[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14984-14987]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent there now 
be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up 
to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, since we will be proceeding to the Voting 
Rights Act tomorrow morning at 9:30, I thought you would be interested 
to know, since you are on the Judiciary Committee, there will be no 
executive committee meeting because Senator Leahy and I cannot be in 
two places at the same time. There will be no executive meeting 
tomorrow at 9:30. We will try to have a meeting off the floor if we can 
to pass out the judges.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning 
business for up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized for 20 minutes.


                             OIL ROYALTIES

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last week a group of Senators announced 
they had reached an agreement to open more offshore areas to oil 
drilling. For the first time, they would allow nearby States, under 
their proposal, to share in the oil royalties from drilling in Federal 
waters.
  I have come to the floor tonight to say that while I am very hopeful 
the Senate can come to agreement on a plan that provides significantly 
more relief to the areas that have been ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, I 
am also hopeful that the Senate will use this opportunity to finally 
address a current program, a current royalty relief program, that is 
out of control and is diverting billions of dollars away from the 
Federal Treasury.
  What the Senate is going to confront, apparently next week, is the 
prospect that while there is a royalty relief program now that needs to 
be fixed and has not been fixed, the Senate is going to start a new 
royalty relief program.
  Usually, the first thing you do is fix the program that is not 
working today before you start anything else. Apparently, some would 
not be supportive of that taking place. I am one who sees this 
otherwise.
  I also think if you can fix the current royalty relief program, where 
the Government Accountability Office says $20 billion to possibly $60 
billion is being wasted, you could use that money from the current 
program--that even the sponsor, our respected former colleague, Senator 
Bennett Johnston, says is out of control--you could use that money from 
the current program, that wastes so much money, and get some of that to 
these areas that have been ravaged by Katrina.
  There were two floods, in effect, that the Congress must now 
confront. First, we have to help rebuild the States of Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama that were destroyed by the storm surge of 
August 29 of last year. But the second flood that needs to be stemmed 
is the flood of billions of dollars of oil royalties that have gone 
into the pockets of the world's largest oil companies at a time when 
they have enjoyed extraordinary profits. They have enjoyed tremendous 
profits. We have seen extraordinary prices, and yet they continue to 
get these great subsidies.
  As I say, if we can clean up the current royalty program, which is so 
inefficient that even its sponsor thinks is out of control, we will 
have more money to help these flood-ravaged areas of the gulf that are 
the legitimate concern of all of my colleagues from those States.
  The existing oil royalty giveaways have grown over the years to 
become

[[Page 14985]]

