[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 29, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7595-S7619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 2035, which is 
the media shield bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is now pending.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Presiding 
Officer. I want the distinguished Presiding Officer to know the weather 
in our home State is much nicer today than it is here.
  I support the Free Flow of Information Act, S. 2035, which the 
distinguished majority leader has moved to. I hope the minority will 
allow us to consider this important legislation.
  I thank the majority leader for his willingness to bring this 
legislation before the Senate. I have worked with him on this matter to 
find an opportunity for Senate action since the Judiciary Committee 
reported this bill last October. I appreciate the support of the 
majority leader. He has offered a generous response to the bipartisan 
request Senator Specter and I made to him and the Republican leader 
earlier this year to proceed to this bill. In a bipartisan letter, we 
asked if he would proceed to the bill. He has done that. I applaud him 
for it.
  Our bill has 20 Senate cosponsors, Members of both parties. I hope 
the Republican cosponsors will join us in moving to the bill and will 
bring along the seven or eight Republicans we will need to overcome yet 
another filibuster and make progress.
  I have also supported and urged the Senate to proceed to the strong 
House-passed version of the Free Flow of Information Act, H.R. 2102. 
That bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 398 to 21--
so it obviously has overwhelming bipartisan support. The House bill has 
more than 70 cosponsors--both Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Years ago, my mother and father owned a small daily newspaper in 
Waterbury, VT, the Waterbury Record. As a child, I grew up hearing, at 
the kitchen table, that a free and vibrant press is essential to a free 
society. That has been demonstrated again and again over the last eight 
years. That is why I cosponsored the Senate version of this bill and I 
have worked hard to enact a meaningful reporters' shield law this year.
  That is why I made sure that for the first time ever--for the first 
time ever--the Senate Judiciary Committee reported a media shield law 
to protect the public's right to know. The Judiciary Committee reported 
a bill sponsored by Senators Lugar, Dodd, Specter, Schumer, Graham, and 
myself with a strong bipartisan 15-to-4 vote.
  I wish to commend the leadership of Senator Lugar and Senator Dodd in 
connection with this matter. They began this quest for fairness when it 
seemed an impossibility several years ago. They have worked diligently 
to bring us to where we are today--at the cusp of achieving a Federal 
shield law--if only the Senate gets the support of a handful of 
Republican Senators to proceed to the bill.
  All of us--whether Republican, Democratic or Independent--have an 
interest in enacting a balanced and meaningful shield bill to ensure a 
free flow of information to the American people. Forty-nine States and 
the District of Columbia currently have codified or common law 
protections for confidential source information. But even with these 
State law protections, the press remains the first stop, rather than 
the stop of last resort, for our Government and private litigants when 
it comes to seeking information. Time and time again--especially during 
the years when this Congress refused to do real oversight of the 
current administration--when there was waste in Government, when there 
were serious mistakes in Government, even when Government was breaking 
the law, we found out about it first and foremost because of the press 
in America.

  Earlier this year, Toni Locy, a professor of journalism at West 
Virginia University, also a former USA TODAY reporter, was held in 
contempt of court for refusing to divulge her confidential sources. 
There are scores of other reporters who have been questioned by Federal 
prosecutors about their sources, notes, and reports in recent years. 
This is a dangerous trend that can have a chilling effect on the press, 
but even more so, on the public's right to know. If you don't have a 
free press,

[[Page S7596]]

then you don't have a free society. If you don't have a way for 
Americans to know what their Government is doing, then we will all 
hurt. To paraphrase Mark Twain, you should support your country all the 
time but question your government when it deserves it. We need a press 
willing and able to do that.
  Enacting the Free Flow of Information Act--which carefully balances 
the need to protect confidential source information with the need to 
protect law enforcement and national security interests--would help to 
reverse this troubling trend and benefit all Americans. The bill 
creates a qualified privilege to protect journalists from being forced 
to reveal their confidential sources. The bill contains exceptions to 
the privilege for criminal conduct or national security. The 
legislation also requires that Federal courts weigh the need for the 
information with the public's interest in the free flow of information, 
before compelling reporters to disclose their confidential sources.
  Although I strongly support the enactment of a Federal shield law, I 
have some reservations about possible revisions to the bill we passed 
out of Committee. I am pleased that language has been drafted to 
address my concerns about making sure that legitimate bloggers and 
freelance journalists are included in the definition of the persons 
covered by this bill.
  However, I hope that any amendments to this legislation will include 
stronger protections for journalists and their sources with regard to 
matters of national security and classified information. No one would 
quibble with the notion that there are circumstances when the 
Government can and should have the right to compel information in order 
to keep us safe. But many newsworthy stories concerning national 
security, such as the exceptional reporting on the CIA's secret prisons 
and the warrantless--and many feel illegal--wiretapping by the National 
Security Agency were published with the help of confidential sources, 
to the great benefit of the general public and the accountability that 
ordinary Americans deserve from their Government.
  I fear that proposals from some in this body do not go far enough to 
protect against Government abuse in this area or to protect the 
public's interest in the dissemination of newsworthy information.
  Not all reporters will be as lucky as Bill Gertz of the Washington 
Times was when a judge recently upheld his claim in a case in a 
California Federal court. Even with this victory, however, the 
Government has responded by broadening its inquiries. To prevent 
further intrusions on our fundamental first amendment rights, we need 
some uniform standards. We need procedures to evaluate claims of 
privilege and protect the public's right to know. To do that, of 
course, the Congress must act.
  In a much touted speech to the American Enterprise Institute last 
week, current Attorney General Mukasey, who still opposes a Federal 
shield law, articulated principles that argue for enacting one. 
Attorney General Mukasey endorsed congressional legislative action when 
there exists a ``serious risk of inconsistent rulings and considerable 
uncertainty.'' He noted that congressional action to provide procedures 
in national security cases is ``well within the historic role and 
competence of Congress.'' Although he was proposing action in another 
setting, the Attorney General's remarks likewise support congressional 
action to standardize and clarify the procedures governing a Federal 
statutory press shield law. In view of the disparate rulings and 
outcomes that have developed in the courts since the Supreme Court's 
Branzburg decision 36 years ago, it is now time for Congress to 
establish a framework for the courts to resolve press privilege 
assertions fairly and consistently, and we can do this while preserving 
our national security.
  When he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of 
the Federal shield law in 2005, William Safire told us that the essence 
of news gathering is this: If you do not have sources you trust and who 
trust you, then you don't have a solid story--and the public suffers 
for it. Well, Bill Safire is exactly right. We simply have no idea how 
many newsworthy stories have gone unwritten and unreported out of fear 
that a reporter would be forced to reveal a source or face jail time. 
We also do not know how many potential whistleblowers, or other 
confidential sources, have chosen to remain silent out of fear that 
journalists could be compelled to disclose their identity.
  Just recently, investigative journalism and confidential sources have 
helped to uncover significant Government failures in Iraq, in New 
Orleans, as well as Government neglect at the Walter Reed Medical 
Center. We wouldn't have found out how poorly the returning soldiers 
were being treated--people who have lost limbs or have been paralyzed 
or blinded in the war in Iraq--by the Veterans' Administration and the 
problems and events at our Government facilities. We would not have 
found out about that if a confidential source hadn't told a reporter.
  We have seen just in the past few days news articles about 
politicization at the Department of Justice. A lot of the spotlight on 
how politicized this administration's Justice Department has become 
came out of hearings we held in the Judiciary Committee. But much of 
what we found out about what was going on at the Justice Department 
came out of press reports based on confidential sources.

  We learned from the press that the White House, afraid that they 
might find out the truth, avoided implementing the Environmental 
Protection Agency's recommendations on global warming by not opening 
the agency's e-mails. Again, we find out about that from confidential 
sources.
  As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of making sure 
that the Government can effectively investigate criminal wrongdoing, 
combat terrorism, and preserve national security. The Federal shield 
legislation we are seeking to bring before the Senate strikes a balance 
among these important objectives. The bill addresses the legitimate 
need for law enforcement to obtain information from reporters to 
prevent a crime or a national security threat.
  In addition, by providing a qualified and not an absolute privilege 
to withhold the identity of confidential sources, the bill also 
advances other important law enforcement objectives, such as 
encouraging whistleblowers to disclose fraud, waste, and abuse that 
might otherwise go unreported.
  The opposition to this carefully crafted bill by the Department of 
Justice and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, is 
simply misplaced. Although 49 States, the District of Columbia, and 
several Federal courts have recognized a reporter's privilege either by 
statute or common law for years, the Department of Justice and ODNI 
have not cited a single circumstance where the privilege caused any 
harm to national security or to law enforcement. In fact, the 
legitimate concerns about the need to effectively combat crime and 
protect national security have been satisfied by the bill and by 
amendments to this bill offered in a bipartisan fashion by Senators 
Feinstein, Brownback, and Kyl.
  A free press in our country is what sets us apart from so many other 
nations in the world. The distinguished Presiding Officer, in his years 
in the House and in the Senate, can certainly point to examples where 
we have found out things that have been kept hidden from the Congress 
only because the press uncovered them. Certainly, that has been my 
experience in my years here in the Senate.
  I also know that there is a temptation--when any administration has 
made a serious mistake or is trying to hide wrongdoing by their 
administration, the first thing they want to do is to make sure nobody 
in the press or the Congress or the public finds out what they have 
done. For every administration, it is easy to have all of their press 
people go out and tout the things they want us to know, the things they 
consider a success. None want us to hear about the embarrassments or 
the mistakes or, more recently, out-and-out wrongdoing. That is where 
you need a press willing to go in and uncover Government wrongdoing and 
protect the sources who help them to do so.
  Do you think even with all of the hearings I and others have held we 
would have found out how law enforcement was manipulated and thwarted 
by this administration in the selection and manipulation of U.S. 
attorneys?

[[Page S7597]]

We found out about it first and foremost by the press, and then through 
witness testimony in hearings, and now by the Justice Department's 
Inspector General who had the willingness to stand up and point to the 
wrongdoing of this administration. And then there was Abu Ghraib--how 
did we find out about that? We learned about it in the press, not 
because the administration was willing to say: Look at this terrible 
thing we have done.
  So after months and months of delaying tactics and opposition by the 
Bush administration, the time has come to pass a Federal shield law. I 
thank and commend the more than 60 news media and journalism 
organizations including ABC News, the Associated Press, CNN, the 
National Newspaper Association, the Society of Professional 
Journalists, and the Vermont Press Association, that worked so hard to 
get us to this point.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of a support letter from the 
Media Coalition Supporting the Free Flow of Information Act printed in 
the Record following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will just leave with this: Let's make 
sure the Congress--especially this Senate--takes steps, as the other 
body did, to make it easier for the public to know not all the things 
the Government wants them to know but the times when our Government has 
made mistakes, the times when our Government has not followed the law, 
the times when our Government has tried to give disinformation. We are 
a stronger nation if we know the truth. We are a weaker nation if our 
laws allow the truth to be shielded from the American people. I trust 
the American people. I trust the American people to question our 
Government. I trust the American people to be able to handle the 
information. I do not trust those who would try to use every barrier to 
keep that information from the American people.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

      Media Coalition Supporting the Free Flow of Information Act

                                                    July 21, 2008.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Russell Bldg., U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Re: S. 2035--The Free Flow of Information Act.

       Dear Chairman Leahy: On behalf of the men and women across 
     the country who work to bring the American people vital news 
     and information, we, the undersigned media companies and 
     organizations, thank you for your support and co-sponsorship 
     of S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act. Your leadership 
     in support of this bill has been invaluable in fighting to 
     ensure that the American public has access to news and 
     information about their government and the institutions that 
     affect their daily lives. Protecting confidential sources 
     through federal legislation has broad support on both sides 
     of the aisle, in both chambers of Congress, and from state 
     attorneys general across the nation.
       The legislation is vitally important to the national 
     interest, an informed citizenry, and a free and vibrant 
     press. As you know last October, S. 2035 was favorably 
     reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a strong 
     15-4 bipartisan vote and is supported by the presumptive 
     Republican and Democrat presidential nominees, Sens. John 
     McCain and Barack Obama. A similar shield bill (H.R. 2102) 
     passed by an overwhelming 398-21 vote.
       Chairman Leahy, we appreciate your leadership and 
     respectfully request that you do whatever you can to make 
     sure that S. 2035 is approved by the Senate, without any 
     further amendments that would weaken the well-reasoned 
     protections in the bill.
           Very truly yours,
       ABC News, ABC Owned Television Stations, Advance 
     Publications, Inc., A. H. Belo Corporation, Allbritton 
     Communications Company, American Business Media, American 
     Society of Magazine Editors, American Society of Newspaper 
     Editors, The Associated Press, The Associated Press Managing 
     Editors Association.
       Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Association of 
     American Publishers, Association of Capitol Reporters and 
     Editors, Belo Corp., Bloomberg News, CBS Corporation, Clear 
     Channel, CNN, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, 
     The Copley Press, Inc.
       Cox Television, Cox Newspapers, Cox Enterprises, Inc., 
     Daily News, L.P., First Amendment Coalition of Arizona, Inc., 
     Freedom Communications, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Gray 
     Television, Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc., Hearst 
     Corporation.
       Lee Enterprises, Inc., Magazine Publishers of America, The 
     McClatchy Company, The McGraw-Hili Companies, Media Law 
     Resource Center, National Association of Broadcasters, 
     National Conference of Editorial Writers, National Federation 
     of Press Women, The National Geographic Society, National 
     Newspaper Association.
       National Press Photographers Association, National Public 
     Radio, NBC Universal, News Corporation, Newspaper Association 
     of America, The Newspaper Guild-CWA, Newsweek, The New York 
     Times Company, North Jersey Media Group Inc., Online News 
     Association.
       Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, Radio-Television News 
     Directors Association, Raycom Media, Inc., The Reporters 
     Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reuters America LLC, E. 
     W. Scripps, Society of Professional Journalists, Stephens 
     Media LLC, Time Inc.
       Time Warner, Tribune Company, truTV, The Walt Disney 
     Company, The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report, White 
     House News Photographers Associations.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                                 Energy

  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to talk about the 
subject that has to do with the energy legislation that has been 
pending before the Senate for I think 9\1/2\ days. I wish we would have 
had votes before this time because it is one of the most important, if 
not the most important, issues confronting the American people. I am 
going to speak about one of the amendments the majority has to offer 
with reference to the Energy bill.
  First, I wish to say I have no doubt that both sides of the aisle--
because we do know what the public is thinking, so I would think both 
sides do know the public has changed its mind dramatically about 
drilling for American oil. It wasn't too long ago that you were afraid 
to use the word ``drill.'' You had to use the word ``explore'' because 
drilling had a bad connotation. But when the American people got around 
to thinking about this idea that if we had more oil available and the 
world knew it and it was American and we could develop it, they knew 
that would require drilling. No matter how sophisticated the drilling 
has become with these giant offshore drilling pads which, if anybody 
had a chance to see one, such as I have, you would see what we can do 
hundreds of miles underwater, without any degradation of the 
environment, and how men can go to work with that equipment and build 
these giant facilities, where people can sleep while they maintain 
them.
  Underground, they can drill 10, 12, even 14 wells, and they all get 
piped into 1 pipe, and there isn't any seepage. When we had the great 
hurricane, they showed pictures of the pipes underground moving with 
the current but not breaking. That is what is going to happen under the 
ground off the coast--producing billions of barrels of oil and 
trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. It belongs to us. Eighty-five 
percent of our coast is now closed.
  We can speak about the fact we are already producing and already 
leasing, but 85 percent is not leased. Whatever is being talked about, 
saying that leases are there and not producing--I don't have enough 
time today, but I am going to explain why one of the amendments the 
majority has that talks about producing doesn't produce anything 
because it is supposedly one of these amendments that talks about 
drilling--drill it or lose it. That is already governed by a ``drill it 
or lose it'' condition in every lease. So nobody is out there operating 
with leases they are not using, because if they do, they lose them. 
They paid big money to get them so they can go down there and produce 
energy for us.
  I rise to speak on the status of the debate on this bill and on an 
amendment the majority has put forth under the pretext of increasing 
our energy supply. That is what we have been talking about--increasing 
our energy supply. For the most part, all the amendments we have talked 
about wanting to offer are increasing our energy supply. The current 
energy crisis is derived from many factors, but the bill the majority 
leader has called up attempts to deal with only one of them: 
speculation. There is no question that speculation is not the whole 
problem. In fact, four of the most prominent leaders we have in matters 
economic and matters that pertain to securities and matters that 
pertain to such things as speculation have indicated the oil and gas 
prices are not driven by that but, rather, by supply and demand.
  As I have said before, never in my 36 years in the Senate have I seen 
a problem so big met with a proposed solution by the majority leader 
that is so

[[Page S7598]]

small. Speculation is adding to the severity of our energy crisis, but 
without question, an imbalance between supply and demand is at the root 
of the problems we face.
  The Republican caucus has proposed a number of solutions that measure 
up to the present challenge. Despite this, as we begin the eighth day 
of debate on this bill, we have not had a single substantive vote on 
it. The American people certainly deserve better, and we ought to be 
able to come up with something better. But that is the way the process 
is--7 or 8 days without voting on an amendment. For most of that time, 
the contention was that we could offer amendments. The truth is we 
could not because we would have had to withdraw some amendments the 
majority leader had offered, and certainly he would not have relished 
that.
  For the past week, the other side of the aisle has told the American 
people to believe that Republicans are up to no good, and we are 
obstructing progress. The truth is we merely want to complete the work 
our constituents sent us here to do.
  We know what Republican amendments seek to do. My legislation was 
introduced more than 12 weeks ago, and the Republican leader's bill was 
filed nearly 5 weeks ago. The Republican proposals clearly answer the 
question of how to produce more energy here at home while, at the same 
time, reducing the amount we consume. Our motto has been abundantly 
clear: find more and use less. We will, perhaps, be voting and giving 
everybody in this body an approach to do that. I hope when we make such 
agreement, we will have a clear opportunity to have votes on that kind 
of proposition.
  What has been less clear, outside of the speculation-only bill now 
pending, is what exactly the Democrats are willing to do to reduce the 
energy prices. Despite stalling progress on a real energy bill, the 
other side has realized they must at least appear to support greater 
domestic production of energy. So late last week, 14 Democratic 
Senators introduced their own version of the Republican plan to find 
more and use less.

  Now, finally, the text of that amendment is public. However, we know 
it falls short of its own goals. Gone from it are the windfall profits 
tax, price-gouging, and NOPEC provisions that were soundly discredited 
by energy experts and editorial pages of all ideological stripes. They 
were part of what was being tendered by the majority. They are gone 
from the proposal that 14 Senators from the other side of the aisle 
have offered.
  In their place is a bill that would still bring no new energy to 
market. It does not open any new areas to exploration--or shall I say 
drilling? By increasing the fees applied to leases and preproduction 
requirements, it could actually drive up the cost of energy and 
lengthen the time it takes to get that energy to market. It would delay 
the development of one of America's most abundant energy reserves and 
increase our vulnerability to an interruption in oil supply.
  In short, the majority party's new ``production'' proposal contains 
far more problems than it does solutions. It will not lower prices at 
the pump, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it will 
not help resolve our energy crisis. That is the amendment that has been 
touted by Senator Bingaman and about 12 or 13 other Senators. Our 
dependence upon foreign oil will in no way be ameliorated, and it will 
not help resolve our energy crisis.
  It is worth taking time on the floor to examine the substance of the 
proposal. The amendment is No. 5135, and it claims to address a number 
of so-called supply side issues, including lease duration, lease 
rentals, lease sales, resource estimates, the Roan Plateau, and the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  I would like to take a few moments to address these issues.
  On the duration of leases, the amendment shortens the amount of 
available time to complete all the activity leading up to and including 
drilling for oil and natural gas. This approach would fail to increase 
supply for several different reasons. It ignores the reason why it 
takes so much time to get a lease into production in the first place. 
Oil companies are not just wasting time, they are mandated to use up 
that time. It actually adds to the central cause of those delays by 
creating new bureaucratic requirements for writing ``diligent 
development plans.'' In other words, all they are doing and all they 
plan to do and all this wonderful work offshore that is out there, no 
thanks to the Congress and the President, because we kept most of it 
closed--85 percent is still closed--but within that 15 percent you see 
terrific development and tremendous facilities. They are following 
rules. If you had them in a witness room and asked them what rules they 
are following, they would explain to you it takes a long time to go 
from the bid day--the day you get that lease--until you can actually 
drill. They do everything possible to expedite, but some of the reasons 
for delay they can do nothing about; they follow the rules. There are 
environmental rules--sometimes duplicated, but they are there. This 
amendment I am speaking of, in an effort to say we are going to get 
more and squeeze more out of what is there, I imagine these people who 
own it at $1.35 are not interested in squeezing out the oil for 
America. They are interested in lollygagging. They paid money for the 
lease and they have money invested, but they are not in a hurry. So we 
have to pass a new diligent development plan requirement.
  There are already as many as 39 permits, documents, and analyses that 
have to be done in the development of a lease. It is unclear how adding 
the 40th step will move the process any faster.
  Next, the amendment seeks to increase rental fees that leaseholders 
pay to occupy Federal land. The increased fees that have been proposed 
would discourage companies from bidding on and subsequently exploring 
leases that contain marginally attractive lands. Increasing the cost of 
doing business is not the answer. Once you think about it, most 
Senators overwhelmingly will agree that we don't need to add to the 
fees. We don't need to add to the regulatory requirements. We need the 
opposite if we want more production.
  The leader on the other side has an amendment that also attempts to 
alter the frequency of lease sales. This is appealing in principle, but 
as drafted the amendment merely pretends to speed up a process for 
areas where lease sales are already scheduled to take place or where 
lease sales have already been held without any interest from industry. 
In effect, this bill is attempting to take credit for something that 
was going to happen anyway or, worse, has already occurred without 
success.
  What the amendment does not do is open any new areas to leasing, 
which is the fundamental change that is so desperately needed in our 
management of Federal lands. Energy companies should not be forced to 
drill when and where it is politically convenient; they should be 
allowed to drill where resources are most concentrated and when 
conditions most warrant their development.
  Something of a pattern is becoming evidence here. And not 
surprisingly, it carries over to the so-called resource estimate--more 
new words and new bureaucracy--called for by this amendment. 
Predictably, the inventory contemplated by this amendment is only for 
areas that are already leased or are already open for lease sale.
  Instead of conducting an estimate of the resources within already 
open areas and already existing leases, we should authorize a full 
inventory of the Nation's entire resource potential, including areas 
that have historically been kept off-limits. Only then can Congress 
make an informed decision. We must fully understand what our past 
energy policies have kept off-limits and how those resources could be 
used to meet our future needs. Again, the Democratic amendment avoids 
this very pressing task.

