time allowing us to deal with some of the concerns such as the unnecessary redtape and paperwork.

This proposal in the legislation we are considering cuts the alternatives from five, to nine, essentially to three. I am of the view that, while it is appropriate to have a host of these alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act, when, say, the Federal Government is building a road, which is a broad purpose concern, I think when you are talking about this area and projects that are narrowly drawn, limited in where they can occur and how, it is appropriate to try to boil down the NEPA alternatives to the three that we have offered in this legislation.

Mr. President, the Senator from Washington makes the argument that, in effect, the Senate will be starting down a slippery slope. I would just say to the Senator from Washington, I am convinced that because there are good people in the Senate, such as the Senator from Washington, that will not be the case. If someone comes forward and tries, for example, to unravel the National Environmental Policy Act, or even apply what we are doing in this area to every area, there will be opposition from a whole host of Senators, including this one. Nobody is talking about doing this in a host of other areas. We are talking about saying in this one area where we have been told by, for example, the Governors, it is not just a question of spending more money, it is a question of how you spend the money, I think this compromise strikes a reasonable balance.

I urge my colleagues to support this compromise. The compromise is dramatically different than the approach the other body takes with respect to the National Environmental Policy Act. The other body basically kicks the public out by predetermining the National Environmental Policy Act alternatives. What is offered in the compromise preserves all opportunities for public input and appeal, while making sure that we deal with the paperwork and some of the unnecessary redtape.

I urge my colleagues to support what is in the compromise because not one current opportunity for public comment would be lost, and all of us want to make sure that on an issue that citizens care so strongly about their right to be heard is preserved. This compromise does that.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. The hour is late. I am going to be very brief.

I am opposed to this amendment. This is not an unlimited bill. It has a 20-million-acre cap. Suffice it to say, we are going to have a lot of oversight in both the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

But I also thank the Senator from Iowa with respect to how he has handled this legislation. He has been exceptionally kind and helpful to me. He has had differences of opinion with me on this issue. I thank him for all of his cooperation.

Suffice it to say, Mr. President and colleagues, the West has been watching the last few days, and in a particularly contentious area, the Senate has been able to find an awful lot of common ground. Even on some of the amendments that we have had--the question of the urban interface funding initiative, whether it should be 50 percent or 70 percent--these are areas where reasonable people can differ. It is awfully easy to polarize on this issue, to drive people into rival camps, and to a great extent the Senate has avoided this.

So what is important tonight as we deal with this last substantive amendment--and then we have a couple of procedural matters, colloquies, and that sort of thing to finish--is that we recognize how important it is to get this bipartisan compromise to the President's desk.

The bill that the Senate will pass tonight is the one that I believe ought to become law, and it is absolutely critical that it be the one to get to the President so it can become law.

So I hope Senators will continue to work together on a bipartisan basis and make sure the Senate compromise does not unravel.

In addition to the Senator from Iowa, who has been so helpful throughout this process so we could expedite it, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, since the days that we spent those long hours in his office, Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, Senator Crapo, and others, a lot of people thought we would never get to this night.

One person who did was the senior Senator from California who I have been so honored to have had on my subcommittee over the years. We wouldn't be on the floor tonight without the senior Senator from California who consistently, when we bumped up against an issue where we couldn't bring people together, it was the Senator from California who broke the gridlock. I want the Senate to know how much this body should appreciate the contribution of Senator Feinstein. This Senator does in particular.

I yield the floor.

Could the Senator from Mississippi confirm that with respect to section 105(c)(3), it would be the Agriculture Committee's intent that if the agency fails or is unable to make information timely available during the administrative review process, the court should evaluate whether the administrative review process was inadequate for claims or issues to which the information is material?

Mr. President, the American Cancer Society estimates that in 2003, there will be 2,600 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed among women in Oregon and that 500 women will die of breast cancer in Oregon. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so it is important that we take stock of where we are in preventing, detecting and treating this disease.

All women are at risk of breast cancer, but when this cancer is found in its early stages, the 5-year survival rate approaches 100 percent. Screening exams are especially important because through early detection, women, in partnership with their health care providers, can significantly reduce deaths due to breast cancer.

A recent study published in the Archives of Surgery found that more cases of breast cancer were detected in women taking part in an Oregon breast cancer screening program than in women who were not part of the program. The Oregon Breast Cancer and Cervical Cancer Program began in 1996 and is a statewide screening program for low-income women with little access to medical services. In this study, Oregon Health Sciences University researchers evaluated 15,730 women who had a total of 23,149 mammograms and 20,396 breast exams between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2001. The study found the screening program had a detection rate of 12.3 breast cancers per 1,000 women, which is greater than rates of other screening programs. The women in this study diagnosed with breast cancer also had a 97-percent rate of compliance with suggested therapies for their cancer.

Working together, many groups have found that they can maximize their resources and develop more effective partnerships to reach health care consumers and providers in Oregon. Despite the excellent job that is being done, we need to continue to foster this activism and continue to find new ways to fund innovations in detection and treatment and to make them accessible to all women.

In Oregon, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Y.W.C.A, and the National Black Leadership Initiative on Cancer, are just a few of the leaders in the community who have worked together and with other organizations to reach out to women in Oregon and their families to improve the health status of women in my home State. I want to thank them for their efforts in helping Oregon families have better information and awareness about this disease as well as helping women as they go through treatment.

I have always been a staunch supporter of Federal funds for breast cancer research, and I will continue to do so. It is gratifying to know we have come so far and to see how we can make progress in fighting this form of cancer.

Mr. President, forestry can often make Middle East politics seem noncontroversial. I think it is fair to say that today it would be hard to find a topic that is more emotionally flammable than the one that has come to the Senate today.

I begin by saying that right now, my home State--and I see my good friend, Senator Smith, on the Senate floor as well--is sending resources to California to help deal with the horrendous fires. But I think it ought to be noted, as we begin this discussion, that just over a year ago the State of California was sending resources to my home State--the State that Senator Smith and I are proud to represent. Just over a year ago, we were on the Senate floor speaking about the huge forest fires that raged in our State. At that time, over 500,000 acres were burning. We had a dozen fires raging at any given time. Seventeen thousand people in one of our valleys alone were on a 24-hour evacuation notice, and 2,500 structures were threatened.

So I think we ought to note, as we begin this discussion, that the legislation before us today is critical, not because of last year's tragedies, or even the tragedies that we are seeing in California today; this legislation is critical to address the tragedies and destruction that, as sure as the night follows the day, will be in the news tomorrow if the Senate doesn't start taking reasonable steps to address forest health policy. It seems to me that is the approach before the Senate today.

Mr. President, this is the bill that is going to go to the President of the United States. For many months now, a group of us--and Chairman Cochran has referenced this--have been involved in the negotiations. They are difficult negotiations because passions do run so strong on this issue. But I want to make it clear, for myself and the others who have signed the letter,

that we cannot accept an unraveling of this compromise; that this is the bill that is going to go to the President's desk, and we are very hopeful the President will sign that legislation into law.

It is absolutely critical that the Senate come together on a reasonable plan that is going to help our forests become healthy again and secure the well-being of the families who call these beautiful areas their home.

I believe this bill provides an opportunity to remove fire-prone materials from the forests, boost rural economies, and create family- wage jobs, while at the same time protecting the extraordinary treasures--the land and the environment of the West and our Nation--for future generations.

Let me outline for a few minutes why I think this is the approach that needs to be signed into law. First, this is the only bill--unlike the one in the other body--that authorizes a significant increase in funding for the hazardous fuels reduction projects that need to be undertaken. The other body doesn't authorize a single dollar--not one-- for the projects that need to be pursued. As a result, there is tremendous concern across the country that if you were to go the route of the other body, the only people that would really be able to afford to get into the thinning work would be commercial logging companies. That would be a huge mistake. Under the bipartisan compromise that has been crafted, that is not going to happen.

Second, the other body doesn't make an effort to target the dollars in a flexible way so that the work gets done in the communities that most need it in our Nation. The Senate compromise goes to bat for our rural communities by directing that 50 percent of the funding be spent inside the wildland/urban interface where populations are great, but at the same time we can deal with these infernos, these enormous fires that so often start way out in the country and then come into the more urbanized areas.