the biggest oil subsidy of all and one of the largest boondoggles that 
wastes taxpayer money of any Federal program.
  The General Accountability Office estimates that at a minimum the 
Federal Government and the taxpayers are going to be out $20 billion in 
lost revenues. If the Government loses pending lawsuits, that amount 
could reach as high as $80 billion. This comes at a time when, 
according to the Congressional Research Service, the oil companies are 
enjoying record profits.
  It will be very difficult to explain to the American public how 
Congress can be proposing to allow additional billions of dollars of 
royalty money to be given away before it first puts a stop to what is 
already going out the door.
  Now, in opening this discussion tonight--I expect the Senate will 
look at this formally next week--I want to be very clear in saying that 
I understand the need of the gulf States to secure Federal funds to 
restore their coastlines and rebuild their communities. There is no 
question that Katrina and Rita flattened New Orleans and other 
communities up and down the gulf coast, and that there is a clear need 
for all Americans, including my constituents at home in Oregon, to be 
part of going to bat for our fellow Americans.
  But I do hope, fervently, that as the Senate looks to find additional 
resources for these gulf States, the Senate will not be given a false 
choice between either aiding the gulf States or standing up for the 
public interest in the face of the outrageous oil company windfalls now 
being paid for today. We can and should do both.
  Helping the victims of Katrina is not mutually exclusive from helping 
taxpayers. It is possible to do both. And as I have outlined, if you 
clean up the oil royalty giveaway that is on the books today, that is 
so inefficient, you can take those dollars and give some of them to 
folks in the gulf States that are suffering.
  Mr. President, my seatmate, Senator Landrieu, for whom I have the 
greatest respect, is from the great State of Louisiana, and she and 
other colleagues from the gulf States have come to the floor again and 
again and again to describe eloquently the devastation their States 
have faced from these hurricanes. Senator Landrieu has been a tireless 
advocate for her State. They have made a compelling case why Congress 
and the American people ought to provide real assistance to these 
communities.
  Like my colleagues, like Senators of both parties, I want to help the 
hurricane victims in the gulf rebuild. But I also do not want to 
continue wasting taxpayer money in unnecessary giveaways to oil 
companies that have been raking in gushers of cash in the past few 
years.
  As I indicated earlier when we talked about this subject at length on 
the floor of the Senate, the mistakes that were made in the current 
royalty relief program have been bipartisan. Certainly, the Clinton 
administration muffed the ball back in the 1990s when they did not step 
in and put a solid price threshold on this program. That caused a 
significant amount of money to be given away. But the mistakes made by 
the Clinton administration were compounded by Secretary Gale Norton in 
the Bush administration, and also by the Congress in the energy bill, 
which continued to sweeten the current royalty relief program.
  So citizens and taxpayers have a bit of history: The current oil 
royalty relief program, which is such a colossal waste of taxpayer 
money, began when oil was $19 a barrel, and has been continuing at a 
time when oil has been well over $70 a barrel.
  So I think it is important for the Senate to look at ways to provide 
additional help to the needs of the gulf States without turning a blind 
eye to this boondoggle that is on the books today--the oil royalty 
giveaway program that came about in the 1990s.
  A possible solution to the current predicament is to use some of the 
money from the program, which does not work, to try to provide an 
additional boost of funding for the gulf States at present. Reforming 
the current royalty program could provide more money for areas hit by 
hurricanes and possibly other urgent priorities.
  As long as we are on that subject, I would very much like to see some 
of the money that now goes to this inefficient oil royalty giveaway 
program used for the Secure Rural Schools legislation that is so 
important in my home State and much of the West and the South.
  The oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal 
Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. But in order to 
stimulate production of oil in our country--this was back when oil was 
$19 a barrel--the Federal Government has been giving oil producers what 
has been known as royalty relief for some period of time.
  Royalty relief is a nice way of saying that the oil companies are 
taking something from the American people without paying for it. That 
relief now amounts to billions of taxpayer dollars that are given away 
to companies that do not need them.
  In fact, the President has said that with the price of oil at $55 a 
barrel, companies do not need incentives at all to drill for oil. That 
is the President of the United States, not some anti-oil advocate. The 
President of the United States has said that you do not need incentives 
with the price of oil above $55 a barrel. In fact, with prices shooting 
up to more than $75 a barrel--more than $20 higher than the price the 
President said meant there should not be any subsidies--I do not see 
how you can make a case at all for the current out-of-control oil 
royalty giveaway.
  I am not the only person who is making this argument. For example, in 
May, a few weeks after I spent about 5 hours on the floor talking about 
this program, the other body, the House, held a historic vote to put an 
end to taxpayer-funded royalty giveaways to profitable oil companies. 
The House of Representatives, the other body, voted overwhelmingly, on 
a bipartisan basis, to put a stop to this waste of taxpayer dollars.
  So what I spent 5 hours talking about on the floor of the Senate 
earlier this year--and Senators were saying: What is the point of this? 
What are going to be the implications? I think it is important to note 
that a few weeks after I took that time on the floor of this great 
body, the other body voted overwhelmingly to cut these unnecessary 
subsidies.
  Even officials in the oil industry are saying that you cannot make a 
case for this multibillion-dollar subsidy at this time. The architect 
of the program, our respected former colleague, Senator Bennett 
Johnston, has said that what has taken place with respect to the 
royalty relief program is far removed from what he had in mind when he 
wrote the program.
  Now, I believe the Senate ought to have another opportunity to debate 
and vote on the oil royalty issue, just as the other body did this 
spring. I was unable, earlier this year, despite being close to 5 hours 
on the floor, to even get an up-or-down vote on my proposal to stop 
ladling out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies to the 
oil industry.
  It seems to me if the U.S. Senate is going to vote on a new royalty 
scheme that will involve, again, enormous sums of money, the Senate 
certainly should have the opportunity to vote on reforming the existing 
program at that time.
  We are, of course, in the middle of the summer driving season. This 
is a time of the year when our citizens drive more, as they go on 
summer vacations, when demand for gas goes up, and when prices at the 
pump continue to escalate. I am sure our citizens, who are now facing 
the highest gas prices ever at this time of the year, will be 
interested to know when the Senate will have a chance to vote on the 
question of whether, at this time of record prices, oil companies 
making record profits should continue to get record taxpayer subsidies 
in the form of royalty relief.
  Along with several colleagues, I have written to the distinguished 
majority leader asking for the Senate to hold an up-or-down vote on 
ending royalty relief to profitable oil companies before the August 
recess. I will continue to press for a floor vote on reforming the