  Another troublesome provision is the amendment's proposed swap of oil 
in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The sponsors would have 70 million 
barrels of light sweet crude--that is a specific type of oil that is 
very expensive and very versatile--they would have that released within 
180 days and not replace it with fuel until as many as 5 years have 
gone. So had the Energy Committee not cancelled a hearing on this very 
topic last week, we might know if this proposal makes any sense at all. 
I suspect it does not.
  Having watched the price of oil climb by $20 a barrel from around 
$127 to a

[[Page S7599]]

high of $147--and we are all grateful it has come down a little bit 
after deliveries of the SPR were suspended--it is highly unlikely that 
a short-term release of oil will reduce oil prices over any sort of 
time horizon.
  I urge my colleagues to remember the purpose of SPR is to provide oil 
in the event of a supply disruption, not in the event of a price 
increase. In the event of an emergency, enactment of this provision 
would reduce our ability to cover import losses from 58 days to 52. 
Just imagine, the American people should know with all the troubles in 
the Middle East and the straits, with boats loaded with crude oil, many 
soon to be laden with natural gas, where they can pass--look at the 
danger that is there. Look at America's future in terms of what might 
happen there. Look at what might happen accidentally, much less 
intentionally.
  We only have 58 days of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil in the 
repository underground that we could use. The American people ought to 
be grateful--and I think they are--that we did this. We have 58 days to 
pump out that oil and use it if we are in one of these problems that 
could come about from an oil shortage on the world market because of 
accidents, war, conflagration, or the like.
  The other side would take that and say: Let's take 6 days of that 
reserve and put that oil out for sale and that might lower the price of 
oil on the market and thus lower the price of gasoline. Anybody who 
sees that--we will show them the numbers later what that means--will 
know that is not producing a new source of oil, drilling for it or 
exploring it. It is nothing but a short-term use of our petroleum 
reserves for price reasons when it should never be used for that, and 
it won't work anyway.
  The amendment has many other shortcomings. The most damaging 
provision to our energy security deals with the Roan Plateau in 
Colorado.
  The way the language is drafted speaks for itself.
  On page 26:

       The Secretary shall include in any mineral lease . . . a 
     stipulation prohibiting surface occupancy or surface 
     disturbance for purposes of exploration for or development of 
     oil and natural gas.

  On page 29:

       The Secretary may not permit through a lease or other means 
     any exploration for or development of oil shale resources.

  And then on page 30:

       The Secretary may not at any time issue mineral leases on 
     public land within more than one of the phased development 
     areas.

  These restrictions are somehow fit for inclusion, even after a 
finding on page 20 which asserts that ``the Roan Plateau Planning Area 
likely contains significant energy resources.''
  Why were these provisions included in a title called ``Oil Supply and 
Management''? A plain reading of this language clearly demonstrates 
that it is the sponsors' desire to manage that plateau in such a way 
that its abundant energy resources will never be produced. In short, 
this is a production amendment which prohibits production.
  What my colleagues across the aisle don't want you to know is that a 
lease sale including parcels on the Roan Plateau is scheduled for 
August 14, a little over 2 weeks from now. If this section were enacted 
into law, it would likely require the land use plan or the entire area 
to be redone, generally taking 2 to 3 years or more.
  Let us not forget that the current plan for the Roan Plateau took 9 
years to develop and that this provision could require that the process 
begin again from scratch and will eliminate any revenue from the coming 
August 14 lease sale which is already assumed in the budget at $100 
million.
  For all the shortcomings in this amendment, most revealing are the 
measures not included in it. There is no repeal of the restriction on 
regulations for commercial oil shale leasing. The other side has 
decided to stand by a ban that they imposed last year on that resource. 
There is no lifting of the congressional moratorium on the development 
of deep sea energy resources, despite the President already taking 
action to do so.
  There is no mention of our Nation's vast domestic coal reserves which 
could be used to provide secure, affordable energy for decades to come.
  And there is no repeal of section 526 which impairs the Defense 
Department's efforts to develop resources of alternative domestic fuel.
  Taken altogether, this amendment and the underlying speculation-only 
bill that is before the Senate suggests that the majority is content to 
move on without having done anything to address the energy crisis. 
Nothing. We were faced with an effort to proceed to another matter this 
past weekend, and the Senate rightly voted to reject it.
  Yesterday afternoon, we were again faced with another attempt by the 
majority to change the topic from what we were on to another topic. 
Again, the Senate rightly defeated that effort. I hope we continue to 
defeat efforts to move away from the No. 1 domestic issue facing the 
American people.
  This issue deserves our undivided attention. There is nothing to be 
afraid of. We have ample time to write a good bill that makes real 
progress and provides real relief at the pump for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I will be brief. I know Senator 
Grassley has been waiting as well. I will not speak for very long.
  I rise to speak about S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act, a 
bill that Senator Specter and I have spent a lot of time on, worked on, 
and is cosponsored by many in the House and notably Senators Dodd and 
Lugar who had a previous bill, as well as, of course, Senator Leahy who 
led the charge on so many different issues and has been very helpful in 
us moving this legislation forward.
  I am going to speak tomorrow when we address the bill, but I wanted 
to let my colleagues know of a substitute amendment that Senator 
Specter, I, and others will offer because it will modify the bill and 
meet some of the objections.
  First let me say the bill is very much needed. We have to find the 
right balance between the free flow of information and the ability of 
reporters to get that information from those in Government and, at the 
same time, not be so far in that direction that we allow people to 
either break the law or harm the security of the United States.
  This has been much more difficult than it appears to achieve, but we 
are very close. The bill codifies and standardizes existing tests used 
by Federal courts so that journalists, say, in Illinois are not subject 
to different treatment than journalists in California.
  It certainly allows whistleblowers to be protected when they tell 
somebody about something untoward. We certainly don't want, if a test 
is being fixed in the FDA because a drug company wants it, to prevent 
some public servant in the Government from letting a reporter know to 
prevent harm. But at the same time, there is no absolute privilege and 
there are exceptions in terms of harming national security, acts of 
terrorism, and other matters, such as kidnaping or murder.
  Again, I will talk about this bill at some length tomorrow. But I do 
want to go over some of the changes we have made so my colleagues are 
aware of them before we vote.
  As I said, Senator Specter and I have put together a substitute which 
if we adopt the motion to proceed--and I hope we will--we will 
immediately offer, and that will be the base bill we will discuss. Let 
me talk about the changes made.
  First, the intelligence community had concern that it would be too 
difficult to prosecute leaks of classified information. The new bill 
moves consideration of leaks of classified information from section 2 
of the bill to section 5, and that removes two major hurdles for 
Federal prosecutors.
  Under the new law, prosecutors will not have to prove any longer that 
they have exhausted all options for finding the information or that the 
information is essential to their investigation. These hurdles still 
remain in the Department of Justice internal guidelines, but the bill 
is not as strict in that regard.
  The bill also no longer requires that the person who leaked the 
information was authorized to have it.
  This substitute clarifies that the act will have zero impact on 
intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
This bill does not affect FISA.

[[Page S7600]]

  Third, the substitute explicitly provides that sensitive Government 
information will not be disclosed in open court. There was worry that 
under a whistleblower law, that might happen. We make it clear that 
security has to come first, but there also has to be balance in the 
test.
  Four, the definition of a covered person--and this has been one of 
two areas of some controversy--has been narrowed to ensure that it 
protects only legitimate journalists, first used in the Second Circuit 
case of von Bulow v. von Bulow to determine who qualifies as a covered 
person. Someone who blogs occasionally is not going to get the 
protection here. Of course, someone on a blog who is a regular 
journalist but happens to use the blog as a medium will be protected. 
And that is how it ought to be.
  Five, the substitute creates an expedited appeals process ensuring 
that litigation regarding whether the protection applies will be 
resolved as quickly as possible. In section 8, we expedite the appeals 
process.
  These are the changes made. They make the bill better. The bill has 
the support of the journalistic community. It has the support of 41 
sitting States attorneys general, both Democrats and Republicans. It is 
one of those rare bipartisan moments. It has the support of Senator 
Obama and Senator McCain and, of course, passed out of the Judiciary 
Committee 15 to 4. A similar bill passed out of the House by 398 to 21 
and, obviously, it has been endorsed by 100 newspapers. That is easy to 
say, but in this town both the Washington Post, a more liberal paper, 
and the Washington Times, a more conservative paper, have endorsed it.
  This bill has taken lots of time and lots of work to achieve a 
careful balance. This is a rare moment, praise God, a broad consensus, 
and I hope we can move this bill forward tomorrow.
  Madam President, I will speak at greater length tomorrow when we are 
on the bill, but I wanted to let my colleagues know the substitute 
changes which we will publish in the Record this evening so people will 
have a chance to look at it.
  I yield the floor so that my colleague from Iowa can speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                               Tax Policy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, 2 days ago, I came to the floor to 
talk about tax policy and the history of tax policy. I have come to 
follow up on that speech of 2 days ago to talk about the recent history 
of speeches that were made in past Presidential elections and the tax 
policy that was associated with those speeches and in another day or 
two, come to the floor to speak about the different tax policies 
between Senator Obama on the one hand and Senator McCain on the other 
hand.
  History is very important. Elections have consequences. Policy coming 
out of an election has consequences and eventually affects real people. 
The impact upon the voter of past elections, what people said in those 
elections, what happened after the election in policy, ought to be 
things people are taking into consideration for the upcoming 
Presidential election. As to that speech I gave 2 days ago, I want to 
go back and remind my colleagues of a couple of comments I made at that 
particular time.
  At various times during the past 25 years, we have had times when 
Democrats have controlled both the Presidency and the Congress. There 
have been times when the Democrats have controlled Congress and we had 
a Republican President. And there have been times when we have had both 
a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Tax cuts or tax 
increases have resulted from that. And you find a pretty good pattern 
of when you have both a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President 
that you have big tax increases, as is the case in 1993--if you 
remember the big tax increase of 1993.

  Then there are periods of time when we have had a Republican 
President and a Republican Congress and you can see tax decreases--very 
deep decreases in taxes. Then you have a period of time in here where 
there was a little flurry--some tax cuts, some tax increases--when we 
had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.
  So elections do have consequences. Another chart that would show it a 
little better and more specifically would be this thermometer chart, 
where we have it very clear that when you have times when you have a 
Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, you have some of the 
biggest tax increases in history. And that would be this figure. There 
are times we have had a Republican President and a Democratic Congress 
with some tax increases but a little bit less. There are times we have 
had a Democratic President and a Republican Congress with slight tax 
decreases.
  When you have a Republican President, a Republican Senate, and a 
Democratic House, you have some tax decreases but not very much. Then 
you have times when you have a Republican President, a Democratic 
Senate, and a Republican House, and you have tax decreases but not by 
very much. Then you have times when you have a Republican President and 
a Republican Congress and you have deep tax cuts.
  So what this chart shows--this thermometer--over the last 25 years, 
is that if you have Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses you 
have deep tax cuts. When you have Democrats controlling both the 
Presidency and the Congress, you have very rapid tax increases. So 
elections do have consequences.
  I want to go now to a period of time of a specific election and the 
tax consequences that came as a result of that election. But I think 
you have to realize that the relationship is clear from the past 25 
years: the more relative power Democrats have, the higher the 
probability of a tax increase. So Americans will need to think long and 
hard about campaign promises of tax relief as they consider their 
choices in this Presidential election. The reason is that history shows 
very clearly, if Democrats obtain the White House and control of 
Congress, taxes are certain to go up. And not just go up on the wealthy 
but across the board.
  Today, I would like to follow up last week's discussion. This week, I 
want to focus on a campaign season most like this one and take a look 
at how the victors in that campaign used their taxing power once sworn 
in. The period I am thinking about is 16 years ago. Well, in 16 years 
you can learn a lot from history, and I think people ought to be 
reminded of it.
  But before I get into details, I would like to say that I hope this 
election doesn't go the same way that it did 16 years ago because 
President Bill Clinton was elected. I want people to be clear that I am 
pulling for a Republican colleague, Senator McCain, to defeat another 
one of our Senate colleagues, Senator Obama.
  So let's turn the clock back to this time 16 years ago, and I have 
another chart. This chart considers the story of Rip Van Winkle, which 
I think is very appropriate during this period of time. You know the 
story about Rip Van Winkle. He was a person who slept for 20 years. 
Here is the chart showing Rip Van Winkle.
  If you round up just a little bit, it is almost 20 years since that 
1992 campaign, and you will see from this chart those events from a 
while ago might have led to a form of tax hike amnesia.
  If we go back to the 1992 campaign--and I will show you eventually 
how this is pretty appropriate to the campaign coming up--in 1992, you 
find a very charismatic, a very likable, a very articulate young 
Governor from Arkansas barnstorming across the country. Bill Clinton 
was 46 years old, facing a 47th birthday in mid-August. He was widely 
acknowledged as the most talented public speaker on the Presidential 
scene since Ronald Reagan.
  America had been in a recession at that time. Although it was not 
reported until after the election, which is something you might expect 
from our liberal media, the American economy had recovered in the 
latter half of 1992, but it was not officially announced until the day 
after the 1992 election, when all of a sudden the recession was over, 
just because of the election. But all during that election, reading the 
media, you would always be reminded about the recession we were in. But 
magically, election day 1992, 1 day later, and the recession was over.
  The charismatic Democratic Presidential candidate promised to focus, 
in his words, ``like a laser beam'' on the economic ills that Americans 
worried about. In a key speech on June 21, 1992,

[[Page S7601]]

this ``different kind of a Democrat'' laid out his economic plan. He 
called the plan ``Putting People First.'' I am going to focus in a 
laser-like way on then-Governor Clinton's tax agenda that he announced 
for that 1992 campaign.
  In that speech, candidate Clinton was very critical of the marginal 
tax rate relief that President Reagan had put into effect. To quote 
candidate Clinton:

       For more than a decade, this country has been rigged in 
     favor of the rich and the special interests.

  And we still hear that today.

       While the very wealthiest Americans get richer, middle-
     class Americans pay more to their government and get less in 
     return. For 12 years, the driving idea behind American 
     economic policy has been cutting taxes on the richest 
     individuals and corporations and hoping their new wealth 
     would ``trickle down'' to the rest of us.
  That is a quote from his speech of June 21, 1992.
  As a relief from this version of the middle-class squeeze, candidate 
Clinton proposed middle-income tax relief, and here is what he said:

       Middle class tax fairness. Virtually every industrialized 
     nation recognizes the importance of strong families in its 
     Tax Code. We should too. We will lower the tax burden on 
     middle class Americans by forcing the rich to pay their fair 
     share. Middle class taxpayers will have a choice between a 
     children's tax credit and a significant reduction in income 
     tax rate.

  Now, doesn't all of this sound very familiar to speeches that are 
going on this year? I have quoted from a June 21, 1992, speech given by 
candidate Clinton, but you would think that you are hearing exactly the 
same thing this year.
  Now, let's get down to basic facts. The definitions of rich and 
middle class are always open. They probably vary from candidate to 
candidate and everything with intellectual honesty and where you might 
set rich and where you might set middle class. A person who is rich in 
Mason City, IA, might be middle class in New York City.
  An irony I continue to notice around here relates to this point. It 
seems as if the politicians from the highest income, highest cost of 
living, highest taxed States seem to be the most obsessed with raising 
taxes on their Presidential candidate's definition of the rich. In this 
case, I am referring to a single person who makes $125,000, or double 
it for a married couple to $250,000. That seems to be the dividing line 
between the rich and other people, according to the 2008 Democratic 
Presidential candidate.
  Now, is $250,000 a rich family in Manhattan? Is $250,000 a rich 
family in San Francisco? Is $250,000 a rich family in Chicago? Is 
$250,000 a rich family in Boston? By the definition of Senators from 
those areas, I guess I would have to say it is. Do those families in 
those cities know they are rich and that their Senators think they pay 
too little tax?
  But I digress. In candidate Clinton's economic plan that was 
announced on June 21, 1992, the rich were--put another way--the top 2 
percent income earners in the United States. On September 8, 1992, 
candidate Bill Clinton said:

       The only people who will pay more income taxes are the 
     wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making more 
     than $200,000 per year.

  By definition, you would think under candidate Clinton's plan that 
everybody below that level of 2 percent, or $200,000, is either middle 
class or low income. Now, remember what I said that he said--the only 
people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent--
because I am going to show you, after being sworn in, how that turned 
out to be a heck of a lot more people than the wealthiest 2 percent.
  On January 20, 1993, President Clinton was inaugurated. Democrats 
retained their solid majority, 56 to 44, in this body. Although losing 
9 seats in the U.S. House, the Democrats retained a heavy majority of 
258 to 176. Once elected, the Democratic White House and the Democratic 
Congress converted the campaign economic plan, as you would expect them 
to, into a legislative blueprint. A key feature of the program, the 
middle-class tax cut, was thrown to the side.
  On January 14, 2003, at a press conference, President-elect Clinton 
stated:

       From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely 
     mystify me, the press thought the most important issue in the 
     race was a middle-class tax cut. I never did meet any voter 
     who thought that.

  Now, how do you reconcile the contents of the economic plan and the 
shift in position after the election? Pulitzer Prize winning author Bob 
Woodward--who I think has a great deal of respect among most people of 
the Senate--wrote a comprehensive book about the first part of the 
Clinton administration. It was titled ``The Agenda.'' Mr. Woodward, of 
the Washington Post, described it this way:

       While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut 
     publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers 
     that it was intellectually dishonest.

  That is Woodward saying that, not Chuck Grassley. The late 
journalist, Michael Kelly, in an article in the New York Times, 
explained how the newly elected President planned to ``escape'' from 
his middle-class tax cut campaign promise. Here is what Mr. Kelly 
wrote, in part:

       [T]he President built himself an escape hatch a little less 
     than a month before Election Day. Every time Clinton said 
     ``I'm not going to raise taxes on the middle class,'' he 
     always added the phrase ``to pay for my programs,'' said a 
     chief political adviser to the President, who spoke on 
     condition of anonymity. He never, never, said just, ``I will 
     not raise taxes on the middle class.'' He always said ``I 
     will not raise middle-class taxes to pay for my 
     programs.''