The other body is silent on this issue. The Senate, after many hours of negotiation--my friend from Idaho and I have literally been talking about this issue for almost 5 years now--strikes a reasonable balance with respect to targeting money for the wildland/urban interface while recognizing that so many of these huge fires start in sparsely populated areas out in the country.

Third, this bill is the only one that makes a historic step forward to protect our old growth, our treasures of the West about which our citizens feel so strongly. The other body has no language at all to protect old growth or the large trees and doesn't limit how projects can be executed.

What the Senate has said is, yes, there are more than 100 definitions of what constitutes ``old growth.'' We recognize that, but throughout the bill we reference the priority to focus on the trees that are not old growth--the smaller trees, the brush--that contribute to this problem. And then, to ensure that there is actually an incentive to protect our old growth, we offer what I think is a creative approach, the kind of approach Senator Craig and I offered when we broke the gridlock on the county payments bill years ago so our communities could get revenue for schools and roads. Here, to make sure that the old growth work is a top priority, that protecting old growth is not an afterthought, we say that with respect to the old forest plans, the Forest Service would have to go back and revise the old forest plans to make sure there is actual old growth protection that is going to go forward before the thinning gets put in place.

We have an actual incentive, beyond the statutory language, which is a historic first and would protect old growth. We have a policy that would actually create incentives to prioritize old growth protection because it has to be done first under the old forest plans for thinning work to go forward.

Next, the bipartisan compromise effort keeps the current standard for judicial review of projects and ensures that what we have as a result of the changes in the judicial area, in the appeals area, sends a message across this country that citizens have a right of access with respect to their concerns about timber sales, but they don't have a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every single timber sale.

The bipartisan group spent a great deal of time on this effort. In my view, the legislation that comes out of the other body would actually change the outcomes of these lawsuits that would rob the judiciary of the independent ability to weigh the evidence put before them. In the bipartisan compromise that was crafted, we strike a reasonable balance. Citizens are going to have a right that is undiluted with respect to access to the judicial system, but we will not set up a litigation derby that goes on for years and years and keeps the essential work from going forward.

Next, the Senate legislation ensures that the public will always be in the debate, will always be in the process and at the table. The Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill in the other body basically drives the public out of the process by predetermining these National Environmental Policy Act alternatives.

The Senate compromise preserves all current opportunities for public input and appeal while streamlining the process and eliminating some of the most frustrating and exasperating aspects of bureaucracy. But it is clear, and I want to make this point early in the debate, that not one current opportunity--not one--for public comment would be lost under this compromise.

The compromise requires the Forest Service to rewrite their appeals process using a process that has been used by the Bureau of Land Management since 1984, and the sponsors of this compromise believe this will change a process that is now confrontational to one that is vastly more collaborative.

Finally, much of the argument made against this compromise is very similar to the arguments that were made in 1999 when I and Senator Craig and others got together and put before the Senate the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. They said that was going to restrict the opportunities for citizens to be heard. There were some, when I offered that legislation, who said I was proposing a clear cut for kids program, and we had pickets before our office for over a year. We have some of that same sort of activity going on right now.

That did not happen in 1999 when the Senate moved forward with its first substantive forestry bill in more than a decade, and it is not going to happen again under this legislation if this bill actually becomes law.

I say to my colleagues that this legislation is needed. Some have asked, Why can't the issue of healthy forests simply be addressed by investing in the fire plan? They have said the national Governors made some recommendations, so why don't we just go ahead with those recommendations?

Their suggestions were very useful, but the Governors even acknowledge that simply spending more money, the heart of their proposal, was not the entire answer. How that money is spent is as important as simply offering more dollars.

I have made it clear that I think additional funds are critically important. That is why the Senate bill authorizes an 80-percent increase in funding for these thinning projects, but we also need to make some changes in terms of the endless paperwork and redtape to actually get the real work on the ground that is so important in communities across the West.

A number of Senators have said this is as far as they can go in terms of forestry policy. I know colleagues in the Senate and certainly in the other body feel strongly about it. But I reemphasize, as the Senator who organized that letter, that if there is an effort to unravel the compromise that will be voted on in the Senate, that will, in my view, kill the effort to pass this critically important legislation. It was an urgent priority before the tragic events in California. I think it is urgent not just because the Senate needs to respond in a heartfelt way to the tragedies in California, but if this legislation is not passed, I think we will see what happened in Oregon a little over a year ago and what has happened in California in the last week repeated again and again. I am not willing to see these communities and the people who live in them turned into residents of sacrifice zones. It is urgent this legislation be passed.

I close by expressing my thanks to those who have been part of this 5-year

odyssey and, first, to Senator Craig. I served as chairman of the subcommittee when he was a ranking minority member. It is vice versa now. Suffice it to say there are a lot of people in the country who would say: What in the world can Larry Craig and Ron Wyden find common ground on? And we have said again and again in this area that if people are willing to look at what is practical, what is a priority in terms of the thinning work that needs to be done and in protecting our old growth treasures, we can do it. That was accomplished in the county payments bill.

It can be accomplished now. Before I wrap up my remarks, I will read into the Record part of a statement today that the administration has issued. It states that the administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 1904, the bipartisan managers' amendment; it opposes any further amendment to assure quick resolution with the House.

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

I am pleased to see what is the first formal statement of the administration saying that the Senate bill is the way to go. It is an acknowledgment of the fact that a number of us said we cannot have this compromise unravel, and it is a constructive statement from the administration today. I commend them for it.

In addition to Senator Craig, who has worked with me on this for literally 5 years, Senator Smith and I cannot go anywhere in our home State without people asking, when is the Senate going to respond to this? I thank him for his efforts, as well as those of Senator Crapo, who is in the Chamber. I see Senator Bingaman, who has been so helpful to me as I have had to wrestle with these issues that come up in my home State day after day.

We have not agreed on every single bit of this debate for 5 years, but Senator Bingaman has performed an extraordinarily important service. He has some ideas on a matter that has been documented in our hearings with respect to how these funds get moved around, almost manipulated, from one account to another when there is underfunding of the thinning work that needs to be done. I thank him for all of his help over the last 5 years. We have spent many hours on this.

With the statement that I have just put into the Record that the administration wants this legislation and is opposed to efforts to alter it, I think we are in a position to show the country the Senate can find common ground on an issue that is about as contentious as any imaginable. I look forward to seeing the amendments of our colleagues and getting this critically important legislation passed.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I will be very brief.

I have one question for the Senator from California, but first I want to thank her for the exceptional work she and her staff have done on this issue for over 4 years.

I have chaired the subcommittee. I have been the ranking minority member. I do not think my knowledge on this subject compares to that of the knowledge of the Senator from California.

She has thrown herself into this, and we thank her for all her efforts. We all empathize with what your constituents are going through. The people of California, a year ago, helped my constituents. We are trying to help yours. We thank you for it.

I thank my colleague.

One very brief question. I have sensed from the beginning of the debate that probably the most contentious issue coming up is this question of making sure the public is still involved in the process, the whole question of what is called NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Senator is so correct in saying we have made it clear that the Senate bill is not something we are going to allow to be unraveled. But I think one of the reasons for it is because the Senate bill differs very dramatically with what the other body is talking about with respect to keeping the public in the process.

The other body, in effect, takes the public out of the process by predetermining these NEPA alternatives. What we have said in our compromise would be to say the public can actually offer an alternative. The public has a right to go into this process, known as scoping, and actually come to the table and offer an alternative.

The Senator has made the point that not one current opportunity for public comment would be lost under this compromise.

I would be interested in the Senator's analysis of how the public stays involved, because I think this is probably the most contentious question we may be faced with as we try to wrap up this bill, hopefully today.

I thank my colleague and again tell her how much I have appreciated a chance to be her partner.

Madam President, for purposes of asking the distinguished chairman of the committee, it is your desire, I gather, we would then have the vote at 3:45 and that would in effect end the opening statements on this legislation; we would move to amendments, beginning with the Boxer amendment, and then throughout the rest of the day pick up the rest of the amendments and hopefully move as quickly as possible.

Will the Senator yield?

I think what the Senator is doing is very constructive. On the forestry subcommittee, we have heard of a myriad of health concerns which seem to me, as much as anything you are addressing, a first responder issue. These are first responders who are working in a very significant area where there are health concerns--in the forestry area. It is important from a forestry standpoint and from a first responder standpoint. I am very hopeful--I see the chairman of the full committee in the Chamber as well--that we can work this out. Given the crisis right now in your State, I want to see this adopted.

Madam President, very briefly, I support Chairman Cochran in his request. We have been working on this legislation, in effect, for more than 4 years. It is now particularly timely, obviously, because of the events in California.

Many of the amendments, at least those we have been told about, are coming from my side of the aisle. I ask colleagues--I know Senators have strong feelings on this--if they could present them to the staffs tonight--Senator Cochran's staff, Senator Harkin's staff. Myself and others are available to work through the evening with Senators who have amendments because we very much would like to finish it tonight.

I urge my colleagues on both sides to heed what the chairman has said: If possible, get it to us tonight.

I thank you and yield the floor.

Madam President, I supported Governor Levitt's nomination in the Environment Committee, but that does not mean that I support the Bush administration's environmental polices. Far from it. Under the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has ignored

the law and gutted its enforcement. It has been a 30-month polluters' holiday.

I think the record is clear. There is also an enormous gap between the bipartisan approach that Mike Levitt supported in dealing with environmental issues while he has served as Governor of Utah, and this administration. For example, the bipartisan Western Governors' policy states ``Westerners do not reject the goals and objectives of federal environmental laws, nor the appropriate role of federal regulation and enforcement.'' Recently, the EPA Office of Enforcement found that during the past 2 years, only 24 percent of the facilities that were in major noncompliance with respect to the Clean Water Act faced enforcement actions. So the EPA's own enforcement office says on major water violations, there hasn't been enforcement.

Gap number two, the Western Governors Association has always stressed consultation with all the parties and involving the States. Two examples where the administration isn't doing that are on the question of these closed door negotiations with industrial livestock firms, behind closed doors they are talking about amnesty from the Clean Air Act and the Superfund law. Another is the lack of consultation with the States on the proposed rule to limit the scope of the Clean Air Act. Thirty-nine States have objected and said they were not party to that discussion. So on the question of consultation involving States, there is a big gap between the Western Governors and this administration.

The third big gap can be seen in the Western Governors Association positions on the environment where there is a clear commitment to following the law. Certainly that hasn't been done with the Bush administration when it comes to the Clean Air Act. I was on the conference committee that wrote the law in 1990, and I can tell you there was absolutely no question that it was the intent of Congress that powerplants, oil refineries and industrial facilities would be required to install pollution controls. This is a blatant example of the Bush administration's failure to follow the law.

What I am interested in is seeing an effort to go back to the kinds of policies that the Governors, particularly those in the West, have sought to try to bring people together on these contentious issues and find common ground. That has not been what the Environmental Protection Agency has done in Washington, D.C. But that is what is needed.

When Governor Leavitt came before the Environment and Public Works Committee, I was particularly concerned about his willingness to use the enforcement tools of the agency against serious and egregious violations of the environmental laws. My sense is that the collaborative model that he wishes to pursue is one I support. But it is clear, Mr. President and colleagues, that when companies abuse that kind of good-faith effort by government, the government has got to be willing to come down with hobnail boots on those who are putting at risk our air and our land and water. Prior to the committee vote, Governor Leavitt sent me a memo making it clear that he is willing to look at a different enforcement approach than this administration has used in the past. In the memo, Governor Leavitt wrote ``in warranted circumstances I would use the enforcement power rigorously.'' By contrast, during the Bush administration, enforcement has been essentially abandoned, and even the EPA's own internal reports indicate that that is the case.

The American people need an administrator who is going to end this polluters' holiday and put the Environmental Protection Agency back to work protecting the environment. I think that the Governor's ideas about collaboration are important. They are fresh and creative, and I think that if he is willing to do as he pledged to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, that they could revitalize the agency and bring a fresh approach to environmental policy. But it is important for senators to understand that those who talk about collaboration only, without a willingness to back it up with tough enforcement policies, could be talking about just window dressing for business, or really lack of business as usual.

Over the past several weeks, Governor Leavitt has worked hard to convince me he means business. He has reached out and made the extra effort to show he will be no just an advocate for collaboration but also a tough, no-nonsense enforcer when he needs to be. He has also committed to look at the situation involving the City of Portland's sewer overflows during wet weather and whether this is an appropriate case for enforcement, given that the local community is making progress in addressing the situation and that local ratepayers have already spent more than $500 million toward what will eventually be a $1 billion project.

So the Governor, in my view, has made clear that he wants to bring to EPA a fresh and independent approach to these kinds of issues. He has convinced me that he understands that tough no-nonsense enforcement of this country's environmental laws is absolutely essential when the environmental collaborative approach does not work. I will be closely watching how Governor Leavitt follows through on these changes in EPA's approach to enforcement.

It is very obvious to me that there needs to be a dramatic set of changes put in place at the Environmental Protection Agency. My vote today is essentially a vote because I think the Governor of Utah has the potential to do this job right. I am supporting the Mike Leavitt who I know can be a tough, independent administrator of EPA. For all Americans' sake, I hope Governor Leavitt will be successful in bringing about this change in EPA's direction. I want to give him a chance to succeed, and that is why I am supporting his nomination today.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on this side of the aisle?

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I think we will have a discussion about forestry. I see my colleagues from Idaho and Mississippi.

I will take just a few minutes because I think in recent days there has really been the suggestion that in some ways Senate Democrats don't want to move ahead on this forestry issue. Senator Daschle, in particular, in my view, has been very constructive on this issue and wants to have the Senate vote on this legislation.

I wish to make it clear that I think it is urgent we vote on this bill before the Senate adjourns for this year. I happen to believe there are 60 votes for the Senate compromise that has been worked out. I think it is important to address the concerns of all the Members.

I really hope this isn't left to just the political season, which gets awfully silly sometimes in the course of a Presidential election season next year. I think the Senate must vote on it this year. Senators know that this issue sort of makes Middle East politics look noncontroversial. This is a very difficult and contentious subject. But I think the Senate has come together around an important compromise.

I wish to take a few minutes this morning to outline how the Senate bill would differ from what has been done in the House of Representatives.

First, the Senate compromise authorizes $760 million for hazardous fuel reduction projects. The House bill does not authorize any additional money for these projects.

The Senate compromise--I want to emphasize this to my Democratic colleagues--does not rely on commercial logging to get these projects done. The House bill does. I think this is unfortunate.

The Senate compromise protects our rural communities. The House bill does not.

The Senate compromise directs that 50 percent of the funding be spent inside what is known as the wildland-urban interface. The House bill is silent with respect to directing these funds.

The Senate compromise protects old growth and large trees and requires projects that thin--not clear-cut--our forests. Again, that is in contrast to the House bill. The House bill does not protect old growth and large trees, and it doesn't limit how the projects can be executed.

Fourth, the Senate compromise keeps the current standard of judicial review of these projects and rejects the House of Representatives standard which is not as balanced. The House bill would actually change the outcome of lawsuits, in my view, regrettably, by robbing the judiciary of an independent ability to weigh all of the evidence put before them with respect to forestry matters.

Finally, the Senate compromise keeps the public in the process. Regrettably, the House bill does not. The Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose what is known as a NEPA alternative.

The National Environmental Policy Act is an extraordinarily important statute. It has been of great importance to a lot of Members of the Senate. Look back to people such as the late Scoop Jackson who were so involved in this issue. The Senate compromise clearly allows the public, through a public process, to propose NEPA alternatives. In my view, the House bill pushes the public out of the process by, in effect, predetermining these alternatives in the NEPA area.

Talking for a few minutes about the compromise, in particular the value of having the first ever statutory protection of old growth, preserving the public's right to participate, while streamlining the appeals process to get at some of the abuses we have seen, strikes the right balance. With respect, for example, to this question of making sure citizens can be involved in appealing matters relating to a forest resale, it is critical those rights be protected.

I also do not think there ought to be a constitutional right to a 5- year delay on every timber sale. The Senate compromise which we put together strikes that appropriate balance.