  Madam President, I want to have Mr. Kelly's article printed in the 
Record. I ask unanimous consent to do that.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 26, 1993]

 Political Memo; Re-examining the Fine Print On Clinton's Tax Promises

                           (By Michael Kelly)

       At a time when the public has repeatedly shown its distaste 
     for the maneuvers and machinations of politics, President 
     Clinton's White House is banking on a five-word loophole to 
     save it from voter outrage should Mr. Clinton propose a 
     broad-based energy tax.
       During the campaign, Mr. Clinton promised tax cuts for the 
     middle class. Now Mr. Clinton and his chief economic advisers 
     are backing away from the tax cut and strongly hinting that 
     an energy tax will hit the middle class the hardest.
       ``They campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and then four 
     days into a new Administration the chief economic spokesman 
     is talking about a middle-class tax increase,'' said Robert 
     S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal 
     research group. ``That's a flip-flop.''
       Although Vice President Al Gore and Treasury Secretary 
     Lloyd Bentsen have mentioned the possibility of an energy tax 
     in recent interviews, the President and his advisers insisted 
     today that their economic plan was still under discussion and 
     that no decision had been made.
       Still some Clinton advisers say they are not worried about 
     public outrage. They say the President built himself an 
     escape hatch a little less than a month before Election Day.
       ``Every time Clinton said `I'm not going to raise taxes on 
     the middle class,' he always added the phrase ``to pay for my 
     programs,'' said a chief political adviser to the President, 
     who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ``He never, never, 
     said just, 'I will not raise taxes on the middle class.' He 
     always said `I will not raise middle-class taxes to pay for 
     my programs.' ''
       By this logic, the adviser said, Mr. Clinton's legalistic 
     construct was a ``distinction with a difference'' that allows 
     him ``the opportunity he now has'' to raise taxes without 
     incurring voter wrath.
       But of late that sort of politics-by-loophole has not been 
     playing well.
       In 1990, President George Bush signed an agreement with 
     Congress that obliged him to break his ``read my lips'' 
     campaign promise of 1988 not to raise taxes. Mr. Bush and his 
     advisers reasoned that voters had never taken his promise 
     seriously in the first place and would forgive its being 
     breached. The voters reacted with far more anger than 
     understanding, and Mr. Bush never regained their trust when 
     the economy turned sour.
       In recent weeks, the gulf between Washington's view of what 
     constituted acceptable behavior and that of many voters was 
     again demonstrated in the matter of Zoe Baird. Mr. Clinton 
     pressed forward with his choice of Ms. Baird as Attorney 
     General despite the disclosure that she had once hired 
     illegal aliens. Mr. Clinton and his advisers figured 
     voters would forgive Ms. Baird what they considered a 
     small transgression in an otherwise impressive career.
       The voters, recalling Mr. Clinton's emotional promises to 
     run a Government for the ``people who pay their taxes and 
     play by the rules,'' saw him as trying to give a break to a 
     rich woman who had done neither and forced Ms. Baird's 
     withdrawal. Some See a Liability.
       Mr. Clinton's aides know full well that Mr. Bush's mistake 
     helped cost him his job. But they still contend that Mr. 
     Clinton is protected by his escape clause. ``People won't get 
     away with saying Clinton promised that

[[Page S7602]]

     he was not going to raise taxes and then did,'' the adviser 
     said. ``He had many opportunities to make a `read my lips' 
     statement, and he did not.''
       Some outside the Clinton camp disagree strongly with that 
     logic, however.
       Kevin Phillips, a Republican political analyst who charted 
     the rise of middle-class anger in the late 1980's and spared 
     no criticism of Mr. Bush's broken promises, said: ``At the 
     most recent count, only 800,000 Americans were lawyers, and I 
     don't think the 248 million or so who are not lawyers are 
     going to buy a caveat stuck on in the middle of a passionate 
     plea to the middle-class voters that they should vote for him 
     because he was going to save them. Talk about reading his 
     lips.''
       Mr. Clinton introduced the escape clause on taxes for the 
     middle class before a national audience in an Oct. 19 
     Presidential debate in Richmond. ``I will not raise taxes on 
     the middle class to pay for these programs,'' he said. `Very 
     Conscious Decision'
       Listeners without the benefit of law-school training might 
     have taken that as a pledge to not raise taxes on the middle 
     class. But the President's adviser said Mr. Clinton had 
     purposefully used, and reiterated, the phrase ``for these 
     programs'' to allow himself a way out of what careless voters 
     might have thought they had been promised.
       ``It was a very conscious decision on his part,'' the 
     adviser said. ``I can tell you this from strategy sessions 
     and debate prep sessions. The idea of a flat-out promise of 
     `I will not raise taxes on the middle class, period,' was 
     rejected by the President. He refused to allow himself to be 
     boxed in that way.''
       The matter of the escape clause illustrates a larger point 
     about Mr. Clinton that has become increasingly Obvious: It is 
     always wise to read the fine print. The fine print of Mr. 
     Clinton's promise on the tax cut for the middle class was 
     quite different from the broad thrust of his oratory on the 
     subject.
       For a year, the Democrat campaigned on a platform of 
     economic renewal in which the Federal deficit could be halved 
     in four years rather painlessly by raising taxes on rich 
     people and foreign corporations and by improving the way 
     Government programs are managed.
       In ``Putting People First,'' Mr. Clinton's often-touted 
     plan for American renewal, the candidate promised: ``We will 
     lower the tax burden on middle-class Americans by asking the 
     very wealthy to pay their fair share. Middle-class taxpayers 
     will have a choice between a children's tax credit or a 
     significant reduction in their income-tax rate.''
       On July 13, speaking to reporters in New York, Mr. Clinton 
     said flatly, ``I'm not going to raise taxes on the middle 
     class,'' according to reports by The Chicago Tribune and the 
     Reuters news service. On the same day, in an interview shown 
     by Cable News Network, he said, ``I don't think we should 
     raise middle-class individuals' taxes, because their income 
     went down and their tax rates were raised'' in the 1980's.
       But in the fall campaign, when his words were scrupulously 
     followed by a larger audience, Mr. Clinton took more care. 
     After the Richmond debate, he regularly re-stated the 
     position that his promise to the middle class was only that 
     he would not raise their taxes ``to pay for these programs.''

  Mr. GRASSLEY. While the middle-class tax cut was discarded, the 
definition of the group subject to a tax increase, ``the rich,'' 
expanded. According to a distribution analysis by the nonpartisan Joint 
Committee on Taxation, the taxpayers above $20,000 in income received a 
tax increase. So no longer was it just taxing the top 2 percent richest 
people in America. That was when you were campaigning for President. 
When you get to be President, it is $20,000.
  It was true that taxpayers above $200,000 go up far more than other 
groups. But generally taxpayers above $20,000 saw their taxes rise.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a copy of the joint tax distribution analysis of the 1993 tax 
bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 DISTRIBUTIONAL EFFECTS OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993 AS
                                           AGREED TO BY THE CONFEREES
                                               [103 income Levels]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Present-law        Present-law      Proposed change    Burden change as
      Expanded income class \1\       Federal taxes \2\   average tax rate  in tax burden \4\  a share of income
                                           Billions         \3\  Percent         Millions           Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $10,000...................                 $9               10.4            -$1,152              -1.28
10,000 to 20,000....................                 39               11.9               -993              -0.30
20,000 to 30,000....................                 72               17.0                 94               0.02
30,000 to 40,000....................                 86               19.1                949               0.21
40,000 to 50,000....................                 93               20.9              1,271               0.29
50,000 to 75,000....................                201               22.3              3,517               0.39
75,000 to 100,000...................                120               24.6              2,653               0.54
100,000 to 200,000..................                142               26.6              4,598                .85
200.000 and over....................                168               30.2             29,663               5.39
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, all taxpayers..........               $930               22.1            S40,800               0.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Income concept used to place tax returns into income categories is adjusted gross income (AGI) plus: [1]
  tax-exempt interest, [2] employer contributions for health plans and life insurance, . [3] employer share of
  FICA tax, [4] workers' compensation, [5] nontaxable Social Security benefits, [6] insurance value of Medicare
  benefits, [7] corporate income tax liability attributed to stockholder, [8] alternative minimum tax preference
  items, and [9] excluded income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
\2\ Includes individual income tax, FICA and SECA tax, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, and corporate income
  tax.
\3\ Present-law Federal taxes as a share of expanded income.
\4\ includes all revenue invasions except individual and corporate estimated tax changes, Information reporting
  for discharge of Indebtedness, targeted jobs credit, capital gains incentives, provisions affecting qualified
  pension plans, mortgage revenue bonds, low-income housing credit, luxury tax provisions, excise tax on diesel
  fuel used in noncommercial motorboats, empowerment zones and enterprise communities, vaccine excise tax, GSP
  and FUTA extensions, transfer of Federal Reserve funds, deduction disallowance for certain health plans,
  orphan drug credit, and diesel fuel compliance.


  Mr. GRASSLEY. That comprehensive tax increase went into effect on the 
strength of Democratic votes only. I was here and I remember that. You 
could look at it as the consequences of the confidence in the large 
Democratic majorities in Congress, and a newly elected Democratic 
President. Basically, however, there was no check on one political 
party's agenda. If that agenda is to raise taxes and increase spending, 
then it is not a surprise.
  Mr. Kelly's article notes the adverse reaction of a prominent player 
of the leftwing in this town. This is a Mr. Robert S. McIntyre, who was 
very active in causes that you consider liberal. Quoting from Mr. 
Kelly's article, this is what Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens 
for Tax Justice, a liberal research group, had to say.

       They campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and then four 
     days into a new Administration the chief economic spokesman 
     is talking about a middle-class tax increase. That's a flip-
     flop.

  That is the end of the quote of Mr. McIntyre, quoting from Mr. 
Kelly's article.
  Most folks are unhappy about flip-flopping politicians. Fishermen may 
like a flip-flopping fish that they brought into the boat. This photo 
is the best fish I could find to demonstrate that. That is about the 
only kind of flip-flopper that would be received positively. If a 
politician flips from a tax cut promise to a tax hike, you can bet most 
folks will consider that move a flop in more ways than one.
  All of this happened almost 16 years ago, but it is relevant for this 
year as we go into a debate on taxes for this campaign. During almost 
14 years since Republicans have held either the White House or the 
Congress or both--and this chart shows, as I pointed out once before, 
Congress and the President have generally reduced the tax burden. That 
is during this period of time, when Republicans controlled both the 
House and the Senate.
  It has been a long time, almost 15 years since the American people 
have seen a large tax increase, going back to the period of time when 
the Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Congress.
  Then I remember right here on the floor, because I was here when he 
said it, the then-Finance Committee chairman Pat Moynihan termed the 
1993 tax bill:

       . . . the largest tax increase in the history of public 
     finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.

  Philosopher George Santayana said words to the effect that history 
repeats itself, and if you do not learn from history, you are bound to 
repeat the mistakes of the past. A risk Americans face, if we hand over 
all the reins of power to the Democratic Party, is to repeat the 
history of 15 years ago.
  I am a Republican. I know what polls show. They show right now that 
the

[[Page S7603]]

electorate trusts Democrats more than Republicans on tax policy. But 
the 1992 campaign shows that if you listen too much to what is said in 
the campaign, it doesn't necessarily come out that way in the election. 
So I raise the question, during the debate of 2008, in the Presidential 
campaign, are we headed in the same direction? Are we going to hear all 
the talk about taxing nobody but the rich but end up doing as we did in 
1993, taxing the middle class?
  Our tax increase amnesia may lead us in that direction. We could find 
ourselves then being like Rip van Winkle. We will hear dreamy rhetoric 
about hope and about change. It will be clothed in a slumber of middle-
class tax relief and tax increases on only the rich, as it was in the 
campaign of 1992. We could awaken from that slumber, our tax increase 
amnesia would probably fade, we could wake up to another world record 
tax increase.
  I know what the folks who put in place that world record tax increase 
will say. They will defend it by arguing that it cut the deficit. They 
will argue that by cutting the deficit and moving to a surplus, that 
interest rates dropped. While it is true the fiscal situation went from 
deficit in 1992 to surplus in 1999, there were many other factors 
involved and a tax increase was not the biggest reason for it.
  First, supporters of the 1993 bill touted it as a dollar of spending 
cuts matched by a dollar of tax increase. If you were a taxpayer, 
wouldn't you buy that? Pay one more dollar and get a dollar decrease in 
expenditures? But, you know, it doesn't work out that way. A close look 
at the numbers shows the bill contained $4 of tax increase to every $1 
of spending cuts.
  I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the Senate Finance 
Committee Republican staff analysis dated June 28, 1993, printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             COMPARISON OF TAXES/FEES, SPENDING CUTS AND RATIOS IN FINAL BUDGET RECONCILIATION BILL
                                    [In billions of dollars over five years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Democrats      Republicans    In this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taxes and User Fees:
    1. Net Tax Increases........................................            $240            $240            $240
    2. User Fees................................................         0 (with              15              15
                                                                       mandatory
                                                                    spend. cuts)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    3. Total-Taxes & Fees.......................................             240             255             255
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Net Spendinq Cuts:
    1. Mandatory programs.......................................              88              65              55
    2. Cap on discretionary programs............................             102              66               0
    3. Spending outside of caps not in this bill................               0             -11               0
    4. Interest savings.........................................              65              *0               0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    5. Total-Spending cuts......................................             255             120              65
                                                                 ===============================================
Ratio of taxes/fees to spending cuts............................        .94 to 1       2.13 to 1      3.92 to 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary estimates as of August 4, 1993.
* Note: Republicans believe the interest savings are about $53 billion, not $65 billion as claimed by the
  Democrats. Zero is shown in the chart because interest savings are not counted as a spending cut in figuring
  the ratio.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have another chart to back up what I say, that the 
tax increase was not responsible for the deficit going down. The chart 
shows the source of deficit reduction from 1990 through the year 2000. 
The tax increase represented only 13 percent, just 13 percent of the 
deficit reduction during that period. Other revenue, mainly from 
economic growth and defense spending cuts, made the deficit decline.
  Even with the 1993 bill in effect, 2 years later the Congressional 
Budget Office projected President Clinton's budget as producing 
significant deficits as far as the eye could see.
  But several events not related at all to the 1993 tax increase pushed 
the budget toward surplus until 1999. First, Republicans attained 
control of Congress in 1994 and made a deficit reduction a priority. 
Year after year, Republican Congresses resisted Democratic efforts to 
spend over tight budget caps placed in the Republican budget. Most 
often, President Clinton would extract additional spending in the end 
deal. Republican resistance, however, to popular Democratic spending 
proposals often had political consequences for Republican Members.
  Second, revenues, especially capital gains revenues, grew after the 
bipartisan Tax Relief Act of 1997. The centerpiece of that bill was, 
ironically, a middle-class tax cut in the form of a $500-per-child tax 
credit. The child tax credit was a fundamental part of the Republican 
Contract With America.
  Another key component of that bill was a reduction in the top capital 
gains rate from 28 percent down to 20 percent. It is down to 15 percent 
now, as a result of the 2003 tax bill, but then it went from 28 down to 
20 in 1997.
  As I said, there was a widely documented significant growth in 
capital gains revenue after that rate reduction in 1997, as there was 
with the rate reduction in 2003. Indeed, even the Clinton Treasury 
scored the reduction as a revenue raiser and was more than vindicated.
  Finally, external factors aside from tax policy led to revenue 
growth. Free trade opened more markets to American goods and services. 
The Internet bubble started to form. It was burst in 2000 with the 
collapse of the NASDAQ and the business cycle yielded an economic 
expansion after the 1991 recession ended.
  Economist J.D. Foster has documented this data. I commend to my 
colleagues WebMemo dated March 5, 2008, available on the Internet at 
www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm.
  At the end of the day, the justification for the tax flip-flop in 
1993 mattered not one whit. Supporters of the 1993 tax hike can offer 
whatever reason they want for the record tax increase. A flip-flop of 
that size is, in fact, a flip-flop.
  What they cannot dispute is their Presidential candidate promised a 
middle-class tax cut. Once they had the White House and congressional 
control, the other side abandoned the tax cut promise, raised taxes on 
Americans--not just above $200,000 a year but from $20,000 up.
  That is not a tax cut. That is a middle-class tax increase. So, once 
again, like Rip Van Winkle, taxpayers do not want to wake up to that 
tax increase.
  As a minimum, as the Presidential campaign unfolds, Americans need to 
keep this very clear history in mind. We need to probe the candidates 
in 2008 on where they want to go on tax policy so what they say in 2008 
is done in 2009, not a repeat of what was said in 1992 and what was 
done in 1993. We need to be careful not to leave escape hatches on 
favorable sounding tax cut campaign promises.
  In that vein, I will follow up on this discussion and the prior 
discussion with a later speech that concentrates on where each 
Presidential candidate stands this year on tax issues. I will examine 
these positions in the light of this history I have discussed--of the 
likelihood of each side, whether they will deliver on campaign tax 
policy positions.
  To sum up, we are hearing from a very articulate and attractive 
Democratic Presidential candidate. On tax issues, as we heard 16 years 
ago from the soon-to-be President at that time, Bill Clinton, we are 
hearing a proposal to tax the rich this year to provide tax cuts for 
the middle class. We are hearing that this year.
  The Presidential candidate on the Republican side has a different 
message. We need to explore that as well. His message, consistent with 
a Republican position for almost 30 years, has

[[Page S7604]]

been to continue progrowth, low levels of taxation. In light of history 
I look forward to discussing the two competing visions of tax policy in 
the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 10 minutes, to be followed by Senator Whitehouse from Rhode Island 
for 30 minutes, to be followed by Senator Brownback for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Energy

  Mr. CRAIG. First and foremost, let me thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island for his courtesy. We have been moving back and forth throughout 
the last number of days of debate. My presence on the floor allowed him 
to offer the courtesy--and I greatly appreciate it--to speak for 10 
minutes ahead of him. He would be entitled to be next. I thank him for 
that.
  Let me speak to what Senator Grassley has spoken to briefly in saying 
that the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee has spoken very 
clearly on the critical nature of tax policy to the economy. While that 
is valid, there is a tax at this moment in time that is being charged 
every consumer in America who buys gasoline at the gas pump. It is the 
tax of nonproduction. It is the tax of public policy that has denied 
our great country its continued ability to produce the necessary supply 
of energy to the phenomenal economy we have.
  As a result of our failure to continue public policy that allowed 
production over the last 20 years, Americans are paying a higher price, 
a higher energy tax today at the pump than ever in our history; $4.10, 
$4.15, $4.20 gas is at this moment the No. 1 issue in America, not only 
taxing the pocketbooks of the average consumer but taxing the average 
family in a way that they not only feel less secure today because their 
energy bill has gone up over 20 percent this year but because we have a 
Congress stalled out at this moment. We have a Senate that is denying 
its responsibility to the American people to pass public policy that 
will allow us to continue to produce and, hopefully, drive down the 
price of oil.
  In the absence of that kind of policy, what has happened in the last 
6 months as energy prices have gone through the roof? American 
consumers have driven 40 billion less miles. They are voting with their 
feet at this moment and voting to stay away from the gas pump. As they 
stay away from the gas pump, as they drive less, as they conserve, not 
only are they changing the economy of our country, they are changing 
their lifestyles. I don't think they are very happy about it. In fact, 
those I talk to back home in Idaho are very angry about it. But they 
are having to do something to avoid the phenomenal tax energy has 
placed on the American family.
  What happened in the last 2 weeks? Oil prices, world oil prices have 
begun to drop. They are dropping not because of increased supply, not 
because the Senate has done anything, but because the American consumer 
has said: We can no longer afford this. They are backing away from the 
pump and changing their lifestyle. It is truly an issue of supply and 
demand. Supply hasn't gone up in the last several months but demand is 
dropping.
  Not only is demand dropping in our economy, it is dropping in Western 
Europe. It is dropping in Spain and Denmark, where there are 
significant recessions or downturns in the economy underway. In China 
and India, which have become the new large consumers of oil, our 
economy's slowdown is going to situate a slowdown in the Chinese 
economy, which has become a major supplier of goods to the American 
economy. That is just around the corner.
  So are we going to be lulled into a sense of false security if energy 
prices over the course of the next several months drop below $4 a 
gallon and into $3 a gallon? Will the American consumer heave a sigh of 
relief and say: Crisis over?
  I hope they don't. Here is why I hope they don't. It is very clear 
from this graph. This is a graph from 1890 to 2030 about the overall 
supply of oil in this country. Starting in about 1950, a very 
interesting pattern emerged that grew rapidly until today, when we buy 
our oil, 70 percent of it, from some other country; in other words, we 
don't supply it. We could supply it. We have the oil reserve under the 
ground. But for political purposes, we have denied ourselves, our 
market, our producers the right to go there and get it. Here is what 
has happened. The dependency has grown so that we are now nearly 70 
percent dependent on foreign sources of oil. We are less secure today. 
We get whipsawed in the world market because oil is priced as a world 
commodity and now, in the last decade, China and India have entered the 
market in ever greater demand.
  What I want to show next is a bit of a complication but it is true in 
the oil markets of today. Why do I know about it? I have been in 
Congress 28 years. I have spent a fair amount of time dealing with 
energy. All during that time, I have argued that if you don't produce, 
someday something would happen--it is called a breakpoint--that 
breakpoint would occur, and American consumers would all of a sudden 
find a phenomenal ramp-up in the price of energy at the pump, that tax 
I am talking about, that 20 percent hike in the cost of energy that 
American public policy produced for the American consumer in the last 
year.
  Here is the chart. The dark area is U.S. production from 1970 to 
2005. That is what we were producing. I shouldn't say just U.S. 
production; it was overall world demand production. What is interesting 
about it, this little green margin at the top was surplus supply. In 
other words, it was available. The market wasn't demanding it, but if 
the market demanded it, you could turn on a pump, turn a valve on a 
well somewhere in Saudi Arabia, probably, or maybe Venezuela, and you 
had spare capacity in the market. But as you will notice, this green 
margin, this spare capacity margin in world supply began to rapidly 
narrow starting in about 2000 through 2005. That is when China and 
India were entering the market at ever greater capacity because their 
economies were growing. They were becoming more wealthy, and they were 
using oil as a part of the energy supply to produce the goods and 
services they were selling to the world market. During that time, we 
were not expanding world capacity. So the margin, if you will, the 
bumper wasn't there anymore. Come 2005, we were nearly at a breakpoint. 
Beyond that, here is the rest of the story, and we know it today. There 
is no spare capacity out there. There is no way we can offset increased 
demand. So consumers in America and all over the world are starting to 
compete for the substance of oil by higher prices.
  That is why for the last 2 weeks we have been on the floor talking 
about the ability to increase supply against ever-growing demand. But 
the market forces are at work. That demand has slipped off a little 
bit. Why? Because of that high tax at the gas pump. That doesn't mean 
it will go away, not at all. China and India are still consuming at 
ever-higher rates. They are simply going to grab that which we are not 
using today in the world market. So when our consumers want to come 
back to the market, when prices drop a little bit, will there be more 
oil in the market? There is a strong possibility there may not be, 
unless this Congress recognizes the error of its ways and allows us to 
get into the business of production again.