As we get ready to vote, some very creative work has been done. Folks have asked, How do we know the old-growth protection is actually going to get put in place? We say, for example, for the old-forest plans that in effect the Forest Service would have to go back and revise those plans to make sure the old growth is protected before the overall projects with respect to thinning go forward. We create for the first time in these old-forest plans an actual incentive for the Forest Service to get busy, get going, and protect the old growth while allowing the thinning to go forward. The compromise makes it less likely that old growth will be harvested under current law because under the compromise we mandated the retention of the large trees and focused the hazardous fuels reduction programs authorized by the bill on thinning the small trees.

Several of my colleagues want to talk on this, but I make it clear, again, Senator Daschle has said publicly, privately, in every conceivable forum, he wants this legislation to move forward expeditiously. Let us address the concerns of all Senators. This is a matter Senators feel strongly about. Let us vote on this legislation this year. The fires we have seen in the west are not natural. They are infernos coming about as a result of years and years of neglect. The compromise we have crafted reflects a balanced approach. We are not stripping the American people of their rights to be heard with respect to forestry policy. Quite the contrary. We protect all of those avenues of public participation.

I know we are going to hear from our colleagues who have been involved in the compromise. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Cochran, in particular, for working with myself and Senator Feinstein for many months. A number of Senators have already come out for this proposal, including, of course, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, but also Senator Dayton and Senator Johnson. We have a host of Democratic Senators. We can get 60 votes on this legislation and see it passed from this body. We want to have it done this year.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe the minority has 9 minutes left. I would like to respond to the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, would that be acceptable?

I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and, Madam President, ask to be recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

First, I express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the committee. I think he knows I agree with so much of what he just previously said.

I want to emphasize, on this side of the aisle we believe there are 60 votes to move forward on this legislation. We want to work constructively to get this done. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has emphasized again and again how important it is to move forward with this legislation. We do want to address the concerns of the Members. We know a lot of Senators feel strongly about this issue. But it is absolutely imperative--absolutely imperative--Madam President and colleagues, that this bill get out of the Senate this year. That is my goal. I am going to put every ounce of my energy and strength into it.

The reason I think the Senate ought to move forward with this legislation is the bipartisan compromise that has been discussed by the chairman of the committee steers, in my view, a narrow path through 20 million acres of highly vulnerable forest land that lies close to highly vulnerable communities and their drinking water sources.

I have already outlined this morning the five or six major ways in which this compromise differs from what has been considered in the House of Representatives.

For example, under this legislation that has been crafted in a bipartisan way by a group of nine Senators, we have authorized an increase of 80 percent in funding for thinning projects. There has been tremendous concern all across the country that without adequate funding for thinning projects, the only people who would have the resources to do the work would be the large commercial logging companies. In our discussions among Senators, we said: There is a better way to proceed.

That is why we came up with a funding proposal that sends a responsible message all across the country that this is not some sort of giveaway to big timber companies; this is something that represents responsible forestry. On provision after provision with respect to this compromise, we see those kinds of efforts to ensure that we strike a responsible balance.

We have to make sure we protect our rural communities. The House legislation doesn't do that. The Senate compromise directs 50 percent of the funding to be spent inside the wildland and urban interface; the House bill is silent with respect to those funds. Again, we see an effort on the part of Senator Cochran, chairman of the committee, and the nine Senators who worked together on this legislation, to strike a reasonable compromise.

The old-growth provisions are the first statutory protection ever for these trees that the American people feel so strongly about. There is a concrete incentive to get the old-growth protection in place. Under something for which I commend the chairman that is genuinely creative, we stipulate that the old forest plans actually have to be revised to protect the old growth in order for the thinning work to be done. So we have something which strikes a genuine balance, and it is done in a creative way.

I said earlier that forestry issues are about as contentious as Middle Eastern politics. It is very difficult to find the common ground. We have done that in this area. This compromise ensures that the public will be involved in every single aspect of the debate with respect to forestry. That is something on which Senator Feinstein and I insisted. We have worked on this legislation for many months with Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I hope we will move quickly and do it in a fashion that addresses the concerns of all Senators.

There have been a number who have come to Chairman Cochran and me with ideas and suggestions. We want to hear from them. But we want this bill passed this year by the Senate. Senator Daschle has communicated that again and again and has been extremely constructive. Nobody is interested in an obstructionist kind of approach. This has to get done.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, kingpin spammers who send out emails by the millions are threatening to drown the Internet in a sea of trash. The American people want it stopped. Every single day the Senate delays, these big-time spammers, the ones who are trying to take advantage of the open and low-cost nature of the Internet, gives them another opportunity to crank up their operations to even more dizzying levels of volumes.

Every Member of the Senate is hearing from citizens. This is a consumer abuse that is visited on millions of people every day. It is now time to put in

place strong enforcement tools to protect the public.

Many are asking, what is the role of Federal legislation? My colleagues have talked a bit about there not being a silver bullet. The key is to pass this bill and come down on the violators with hobnail boots. It is fair to say a lot of the big-time abusers are not exactly quaking today about the prospect of Senate action. They are not technological simpletons. They are very savvy and they figure any law that is passed by the Senate they can get out in front of.

What is going to be important is for those who are charged with enforcement--the Federal Trade Commission, the criminal authorities, we give a role to the State attorneys general, the Internet service providers--when this bill is signed into law, to bring a handful of actions very quickly to establish that for the first time there is a real deterrent, there will be real consequences when those big-time spammers try to exploit our citizens. When the bill takes effect, for the first time those violators are going to risk criminal prosecution, Federal Trade Commission enforcement, and million-dollar lawsuits by the State attorneys general and Internet service providers.

The reason that is the case is because big-time spammers have to violate this bill in order for their sleazy business to work. If they do not hide their identities, their messages end up getting filtered out by the Internet service providers. If they do not use misleading subject lines, people are going to click the messages straight into the trash, unread. It is costly to deal with thousands of demands for consumers to be removed from the lists. The day this bipartisan legislation becomes law, for the first time big-time spamming will become an outlaw business.

It is worth noting when Senator Burns and I started this effort nearly 4 years ago, we had the strong support of Senator McCain. Senator Hollings has been tremendous to me. I got involved in this shortly after joining the Commerce Committee. A lot of people asked, why in the world would Conrad Burns and I be spending our time on something like this. They essentially intimated this was not the kind of issue important enough for the Senate. They said, Senators deal with key matters. They deal with war and peace and entitlement programs. Why in the world would the Senate get involved with something like spam. It was only 6 to 8 percent when we started in 2000. Why is the Senate spending its time on that kind of concern? Suffice it to say, nobody is saying any longer spam is just a minor annoyance. Nobody is saying the delete key is now going to be a sufficient solution to the problem.

This is now something that threatens this medium. Spam, in the view of experts, and in my view, stunts the growth of e-commerce. And if it continues at the rate of growth we have seen in the last few years, I think it will engulf the entire medium.

So something the American people use every day, something that is considered a vibrant, exciting tool, that has empowered millions of people to learn, to be part of cultural activities, to start small businesses--if nothing is done, if somehow this legislation goes by the board or the Senate and House cannot agree, I think what we are seeing in the days ahead is a genuine threat to the entire medium.

So with respect to the specifics of the bill, I think there are a number of key provisions. One I have stressed is the question of misleading identities because I think that goes right to the heart of how you set in place a strong enforcement regime.

But I also emphasize the role of the States here this afternoon. At this point, over half the States have enacted State-level spam legislation. It is pretty easy to see why the States have acted. They are frustrated that the Congress has not moved.

But I believe a State-by-State approach cannot work in this area. The numerous State laws to date certainly have not put in place a coordinated effort against spam. Neither the Internet nor the big-time spammers is sitting around saying: Let's tip our hat to State jurisdictions. And certainly an e-mail address, unlike a phone number, does not reveal the State in which the holder of the address is located. So compliance with a patchwork of inconsistent State laws is virtually impossible, and spammers do not even go through the motions of trying.

What is needed is a uniform, nationwide spam standard to put the spammers on notice and to empower the consumers to have an enforcement regime consistent with their reasonable expectations.

Having emphasized the importance of a nationwide, uniform standard in this area, the legislation does preserve an important role for the States.

First, the State laws that address deception in spam--deception in spam--would be preserved. Second, general consumer protection fraud and computer abuse laws would remain enforceable as well. And third, the bill authorizes States' attorneys general to use the Federal statute to prosecute spammers.

The bottom line is, our States, which have done so much important and innovative work in the area of consumer protection, are going to remain active and important partners in the battle against spam.

Shortly, we will be talking about the Do Not E-mail Registry. I commend Senators Schumer and Dayton. Both of them have introduced legislation in this area. They deserve a great deal of credit with respect to their patience on this legislation. And we know it is a challenge. The telephone Do Not Call list is certainly facing a lot of battles.

But I think this is an important idea. I think it is an idea that makes a genuine contribution. It certainly is one that the American consumer wants. We are going to work with the sponsors, Senator Schumer and Senator Dayton, and others who have been so interested in this to address the various questions that have been brought up with respect to feasibility.

I also commend Senator Nelson of Florida. These big-time spammers-- there are only a few hundred of them. I think Senator McCain and I were struck, as we listened to the debate, at the fact that we are talking about a few hundred big-time violators. They seem to have gravitated to a couple States, particularly Florida and Texas.

Senator Nelson has been very interested in ensuring that there are tough enforcement provisions in this legislation. I share his view that we ought to use all of the enforcement tools, including measures such as the RICO statute, against these particularly reprehensible violators. I commend Senator Nelson for this effort as well.

Finally, as we put together a coordinated game plan against the spammers, I would also like to emphasize that we expect our trading partners, and the many countries that look to do business with the United States, to play a more activist role in this area. As sure as night follows day, some of these kingpin spammers are going to just move offshore and set up shop.

So as we look to the future, I have stressed enforcement. I think we need to see aggressive enforcement action the day this bill is signed into law. Then we have to push our trading partners around the world to work with us to ensure that, as part of a coordinated strategy, we are preventing the big-time violators from simply closing down in the United States and moving offshore.

I have tried to specialize in technology issues in my time in the Senate. My State cares greatly about this issue. I have been fortunate to have a chairman in Senator McCain who has always encouraged these efforts, to deal with Internet taxes, digital signatures, Y2K liability--and the list goes on and on. And Senator Hollings, who is not in the Chamber, has been extraordinarily supportive of my involvement in these issues.

But I think it is fair to say that this spam question--of all the technology issues we have tackled in the last few years in the Commerce Committee, I cannot think of another one that has inflamed consumers more, has been emphasized more to me at townhall meetings.

I can tell the Senate, at the time when we were all concerned about the well-being of our troops and the conflict in Iraq, folks would also say, in addition to standing up for our troops: Make sure you do something about spam as well. I think it is indicative of how much concern there is in the country with respect to these kingpin spammers who really do put at risk--I do not say this lightly--an entire medium that has made such a difference and been so important for millions of Americans.

We are going to deal expeditiously with the amendments. A number of colleagues have already asked of the managers what we thought the timetable of this bill would be. My guess is, we can deal with this legislation certainly within the next couple of hours, at most.

We urge Senators who have an interest in this matter to come to the floor. This is an opportunity for the Senate to stand up for the consumer.

We are not going to overpromise. We are not going to say that the day this bill is signed, spam will magically vanish into the vapor. But this legislation, coupled with an enforcement strategy that has the Federal Trade Commission, criminal authorities, pushing spam as it relates to these big-time violators up the priority list of the tasks that they face--that kind of strategy can make a difference.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Burns. It is technical in nature. I know of no opposition.

It clarifies that header information that is technically false, but in such a minor way as to be nonmaterial, will not be actionable under the legislation.

It clarifies that spammers who knowingly route messages through what are called open relays in order to erase the message's originating information--which is a technique used by these big-time spammers--will be treated as having used false or misleading header information.

It permits the Federal Trade Commission to modify the bill's deadline for how quickly ``opt-out requests'' must be processed. Currently, the bill says that 10 business days after receiving a consumer's opt-out request, any further e-mails from the sender become punishable.

The amendment permits the Federal Trade Commission to modify that time period if it finds that a different period would be appropriate. It permits the Federal Trade Commission, if it identifies new and particularly nefarious techniques used by spammers, to add those techniques to the list of what are called aggravated violations so that spammers who use those techniques would be subject to higher penalties.

Finally, this amendment, which has the support of Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings, would clarify that any lawsuits for violations of Federal spam rules should be brought in Federal court. It is noncontroversial in nature. I urge its passage.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1892

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed-to Burns-Wyden technical amendment, No. 1891, be modified with the change I now send to the desk.

Madam President, this is also a very modest technical amendment. This amendment simply ensures that the Do Not E-mail Registry proposed would be considered on the timetable that all of the parties who have worked on this had intended. It is very noncontroversial.

Will the Senator yield?

Madam President, I will be very short.

Without turning this into a bouquet-tossing contest, let me thank my friend from Florida. Of course, many of the worst violators are people I call kingpin spammers who are located in his home State. The Senator from Florida brought it to the attention of Senator Burns and I that to have an effective enforcement strategy, we had to have in place tools that would deal with the kind of shady operators who are present in his home State.

The Senator from Florida has hammered on that message. I think by the time we are done this afternoon and have Senator Leahy on the floor as well, Senator Nelson's contribution will be especially helpful, not just in Florida but in terms of dealing with these kingpin spammers, the people who send out millions of e-mail now without consequences.

I thank my colleague for yielding, and I thank him for keeping this issue on the radar.

Will the Senator yield?

I say to the Senator from New York, I appreciate his patience on this. I think he knows from the outset my concern was not with the nature of this, because clearly empowering consumers to make these kinds of choices is essential. What is important is to try to figure out how to do this right.

The Senator from New York knows people change their e-mail addresses constantly. In that sense, this is different than a telephone. We all understand that if a bad spammer, for example, one of these kingpin operators, was to hack into this, what a gold mine for an evil person who wanted to exploit our citizens. The Senator from New York has been acutely aware of it and that is why he has worked with me, Senator Burns, and all of those on the Commerce Committee. I commend him for his patience.

This is an important contribution. We have a lot of work to do, because we have seen with the Do Not Call list what the challenge is. I personally believe in the telecommunications area we ought to establish, as kind of a bedrock principle, that there is a First Amendment right to communicate, but there also is a right of the consumer to say, I have had it. In effect, that is what the Senator from New York is allowing us to do in the spam area, and to do it in a responsible way.

I thank my colleague from Arizona for giving me this time. With a little luck, we will be able to dispose of the additional spam amendments and send this bill on its way.

Madam President, will the Senator from Utah yield?

I commend the Senator from Utah for his efforts in this area. The contribution the Senator from Utah makes is not just useful but it is absolutely critical. We can write bills to fight spam until we run out of paper, but unless we have the kind of enforcement the Senator from Utah envisions, we are not going to get the job right.

I am particularly interested in working with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee in making sure we have some vigorous oversight after this bill is enacted into law. If after this bill is passed we have the prosecutors, the Federal Trade Commission, and others bring some tough enforcement actions, that will be a tremendously valuable deterrent.

I would like to work with the distinguished chairman of the committee to have some vigorous oversight hearings after this bill has gone into effect. That is what it is going to take to make sure we have the teeth in this legislation to make a difference. I thank my colleague.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Harkin's name to that list and then I support the unanimous consent.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, just before he leaves the floor, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for all his help. I have already told Senator Hatch how incredibly important the enforcement provision is. You can write bills forever, but without the enforcement to which the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Utah are committed, those bills are not going to get the job done.

Suffice it to say, when there were a lot of people in public life who thought their computers were somehow a TV screen, the Senator from Vermont was already leading the Senate and those who work in the public policy arena to understand the implications of the medium.

There is nobody in public life whose counsel I value more on telecommunications and Internet policy than the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I appreciate his giving me this opportunity to work with him on the enforcement provisions. It will be the lifeblood of making this bill work.

Mr. President, we are very close to being able to pass this bill tonight. This is an extraordinarily important consumer measure, a measure that literally touches the lives of millions of people every single day. At this point, we have only three amendments left. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, has an amendment; the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, is to offer an amendment with Senator Santorum; and then Senator Landrieu has an amendment.