  We have put off limits all around the United States vast quantities 
of oil that I and the world believe we ought to be producing. Guess 
what the American consumer is saying. In the State of Florida, where 
maybe a year ago or 2 years ago, 70 percent of Floridians would have 
said: Don't drill off our shore, I am being told by legitimate polling 
today that 70-plus percent of them are saying: Drill, produce. In fact, 
we believe that by the end of the week or early next week, the American 
people will see credible polling data that says nearly 80 percent of 
the American people are saying: You go produce that oil. Why are you 
asking foreign nations to supply it? We have the oil. Why aren't we 
drilling it?
  You hear the argument here on the floor: My goodness, it would take 
4, 5, 6 years to bring that oil online. I suggest that it wouldn't take 
4 or 5 or 6 years. We know the oil is there, maybe 2 billion barrels of 
oil and literally hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of

[[Page S7605]]

gas. Here are the pipelines. Here are refineries. Here is the 
infrastructure that could take this oil immediately out of what we call 
the eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the coast of Florida, and bring it into 
production within 2 to 3 years.
  What does the marketplace say? What does that buffer out there, that 
green line on that other chart say, if, in fact, we were to do that? It 
would say: My goodness, there is now potentially spare capacity in the 
market, and prices begin to drop. No, we can't produce our way out of a 
crisis, but we can lessen the crisis while the American economy and 
technology are taking us to new forms of energy and to new ways to 
supply transportation.
  I hope the Senate faces the reality that we have to get this country 
producing again. If we do, we can say to the American consumer: We will 
lower your tax burden at the gas pump, and we are going to create once 
again the kind of flexibility the American consumer has in their family 
budget. You lower the gas price, you lower the tax at the pump. That is 
the reality of what we are doing. It is a very real tax today. It has 
frightened the American consumer, and it has put our Nation in a state 
of insecurity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                  EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise to speak about a matter that 
I very much regret being here to discuss, but events have driven me to 
this point and, with me, the chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, Mrs. Boxer, Senator Klobuchar, and others as well.
  For most of its nearly four-decade history, Americans could look to 
the Environmental Protection Agency for independent leadership, 
grounded in science and the rule of law. It was an agency whose clear 
mission was to protect our environment and health.
  At its very founding, EPA's first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, 
stated unequivocally:

       EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to 
     promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation 
     to protect and enhance the environment.

  During the tenure of Administrator Stephen Johnson, we have seen that 
clear mission darkened by the shadowy handiwork of the Bush White 
House, trampling on science, ignoring the facts, flouting the law, 
defying Congress and the courts, while kneeling before industry 
polluters, and all for rank and venal purposes. Under Administrator 
Johnson, EPA is an agency in distress, in dishonor, and in bad hands.
  Events last week have shed new light on the extent of the damage done 
to this great agency, but the evidence of Mr. Johnson's dismal record 
has been growing for many months. The charges are serious and fall in 
three separate categories: his repeated decisions putting the interests 
of corporate polluters before science and the law, even when it puts at 
risk our environment and the health of American people; his deliberate 
actions to degrade the procedures and institutional safeguards that 
sustain the agency; and his apparent dishonesty to us in testimony 
before Congress.
  The particulars are these. Count 1: On pollution from ozone, the EPA, 
under Administrator Johnson, departed from the consistent 
recommendations of agency scientists, public health officials, and the 
agency's own scientific advisory committees and instead set an ozone 
standard that favored polluters. The standard he set was inadequate to 
protect the public, especially children and the elderly, from the 
harmful effects of ozone pollution, from asthma and lung disease.
  Indeed, it was so inadequate that EPA's own Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee took the unique step of writing to the Administrator 
to state that they ``do not endorse the new primary ozone standard as 
being sufficiently protective of the public health'' and that the EPA's 
decision ``fail[ed] to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean 
Air Act that you ensure an adequate margin of safety for all 
individuals, including sensitive populations.''
  Setting this inadequate ozone standard against the evidence was a 
dereliction of Administrator Johnson's duty to the Agency he leads and 
of EPA's duty to protect the health of the American people.
  Count 2: On pollution from lead, Administrator Johnson has proposed a 
standard that fails to sufficiently strengthen the regulation aimed at 
limiting exposure to lead pollution.
  Lead has poisoned tens of thousands of children in Rhode Island and 
many more all over the country. Both an independent scientific review 
panel and EPA's own scientific staff recommended a lead standard of no 
greater than 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter. Yet Administrator Johnson 
proposed a range of 0.1 up to .05 micrograms--2\1/2\ times.
  Mr. Johnson further diluted even that lax standard by using what 
public health advocates have labeled ``statistical trickery''--
statistical trickery--allowing polluters a longer period of time over 
which to average the amount of lead they discharge into the air.
  Again, by not adequately protecting children from lead, Administrator 
Johnson was derelict in his duty to his Agency.
  Count 3: On pollution from soot, technically called ``particulate 
matter,'' Administrator Johnson bowed to pressure from industry and 
failed to strengthen a decade-old standard limiting particulate matter 
pollution from smokestacks.
  Again, the Agency's own scientific advisory committees had called for 
a tougher standard to protect public health. Again, Administrator 
Johnson yielded to polluters. Again, Administrator Johnson failed in 
his duty to the Agency he leads.
  Count 4: On vehicle tailpipe emissions, Administrator Johnson denied 
a waiver that would have allowed the State of California, my State of 
Rhode Island, and many other States to enact strict restrictions on 
global warming pollution from automobiles.
  EPA staff indicated in briefing materials that ``we don't believe 
there are any good arguments against granting the waiver.'' EPA lawyers 
cautioned the Administrator that all of the arguments against granting 
the waiver were ``likely to lose in court.'' Yet Administrator Johnson 
issued an unprecedented denial of that waiver.
  I will separately discuss my grave concerns about the Administrator's 
testimony on this matter. I believe he has lied to us. But for this 
purpose now, looking only at the substantive outcome, in ignoring the 
law, the dictates of science, the recommendations of his regulatory and 
legal staff, the role of Congress, the wishes of the States, and the 
welfare of the American people, Administrator Johnson failed again in 
his duty to the Agency he leads.
  Count 5: On global warming pollution, in defiance of the Supreme 
Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, Administrator Johnson has 
failed to take action after the Court's ruling that EPA has the 
authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gas 
emissions that pollute our air and warm our planet.
  It is now nearly 18 months since the Court's decision, and the EPA 
has shown no indication it will act before President Bush leaves 
office. In ignoring a ruling of this Nation's highest Court empowering 
him to act on a matter important to the public health of Americans, 
Administrator Johnson again failed in his duty to the Agency he leads.
  But it was not enough for Administrator Johnson to rule for the 
polluters on pollutant after pollutant.
  Administrator Johnson has also systematically dismantled 
institutional safeguards and processes that protect his Agency's 
integrity and guide its mission.
  Jonathan Cannon served at EPA during the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, 
and Clinton administrations. He warns of ``extreme friction within the 
agency and institutional damage . . . demoralizing the legal staff, and 
. . . further separating staff from the political leadership at the 
agency.'' We saw similar sabotage of institutional safeguards in the 
Gonzales Department of Justice, and this institutional damage raises 
four further charges, taking us to count six.
  On the question of the Agency's legal integrity, under Administrator 
Johnson, the EPA offered legal arguments for its insufficient pollutant 
standards so shallow they provoked ridicule by the courts that heard 
them. When EPA tried to defend its weak mercury cap-and-trade system, 
the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--which, as we know, is hardly a liberal 
bench--accused the Agency

[[Page S7606]]

of employing the ``logic of the Queen of Hearts'' in attempting to 
evade the intent of Congress and the clear meaning of the Clean Air 
Act.
  The same court said EPA's argument under the Clean Air Act allowing 
power companies to avoid upgrading their pollution control technologies 
made sense only in ``a Humpty Dumpty world.'' In adopting 
``Wonderland'' legal analysis that contravenes the clear will of 
Congress and embarrasses his Agency before the courts, Administrator 
Johnson failed again in his duty to uphold the mission of the Agency he 
leads.
  Count 7: On the integrity of EPA's scientific advisory boards, 
Administrator Johnson did not just ignore these boards' 
recommendations, he willingly allowed those panels to be infiltrated by 
the very industries they are meant to regulate and control.
  For example, an employee of ExxonMobil served on the panel to assess 
the carcinogenicity of ethyl oxide--a chemical manufactured by 
ExxonMobil.
  Another scientist received research support from Dow Agro and served 
on that panel, even though ethyl oxide is also manufactured by Dow 
Agro.
  A scientist whose research was funded by American Cyanamid and CYTEC 
sits on the EPA panel on acrylamide, which is manufactured by American 
Cyanamid and marketed by CYTEC. EPA did not see any conflict of 
interest.
  But at the beck and call of the American Chemistry Council, an 
industry lobby group, Administrator Johnson removed Dr. Deborah Rice, a 
prominent toxicologist, from a scientific review board investigating 
chemicals used in common plastic goods.
  The industry argued that she had a conflict of interest. Incredibly, 
the conflict of interest was that, at a public hearing in the State of 
Maine, as a representative of the State's Government, Dr. Rice had 
stated her professional opinion regarding the dangers associated with 
these chemicals. The industry did not like her professional opinion. 
Not only was Dr. Rice removed from the panel, but in a particularly 
Orwellian maneuver, the fact that she had ever been on the panel was 
stricken from the advisory committee's records.

  In packing EPA's scientific panels to please industry polluters, 
Administrator Johnson is guilty of a particularly chilling dereliction 
of his duty to the Agency he leads.
  Count 8: A report issued on April 23 by the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, entitled ``Interference at the EPA,'' uncovered widespread 
political influence in EPA decisions. The report found that 60 percent 
of EPA career scientists surveyed had personally experienced at least 
one incident of political interference during the past 5 years--60 
percent of the career scientists. It is a plague over there.
  The report documented, among other things, that many EPA scientists 
have been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter information from 
EPA science documents, or have had their work edited in a manner that 
resulted in changes to their scientific findings.
  The survey also revealed that EPA scientists have often objected to 
or resigned or removed themselves from EPA projects because of that 
pressure to change scientific findings.
  Allowing this corrosive political influence to persist among the 
career scientists at EPA is yet another dereliction of Administrator 
Johnson's duty to the Agency he leads.
  Count 9: Administrator Johnson has twisted the very administrative 
procedures of the Environmental Protection Agency to allow the White 
House Office of Management and Budget secret influence over Agency 
decisionmaking.
  For example, the IRIS process for determining the toxicity of 
chemicals that all of us are exposed to allows OMB three separate 
chances to exert its dark influence: at the beginning, in the middle, 
and again at the end of the Agency's process. In the words of the GAO, 
this process is ``inconsistent with the principle of sound science that 
relies on, among other things, transparency.''
  This is not just a potential concern. The current chair of EPA's 
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Panel has testified that the ozone 
standard was ``[set] . . . by fiat behind closed doors,'' has testified 
that the entire Agency's scientific process was ``for naught,'' and 
testified that ``the OMB and the White House set the standard, even 
though theoretically it was set by the EPA Administrator.'' She 
testified that as a result, ``willful ignorance triumphed over sound 
science.'' That is her testimony.
  In manipulating his Agency's processes to let willful ignorance 
triumph over sound science, Administrator Johnson has again been 
derelict in his duties to this once proud Agency.
  The third and final category of charges relates to Johnson's 
relationship to Congress. In defiance of his charge under the 
Constitution of the United States, Administrator Johnson has personally 
repeatedly refused to cooperate with Congress in our efforts to conduct 
proper oversight over the executive branch.
  The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has repeatedly 
requested documents in connection with EPA's denial of the California 
waiver and its failure to adequately regulate ozone pollution in our 
efforts to determine whether the White House improperly influenced 
these decisions.
  Administrator Johnson has rebuffed these proper requests. He has 
repeatedly declined to appear before the EPW Committee to explain his 
Agency's policies. And when he has appeared, he has resorted to canned, 
stock, evasive answers in response to legitimate questions about 
political influence infiltrating his Agency.
  Just last week, he refused to appear before the Judiciary Committee 
on which I also serve for a hearing to look further into his failure to 
cooperate with Congress and provide documents and other information we 
have sought.
  In what is perhaps the gravest matter of all, I believe the 
Administrator deliberately and repeatedly lied to Congress, creating a 
false picture of the process that led to EPA's denial of the California 
waiver, in order to obscure the role of the White House in influencing 
his decision.
  Today, Senator Boxer and I have sent a letter to Attorney General 
Mukasey--along with Senator Klobuchar--asking him to investigate 
whether Administrator Johnson gave false and misleading statements, 
whether he committed perjury, and whether he obstructed Congress's 
investigation into the process that led to the denial of the California 
waiver request.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter and its attached recitations 
be printed in the Record as an exhibit to these remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. There is more. These are not isolated counts but 
signs of an agency corrupted in every place the shadowy influence of 
the Bush White House can reach.
  Administrator Johnson forced the resignation of EPA's Regional 
Administrator for the Midwest, Mary Gade, who was locked in a struggle 
with corporate polluter Dow Chemical Company. The circumstances are 
highly suspicious. Administrator Johnson has replaced Ms. Gade with a 
former attorney for the automobile industry, whose record on behalf of 
the environment has been described as ``horrible.''
  The EPA, under Administrator Johnson, has reduced the reporting 
burdens on industries that release toxic chemicals into our land, sea, 
and air. It has weakened enforcement and monitoring by opening fewer 
criminal investigations, filing fewer lawsuits, and levying fewer fines 
against corporate polluters.
  It has failed to protect agency employees who pointed out problems or 
reported legal violations or attempted to correct factual 
misrepresentations made by their superiors and created an atmosphere 
where employees fear reprisals.
  In the face of widespread criticism that his agency is in crisis and 
that he is a pawn of the White House and its allies in polluting 
industries, Administrator Johnson's response was to label all those 
concerned, many of whom are dedicated career employees of his agency, 
as ``yammering critics,'' clearly a man after Spiro Agnew's own heart.
  The EPA has a vital mission. When this great agency is weakened and 
its work subverted by political interference, there is a great cost to 
this country. When EPA scientists and career employees become 
discouraged as their voices go unheard, there is a great cost to this 
country. When the

[[Page S7607]]

people of America lose faith that the Environmental Protection Agency 
actually lives up to its name, there is a great cost to this country. 
When those who were chosen to serve this country instead serve 
themselves, their political allies, and their patrons, there is a great 
and lasting cost to this country. It is a failure of integrity, and 
that is a failure we can no longer afford.
  We demand integrity--democracy demands integrity--of our public 
officials, not just because integrity is an abstract moral good but 
because democracy fails without it.
  Integrity sustains our democracy in such important ways. The first is 
integrity to the truth. In Government, when the facts are clear enough 
for responsible people to act, it is a failure of integrity to fail to 
confront those facts. As the late Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan, famously said: ``You are entitled to your own opinion; you 
are not entitled to your own facts.''
  America has traditionally been characterized by candid and practical 
assessment of the facts, a can-do attitude about responding to those 
facts, and bold decisionmaking to find our way through those facts. 
Practical, can-do, optimistic, realistic--that is the American way. 
When Government doesn't face the truth about the facts, it will almost 
certainly fail to meet the demands of the moment and fail to serve the 
interests of our people. That is what is happening at EPA. They simply 
will not face facts plain to any responsible person.
  However, facts are stubborn things. They do not yield to ideology or 
influence. They do not care about your politics. Unanswered they stand, 
getting worse, and eventually the piper must be paid. If facts aren't 
candidly, realistically, and responsibly faced, not only will the 
problem get worse but the very capacity of the Government to address 
problems candidly, realistically, and responsibly, that capacity will 
itself degrade when not put to use. So there are ugly, lasting 
consequences when Government officials fail at their obligation to meet 
the truth head on.
  Another integrity is to honesty. As failures of truth have a harsh 
cost in Government, so do failures in honesty. I have sworn in new 
assistant U.S. attorneys. I have sworn in new State assistant attorneys 
general. I have presided at nomination hearings. Every time I have seen 
the same thing: a little spark of fire, a moral fire sparked when 
someone makes a choice to earn less money than they would otherwise, to 
work a lot harder than they would otherwise, to dare greater challenges 
than they might otherwise, all in order to serve the larger purpose, to 
serve an ideal, to serve America.
  This spark of fire inspires young men and women to tackle problems 
that may seem unmanageable. This spark of fire keeps people at their 
desks late into the night when others have gone home to their families. 
This spark of fire brings idealism and principle to decisions and 
illuminates a moral path through the complexities of Government.
  The value in Government of that spark of fire burning in the hearts 
of a thousand men and women--our real thousand points of light--is 
immeasurable. EPA is sustained by that spark of fire.
  But this spark of fire is quenched in the toxic atmosphere of 
dishonesty whose guiding principles are help your friends, please your 
patron, dodge your responsibilities, and fudge the truth. Dishonesty 
and idealisms do not cohabit.
  The third integrity is competence, a vital integrity. If we are to 
address the present and looming problems a new administration will have 
to face--a war without end in Iraq, an economy on a sickening slide, a 
broken health care system, a country divided into two increasingly 
separate Americas, a public education system that is failing, the 
dangerous weight of an alarming national debt, foreign policies that 
have unhinged us from responsible world opinion, bickering and 
irresolution on problems such as immigration and global warming--we 
must see competence as a core integrity. We must demand competence of 
Government officials as a bare minimum, a core necessity.
  Unfortunately, as one discouraged official has complained: ``In the 
Bush administration, loyalty is the new competence.''
  Administrator Stephen Johnson is a failure in all these dimensions. 
From everything we have seen, Administrator Johnson has done the 
bidding of the Bush administration and its political allies without 
hesitation or question and in violation of his clear duty. He has tried 
to cover up his dereliction of duty with evasive and discreditable 
testimony. He has acted without regard for the law or the 
determinations of the courts. He has damaged the mission, the morale, 
and the integrity of his great institution--the Environmental 
Protection Agency--and he has betrayed his solemn duty to Americans who 
depend on him to protect their health, particularly our very youngest 
and our very oldest whose vulnerability is greatest.
  Administrator Johnson suggests a man who has every intention of 
driving his agency onto the rocks, of undermining and despoiling it, of 
leaving America's environment and America's people without an honest 
advocate in their Federal Government. This behavior not only degrades 
his once great agency, it drives the dagger of dishonesty deep into the 
very vitals of American democracy. The American people cannot accept 
such a person in a position of great responsibility.
  I am truly sorry it has come to this, but that is why this afternoon 
I called on Administrator Johnson to resign his position. I encourage 
my colleagues to look closely at these concerns. Look at the reasons. 
Look at what I have prepared. Whatever decision colleagues may come to, 
I hope all understand I come to this decision sincerely and after much 
review and reflection and with no pleasure.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                    Washington, DC, July 29, 2008.
     Hon. Michael Mukasey,
     Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Attorney General Mukasey: As members of the Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), we are 
     writing to ask that you open an investigation into whether 
     the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA), Stephen L. Johnson, has made false or misleading 
     statements before the EPW Committee.
       We do not make this request lightly. However, we believe 
     that there is significant evidence to suggest that Mr. 
     Johnson has provided statements that are inconsistent with 
     sworn testimony and documents provided in connection with an 
     investigation conducted by this Committee. These false, 
     misleading, or intentionally incomplete statements relate to 
     the decision announced by EPA on December 19, 2007, to deny 
     the request by California for a waiver under Section 209 of 
     the Clean Air Act. After Mr. Johnson's testimony, a former 
     senior aide to Mr. Johnson at EPA, Jason Burnett, provided 
     sworn testimony before the EPW Committee on July 22, 2008, 
     that appears to contradict Mr. Johnson's testimony on key 
     factual matters.
       For example, Mr. Johnson stated under oath before the EPW 
     Committee on January 24, 2008 that he based his denial of the 
     California waiver request on California's failure to meet the 
     ``compelling and extraordinary'' circumstances criterion 
     under Section 209, and that he reached this decision 
     independently. However, Mr. Burnett testified that Mr. 
     Johnson had in fact determined that California met this 
     criterion and the other Clean Air Act criteria necessary for 
     approval of the waiver, and that the Administration's 
     decision to deny the waiver was based on the President's 
     policy preferences, rather than the lack of compelling and 
     extraordinary circumstances.
       In addition, Mr. Johnson testified before the EPW Committee 
     that the decision to deny that waiver was solely his 
     decision. However, Mr. Burnett testified that Mr. Johnson had 
     a plan to grant the waiver and had concluded that the 
     statutory criteria for granting it were met, until it was 
     ``clearly articulated'' by the White House that the 
     President's ``policy preference'' was to deny the waiver.
       We also are concerned about Mr. Johnson's testimony that 
     the energy legislation enacted by Congress and signed by the 
     President on December 19, 2007, was not substantively related 
     to his decision announced on the same day to deny the 
     California waiver, which he asserted was based upon his 
     finding that the waiver did not meet the Clean Air Act 
     statutory criteria. Mr. Burnett testified, however, that Mr. 
     Johnson had required extensive analysis of the impact of this 
     energy bill in evaluating whether to grant the waiver, and 
     that it was the President's policy preference that led to the 
     denial of California's waiver request, because granting the 
     waiver or a partial grant of the waiver would have led to two 
     standards, not one, as the President desired. The energy bill 
     established a single standard for vehicle fuel efficiency, as 
     the President desired.