I am very hopeful we will be able to finish this bill fairly shortly. I urge those Senators who have their amendments in order to come to the floor at this point. This is legislation that has been worked on for more than 4 years. During that time, this problem has grown exponentially. A number of Senators have spoken about it, and the Senate ought to move ahead.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Before the Senator from Tennessee leaves the floor, I say to him I have my hands full today with spam so I am not going to get into the substance of the Internet Tax Freedom Act that, as my friend knows, I have been a sponsor of in the Senate with Congressman Cox in the other body. I am always anxious to work with my colleague from Tennessee.

Essentially, the arguments being made today against the Internet Tax Freedom Act are identical to the ones that were made 5 years ago. If we were to look at the transcript 5 years ago before the Senate Commerce Committee, we were told the States and localities would be stripped of the revenue they needed. We were pretty much told western civilization was going to end at that time.

Ever since then, as we have gone through 5 years of experience, we have not seen that to be the case. States and localities have not been stripped of the revenue they need. Internet sales are still perhaps only 2 percent of the economy. No jurisdiction has shown that they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against the Internet, and that is all this law stands for is technological neutrality, treating the online world like the offline world is treated.

As I said to my good friend, I have my hands full today with spam so we will debate the Internet Tax Freedom Act another day. I am anxious to work with my colleague. I would only point out the reauthorization of the Internet Tax Freedom Act passed the Commerce Committee unanimously. It is the first time since we have been at this that it has been passed unanimously. I think it is going to be an important debate I will certainly be anxious to talk with my colleague about at that time.

Again, we are hoping those with the amendments that have been made in order to the spam bill will come to the floor. We could finish this legislation in perhaps half an hour, pass a very important proconsumer measure by pretty close to a unanimous vote in the Senate. Senator Burns and I are certainly hoping that will be the case and hope in particular that Senator Corzine, Senator Enzi, and Senator Santorum will come to the floor and we could be done very quickly.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the committee. Every Member understands that pornography being transmitted through spam is a scourge. There is no question about it. What we have done, because we have just seen this, is we have asked the minority on the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Leahy, to take a look at this. We are very hopeful that we will be able to approve this language in just a few minutes. Again, we are hoping that this bill will be passed, certainly within 20, 25 minutes, and we will have a comment from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee very shortly.

I share Chairman McCain's view that this is an extremely important issue. When you think about spam, the first thing parents all over this country think about is the flood that is being targeted at families from coast to coast. I am hopeful we will get this approved in a matter of minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, on behalf of the minority, Senator Hollings believes that Senator Landrieu is raising a very important issue for consumers and kids. We do want to work closely with her and move ahead on her initiative. It is an important one for families.

Madam President, I think we are about ready to actually move to final passage. We have the Corzine amendment and another one coming from the Senator from Iowa. I think we are very close to being able to move ahead.

I wish to express my thanks to the leadership of the committee and my partner for over 4 years, Senator Burns, on this legislation.

The bottom line here is that when this bill becomes law, big-time spamming, in effect, becomes an outlaw business. For the first time, the kingpin spammers are going to be at risk of Federal prosecution, Federal Trade Commission enforcement, million-dollar lawsuits by State attorneys general and Internet service providers. The reason that is the case is that big-time spammers would have to violate this bill in order for their sleazy operations to continue. If they don't hide their identity, their messages will get filtered out. If they don't use misleading subject lines, people are going to go click and these garbage messages will go straight into the trash unread.

It seems to me there is a chance now, recognizing that we still need international cooperation and tough enforcement, to make a very significant step forward for consumers all across the country.

I will conclude by way of saying that, again, I think enforcement is going to be the key to making this legislation work. When this bill is signed into law, I have been saying that the enforcers--the Justice Department, State attorneys general, Internet service providers, and others--have to be prepared to come down on those 200 or 300 big-time spammers with hobnail boots. A lot of them are not exactly quaking tonight at the prospect of Senate action. They are not convinced that the Senate is really going to insist on strong oversight. We saw today, because of what was said by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, that they are committed to strong enforcement and vigorous oversight.

I believe as a result of the attention the Senate has given to this issue, when this bill is signed into law, we are going to see very quickly a handful of very tough, significant enforcement actions with real penalties and the prospect of spammers going to jail and paying million-dollar fines. That is the kind of deterrence we need.

The text of this law is very important, but it is only as good a law as we see backed up by enforcement. We have a commitment today from Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy to follow up and ensure that that kind of enforcement takes place. With that, I think we take a very significant step forward in terms of protecting the rights of consumers who right now find a blizzard of spam every single time they turn on their computer.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hollings, this is what we think Government ought to be about: going to bat for these people. I encourage the Senate to adopt the Harkin amendment.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, very briefly, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is trying to address a very important issue. We have asked for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, under Senator Leahy's leadership, to take a look at it. I think we will have that answer quickly.

As the Senator knows, some of the definitions in this area can get fairly technical. We also understand that pornography, which is conveyed through spam across the Internet, is a real public scourge. We are interested in getting the Senator's amendment adopted. I am hopeful we will be able to support it.

Mr. President, I also support the amendment. This is a compromise. Both of these topics are topics about which we really have not heard a lot. We have not had a chance to discuss them in hearings. Senator Corzine has been working constructively with us. I urge the passage of it.

The bounty issue essentially comes from Professor Lessig at Stanford, looking at innovative ways to create incentives to deal with the problem. It is certainly one the Federal Trade Commission should look at. The question about making sure every unsolicited e-mail has ADV has been contentious among a number of small business groups, ones that have really been burdened by these costs. But I think this is a fair compromise. It gives the Federal Trade Commission ample opportunity to study this and look at the feasibility of it. I urge our colleagues to support it.

As soon as we agree to the Corzine amendment, I believe Senator Harkin has a unanimous consent request he needs to make, and then we are ready to go to final passage. I urge my colleagues now to support the Corzine amendment.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I do not intend to object. I want to clarify, based on the discussions we have been having with the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Dorgan-Wyden amendment involves a number of savings provisions. We are going to be working with the chairman's staff and the staff of Senator Byrd. We think we can find common ground on a provision that will save upward of $1 billion. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. President, obviously $87 billion is an eye-popping sum of money, and taxpayers want the Congress to turn every penny over twice. That is what Senator Dorgan and I have done. We've gone through every number with a sharp pencil. This amendment, without in any way hampering the efforts to deal with the grave concerns in Iraq, could save taxpayers $1.8 billion.

For example, in a report for Senator Bingaman and myself, the Congressional Research Service found $200 million could be saved in connection with the purchase of petroleum products. They have indicated it would be significantly cheaper to buy gasoline in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

Without the Dorgan-Wyden amendment, in effect, the Senate would be saying to the American taxpayers the Federal Government cannot get a better price per gallon for gas when buying a 30-day supply of gas for a country the size of California than you and I could get at the gas station just down the street from the Capitol.

So we believe this is an important amendment. I have worked on these issues with a number of colleagues, particularly Senator Collins. We are able to get competitive bidding now on all of the contracts. The Dorgan-Wyden amendment complements this effort.

I particularly want to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for working closely with us to be able to save at least $1.8 billion, at the end of this debate, in a responsible fashion, in a fashion that will not injure our troops, that will not injure the reconstruction effort.

This is a significant step forward for the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and thank again Senator Stevens for working with us.

Yes.

Mr. President, the Senate knows, 5 years ago I was the sponsor in the Senate of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This is law that was designed to ensure that the Internet be free of discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce and a variety of Internet activities. And it was designed to encourage the growth of the Internet.

The law has unquestionably worked. There is absolutely no evidence of anyone who has been harmed by the inability to discriminate against electronic commerce.

For many months now, Senators of both political parties have been working together to try to ensure the law that expires shortly would be reauthorized, and Senators have been working on a cooperative and bipartisan basis to go forward and reauthorize this law that has worked.

I had been under the impression that we were just about ready to bring this bill to the floor, but in the last few days a proposal that I find truly alarming has been brought forward by some of the State and local officials. I come to the floor this morning to make sure the Senate is actually familiar with the language that is being brought forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation I am going to discuss be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, what some State and local officials now seek to do is to change the definition of ``Internet access,'' which, under current law, cannot be taxed. In doing so, what it would do is give States and localities explicit permission to tax what Internet users do once they get on line. That would mean you could have games, music, magazines, newspapers, information services, financial services, research services, or other products of services, in effect, facing a barrage of new taxes.

The phrase ``you've got mail'' would be replaced with ``you owe taxes.'' That is what this proposal would mean to 142 million Americans with household Internet access. Under this proposal, the consumer could be taxed every time they send an e-mail, every time they read their local newspaper online or check the score of a football game.

Those who are making this proposal are not going to come out publicly and talk about their ideas for taxing e-mail. There isn't a headline in the language that I have put into the Congressional Record today that says: Watch out, our plan is going to tax e-mail. But there is no question that a clear reading of this legislative language will mean just that. Consumers could be taxed every time they check a bank statement online. They could be taxed for paying their bills online. They could be taxed each time they check the sports scores online or listen to the weather on streaming radio. Every time a consumer turns to Google research service, they could be taxed for each key stroke. If that happened, no question, some in my office would just go bankrupt.

As the Chair knows, being so instrumental in working with me and members of the Senate Commerce Committee, this law has worked. It has been a bipartisan law based on the simple proposition that you would treat activity online just as you treat activity online. Some made dire predictions about the law originally that States and localities would be denied the opportunity to gain revenue for essential services. It has been clear that they have been proven incorrect. Internet commerce is now just a small part of our economy. In fact, what we have seen is a merger of what I call bricks and clicks, traditional commerce with Internet commerce. We have not seen problems under current law.

But by redefining the definition of Internet access, as the proposal does that I have put into the Congressional Record today, in effect you give a green light to State and local authorities all across the country to tax services that are integral to Internet access, including e-mail.

I believe this proposal would make wider the digital divide in this country. I think the new taxes would restrict growth in the Internet. The American consumer needs to know exactly what some of these taxing authorities are really up to. What they really want is either to stop the ban on Internet access taxes from becoming permanent or they are looking for statutory language which would stick consumers with hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes each year.

In my view, either option would be unacceptable to a majority of Senators. I hope, as the negotiations originally proceeded in the Commerce Committee and now in the Finance Committee, that there would be an effort to make the ban on discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce permanent and, in particular, let us ensure that the hard hit American consumer is protected from unfair tax schemes such as those I have outlined this morning.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it's time to bring competition back into our Nation's gasoline markets. Across America, gasoline prices have recently soared to the highest levels ever. Right now, gasoline costs 12 cents more than it did at this time last year. In my home State of Oregon, folks are paying a whopping 32 cents more per gallon than in October of last year.

Proven price manipulation is siphoning competition out of the gasoline markets and stealing money from Americans' wallets. It's time that government regulators opened their eyes to reality of rampant price manipulation by gas companies and protected American consumers from getting pummeled at the pump. That's why today I am introducing the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act.

Every extra penny Americans spend on the artificially inflated price of gasoline is a penny they aren't spending on other things--like clothes, groceries, or other consumer items. The difference is that buying a new washer dryer helps create jobs; paying extra for gas only creates a fatter bottom line for oil companies, nothing more.

With people losing their jobs and the economy in sorry shape, Congress should act right now to protect the American people from oil company price gouging. Artificially inflated gas prices hurt American families three ways: it steals dollars from their pocketbooks, slows down job creation, and often raises the price of the goods families need to buy due to increased transport costs.

Folks are looking to Congress to address gasoline price spikes and industry pricing policies that can't always be explained away by the market. But as the American people have called out for relief, the Federal government has stayed silent--refusing to respond in any meaningful way to the gas price crisis.

The Secretary of Energy says he's conducting an informal investigation to look into the issue. But under current law, the Department of Energy has no power to do anything about gasoline prices.

On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does have the power to protect consumers from gas price manipulation. Yet they've done almost nothing. They turned aside evidence of serious, documented anti-consumer practices--such as redlining and zone price--that inflate gas prices. They've argued that they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out collusion, setting out a standard that is almost impossible to prove against savvy oil interests.

You can see the results of the FTC's inaction at gas stations in Oregon and all across America. Nationwide, gasoline markets in Oregon and at least 27 other States are now considered to be ``tight oligopolies'' with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supplies. The problem is particularly dire in the West, where California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho are four of the top six States for high gas prices today.

In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices are driving independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called ``redlining,'' limits where independent distributors can sell their gasoline. As a result, independent stations must buy their gasoline directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand- name stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent stations can't compete.

Redlining is just the tip of the iceberg. Investigations have also found oil companies controlling not just stations' buying choices, but also distributors' selling prices. Companies engage in a practice called zone pricing, basing prices not on the cost of producing gasoline, but on the maximum a neighborhood will pay. They have squeezed out smaller refineries that could increase supply and introduce new competitions. They have exported gasoline and oil to Asia at rock-bottom prices, making up their profits by sticking West Coast consumers with the difference. So, stopping one anti-competitive practice, by itself, won't get the job done.

The solution is to update antitrust law to prohibit anti-competitive practices by single companies in concentrated markets. The current standard of collusion is unenforceable. Smart oil companies will never hole up in a room and collude to set prices; they don't need to.

Chevron/Texaco's North American President David Reeves admitted to a congressional panel that the West Coast gasoline market is so dominated by a limited number of large committed refinery/marketers whose individual actions can have significant market impact.

Here's how the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act would tackle the problem. First, the Federal Government would establish consumer watch zones for concentrated gasoline markets. Where control is concentrated, supplies can be manipulated, and competition restricted with ease. Where that capability is ready-made, the FTC should watch markets more carefully.

Oil companies employing anti-competitive practices in consumer watch zones should have to prove they're not hurting consumers. The whole litany of anti-competitive practices should be considered presumptively illegal. That includes exporting at a discount and pressuring independents--all the practices that manipulate supply or limit competition.

Consumer watch zones would also be empowerment zones for quick action by the FTC. In these zones, the agency could issue cease and desist orders to companies participating in these anti-competitive practices, forcing them to stop gouging consumers.

These legislative proposals are first steps toward bringing back competition to the Nation's gasoline markets. Congress should act now to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices--because even the oil companies admit the market won't solve the problem on its own. Last month, a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. That means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years.

I have spent years documenting unethical and anti-competitive practices in this country's gasoline markets--practices that have driven prices up and driven consumers crazy at the pump. The American people deserve relief from high gas prices and the Congress should act on their behalf.

Mr. President, it's time to bring competition back into our Nation's gasoline markets. Across America, gasoline prices have recently soared to the highest levels ever. Right now, gasoline costs 12 cents more than it did at this time last year. In my home State of Oregon, folks are paying a whopping 32 cents more per gallon than in October of last year.

Proven price manipulation is siphoning competition out of the gasoline markets and stealing money from Americans' wallets. It's time that government regulators opened their eyes to reality of rampant price manipulation by gas companies and protected American consumers from getting pummeled at the pump. That's why today I am introducing the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act.

Every extra penny Americans spend on the artificially inflated price of gasoline is a penny they aren't spending on other things--like clothes, groceries, or other consumer items. The difference is that buying a new washer dryer helps create jobs; paying extra for gas only creates a fatter bottom line for oil companies, nothing more.

With people losing their jobs and the economy in sorry shape, Congress should act right now to protect the American people from oil company price gouging. Artificially inflated gas prices hurt American families three ways: it steals dollars from their pocketbooks, slows down job creation, and often raises the price of the goods families need to buy due to increased transport costs.

Folks are looking to Congress to address gasoline price spikes and industry pricing policies that can't always be explained away by the market. But as the American people have called out for relief, the Federal government has stayed silent--refusing to respond in any meaningful way to the gas price crisis.

The Secretary of Energy says he's conducting an informal investigation to look into the issue. But under current law, the Department of Energy has no power to do anything about gasoline prices.

On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does have the power to protect consumers from gas price manipulation. Yet they've done almost nothing. They turned aside evidence of serious, documented anti-consumer practices--such as redlining and zone price--that inflate gas prices. They've argued that they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out collusion, setting out a standard that is almost impossible to prove against savvy oil interests.