[[Page S7608]]

       It appears that Mr. Johnson's account of the California 
     waiver decision is factually inaccurate or misleading. We 
     take the inconsistency between Mr. Johnson's testimony and 
     other evidence very seriously. False testimony by any witness 
     is serious and undermines our ability to fulfill our 
     constitutional duties on behalf of the American people. Our 
     concern is heightened because this decision by the EPA 
     Administrator affects the health and wellbeing of the 
     American people. For these reasons, we have no choice but to 
     refer the matter to you for appropriate investigation and 
     prosecutorial action.
       We look forward to your prompt response on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Barbara Boxer,
       Chairman.
     Sheldon Whitehouse,
       U.S. Senator.
     Amy Klobuchar,
       U.S. Senator.
     Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____


EPA Administrator Johnson's Testimony Before Congress on the California 
                            Waiver Decision

       Specifically, the concerns we have regarding Administrator 
     Johnson's testimony arise out of conflicts between his 
     testimony before the EPW Committee, and that of Jason 
     Burnett, a former EPA official who worked closely with 
     Administrator Johnson on the California waiver issue.
       It appears from Mr. Burnett's testimony that Administrator 
     Johnson's testimony was at best misleading and at worst 
     untruthful in many specific ways.
       Administrator Johnson repeatedly claimed that the decision 
     to deny the California waiver was ``mine and mine alone.'' He 
     said this repeatedly, over and over:
       I was not directed by anyone, I was not directed by anyone 
     to make the decision. This was solely my decision based upon 
     the law, based upon the facts that were presented to me. It 
     was my decision. (1/24/08 EPW Committee Oversight hearing 
     (``1/24/08 hearing''), unofficial transcript at p. 29).
       I made the decision. It was my decision and my decision 
     alone. (2/27/08 EPW Committee hearing on EPA FY2009 Budget 
     (``2/27/08 hearing''), unofficial transcript at p. 58)
       The decision was mine and mine alone. I made the decision. 
     (2/27/08 hearing, unofficial transcript at p. 59).
       Certainly the California waiver was my decision under the 
     Clean Air Act and mine alone. I made the decision, I made it 
     independently, I carefully considered all the comments and I 
     made that decision. (Id. at p. 30)
       Mr. Burnett's testimony, however, indicates that these 
     statements were not true in any meaningful sense. First, in 
     point of fact, the decision Administrator Johnson made was to 
     grant a partial waiver:
       There was an effort that we were engaged in and that I was 
     engaged in to make the case that it would be appropriate to 
     issue at least a partial grant of the waiver. (Testimony of 
     Jason Burnett at EPW Committee hearing, 7/22/08, unofficial 
     transcript at p.31)
       The Administrator had a plan to partially grant the waiver 
     provided that the Clean Air Act was not enacted [sic] by 
     Congress. (Id. at p. 42).
       Second, Mr. Burnett's testimony makes clear that this 
     decision to grant the partial waiver was vetted thoroughly 
     within EPA and reflected the Agency's consensus view that at 
     least a partial waiver was appropriate:
       We did our best to ensure that all policy officials 
     involved in this decision were apprised and informed of the 
     law and EPA's assessment that all three criteria were, that 
     the, clearly the most supportable case under the law is that 
     all three criteria had been met. (Id. at p.43)
       My advice, my recommendation, as well as the advice and 
     recommendation of all other advisors within EPA that I am 
     aware of was for Administrator Johnson to grant the waiver or 
     at least grant the first few years of the waiver. (Id. at p. 
     21)
       Third, Mr. Burnett testified that Administrator Johnson's 
     decision to partially grant the waiver was then taken to the 
     White House:
       But we went forward with our plan, told the White House 
     about our plan to have a partial grant of the waiver. . . . 
     (Id. at p. 32)
       Fourth, Mr. Burnett was clear that when the White House was 
     informed of the plan, the Administrator was told of the 
     President's ``policy preference'' and reversed his decision 
     to support the partial waiver.
       But we went forward with our plan, told the White House 
     about our plan to have a partial grant of the waiver, and in 
     response, we were reminded of the President's policy 
     preference. (Id. at p. 32)
       Mr. Burnett: I believe that we continued throughout the 
     early December to explain the case for a partial grant. I 
     believe that it was early December when the Administrator 
     made his plan known. Of course, that plan ultimately was not 
     followed.
       Senator Whitehouse: And in between that, the White House 
     response came back that the President desired there to be the 
     single standard?
       Burnett: yes. (Id. at p. 38)
       The repeated, false emphasis by the Administrator that the 
     decision to deny the waiver was ``mine and mine alone,'' when 
     in fact the Administration effectively reversed Administrator 
     Johnson's decision to grant the waiver, was part of a larger 
     plan to mislead the EPW Committee about the decision-making 
     process regarding the waiver.
       A second part of this plan was Administrator Johnson's 
     suggestion that there was staff debate on the California 
     waiver, during which a wide range of options were presented 
     by staff, and after which, based on this debate, the 
     Administrator made the decision to deny the waiver:
       Again, a great team of people, the lawyers and scientists 
     and policy staff. They presented me with a wide range of 
     options [on the waiver]. Those options ranged from approval 
     to denial. I listened to them carefully, I weighed the 
     information and I made an independent judgment. I concluded 
     that California does not meet the standard under Section 209. 
     (1/24/08 hearing unofficial transcript, at p. 45).
       Again, as I have stated and will state again, the decision 
     was mine, solely mine. I heard a wide range of comments from 
     inside the agency, outside the agency, I was presented with a 
     range of options. I made the decision. It was my decision and 
     my decision alone (2/27/08 hearing unofficial transcript at 
     p. 58).
       During the briefing process, I encouraged my staff to take 
     part in an open discussion of issues, and due to their value 
     [sic?] options and opinions, I was able to make a 
     determination. As you know, the Clean Air Act requires the 
     EPA Administrator to determine whether or not the criteria 
     for a waiver have been met. It was only after a thorough 
     review of the arguments and material that I announced my 
     direction to staff to prepare a decision document for my 
     signature. (1/24/08 hearing unofficial transcript at p. 16)
       Senator Whitehouse: The last time we spoke about this, you 
     said that sometimes the EPA staff gave you a single 
     consolidated recommendation, Mr. Administrator, this is what 
     we think you should do, and sometimes they give you an array 
     of options, Mr. Administrator, we think these are your 
     options. You have testified that in this case, they gave you 
     an array of options, not a single, consolidated opinion, 
     correct?
       Administrator Johnson: That is what I remember, yes. (2/27/
     08 hearing unofficial transcript at p. 61)
       In fact, however, Mr. Burnett was clear that there was 
     staff agreement on the issue, as manifested in the plan 
     agreed to by the Administrator, and presented to the White 
     House, to grant a partial waiver:
       My advice, my recommendation, as well as the advice and 
     recommendation of all other advisors within EPA that I am 
     aware of was for Administrator Johnson to grant the waiver or 
     at least grant the first few years of the waiver. (7/22/08 
     hearing, unofficial transcript at p. 21).
       Mr. Burnett made clear, however, that the Administrator 
     went to the White House armed with a plan to partially grant 
     the waiver but, after being informed of the Bush ``policy 
     preference'' that the waiver not be granted, reversed course 
     and denied the waiver:
       We went forward with our plan, told the White House about 
     our plan to have a partial grant of the waiver, and in 
     response, we were reminded of the President's policy 
     preference. (7/22/08 hearing unofficial transcript at p. 32)
       Senator Whitehouse: In the Clean Air Act waiver, after the 
     White House was notified of the proposed decision that you 
     put together, did the White House respond to that notice that 
     you intended to partially grant the waiver?
       Burnett: The response was clearly articulating that the 
     President had a policy preference for a single standard that 
     would be inconsistent with granting the waiver. (Id.)
       Burnett: I believe that we continued throughout the early 
     December to explain the case for a partial grant. I believe 
     that it was early December when the Administrator made his 
     plan known. Of course, that plan was ultimately not followed.
       SW: And in between that, the White House response came back 
     that the President desired there to be the single standard?
       Burnett: Yes. (Id. at p. 38)
       Administrator Johnson deliberately and repeatedly left 
     these steps out of his discussion of the process that led to 
     denial of the waiver.
       Moreover, when questions regarding White House contact were 
     raised, he said things that were not true, if words are given 
     their meanings in common usage.
       For example, Administrator Johnson testified repeatedly 
     that his contacts with the White House regarding the waiver 
     were limited to ``routine discussions'' that were nothing 
     more than status updates for the White House on the waiver 
     issue and were part of meetings involving multiple issues:
       Senator Boxer: Did you contact [the White House about the 
     California waiver]?
       Administrator Johnson: As part of good government, I tell 
     them what is the status of major actions that are before the 
     Agency to give them an update. That is what I do on 
     petitions, on regulations, and----
       Senator Boxer: Did you discuss this waiver with members of 
     the Administration in the White House, the Vice President's 
     Office, or the OMB? Did you discuss this?
       Administrator Johnson: I have routine discussions. (EPW 7/
     26/07 Hearing on Status of California Waiver unofficial 
     transcript at pp. 15-16 )
       Senator Whitehouse: Was there or was there not contact from 
     the White House regarding the waiver decision?
       Administrator Johnson: As I said, I have routine contacts 
     with members of the Administration, including the White 
     House.

[[Page S7609]]

       Senator Whitehouse: And did that routine contact include 
     contact regarding the waiver decision?
       Administrator Johnson: Again, I have routine conversation 
     on a wide range of topics that I believe is good government 
     and indeed, it included what our status was on the issue of 
     the California waiver. (2/27/08 EPW hearing unofficial 
     transcript at p. 58)
       In fact, Mr. Burnett's testimony makes clear that there 
     were specific White House meetings dedicated to the waiver:
       Senator Whitehouse: Were the meetings . . . related to the 
     California waiver . . . specific to that? Or were they part 
     of a routine schedule that the Administrator had, going to 
     the White House on a regular basis and this would be on the 
     agenda, this particular time? Or were these meetings that 
     were scheduled specifically to address this and not part of a 
     routine, ongoing scheduled meeting process?
       Mr. Burnett: Both. There were some meetings that were 
     specifically scheduled to talk about the California waiver, 
     and other meetings to talk about a range of issues relating 
     particularly to climate policy, including the response to the 
     Supreme Court and the California waiver.
       Senator Whitehouse: And were there meetings specific to the 
     California waiver, that you would not characterize as routine 
     that were specifically scheduled for that purpose?
       Mr. Burnett: Well, there were meetings specifically 
     scheduled for that purpose, as I said.
       Senator Whitehouse: Not just dropped in as an agenda point 
     on a regularly-scheduled meeting?
       Mr. Burnett: Yes, meetings that were specific to talk about 
     the California waiver. But I'm not sure if that means they 
     were routine or not. It certainly was the case that this 
     issue of the California waiver received a great deal of 
     attention from a number of people throughout the 
     Administration. (7/22/08 hearing unofficial transcript at p. 
     31.)
       Mr. Burnett also testified that the waiver decision was a 
     very important matter to EPA and the Administration:
       It certainly was the case that this issue of the California 
     waiver received a great deal of attention from a number of 
     people throughout the Administration. (Id.)
       This issue is one of the most important issues that was 
     facing EPA. It received very high level attention, many 
     meetings with the Administrator and many meetings with senior 
     officials at the White House (Id. at p. 43)
       Thus, the meetings clearly were more than ``routine,'' both 
     in terms of their timing (Webster's II New Riverside 
     University Dictionary, at p. 1022--``A set of customary and 
     often mechanically performed procedures;'' ``prescribed and 
     detailed course of action to be followed regularly'' and 
     substance (``not special,'' ``ordinary'').
       Moreover, Administrator Johnson's testimony that the 
     meetings were merely to provide the White House with status 
     updates was also directly contradicted by Mr. Burnett, who 
     testified that at least some meetings were held at the White 
     House to present the Administration with EPA's plan to grant 
     a partial waiver.
       We went forward with our plan, told the White House about 
     our plan to have partial grant of the waiver, and in 
     response, we were reminded of the President's policy 
     preference. (Id. at p. 32)
       Senator Whitehouse: Would it be accurate to say that in 
     those meetings Administrator Johnson's contribution was 
     limited to an update on the status of the waiver action?
       Mr. Burnett: There was an effort that we were engaged in 
     and that I was engaged in to make the case that it would be 
     appropriate to issue at least a partial grant of the waiver. 
     (Id. at p. 31)
       Administrator Johnson was also misleading and not credible 
     regarding the staff process on the waiver decision. He 
     testified that he had been presented a range of options from 
     denial to outright grant, but that he could not remember any 
     of the options beyond the extremes of a full grant or 
     outright denial of the waiver:
       Senator Whitehouse: What would you list? You said a wide 
     range of options? Can you specify what those options were?
       Administrator Johnson: As I have said, a range from 
     approving the waiver to denying the waiver.
       Senator Whitehouse: That is not a range, that is two.
       Administrator Johnson: Well, there were options in between 
     and--
       Senator Whitehouse: Such as?
       Administrator Johnson: I was trying to recall. I don't 
     recall the specific options in between but that certainly is 
     a matter of record.
       Senator Whitehouse: Do you recall any of the specific 
     options in between?
       Administrator Johnson: As I said, the options ranged from 
     approval to denial and included other options in between. I 
     don't recall how they were entitled or the specifics.
       Senator Whitehouse: Without their title, their fundamental 
     nature, do you recall?
       Administrator Johnson: Again, there was a range of options 
     and I don't recall the specifics of the intermediate ones. 
     (2/27/08 hearing unofficial transcript at p. 63)
       In fact, however, Mr. Burnett's testimony makes clear that 
     there was a unanimous staff recommendation for a partial 
     waiver so fully developed that he agreed to it and took it to 
     the White House after extensive briefing:
       My advice, my recommendation, as well as the advice and 
     recommendation of all other advisors within EPA that I am 
     aware of was for Administrator Johnson to grant the waiver or 
     at least grant the first few years of the waiver. (7/22/08 
     hearing unofficial transcript at p. 21)
       The Administrator had a plan to partially grant the waiver, 
     provided that the Clean Air Act was not enacted [sic] by 
     Congress. (Id. at p. 42)
       There was an effort that we were engaged in and that I was 
     engaged in to make the case that it would be appropriate to 
     issue at least a partial grant of the waiver. (Id. at p. 31)
       I believe that we continued throughout early December to 
     explain the case for a partial grant. I believe that it was 
     early December when the Administrator made his plan known. Of 
     course, that plan ultimately was not followed. (Id. at p. 38)
       We went forward with our plan, told the White House about 
     our plan to have a partial grant of the waiver, and in 
     response, we were reminded of the President's policy 
     preference. (Id. at p. 32)
       It is simply unimaginable that Administrator Johnson could 
     forget that a partial waiver plan had been recommended to and 
     developed for him, that it had been adopted as the Agency 
     plan on this critical matter, and that he had presented it to 
     the White House.
       Administrator Johnson said there was no White House 
     reaction to his update, or that he could not recall any White 
     House response or reaction:
       Senator Boxer: Did you discuss the California waiver with 
     someone from the President's office, the Vice President's 
     office, OMB?
       Administrator Johnson: I routinely have conversations with 
     members of the White House.
       Senator Boxer: The answer is yes, then. What did they say? 
     What was their reaction? How did they feel about the waiver?
       Administrator Johnson: I don't recall their reaction 
     because I was giving them an update of the status of this 
     action and a lot of other actions before the Agency. (7/26/07 
     hearing unofficial transcript at 16).
       Senator Boxer: Is this a fair analysis of what you have 
     told us? That no one ever contacted you to give an opinion on 
     the waiver, or to tell you to slow it up or anything; no one 
     from the President's, Vice-President's, OMB; no one from the 
     DOT. But you did contact them just to fill them in on what 
     was happening, and the waiver was one of the issues, but you 
     don't recall anything that they said. You just briefed them, 
     but they never made any opinion. Yes or no?
       Administrator Johnson: If you would add ``to the best of my 
     recollection,'' then I would say, ``yes.'' (Id. at p. 17)
       Given Mr. Burnett's testimony, it is simply unimaginable 
     that Administrator Johnson cannot recall getting a response 
     from the White House suggesting that he reverse his plan to 
     grant a partial waiver:
       Senator Whitehouse: In the Clean Air Act waiver, after the 
     White House was notified of the proposed decision that you 
     put together, did the White House respond to that notice that 
     you intended to partially grant the waiver?
       Mr. Burnett: The response was clearly articulating that the 
     President had a policy preference for a single standard that 
     would be inconsistent with granting the waiver. (7/22/08 
     hearing unofficial transcript at p. 32)
       Mr. Burnett: . . . the Administrator certainly knew the 
     President's policy preference for a single standard. (Id.).
       Mr. Burnett: [W]e went forward with our plan, told the 
     White House about our plan to have a partial grant of the 
     waiver, and in response, we were reminded of the President's 
     policy preference. (Id.)
       Mr. Burnett: I believe that we continued throughout the 
     early December to explain the case for a partial grant. I 
     believe that it was early December when the Administrator 
     made his plan known. Of course, that plan ultimately was not 
     followed.
       Senator Whitehouse: And in between that, the White House 
     response came back that the President desired there to be the 
     single standard?
       Mr. Burnett: Yes. (Id. at p. 38)
       It is unimaginable that the head of a major government 
     agency could take a plan on a vital public issue to the White 
     House, fully vetted and briefed, to make the case for the 
     plan, come back to the agency with a completely different 
     plan as a result of the White House meeting, and then not 
     remember that this event had taken place. It can only be a 
     lie.
       Administrator Johnson claimed that his decision to deny the 
     waiver was based on criterion two of the waiver test under 
     the Clean Air Act: that is, whether California demonstrated 
     compelling and extraordinary conditions in support of its 
     request:
       I came to the conclusion that of the criteria that I am 
     required to evaluate, it was the second criteria, that the 
     State does not have compelling, extraordinary conditions. So 
     that is the basis of my decision. (1/24/08 hearing unofficial 
     transcript, p. 22)
       I made my decision for the California waiver under Section 
     209 of the Clean Air Act. And I found that California does 
     not meet the compelling and extraordinary conditions. (Id. at 
     p. 55)
       In fact, as noted above, Mr. Burnett's testimony makes 
     clear that Administrator Johnson was prepared to grant a 
     partial waiver, based on the compelling and extraordinary 
     factor and other factors having been met:

[[Page S7610]]