You can see the results of the FTC's inaction at gas stations in Oregon and all across America. Nationwide, gasoline markets in Oregon and at least 27 other States are now considered to be ``tight oligopolies'' with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supplies. The problem is particularly dire in the West, where California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho are four of the top six States for high gas prices today.

In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices are driving independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called ``redlining,'' limits where independent distributors can sell their gasoline. As a result, independent stations must buy their gasoline directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand- name stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent stations can't compete.

Redlining is just the tip of the iceberg. Investigations have also found oil companies controlling not just stations' buying choices, but also distributors' selling prices. Companies engage in a practice called zone pricing, basing prices not on the cost of producing gasoline, but on the maximum a neighborhood will pay. They have squeezed out smaller refineries that could increase supply and introduce new competitions. They have exported gasoline and oil to Asia at rock-bottom prices, making up their profits by sticking West Coast consumers with the difference. So, stopping one anti-competitive practice, by itself, won't get the job done.

The solution is to update antitrust law to prohibit anti-competitive practices by single companies in concentrated markets. The current standard of collusion is unenforceable. Smart oil companies will never hole up in a room and collude to set prices; they don't need to.

Chevron/Texaco's North American President David Reeves admitted to a congressional panel that the West Coast gasoline market is so dominated by a limited number of large committed refinery/marketers whose individual actions can have significant market impact.

Here's how the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act would tackle the problem. First, the Federal Government would establish consumer watch zones for concentrated gasoline markets. Where control is concentrated, supplies can be manipulated, and competition restricted with ease. Where that capability is ready-made, the FTC should watch markets more carefully.

Oil companies employing anti-competitive practices in consumer watch zones should have to prove they're not hurting consumers. The whole litany of anti-competitive practices should be considered presumptively illegal. That includes exporting at a discount and pressuring independents--all the practices that manipulate supply or limit competition.

Consumer watch zones would also be empowerment zones for quick action by the FTC. In these zones, the agency could issue cease and desist orders to companies participating in these anti-competitive practices, forcing them to stop gouging consumers.

These legislative proposals are first steps toward bringing back competition to the Nation's gasoline markets. Congress should act now to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices--because even the oil companies admit the market won't solve the problem on its own. Last month, a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. That means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years.

I have spent years documenting unethical and anti-competitive practices in this country's gasoline markets--practices that have driven prices up and driven consumers crazy at the pump. The American people deserve relief from high gas prices and the Congress should act on their behalf.

Before he leaves the floor, I say to the distinguished majority leader how much I have enjoyed working with him over the years on this issue of health care. As he knows, Senator Hatch and I have worked for many months on a bipartisan proposal that we would like to be part of the discussion he is going to launch. I have come to the conclusion that, as pressing as the financial issues are with respect to health care, the social and ethical issues are going to be even more important as we face this demographic tsunami of millions of baby boomers who are retiring in 2010 and 2011. So I am grateful the majority leader continues his interest in health care.

I continue to have a bipartisan interest in working with the majority leader, who has spent so much time on those issues over the years. I know I speak for Senator Hatch in this regard as well.

We have to break the gridlock on this issue. Literally for 60 years, if you look at the parallel between what Harry Truman tried in the 81st Congress in 1945 and what was tried in 1993 and up to this day, we see, unless we find a way to take a fresh approach, as the distinguished majority leader said today, we are not going to break this gridlock.

So I welcome your statement today. I am anxious to work with you and the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, to pursue these proposals.

Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon because I am troubled by what appears to be a request by the Bush administration in the Iraq supplemental that would have our citizens use their hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize the cost of gasoline in Iraq so Iraqi citizens would only have to pay 10 cents a gallon.

The questions I am going to raise this afternoon with respect to this proposal can all be found essentially on page 29 of the report with respect to the request for the supplemental funds for rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq.

For those who are following this discussion, this is under the question of the purchase of oil products at page 29 of the request for the supplemental.

I want to begin asking some questions about the fairness of this Bush proposal and about how this subsidy program that is in this report would work if it was actually to be funded by the Senate.

Today I also intend to send a letter to the President trying to get answers to some of these questions. But I would tell the Senate that here is what we know at present.

The Bush administration has included in its Iraq supplemental funding request an estimated cost of $900 million to cover the difference between ``Iraqi demand and refinery production to establish and maintain a 30-day reserve in all major petroleum products to ensure no interruption in basic services due to terrorist activity.''

The administration's funding request specifies:

$600 million will be needed in the first quarter of 2004 to

compensate for the large difference between demand and

production and to build this 30-day reserve.

The first question is, How much is going to be spent on creating this reserve, and how much is going to be spent on purchasing gasoline for Iraqis? Using demand data from the Energy Information Agency's latest report on Iraq and current market conditions, it is estimated the establishment of a 30-day fuel product reserve would cost approximately $200 million. If that amount is correct, that would mean roughly $400 million would be spent to purchase gasoline and other petroleum products for Iraqis in the first 90 days of next year. Iraq is importing about 750,000 gallons of gasoline a day, according to recent statements by senior oil ministry officials.

Based on those statements, Iraq would need about 67.5 million gallons during the first quarter of 2004. If that estimate is correct, U.S. taxpayers would be paying almost $6 per gallon for the gasoline that is provided to Iraqis by the United States in the first quarter of 2004.

The question I ask today and in the days ahead will be: Why does it cost $6 per gallon to provide gasoline to Iraqis when the cost in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is less than $1 per gallon and below the $2 per gallon cost almost everywhere in our country?

According to an article in the Houston Chronicle on September 28, the United States has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to provide gasoline to Iraq under the contract previously issued with Halliburton. My question here would be: What is the cost of gasoline that has been sent to Iraq by the United States? What was the wholesale price involved here that Halliburton paid for the gas sent to Iraq at taxpayer expense?

Of course, I think our citizens would want to know what profit was made on these deliveries.

The Houston Chronicle also reported that in Iraq the low-octane government-subsidized gasoline sells for less than a dime a gallon.

I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Houston Chronicle entitled ``U.S. Taxpayer Footing Bill for Cheap Iraqi Gasoline'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my question flowing from what we have learned and the various issues we have been exploring throughout the days since we learned about this is, Were U.S. taxpayer funds spent to keep the cost of gasoline in Iraq at this heavily subsidized low price?

I am of the view that our taxpayers deserve to get answers to these questions. I think we deserve to get them before Congress votes on the Bush administration's funding request.

I can tell my colleagues in the Senate that when I read page 29 of this particular report with respect to oil products purchased, I was very concerned. My citizens and the folks I represent in the Pacific Northwest consistently pay some of the highest gasoline prices in our country. Oregon, Washington, and California have been very hard hit with respect to gas prices. It amounts to a quasi-monopoly in 27 States in our country. We have red lining. We have zone pricing, and a whole host of anticompetitive practices. Now we have outlined on page 29 of this request for supplemental funds what appears to be a request from the administration to have the hard-earned tax dollars of our citizens go to subsidize the cost of gasoline in Iraq so Iraqi citizens will only have to pay 10 cents a gallon. I can tell my colleagues there are people we represent here in the Senate who are not paying that kind of money.

That is why I want to get the details on this proposal. I am amplifying on the questions I am asking today in a letter to the President of the United States. We also come away with a concern that the administration seems to be willing to support creating a reserve in Iraq to protect Iraqi citizens against interruptions in gasoline and diesel fuel supplies when there is no gas and diesel reserve in the United States to protect our citizens in the event of terrorist activity or other disruptions.

This proposal in the report which I have outlined and referred to specifically so that colleagues can see it raises some very troubling questions.

Given what we already know now that the administration has included in its Iraq supplemental funding request an estimated cost of $900 million to cover the difference between Iraqi demand in refinery production to establish and maintain this reserve due to possible terrorist activities, I think it is time for the Senate to take out a sharp pencil and review this proposal very carefully. I think it raises fundamental questions with respect to fairness and with respect to how the hard-earned tax dollars of our citizens are being used at a time when in my State, with the highest unemployment rate in the country, there is a world of hurt.

I urge my colleagues to take a good look at this proposal because I intend to focus more on it when the Senate comes back after having the opportunity to be home and gather with the people we represent.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.