       As part of the plan to grant a partial waiver, certainly it 
     was the case that all three criteria in the Clean Air Act 
     would be met, including the criteria that California has 
     compelling and extraordinary circumstances. (7/22/08 hearing 
     unofficial transcript at p. 19)
       We did our best to ensure that all policy officials 
     involved in this decision were apprised and informed of the 
     law and EPA's assessment that all three criteria were, that 
     the, clearly, the most supportable case under the law is that 
     all three criteria had been met. (Id. at p. 43)
       Indeed, it was only after President Bush's ``policy 
     preference'' was explained to Administrator Johnson at a 
     White House meeting that he decided to deny the waiver. The 
     rationale that California did not meet was evidently an 
     after-the-fact embellishment designed to cover up the initial 
     plan to grant the waiver, the White House meeting at which 
     President's Bush's ``policy preference'' was explained, and 
     Administrator Johnson's reversal of course, and to create a 
     post hoc legal explanation for the decision.
       The following summary of Administrator Johnson's testimony 
     by Chairman Boxer was admitted by Johnson to be accurate ``to 
     the best of [his] recollection.''
       Senator Boxer: So just to wrap this up, and then I will 
     turn to Senator Inhofe. So just to wrap this up, no one ever 
     contacted you. You contacted them, meaning the White House, 
     the Vice President's office, the OMB, the DOT. You contacted 
     them just to give them an update on this issue, but no one 
     ever contacted you and you don't recall anybody in the White 
     House giving you their opinion on the waiver.
       Administrator Johnson: I don't recall anyone contacting me. 
     I do recall making contacts to others because as I said, I 
     have routine conversations with----
       Senator Boxer: You keep repeating this. I am just trying to 
     see, and tell me if I am saying this in a fair way and a just 
     way.
       Mr. Johnson: Okay.
       Senator Boxer: All right. Nobody ever contacted you from 
     the White House, the Vice President's office, the OMB, or the 
     DOT? You contacted them just to update them and you don't 
     recall anything they said to you about the waiver?
       Mr. Johnson: To the best of my recollection, again, I have 
     a lot of conversations with members of the White House, a lot 
     of conversations. I said I do recall me making contact 
     because----
       Senator Boxer: I just said that. So did I say it in a fair 
     way? I will repeat it the last time and then I will stop, 
     because I would like a yes or no. Is this a fair analysis of 
     what you have told us? That no one ever contacted you to give 
     an opinion on the waiver, or to tell you to slow it up or 
     anything; no one from the President's, Vice President's, OMB; 
     no one from the DOT. But you did contact them just to fill 
     them in on what was happening, and the waiver was one of the 
     issues, but you don't recall anything that they said. You 
     just briefed them, but they never made any opinion. Yes or 
     no?
       Mr. Johnson: If you would add ``to the best of my 
     recollection,'' then I would say ``yes.'' (7/26/07 hearing 
     unofficial transcript at p. 17).
       Again, in light of the Burnett testimony, Administrator 
     Johnson's failure to recollect the Administration's reaction 
     to his proposal is simply incredible.
       Finally, it is worth noting President Bush's ``policy 
     preference'' for a single standard does not bear in any way 
     on the existence vel non of compelling and extraordinary 
     conditions, and is known by Administrator Johnson not to be 
     one of the statutory criteria for decision:
       Administrator Johnson: . . . I tried to make it clear in 
     the letter to Governor Schwarzenegger [announcing denial of 
     the waiver] that the bases of my decision were on the three 
     criteria under Section 209 [of the Clean Air Act] and 
     compelling and extraordinary was the issue that the criteria, 
     that was not met. I pointed out in the letter that that 
     certainly isn't a context of what is the policy of both what 
     is happening as a Nation, and that is the policy, again my 
     words, policy context. But that was not the decision 
     criteria. The decision criteria are very clear in Section 209 
     on whether or not----
       Senator Klobuchar: That is fine. When I come back, I will 
     talk about it. But you have said before that this could 
     create a confusing patchwork of State rules.
       Administrator Johnson: And again, that is not one of the 
     criteria for the decision. (1/24/08 hearing unofficial 
     transcript at p. 36)

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                                 Energy

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to spend a little time talking 
about the energy topic which has consumed this body and rightfully so. 
It has certainly consumed the people's checkbooks and pocketbooks. I 
will then submit a course of action and suggestions, one of which is a 
bill that was recently introduced by a tripartisan coalition--Senator 
Salazar, Senator Lieberman, and myself--requiring that a third of the 
fleet of vehicles the United States produces sold here by 2012 be able 
to operate on flex fuel; that is, a car or a pickup--whatever it is 
that is being sold--can operate on either ethanol, methanol or gasoline 
or any combination thereto, to remove our addiction to foreign oil. I 
also wish to talk about the need to produce more energy here at home.
  I have a couple charts. This one is one people instinctively know 
about, but I think it is pretty dramatic when you look at it. Our 
consumption is going up. It has been a bit more level lately. 
Production. Look at what we have done with production since the mid-
1980s. It has gone down while our imports have made up the difference. 
We had this huge crossover in 1994. We are actually importing what we 
should be producing. We have to change this chart.
  Boone Pickens was in town last week--one of the famous oilmen in the 
United States--and he was saying we are on track to be importing $700 
billion worth of oil on an annualized basis. If you think about that 
and the transfer of wealth that is taking place--that $700 billion 
comes from someplace, and it comes from people's pocketbooks. Then, 
instead of going into the U.S. economy, it is going overseas and on to 
places that often don't agree with us, whether it is into Venezuela or 
other regions of the world. Plus, think about the sheer economic 
activity. If you take $700 billion worth of economic activity out of 
here and are not generating further economic activity someplace else 
and are putting it someplace else, it degrades our tax coffers. Yet 
that $700 billion of economic activity here, if there were just a 20-
percent tax rate associated with it, we are looking at $140 billion 
worth of taxes back into this country if we had that sort of economic 
revenue taking place. Imports of petroleum and petroleum products in 
the billions of dollars, and you can see the increase in the price of 
oil, what this is doing. It is skyrocketing from, again, 2004 on 
forward. If that activity were taking place here, those dollars would 
be back here. Instead of building enormous buildings or new islands or 
incredible facilities in Dubai, we could be building them here.
  That is why we need to produce more in the United States, and we can 
produce more in the United States instead of getting it from overseas.
  It is my hope that later this week, we are going to start voting on 
some of these resolutions, some of these bills to produce more in the 
United States. We cannot continue to consume 25 percent of the world's 
oil while producing only 3 percent of it. The world is not going to let 
that continue to take place.
  If you set all that aside and say: Well, I don't care, as long as it 
continues to take place--if you set all that aside, what is taking 
place now in the Middle East, of Iran developing nuclear capacity and 
the threat of that to the region, to a number of countries in that 
region, particularly Israel--and if there is a response to that, what 
happens then to oil prices and the availability of oil to the United 
States if that escalates further? It may get an escalation that happens 
out of our control. Then what happens to the oil supply and the price 
if we continue to be dependent on this much of a dollar amount for 
foreign sources of oil? What would the Venezuelans do? What would 
Chavez do if the Iranians are attacked? Do you think they are going to 
send oil to the United States? What would happen in Russia, where 
Russia has been moving to work more with the Iranians? I think we are 
looking at a scenario, from a security perspective and from an economic 
perspective, that is wholly untenable for us in the United States and 
one we have to deal with now.
  The way to deal with it is to produce more in the United States and 
to allow drilling to take place here. We must explore new areas. The 
Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency reports that 75 billion 
barrels of oil are off-limits today in the United States. The President 
has recently lifted the Executive ban on the Outer Continental Shelf, 
and unless Congress lifts its congressional ban, we will not have 
access to 16 billion barrels of crude oil. Lifting this congressional 
ban on offshore drilling would surely send the right signals to the 
marketplace and many believe it would help lower prices in the near 
term. It would show the world we are willing to explore for new energy. 
We should also explore in Alaska for oil shale in the Western United 
States.
  I wish to show quickly one other piece of information on biofuels, 
and that is a chart and a statement that

[[Page S7611]]

was recently put forward by Merrill Lynch. Biofuels has been in a tough 
debate recently as there are a number of people accusing it of 
different things. One thing I wish to put on the table for sure is that 
biofuels has expanded our energy sources and expanded it away from the 
Middle East and it has expanded it away from foreign imports. That is 
something that has taken place. A recent study from Merrill Lynch found 
that because of the world's use of biofuels, gasoline is $21 per barrel 
less expensive than without these biofuels--$21 a barrel it took off 
oil prices. That is 50 cents less per gallon. We must continue to 
research and innovate in the world of cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel, 
soy, possibly from algae.
  What we have put forward in an amendment on this bill, if we are able 
to get to the Energy bill, is a requirement that half the new cars 
built and that are imported to the United States by 2012 be flex-fuel 
vehicles that can use ethanol, methanol or gasoline or any combination 
of those three. The big three auto manufacturers have said they can 
meet this goal to allow consumers to choose between gasoline, ethanol, 
methanol or, in some cases, biodiesel.
  So imagine you are pulling up to the pump and ethanol this day is 
selling for $1 a gallon less than gasoline is. Perhaps methanol is 
selling for $1.50 a gallon less than gasoline, and you are saying I am 
going to put in ethanol today. It is selling for cheaper. Those will 
continue to drive down the price of gasoline and will have a security 
benefit in that. If something happens in the Middle East or a part of 
the world that is out of our control and oil supplies dry up, we won't 
be left high and dry; we will have other sources of fuel to be able to 
move forward with. That is why so many security people are interested 
in this flex-fuel concept and a flex-fuel vehicle.

  I filed this legislation as amendment No. 5249 to the speculation 
bill that is currently on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Salazar be added as a cosponsor to that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, many economists believe energy 
efficiency and conservation are absolutely critical to our efforts to 
reduce our reliance on foreign oil. I agree.
  We have passed major energy legislation in the past to promote 
research and development in the area of hybrid automobile research, 
including batteries. We will be holding a hearing tomorrow in the Joint 
Economic Committee on this issue. Clearly, we need to conserve more. We 
have two hybrid vehicles in my family, and it has worked well. We need 
to move that technology forward. But it doesn't change the fundamentals 
that we have to produce more here as well.
  I want to show a final chart of the oil shale area in the United 
States. It is currently off limits from drilling. It has the potential 
of 500 billion--or more--barrels in production. This is in Wyoming, 
Utah, and Colorado. Clearly, this is another area we need to open for 
development.
  My point is that we are not helpless and we can do more. We have to 
do it now. Time is of the essence. It is draining people's pocketbooks, 
and it is putting us in an unnecessary security risk.
  I am hopeful that the leader is going to allow us to put forward 
amendments. I hope we can put forward our flex fuel amendment. I hope 
we can put forward drilling amendments so that we can get production up 
in the United States. That is something we need to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business on S. 3335, the tax extender package, for up to 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Tax Extenders

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, folks across our country feel as if they 
are drowning as wave after wave of bad economic news hits them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation because 
at times like this, when so many people feel they are close to going 
under, they look to their Government to toss them a life preserver, not 
burden them with a 2-ton cement block of bills to pay and then wish 
them luck. Congress has shown a willingness to shore up Wall Street. 
This legislation gives us an opportunity to shore up the folks who are 
on Main Street.
  People across our country want to see the Senate address the issues 
that are most important to them, and at the top of that list is energy. 
Obviously, our country is now at a crossroads. The country can continue 
to keep going on the road we are on, living on high-priced fuel and 
spewing carbon dioxide into the air from fossil fuels that choke the 
planet, or we can take a different road. With this legislation, we can 
start down that route.
  This legislation put the country on a path toward real energy 
independence. It would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and it 
would extend tax credits for renewable energy technologies--solar, 
geothermal, wind, hydroelectricity, geothermal heat pumps, and fuel 
cells. These new energy choices will help stem the devastating effects 
of global warming.
  On the other hand, the failure to extend existing renewable energy 
credits sends the wrong signals to renewable energy companies and 
investors. It will literally cut off the pipeline of promising 
renewable energy projects at a time when many of these technologies are 
just getting off the ground.
  How often is it possible to point to legislation and say that this 
bill will actually lead to a more promising future? In this case, 
businesses, workers, consumers, and homeowners all have an opportunity 
to be part of a brighter energy future. Truckers would get an exemption 
from the highway excise tax so they could install fuel-saving anti-
idling equipment. Consumers would get a new tax credit when they buy 
the plug-in hybrids. There would be a tax break for the bicycle 
commuters. For the first time, wave, tidal energy, and small wind 
turbines would be eligible for renewable energy tax credits. The bill 
also extends production tax credits for biodiesel. Consumers and 
businesses would be encouraged to live on less energy but in a fashion 
that does not compromise our economy or our quality of life. There 
would be tax credits for energy-efficient homes, commercial buildings, 
energy-efficient appliances, and also recycling equipment.
  It is my view that the tax provisions of this legislation make sense 
for taxpayers and they make sense for the environment and our 
businesses, and in that sense, we have an opportunity to act for 
America's future. I hope this legislation will pass.
  I would like to touch quickly on several other parts of the 
legislation that I think are particularly important, and especially the 
county payments legislation.
  If you live in a big city in this country, you may not know a whole 
lot about this legislation, but the county payments program keeps rural 
communities throughout the country--particularly in my home State--
alive. The legislation includes more than $3.7 billion in funds that 
are desperately needed for rural schools, counties, and communities. 
Without the safety net funding included in the bill, rural communities 
across the country will face a future without schools and without vital 
services such as law enforcement and essential road repair. Pink slips 
have already been sent out to teachers and county workers, and unless 
the Congress acts quickly, these devastating losses to the very fabric 
of rural communities would become permanent.

  There are counties in my home State that now literally face 
dissolution. Folks who live there don't know what to expect, but they 
are bracing for the worst. I am just not going to let that happen.
  This energy tax package contains the last best hope to help these 
counties, and the Senate should not turn its back on rural America now.
  Specifically, the package contains a 4-year extension of the Secure 
Rural Schools Program that I authored in 2000 and 5 years of full 
funding for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program.
  This proposal closely mirrors the legislative proposal I put together 
last year with Senators Baucus, Bingaman, and Majority Leader Reid--a 
proposal that overwhelmingly passed with bipartisan support by a vote 
of 74 to 23. Senator Craig and Senator Domenici also helped with 
critical efforts to move the legislation forward and to give it strong, 
bipartisan support.

[[Page S7612]]

  When folks in rural America are losing their jobs, their homes, and 
the chance to educate their kids, the Federal Government should not 
break its promise to rural communities. When Federal forests were 
created in Oregon and around the country, rural communities were 
promised they would get a share of the revenue from those forests. This 
revenue sharing was intended to make up for the loss of Federal forest 
land from the local tax base. As the benefits from forest management 
changes with the times, Congress can't walk away from its 
responsibility to provide funding to the counties for their 
contribution in creating the Nation's forests. Since that original 
effort, it has been clear that local communities needed some measure of 
support.
  By providing funds through 2011, this bill gets our rural counties 
off the fiscal roller coaster they have been on, particularly during 
these difficult economic times. It gives them stable funding so they 
can concentrate on the real work of planning for the future. 
Nationally, this would mean $3.7 billion, and in my home State of 
Oregon, it would mean hundreds of millions of dollars for schools, 
public safety, roads, and other essential county services.
  In the midst of an energy crisis, our schools face big challenges. An 
Energy Department study reported that schools spend about $8 billion on 
energy each year, second only to spending on books and computers. The 
same study estimated that 61 percent of public school districts had 
insufficient energy budgets. As a result, the schools--especially our 
rural schools--are forced to make difficult decisions about whether 
they can fully afford to heat or cool their buildings or whether they 
are going to have to cut some essential service, such as the school bus 
service in rural areas. Reauthorizing the county payments program would 
keep the lights on in the classrooms and make sure our youngsters have 
the basics they need in order to be able to learn.
  The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000 
has worked. It has built collaboration between counties, forest product 
firms, and environmentalists in communities in over 700 counties in 41 
States across the Nation. A key part of that collaboration has included 
funding projects to restore the national forests, and those would 
include providing renewable woody biomass that is part of the renewable 
energy solution this legislation would provide.
  Finally, on this point, these funds are a critical lifeline to rural 
areas. I point out that rural schools and counties would not be the 
only ones who suffer if this bill isn't passed. But I want to highlight 
the county payments legislation tonight particularly.
  I am going to be going home this weekend for townhall meetings in the 
rural part of my State. I will hear again and again this weekend how, 
without this program, without the essential program for rural 
communities that, in effect, built on something that started a century 
ago, we will see some of those rural communities dissolve before our 
eyes. I cannot allow that to happen on my watch.
  Finally, a quick comment on one other section of the legislation. I 
see that my friend from Arizona is here, and I want him to know that I 
will wrap up very briefly.
  Mr. President, with respect to the tax extenders provisions of this 
legislation, I can only say that businesses are calling for this. 
Typical taxpayers are calling for it. Teachers are saying they need it. 
Once again, we have to look at the consequences of not passing an 
important domestic initiative. This bill includes help for folks who 
are hurting right now. It includes help with relief to people in the 
Midwest who are still hurting from this year's floods. It helps 
businesses by renewing the business research and development tax 
credit. This is very important because our fast-growing technology 
companies say it is critical for their plans to grow and hire new 
staff. High-tech companies are some of the best employers in my home 
State and around the country, and they offer family-wage jobs that 
Americans can depend on.
  Both parties agree that the research and development credit should be 
extended and that it will be--some day. That is what they say, Mr. 
President--some day. That doesn't do much good for struggling 
manufacturers now. They have to plan their investments in order to be 
able to grow. They say that R&D credits are critical to doing that. By 
holding it up, the Congress is pushing our companies to outsource the 
important work. Clearly, no Member of the Senate could want that to 
happen, but without these credits, we are not having the proper 
incentive to keep jobs in the United States. I want to see high-skill, 
high-wage jobs here in our communities. We are the world leaders in 
research and development, and it is moments like this that will either 
keep us in that position or will start us heading down the path of 
becoming followers.
  I want to finally express my appreciation to the chairman of the 
Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, for his fine work on this 
legislation. I particularly appreciate the many times in which he has 
assisted me with the Secure Rural Schools Program. A host of other 
colleagues: Leader Reid, Chairman Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator 
Domenici, among others. I also express my appreciation to Senator 
Tester, our new Senator from the State of Montana, who has been a 
champion of rural schools and this program as well for all of his 
assistance.
  I urge the support of the critical Baucus legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                                 Energy

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the question the Senate is facing this 
evening and again tomorrow morning is whether we are going to stay 
focused on the issue that is of the most importance to the American 
public, and that is doing something about this incredible energy crisis 
in our country causing us to not just pay higher prices at the pump but 
also higher prices for almost everything else because of the high cost 
of transportation to transport goods across this country. Our airlines 
are hurting, shipping, trucking, all families, and we have seen 
inflation rise in this country, among other things, and probably 
primarily because of the fact that we are not producing enough energy--
enough American energy.
  Republicans believe we need to stay focused on this issue until we 
deal with it, and we can deal with it. We can deal with it before this 
body leaves for the so-called August recess. I know this: It is not 
recess when we go home and start visiting with our constituents and 
every one of them is going to ask us: What did you do to drive down the 
price of gasoline? What did you do to deal with this energy crisis?
  Earlier today, I quoted from the New York Times in an editorial 
yesterday in which the editors of the Times noted that the problem in 
the United States is not one of speculation, which is the subject of 
the bill the Democratic majority has brought forward, but it is a 
problem of supply and demand. What they say is all speculators or 
investors do is take a look into the future and ask a question: Five 
years from now or 5 months from now, where is demand going to be 
compared to supply in the world? Right now, everybody can see that the 
demand is going to far exceed the available supply of energy. As a 
result, of course, that puts pressure on prices which continue to go 
up.
  The fact that the President announced he would remove the moratorium 
on certain offshore production has had a salutary effect in helping to 
reduce prices a little bit because those futures markets decided that 
maybe we were serious about doing something about energy production in 
the future.
  That is the test. That is the commitment. That is what the Senate has 
been focused on this last week and is going to be focusing on again 
tomorrow.
  My colleagues are talking about legislation that the Senate needs to 
pass and, indeed, the last bit of legislation the Senator from Oregon 
was talking about is a subject which we will deal with. Everybody 
agrees we need to deal with it. My guess is the bill will pass, if not 
unanimously, close to unanimously, if and when we can get a bipartisan 
so-called tax extenders bill to the floor of the Senate. But 
Republicans are not going to leave what we are doing now to take that 
up and who knows what else.
  As a matter of fact, one of the issues I wanted to speak about 
briefly is another bill they want to go to. It is called the media 
shield legislation.
  Tomorrow morning, we are going to have two votes. The first one will 
see

[[Page S7613]]

whether we will forget the energy crisis, leave the Energy bill, and 
take up the media shield legislation. I daresay we will do the same 
thing with that that we have done with the other bills we have 
considered in the last couple of days, and that is, we will say no, we 
are going to finish energy first. Then we will have this next tax 
extenders bill. That will be the fourth time that bill will be before 
us. Once again, we will say: Let's finish energy first and then we will 
take it up.
  I hope as we speak that Senators Baucus and Grassley, the chairman 
and ranking member, respectively, of the Finance Committee on which I 
sit are talking to each other about the way to put this bipartisan tax 
extenders bill together so we can bring it to the floor and complete 
action on it before the August recess. That is possible to do. The two 
of them work very well together. I think they are very close to 
reaching an agreement on what this program would look like, and if they 
can reach such an agreement, it will be possible for us, once we have 
concluded work on energy, to then bring up that bill and get it passed 
before we go home. But we are not going to decide we have talked about 
energy long enough, even though we haven't done anything about it, and 
it is time to move on to other priorities. Our priority is energy. Our 
priority is getting gas prices down.
  It is not just a matter of filling up at the gas pump. Last week, I 
filled up and it was $70 and the tank still had a third in it when I 
filled the tank. That is hard to take. That is not the bottom line. The 
bottom line is what it does to our economy and national security. It 
used to be we produced most of the energy we use. Now we import most of 
the energy we use and, unfortunately, we are getting it from places 
that can create real problems for us.
  If you talk about Iran, for example, all Iran has to do to make more 
money on the oil it produces is drive some of its speedboats around the 
Strait of Hormuz and threaten the shipping there. About 40 percent of 
the oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz, and that unsettles the 
market to the extent it drives up the prices. They have it within their 
power to make more money just by creating problems for us.

  Why don't we rely more on the energy resources we have right here in 
the United States of America? We are the third largest producer of oil 
and gas in the world. We could be producing a lot more American energy 
for American needs and not have to rely on these other countries which, 
as I say, can create huge headaches for the entire world and drive up 
the price of energy.
  We can produce more. What Republicans are saying is, let's open some 
of the areas that have been closed by law to more production, starting 
with offshore in the deep waters of the gulf, off our coasts. We also 
have energy that is tied up in Alaska, in the oil shale in the Rocky 
Mountain West, and in other places.
  We have suggested a balanced approach. We need to use less. We need 
to reduce our consumption. We need to rely on so-called renewable 
fuels. We obviously need to do more with nuclear energy. But almost 
everybody agrees that the starting place is more drilling to produce 
more American oil for the American economy. That is what we want to get 
some votes on before we turn to other legislation.
  Let me briefly comment about the first vote we are going to have 
tomorrow because this is new. We have already dealt with the so-called 
tax extender program three times now. Tomorrow morning will be the 
fourth time. We are not going to have any different result than we have 
had in the past. So I suggest we get on with the bipartisan 
negotiations to complete our work on that legislation so we can get it 
passed.


                              Media Shield

  Something we haven't taken up yet is this so-called media shield 
bill. I am not going to go through all the arguments about it, but 
simply to point out the history of it and describe what it does and why 
it is so problematic.
  This basically says that reporters don't have to disclose their 
sources if they don't want to. You can imagine a lot of bad things will 
happen as a result of that. People break the law for disclosing very 
highly classified information. The reporter says: I am not going to 
tell you, Mr. FBI Agent, who did that. Yes, I know who did it--it is 
against the law--but I am not going to tell you. And this bill would 
provide the protection for that.
  The first problem is it doesn't even define media in a way with which 
everyone can agree. We don't know whether a blogger, who is trying to 
put material out on the blogs, is in the media, whether a reporter for 
some kind of terrorist newsletter is a member of the media or what. 
They have tried and tried to get a good definition. It is very 
difficult to do.
  When the bill was in the Judiciary Committee, on which I sit, it was 
not a perfect bill. Back then people said: Yes, we need to pass this; 
we need to not change a comma in it. I think there were 10 or 12 
amendments adopted that day. Clearly, it needed work. Most of those 
amendments had strong bipartisan, if not unanimous, support, and we 
agreed at the end of the process that it needed more work. Since then, 
there have been a lot of meetings held to try to refine the bill.
  I take my hat off to Senator Arlen Specter who has tried very hard to 
find a way to resolve some of the problems that have been raised. At 
the end of the day, the Attorney General of the United States, Attorney 
General Mukasey, the intelligence community, and the White House have 
all raised very serious doubts and problems about the bill.
  Let me refer to some of the things that have been said about it. The 
Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates, wrote at the end of March this 
year that ``the Department of Defense is concerned that this bill will 
undermine our ability to protect national security information and 
intelligence sources and methods, and could seriously impede 
investigations of unauthorized disclosures.''
  The problem I just identified. Because of that, of course, President 
Bush is expected to veto the bill.
  Very recently--I think yesterday--the Director of National 
Intelligence, Mike McConnell, published in USA Today an op-ed in which 
he described some of the problems he has with the bill, one of many 
commentaries. Here is what he said:

       I have joined the attorney general, the Secretaries of 
     Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, and Treasury, and every 
     senior intelligence community leader in expressing the 
     belief, based on decades of experience, that this bill will 
     gravely damage our ability to protect national security 
     information. Unauthorized disclosure of classified 
     information disrupts our efforts to track terrorists, 
     jeopardizes the lives of intelligence and military personnel 
     and inhibits international cooperation critical to detecting 
     and preventing threats.

  It is not just our intelligence community and Government sources. 
Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of 
Manufacturers circulated a letter expressing ``deep reservations with 
the way the current version of the media shield bill, S. 2035, applies 
to the private sector. As drafted, it would have significantly adverse 
ramifications on the ability of Americans to legitimately protect 
personal and proprietary information and we must oppose the bill in its 
current form.''

  It is interesting, despite all of these issues that have been raised 
by a variety of private groups and all of the national defense and 
intelligence community of our Government, there has not been a single 
hearing during the 110th Congress on this legislation, let alone a 
hearing on the general need for the media shield legislation. It is 
obviously not ready for prime time.
  Let me mention one problem--and I will speak more on this tomorrow--
to illustrate some of the other problems the bill has, one illustration 
of what additional work needs to be done. This is one that could easily 
be resolved, and I don't understand why the sponsors of the legislation 
would not be willing to deal with it.
  The bill fails to provide an exception to the privilege for 
information necessary to investigate a terrorist attack. Let me repeat 
that. You could not investigate a terrorist attack under the exclusion 
that is provided in the bill. The committee-reported bill would only 
provide an exception in section 5 for ``protected information that a 
Federal court has found . . . would assist in preventing an act of 
terrorism,'' or ``other significant and articulable harm to national 
security.''

[[Page S7614]]

  I raised this question in a hearing. The exception makes no mention 
of information that would assist in investigating a terrorist attack or 
other significant event. It only talks about preventing. This is the 
kind of thing that could be fixed, and I don't understand why the 
authors of the bill wouldn't be willing to fix it.
  Under the form in which it would be brought forward, obviously the 
majority leader would fill the parliamentary tree, there would be no 
opportunity for amendments, and we would be stuck on a take-it-or-
leave-it basis with a piece of legislation that is highly flawed, 
totally criticized by the intelligence community and many in the 
private sector, as well.
  The point, of course, is that the Democratic leader is simply 
throwing legislation out on the floor with the hope that somehow or 
another we will be able to divert attention from the subject of energy, 
the bill we are currently on. We should neither vote for cloture for 
the media shield bill nor the tax extenders bill nor any other piece of 
legislation, as I said, until we complete our work on energy. We could 
do that in a matter of 2 or 3 days. We can clearly do it before we 
leave here in August. But under no circumstances should we leave the 
important Energy bill to go off onto a piece of legislation such as 
this media shield bill.
  I hope when we have the cloture vote tomorrow, my colleagues will 
join me in voting no on cloture on this legislation so we can deal with 
the No. 1 priority of the American people, and that is our energy 
crisis in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an important issue 
related to my responsibilities as chair of the Coast Guard and 
Fisheries Subcommittee in the Commerce Committee. I see some of my 
colleagues on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks, Senator Dorgan be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Murray 
for 10 minutes, and Senator Salazar for 10 minutes. Knowing that my 
colleague, Senator Specter, is expected to show, when he shows up we 
will fit him in the sequence back and forth, depending on when he shows 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         New Orleans Oil Spill

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, last week over 400,000 gallons of fuel 
spilled into the Mississippi River near New Orleans after a chemical 
tanker collided with a fuel barge and literally split the barge in 
half.
  This is a picture depicting the Coast Guard looking at the two halves 
of this barge that was split in half right in the heart of New Orleans, 
causing serious damage in the area from diesel and diesel fumes, even 
impacting the French Quarter.
  Now, the second chart shows the impact of that spill on downtown and 
the seriousness of that spill in the region. This major spill has 
closed the Mississippi River from New Orleans to the river's mouth, 
choking off one of the Nation's most important major commercial 
arteries. Even now, a week later, only a few ships can get through on 
this 100-mile stretch of the lower Mississippi.
  As the picture shows from the night of the accident, the mighty 
Mississippi was covered with this eerie sheen right in the downtown 
area of New Orleans. Now, a week later, some of the heavy fuel oil has 
turned into tar balls, bouncing and sticking and contaminating this 
waterway. The spill has slowed down New Orleans' normally thriving 
waterfront, and the economic impact is already being felt. To put this 
tragedy into perspective, the economic loss from a total shutdown of 
the port would cost our Nation's economy around $270 million a day.
  While the Coast Guard has begun to allow limited essential vessel 
traffic back into this area, at one time point over 800 tugs and barges 
were impacted by the spill, and many ships are still waiting to return 
to this vital transportation corridor that needs to be reopened. We are 
only now beginning to understand fully the economic and environmental 
impacts this spill has caused.
  Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues know, these sorts of spills 
are becoming all too frequent. Last November, the Cosco Busan cargo 
ship spilled 54,000 gallons of highly toxic bunker fuel into San 
Francisco Bay, costing well over $50 million in cleanup costs.
  Hurricane Katrina and Rita caused spills totaling nearly 8 million 
gallons, released throughout the Gulf of Mexico region.
  In December of 2004, the Selendang Ayu broke apart, pouring 350,000 
gallons of oil into the waters off the Aleutian Islands, killing 
countless sea birds and marine mammals and sea otters.
  In 2004, in my home State, the oil tanker, Polar Texas, spilled 1,000 
gallons of crude oil into the Puget Sound. This spill in the Dalco 
Passage cost millions of dollars to clean up and was a real wake-up 
call to many of my Washington constituents.
  As I know the Presiding Officer, Senator Lautenberg, is aware, 
because he has been a great champion over strengthening the oil spill 
prevention safety net, the oil tanker, Athos, spilled over a quarter-
million gallons of crude oil into the Delaware River and its 
tributaries in November of 2004.
  As chair of the Commerce Subcommittee with jurisdiction over oil 
spill issues and the Coast Guard, I want my colleagues to know the 
Commerce Committee has been working hard to try to give the Coast Guard 
the tools it needs to prevent these spills and to respond quickly and 
effectively when a spill happens. Over the last few years, the 
committee has held several hearings and has asked for and received 
information from the Coast Guard and Government Accountability Office, 
and worked to help understand and update the Nation's oil spill 
prevention safety net.
  We worked hard to develop a thoughtful and balanced piece of 
legislation that would help prevent more of these tragic spills from 
happening again. Almost exactly 1 year ago, after months of bipartisan 
negotiations, the Commerce Committee unanimously reported the 2007 
Coast Guard authorization bill, which contains many of these oil 
prevention provisions. I would like to thank Ranking Member Stevens for 
his thoughtful improvements and his strong support of these vital 
provisions, which would update the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
  Even though we have this bipartisan bill before us that has come out 
of the Commerce Committee, and even though it is critical to our 
national security and emergency preparedness, it is still being 
subjected to the same kind of obstructionism from a handful of Senators 
who don't want to move forward on the legislation, a situation we are 
becoming all too familiar with on the Senate floor. In this case, the 
bill is being held hostage by one or two Senators who seem interested 
in stopping its progress. They do not seem to care that it has the 
support of the Bush administration's Department of Homeland Security, 
which stated it ``strongly supports'' this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Department of Homeland Security letter to the chairman, Daniel 
Inouye, and the vice chair, Ted Stevens, from Donald Kent, Assistant 
Secretary, Office of Legislative Affairs.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Department of Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2008.
     Hon. Daniel Inouye,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Vice Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
         Transportation, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Stevens: This letter 
     sets forth the Department of Homeland Security's views on S. 
     1892, the ``Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2008.''
       As noted in the Department's September 20, 2007, views 
     letter, the Department strongly supports S. 1892, as reported 
     by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. As 
     the Senate prepares to take up the measure, the Department 
     urges the Committee to review anew the Department's 
     objections that are set forth in that views letter and 
     prepare amendments that would address the concerns of the 
     Department and the Coast Guard.
       The Department urges the Committee to seek amendments that 
     would further perfect two of the three key Administration 
     initiatives (i.e., sec. 201 (Vice commandant; vice admirals) 
     and sec. 916 (Protection and fair treatment of seafarers)). 
     Specifically, the Department would strongly support 
     amendments that, with regard to sec. 201, would

[[Page S7615]]

     provide for the treatment of incumbents during the period of 
     transition and, with regard to sec. 916, would allow the use 
     of community service moneys to provide necessary support for 
     other seafarers who have been abandoned in the United States.
       The Department also urges the Committee to reject any 
     future amendment to the Coast Guard Authorization Act that 
     would prescribe the manner in which the Coast Guard executes 
     missions, affects or divests the Service of its adjudicatory 
     functions, prescribes the qualifications of Coast Guard 
     officers, imposes reporting requirements that attribute 
     expenditures to a single mission area, or prescribes 
     acquisition practices harmful to the interests of the 
     Government that would otherwise cause the Administration, the 
     Department, or the Coast Guard to object strongly to the 
     bill. From the viewpoint of the Department and the Coast 
     Guard, the absence of such language reflects positively on 
     the Committee and the institutional role of the Senate. The 
     Department applauds the Committee's past and future efforts 
     to ensure that S. 1892 remains free of such and like 
     language.
       Both the Department and the Coast Guard appreciate the 
     Committee's willingness to work amicably with all parties to 
     pass a bill that would enhance the organizational efficiency 
     and operational effectiveness of the Coast Guard, yet 
     preserve the Commandant's authorities as Service Chief. The 
     Department is confident that, during further congressional 
     consideration, the Committee, the Department, and the Coast 
     Guard can agree on language to address the Senate's 
     objectives, as well as the Department's and the Coast Guard's 
     concerns.
       The Department and the Coast Guard deeply appreciate your 
     efforts to resolve those issues that preclude the Senate from 
     taking up and passing the measure. The Department stands 
     ready to assist you in this endeavor.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this report to Congress.
       I appreciate your interest in the Coast Guard and the 
     Department of Homeland Security, and I look forward to 
     working with you on future homeland security issues. If I may 
     be of further assistance, please contact the Office of 
     Legislative Affairs.
           Sincerely,

                                           Donald H. Kent, Jr.

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                    Office of Legislative Affairs.

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I also want to make sure people 
understand the Coast Guard and its commandant, Admiral Thad Allen, have 
been working hard to see this legislation passed. In fact, Admiral 
Allen has made the statement: ``The swift enactment of these provisions 
would significantly improve safety, security, and stewardship in the 
maritime domain.''
  But these Senators refuse to meet with the Coast Guard Commandant who 
wants to at least have a chance to explain why he needs this 
legislation to pass so the Coast Guard can do the critical job of 
securing our Nation's waterways.
  Let me take a moment to describe why this bipartisan legislation is 
so important. First, it would require the Coast Guard to have rules in 
place for how it needs to respond to any kind of wreckage or salvage 
operation, such as the wreckage in the Mississippi River from the 
incident last week. Because no strict guidelines are in place as to the 
amount of time it takes to respond to oil spill wreckage, a barge, such 
as the one in the Mississippi, could be left for many days in the 
middle of the river.
  Another section of the legislation addresses human error. We don't 
know what caused this spill yet, although we know there was not a 
properly licensed pilot in the tug pulling the barge, and we do know 
human error is the cause of many spills. In fact, the bill requires the 
Coast Guard to take into consideration human error causes of spills and 
how best to address them.
  The Coast Guard would also benefit from the fact that NOAA's oil 
spill response program would get up to an additional $15 million per 
year from the oil spill liability trust fund. This program is currently 
on the ground helping with the oil spill in Louisiana, but they are 
limited in their ability because of severe budget constraints. So 
certainly having this bill passed would have helped in the response in 
New Orleans.
  There are other significant measures that will help in improving our 
Nation's oil spill prevention safety net. So I hope my colleagues can 
help us get this legislation over the goal line because it is 
critically important we do so before we leave for the August recess.
  It provides the Coast Guard with the critical resources and authority 
it needs in other areas as well--to fight terrorists, to capture drug 
runners, and to defend our homeland security. So isn't it time to help 
push the Coast Guard into the 21st century and begin planning for the 
challenges of tomorrow, rather than continuing to struggle with the 
challenges of today? And isn't it time we pass this legislation that 
might actually help prevent another oil spill from happening again, 
such as the one in Louisiana, and to give the Coast Guard the tools it 
needs?
  Tomorrow, I will be asking my colleagues for unanimous consent to 
pass this legislation. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who believe in strong tools for the Coast Guard will talk to 
their colleagues and ask them to stop blocking this legislation so we 
can get on with preventing another incident such as this one from 
happening again.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from North Dakota.


                         Beijing Olympic Games

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, a week from Friday we will see the start 
of the Olympics, held every 4 years, where people from all over this 
globe come together and compete on the athletic field. And with the 
start of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, I wish to talk for a moment 
about what is happening today in China.
  I wish to be clear that I have great respect and admiration for the 
Chinese people. I have visited their country and enjoyed long 
conversations. I have had an opportunity to stand on the Great Wall of 
China and understand some of the history of this great country. But no 
one should confuse the Chinese people with their unelected Government. 
The differences I have are with the Government of China regarding human 
rights, the rule of law, and freedom of speech, and they are very 
significant.
  The Government of China was awarded the Games by the International 
Olympic Committee only after it pledged to respect the Olympic Charter 
and to improve its human rights record. The charter of the Olympics 
states that the goal of the Olympic Games should be to promote ``a 
peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.''
  The world had high hopes that China's leaders would ensure that the 
Olympics took place in an atmosphere that advanced freedom and openness 
and reflected genuine progress on human rights. But those hopes have 
been sadly dashed. Human rights conditions, unfortunately, have 
worsened in China.
  Individuals who have publicly spoken out about the Olympics, or who 
have spoken about abuses in China and Tibet, and have been punished or 
harassed as a result include lawyers, bloggers, journalists, community 
activists, NGO workers, Tibetans, Muslims, Christians, parents of 
children who died in earthquakes. The list goes on and on.
  Now, every country that has ever hosted an Olympics has had critics, 
both at home and abroad. China has also had critics of it hosting the 
Games. But instead of being tolerant of dissent, what China has done is 
hit back hard with a combination punch of intimidation and, too often, 
imprisonment.
  I am the cochairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on 
China, and we maintain the most complete database of China's political 
prisoners accessible and searchable by the public. We now have 4,400 
records in that prison database, and I wish to discuss three of those 
prisoners today. I call them Olympic prisoners of conscience.
  The first is Hu Jia. This is a picture of Hu Jia. Hu Jia is a 
courageous activist jailed last December by the Chinese for comments he 
made at a European Parliament hearing. He was invited to speak at the 
hearing, were he made some statements that were critical of his country 
hosting the Games. He was then detained and his wife and infant 
daughter were put under house arrest for several months. In April, Mr. 
Hu was sentenced to 3\1/2\ years in prison for ``inciting subversion of 
state power.'' Since then, his young family continues to be harassed 
and is still under surveillance. Hu Jia is quite ill in a Chinese 
prison, where he is being held for simply speaking his mind at a 
European Parliament hearing.

[[Page S7616]]

  Here is a photograph of Mr. Yang Chunlin. He is a laid-off worker, an 
unemployed worker in China. He has been repeatedly detained for helping 
farmers trying to seek compensation for lost land. Last summer, he 
organized a petition titled ``We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics.'' 
He was subsequently arrested, and he was charged with inciting 
subversion of state power.
  Let me say that again. The charge was ``inciting subversion of state 
power.'' Now in prison, he has reportedly suffered severe beatings, 
which have caused damage to his eyesight.
  Finally, I wish to mention Ye Guozhu. This courageous Chinese citizen 
is pictured in this photo alone, smiling. In 2003, three generations of 
his family have been evicted from their Beijing home to make way for 
the Olympics-related construction. In 2004, he applied for permission 
to organize a protest against other alleged forced evictions in Beijing 
in connection with preparations for the Olympics. Mr. Ye was arrested 
and sentenced to 4 years in prison for provoking and making trouble. 
The charge is ``provoking and making trouble.'' He has reportedly been 
tortured in prison. Having served his sentence, he was finally expected 
to be released from prison this week, but his release has now been 
further delayed, allegedly due to the concerns that he might speak to 
the foreign press during the Olympics.
  The right to speak freely and the right to challenge the Government 
in China, all of these are enshrined in China's constitution. Yet all 
are being violated in the run up to the Olympic Games.
  Now, here is list of 807 cases of political prisoners developed by 
the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, CECC. I have shown the 
photographs of three Chinese prisoners, prisoners who have been 
sentenced to prison terms because they had a determination to speak 
out. They wanted the ability to criticize their Government. This list 
of 807 cases is part of 4,500 case records contained in our database. 
This document is published by the Congressional-Executive Commission on 
China. This particular document has 807 cases of political prisoners, 
all the detailed information on political prisoners known or believed 
to be detained in prison in China. The Commission notes that ``there 
are considerably more cases than these 807 cases. These represent a 
subset of 4,500 case records contained in the political prisoner 
database created by our commission.''

  That database, if anyone is interested, is accessible and searchable 
by the public at www.cecc.gov.
 I have just described the CECC political prisoner database, as well 
as three of the prisoners contained in this document, for this reason: 
A week from Friday, President Bush will be attending the opening 
ceremony of the Olympic Games. Today, President Bush met with four 
Chinese dissidents, including Rebiya Kadeer, Harry Wu and others. I 
commend the President for that meeting. I know he has an interest in 
this issue, the issue of liberty and of freedom of speech in China. But 
I hope and I implore the President not to miss the opportunity of while 
going to the opening ceremony of the games in China, at the same time 
providing the CECC list on political prisoners to the Chinese leaders. 
If the President is going to attend the opening of the Olympics, I 
believe there is a responsibility to make the trip genuinely count, and 
not just to celebrate the Olympics.
  The Olympics are a wonderful way for people around the world to come 
together. All of us support the Olympics. I certainly do. But I believe 
very strongly that the 807 people in China now in prison, contained in 
these records must not be forgotten. I believe strongly the leaders of 
the Chinese Government should continually be confronted with the names 
of these individuals who are imprisoned merely for their belief and 
speech. The Olympic charter talks about respect and human dignity. The 
Chinese Government made representations to the international community 
if it was given the privilege of hosting the Olympics, it would meet 
the test of that charter. Regrettably, it has not.
  Again, I commend President Bush for meeting with the four Chinese 
dissidents today at the White House. I think that was an important 
step. I hope when our President goes to the opening games in China a 
week from Friday, he will take this prisoner list with him--which we 
will send to him tomorrow at the White House--and that he will, when he 
meets with Chinese leaders show them the names of the 807 brave and 
courageous men and women contained in the list, who believe in the 
right of free speech, who desire freedom for themselves and their 
families, who in most cases are unfairly imprisoned for transgressions 
that are things we would take for granted in this country where we have 
such great freedom.
  We will be sending this to the President in the hope that he will 
continue to raise these names with the Chinese Government. In 
conclusion, the Congressional-Executive Commission on China maintains 
the most significant publicly accessible database that exists in the 
world of those who now sit in prisons in China for having the courage 
to speak the truth, for having the courage to do and say the things we 
take for granted every single day in the United States.
  My hope is looking at just one of these cases, and knowing there are 
many more than the 807 in this list, all of us will use the opportunity 
of the Olympcis to say to the Chinese Government: Stop the harassment 
and detention. Stop imprisoning innocent people. Live up to your own 
Constitution's protections for the Chinese people. My hope is our 
country, including our President, will continue to raise these subjects 
with the Chinese leaders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State.


                             Tax Extenders

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in the last year, Americans here at home 
have faced an ever increasing number of challenges--skyrocketing gas 
prices, the mortgage and foreclosure crisis, record job losses, and 
devastating natural disasters. Families are hurting in this country 
today and they need relief right now.
  I have come to the floor this evening because we will soon be voting 
on legislation that will help ease the burden for many of these 
families. We know it is not perfect, but the Jobs, Energy, Families and 
Disaster Relief Act of 2008 will take important steps to create jobs 
and provide disaster relief to flood, tornado, and hurricane victims. 
That bill includes critical provisions that will help our renewable 
energy industry continue to thrive and to shore up our Highway Trust 
Fund as well. It also includes provisions that are important to my home 
State of Washington, including a measure to extend the sales tax 
deduction and help our rural schools.
  I come to the floor this evening to take a few minutes to urge my 
colleagues tomorrow to support this legislation and help get it into 
the hands of our taxpayers and our communities that so desperately need 
it. I will begin by explaining how important it is that we extend the 
sales tax deduction.
  In most States, taxpayers can deduct their State income taxes on 
their Federal tax returns. But people who live in my home State of 
Washington historically have not had that option. Back in 2004 I worked 
with my colleagues from my home State of Washington, Senator Cantwell 
and Congressman Baird, on a measure that temporarily enables taxpayers 
to take an itemized deduction for State and local sales taxes. That 
provision enabled nearly 1 million people to save an average of $519 to 
$575 each and every year. It has helped many of our middle-class 
families pay for school or cars or other major expenses.
  The Washington State Office of Revenue Forecast has told us that the 
sales tax deduction has actually created thousands of new jobs in our 
State. But it was a huge blow to the taxpayers in my home State when 
that sales tax deduction expired in December and then our Republican 
colleagues decided to block a bill that would have extended it for 2 
more years. Tomorrow we will have, finally, another chance. That 
proposal we will vote on would extend this provision to the end of 
2008.
  At a time when so many of our families are struggling to get by, at a 
time when we are looking for innovative ways to stimulate the economy, 
it is vital that we approve that measure tomorrow and establish 
fairness in our State tax system and put money back

[[Page S7617]]

into the pockets of our State taxpayers.
  Another provision in this same bill we will be voting on tomorrow is 
important to help communities in my State and others pay for roads and 
schools and basic services. In Washington State and in other big 
Western States where vast areas of land are owned by the Federal 
Government, States currently lose millions of dollars in tax revenue 
that normally would go to pay for our schools or our local government 
services. In the past, the Federal Government shared the revenue from 
timber sales on our Federal lands to help our States make up for that 
lost revenue. But because timber sales have been decreasing since the 
middle of the 1990s, Congress passed an act called the Secure Rural 
Schools Act, to ensure that our rural communities and counties would 
continue to get the money they need to pay for their schools and their 
roads and provide basic services. That act expired 2 years ago now. 
While we funded it for a year on the fiscal year 2007 supplemental, it 
has not been extended this year, and that means our rural communities 
in my home State and across the West are now struggling to keep their 
school doors open. Some of our counties, in fact, have already been 
sending out pink slips.

  The bill we will vote on tomorrow will again extend that program to 
2011 and adjust the funding formula to make it more equitable and 
increase Payments in Lieu of Taxes to these rural communities and 
counties across the country. This provision is extremely important to 
our rural communities. All of our children deserve an equal opportunity 
to learn, regardless of where they live. That is why the secure rural 
funding program is so important. I hope our colleagues across the aisle 
will join us tomorrow to vote for this.
  I also want to say a few words about the highway trust fund fix, 
which is also in the same bill we will be voting on. The condition of 
the highway trust fund, which helps us pay for all of our highway 
repair and construction across this country as well as mass transit, 
has been deteriorating now for years. Skyrocketing gas prices have made 
an already dire situation worse.
  This year we are going to see the largest recorded decrease in 
highway miles traveled in the last 17 years. As a result of that, the 
highway trust fund is now less than a year away from going bankrupt. 
That is going to leave a lot of critical construction projects in every 
one of our States in peril.
  I, along with Senator Bond, who is the ranking member on my 
Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, have been 
sounding the alarm about the problems facing our highway trust fund for 
almost 2 years now. In January of 2007 we wrote and voiced our concerns 
to Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley on the Finance Committee and 
they promised to help us fix this problem.
  The Senate has now tried twice to move a bill through the Senate to 
fix the highway trust fund for this year, for 2009. There is a broad, 
bipartisan consensus for solution. But, unfortunately, our efforts have 
been blocked repeatedly by a few Senators.
  This bill we will vote on tomorrow, if it passes, will provide enough 
money, $8 billion, to get us through this coming fiscal year. That 
means our construction projects can continue to go forward in every 
single State and it will help us keep as many as 380,000 good-paying 
jobs to continue critical construction and repair projects that will 
make our highways and our bridges safer. That proposal that is in that 
bill will not have any revenue effect. It passed the House on July 23 
by an overwhelming majority and it is vitally important to all of our 
communities that this Senate do the same thing.
  I hope our colleagues join with us tomorrow to invoke cloture and 
move to this bill, this tax extenders bill, so we can put this 
provision in place.
  That same bill also includes a number of other provisions that will 
help ease the burden of the faltering economy for our taxpayers. It 
will extend the tax credits for wind, biomass, geothermal, and other 
renewable energy providers, and help provide stability for that 
developing industry.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the bill is not perfect. 
Unfortunately, we have had to leave out some worthy items. But it is an 
extremely important bill and we are very close to making this 
legislation a reality. We need a few Senators to vote with us tomorrow 
morning.
  I am worried. I come to the floor to speak tonight because I am 
concerned that there are some on the other side of the aisle who seem 
to be willing to play politics, rather than help us bring forward this 
bill that will create jobs and support clean energy and provide tax 
relief for our families. I am here tonight to say this is far too 
important an issue with which to play politics. Not only are all of 
these provisions critically important but they are time sensitive. They 
are time sensitive. At a time when our economy is lagging and so many 
families are struggling, we need to get these programs in place and we 
need them now.
  I hope that tomorrow morning when we vote on the cloture to move to 
this tax extenders bill that our friends on the other side will join 
us, that they will put politics aside and hopefully make American 
families a priority.
  I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to speak 
in support of S. 3335, which is the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster 
Relief Act on which this Chamber will have an opportunity to vote 
tomorrow morning. It is a real, honest solution to how we move forward 
on a variety of challenges that face the Nation today, including the 
huge challenge of energy which we know we face. This has been debated 
for the last several weeks here on the floor of the Senate.
  It is my sincere hope we will be able to join in a strong bipartisan 
vote in support of this legislation, which was crafted in the Finance 
Committee under the leadership of Senator Baucus.
  Through his leadership, this legislation that we will vote on 
tomorrow morning will create the opportunity for us to demonstrate to 
the American people we can, in fact, find solutions to some of the 
major problems that are facing us as a nation today.
  I want to focus, first of all, on the energy tax extenders that are 
included in this legislation. This legislation will help us as we 
address the energy challenges of the Nation by making sure what we do 
is to open the door to one of the cornerstones of alternative fuels and 
energy independence that we need for America.
  It will provide extension of the production tax credit, to the 
investment tax credit, for an industry and for markets that need 
certainty, and that certainty can only be provided by giving the long-
term extensions that are created in this legislation.
  A ``no'' vote on this legislation tomorrow is a disastrous effect to 
an industry that is still in a nascent position, an industry that has a 
horizon where within a few years we can start making some very dramatic 
impacts to the energy needs of America.
  Projections by the experts show that a failure to extend the solar 
and wind tax incentives alone will result in the withdrawal of nearly 
$19 billion in capital investments and the loss of more than 116,000 
jobs in 2009. That is 116,000 jobs in 2009.
  At this point, we look at the pillars of the American economy, and 
they are shaky. Last Saturday, it took a Saturday session, but we were 
able, here in the Senate, with a very strong bipartisan vote, to help 
put one of those pillars of the American economy on a pathway where we 
will be able to strengthen that pillar. That has to do with the housing 
crisis that America has been facing.
  Tomorrow morning we have another opportunity to address another one 
of those pillars that is somewhat shaky, in fact, very shaky, and 
causing a lot of pain to the American consumers and to American 
national security; that is, the issue of energy which is addressed in 
the tax extender package that we will be voting on tomorrow morning.
  When we think about the fact that people are concerned about the 
economy, they are concerned about their jobs, they are concerned about 
the pain at the pump, the fact that we have an opportunity to do 
something about it tomorrow morning, hopefully, will result in the kind 
of resounding bipartisan vote that we saw on the housing package on 
Saturday in this Chamber.

[[Page S7618]]

  All people have to think about is the fact that we need to move 
forward with a new energy future; the fact that if we do not pass this 
energy legislation, just on the energy piece of this legislation, 
116,000 jobs will be lost in 2009. So a ``no'' vote on this legislation 
is essentially saying no to 116,000 jobs that would be created through 
the renewable energy world, including through wind energy, which is 
included within this legislation.
  I want to make sure that everybody understands, my colleagues in the 
Senate, and I know that the Presiding Officer, a distinguished member 
of the Energy Committee, very much understands this reality; that is, 
we are not talking about the theoretical or pie-in-the-sky kind of 
stuff, things that may happen in the year 2050 or in the year 3000.
  This is a picture of a small farm with small wind microturbines that 
are actually producing enough electricity to be able to power the 
entire farm operation. In many retail shopping centers around the 
country, you see these kind of small wind turbines that are creating 
most of the wind power necessary to power those shopping centers across 
America.
  Wind power is here in a very real way, as is solar, as is our 
opportunity to harness the power of biofuels. Let me say in my home 
State of Colorado in the brief time that I have been in Washington, DC, 
I have seen what we have been able to do.
  In 2004, in the State election when I was elected to come to the 
Senate, I was one of the supporters of the renewable portfolio standard 
that created the vision that we would produce 10 percent of our energy 
from renewable energy resources by the year 2015.
  As a result of the passage of that legislation, and as a result of 
the work that the Congress did in 2005 with the Energy Policy Act and 
other legislation that we have passed to create incentives for 
renewable energy, we are making a major difference in my State of 
Colorado. Wind power alone today accounts for over 1,000 megawatts of 
power being produced in my small State of Colorado and 1,000 megawatts 
of power is about the equivalent of three coal-fired powerplants. The 
wind industry tells us we are just beginning.
  For those who have heard and listened to the highly publicized visit 
of T. Boone Pickens to the Congress in the last week, you know what he 
says about wind and how he is investing in wind because we know we can 
harness the power of the wind. It is not some theoretical committee 
possibility. We are doing it in Colorado, we are doing it on farms and 
ranches across the State, and we are even doing it in the cities and in 
the shopping centers across the State. But it is more than wind. It 
also is about solar energy.
  A few years ago there was no solar energy being created in our State. 
Yet, today, a few years later, we have a solar powerplant in my native 
San Luis Valley that is producing about 10 megawatts of power.
  Our military has been leading in many ways in creating a new energy 
future for America. Now Fort Carson has a solar powerplant which is 
providing a significant amount of power to our men and women in uniform 
at Fort Carson. And at Denver International Airport we are about ready 
to plug in what will be a new solar powerplant.
  In Colorado and across the Nation we have shown that we can harness 
the power of the wind, that we can harness the power of the Sun, that 
we can harness the power of biofuels. Those programs are all what is at 
stake when we vote on the cloture motion on the so-called extender 
package.
  What we have done is we said wind energy is important for America, so 
we are going to have an extension that will allow the wind energy 
industry to make plans for the future. We have said biofuels and 
hydropower and biomass are important. In this tax extender package we 
have said that we will provide the tax credits or the tax incentives 
that are necessary for the next 3 years. We have said that solar has 
huge potential and we should put in an 8-year tax credit for solar in 
the United States.

  Again, this is not theoretical work that we are doing, this is real 
work. Places in Arizona, for example, are looking at the construction 
through the Arizona Public Service Company of a 400-megawatt 
powerplant. In my own State we are looking at the possibility of 
expanding our 10-megawatt powerplant in the San Luis Valley up to 100 
megawatts of power.
  So if we can put these kinds of incentives in place with a 2016 
horizon, we are going to make a dramatic difference in terms of how we 
provide energy to our Nation. So I am hopeful that as we move forward 
we will be able to have a strong bipartisan vote in support of this 
energy legislation.


                               Oil Shale

  I wanted to address one issue that the other side has come to the 
floor often and talked about for the last 2 weeks; that is, the issue 
of oil shale. I think as we deal with this energy crisis that we find 
ourselves in today we need to be honest and straightforward and 
truthful with the American people. And that means one of the things we 
ought to require of ourselves as public servants is that we ought not 
to be about phantom solutions. We ought not be about propounding 
phantom solutions that we know are not true because for some reason 
they become politically expedient for someone running for political 
office.
  We need to be truthful with the American people. One of those 
phantoms that has been talked about for hours endlessly on the floor of 
the Senate has to do with the potential of oil shale where I have seen 
many of my colleagues with their charts coming out of the cloakroom 
across the aisle, saying there are some 2 trillion barrels of oil that 
are locked up in the oil shale of the Rockies; 80 percent of that on 
the western slopes of Colorado.
  So because it is in my State, I have taken it upon myself to know 
about oil shale, to study the booms and busts that have come with oil 
shale for at least 100 years. I would only say that we are a long ways 
from developing oil shale and creating gas or diesel out of oil shale 
or other kinds of fuel that we can actually use in America. The 
technology simply is not there.
  Oil shale is shale. It is oil that is locked up in rock.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have an additional 4 
minutes to complete my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, oil shale is oil that is trapped in rock. 
It is different from the tar sands of Canada today where you can 
easily, through the technologies that have been developed, create and 
produce millions of barrels of oil.
  It is different than oil sands which exist in other places around the 
world. Oil shale is shale. It is rock. It is hydrocarbon that is locked 
up in that rock, and 100 years of trying and billions of dollars for 
research and development to try to figure out how to take the 
hydrocarbon out of that rock has not gone anywhere. Yet that does not 
mean we should all shut the door to the potential of developing oil 
shale. And someday we may.
  In fact, I was one of the people who helped put together the 2005 
Energy Policy Act that created a research and development program, 
which is well underway in my State of Colorado, to determine whether we 
can develop this oil shale in the ground.
  But we have a number of questions which have not yet been answered. 
So it is not a panacea for anybody to come over here to the floor of 
the Senate today and say that oil shale--somehow we are going to wave a 
magic wand and all of a sudden that is going to deal with the pain at 
the pump today. It simply is not because we do not yet know how to take 
the hydrocarbon out of this rock.
  The oil companies themselves--Chevron Oil--said this not so long ago, 
on March 20 of 2008. Chevron, an oil company most people are familiar 
with, Chevron and what it does, said:

       Chevron believes that a full-scale commercial leasing 
     program should not be made at this time without clear 
     demonstration of commercial technologies.

  That was Chevron in March of this year. Last week, notwithstanding 
what the industry is saying about oil shale, the Department of the 
Interior decided that it would move forward and that it would attempt 
to develop the oil shale through a commercial leasing program. Even 
within those comments of the Department of the Interior, the BLM said 
on July 22, 2008--this is the agency of our Federal Government that is 
going to be responsible for developing commercial oil shale:


[[Page S7619]]


       It is not presently known how much surface water will be 
     needed to support future development of an oil shale 
     industry. Depending on a need, there could be a noticeable 
     reduction in local agricultural production and use.

  We do not know whether it is 100,000 acre feet or 200,000 acre feet 
or 1 million acre feet. We simply do not know. Finally, the BLM also 
said on that same day:

       The lack of a domestic oil shale industry makes it 
     speculative to project the demand for oil shale leases, the 
     technical capability to develop the resource, and the 
     economics of producing shale oil.

  I conclude by simply saying that as we look at energy solutions for 
this very difficult challenge America faces today, let's focus on real 
solutions. Let's not focus on phantom solutions.
  One of the real solutions we will be voting on tomorrow will be the 
energy provisions of the tax extender bill that will embrace a new 
energy frontier with what is the cornerstone of energy independence 
that says alternative fuels are one of the ways in which we will get to 
that energy independence.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Jobs, Energy, 
Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008, S. 3335. Earlier versions of 
this bill failed to overcome minority opposition. But now is the time 
for the Senate to pass this legislation in an expeditious manner.
  This narrowly targeted and fair-minded bill contains several 
important provisions. Some of these provisions will help promote 
economic fairness. For example, this bill extends critical tax relief 
for working families and college students. Moreover, this legislation 
will help incentivize the development of alternative energies that will 
reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil.
  In addition, I support this bill because it contains provisions to 
help repair our Nation's aging infrastructure, provide relief for 
Americans suffering from recent natural disasters, and require parity 
for mental health care treatment with other medical treatment.
  One of the noteworthy provisions in this legislation relates to an 
issue that is important to constituents in my home State of Virginia--
namely the research and development tax credit--referred to as the 
``R&D'' tax credit. This bill will extend the R&D tax credit for 
another year.
  As most of my colleagues know, Congress originally enacted the 
temporary R&D tax credit in 1981. Expenditures for R&D go to wages paid 
to employees performing qualified research activities, as well as 
supplies used to conduct this research. Since 1981, U.S.-based research 
and development have had a track record of spurring U.S.-based 
innovation.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia has helped to lead the innovation 
revolution. Since the 1980s, small and large businesses across Virginia 
have thrived. Many of these Virginia businesses engage in fields such 
as information technology, telecommunications, manufacturing, computer 
software, aerospace, and energy. A renewed R&D tax credit extension 
will help Virginia's businesses continue to compete effectively around 
the world and help protect Virginia's economy.
  As Virginia's research-driven companies have flourished, many 
Virginians have found employment in the R&D field. These jobs 
traditionally are stable, high-paying jobs that have helped to 
strengthen not only Virginia's business sector but also Virginia's 
families and communities.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia is among the top States ranked by number 
of firms engaged in R&D activity. Virginia's industrial R&D activity 
totals over $2 billion per year. And my home State is among the top 
States contributing to our Nation's R&D performance.
  If Congress allows the R&D tax credit to lapse, the consequences will 
be large. The lapse of the tax credit could cost the American economy 
tens of millions of dollars per day, as companies delay or cancel R&D-
related activities. Many of our Nation's overseas competitors--
including China and several European nations--offer an R&D tax credit 
and would gain a big competitive advantage over the United States. 
Failure to renew the R&D tax credit would allow our foreign competitors 
to attract researchers and facilities at the expense of U.S. research. 
But most importantly, if Congress does not renew this much-needed tax 
credit, we will see more Americans lose their jobs at a time when 
hardworking families already are suffering.
  On three occasions this year, many Senators have thwarted the 
majority leader's attempts to begin debate on tax extenders 
legislation. I ask my colleagues this time to allow this tax 
legislation--including the R&D tax credit--to move toward final 
passage. Let us work together to keep our R&D sector competitive and 
let us support policies that will drive the next generation of American 
innovation.

                          ____________________