[[Page 14986]]

oil royalty program at the earliest possible opportunity. I am going to 
do everything I can to see that this vote happens in a fashion that 
will expedite aid to the people and communities in the Gulf States who 
await our best efforts.
  It is my understanding that the legislation to open up more offshore 
areas to oil drilling will come up under expedited procedures next 
week. I am going to work with colleagues who I know have a great 
interest in this. I have already spoken with Senator Kyl, for example, 
who helped me greatly when we tried to roll back the oil royalty 
program earlier this year. I have also spoken with Senators Lott and 
Landrieu and Chairman Domenici. I will continue to have those 
discussions. I simply wanted to take the time tonight, with the Senate 
having completed business for the week, to go through some of the 
implications of this offshore oil drilling program that will be debated 
next week.
  What it comes down to is, before you start a brandnew program that 
will involve vast sums, you ought to clean up one that is on the books 
today and is currently out of control, wasting billions of dollars, 
according to the Government Accountability Office. Secondly, if you 
clean up the program that doesn't work today, you save some dollars and 
you can apply them to those devastated gulf States which have such a 
great need.
  I intend to talk about this further next week. I do think it is time 
for the Senate to start thinking about the implications of what happens 
if you start a new program and you haven't fixed the one on the books 
today that even its author thinks is completely out of control and far 
removed from what he intended.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we have the opportunity to do 
something very important for a precious national resource: our 
children.
  We must seize this opportunity and approve H.R. 4472, the Adam Walsh 
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
  As the father of six and the grandfather of 22, and about to be 23, 
my heart reaches out to parents whose children become the victims of 
sexual predators.
  I cannot imagine what a nightmare that must be.
  And as a legislator, I want to assure those parents that we are doing 
all we can to make certain this never happens again.
  I am very confident that due to passing this legislation, there will 
be fewer sex offender victims in America, and fewer sex offenders 
roaming free.
  This bill has enjoyed vast bipartisan support. When Senator Biden and 
I first introduced the legislation in the Senate, in the form of S. 
1086 the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act--42 Senators 
quickly signed on as cosponsors.
  In particular, I thank for their support my colleague from Utah, Bob 
Bennett, and Senator Grassley. I also thank Representative Mark Foley 
who introduced a companion bill in the House and Chairman Jim 
Sensenbrenner, who moved this through the House Judiciary Committee.
  Majority Leader Bill Frist and Speaker Hastert are to be applauded 
for coming together to make sure this bill passed. I thank them all.
  Technology of the 21st century, such as DNA testing, has empowered 
law enforcement to identify, prosecute, and punish sex offenders--the 
most despicable of criminals--as never before.
  But advanced technology has also empowered sexual predators in way 
that outrages and disgusts me.
  Some have compared the Internet to an ``open game preserve'' where 
sex offenders can prey on vulnerable children, meeting them in chat 
rooms and luring them into horrible situations.
  Pedophiles use the web to hunt our children; now we will start using 
the web to hunt down sexual predators when this bill passes.
  Today, there are more than 500,000 registered sex offenders in the 
United States.
  Unfortunately, many of them receive limited sentences and roam 
invisibly through our communities.
  With too many, we don't know where they are until it is too late.
  We have tried tracking sex offenders through Web sites before, but 
these sites are virtually useless because the information is frequently 
wrong and outdated.
  Most offenders register once a year, by mail. Moreover, state Web 
sites do not correspond with each other, and sex offenders are under 
penalty of only a misdemeanor if they lie or just decide not to 
participate. There are 150,000 out there that we do not know where they 
are.
  This bill will enhance the web technology available for tracking 
convicted sex offenders and replace outdated, inaccurate Web sites with 
meaningful tools to protect children.
  It will be a searchable national Web site that interacts with state 
sites.
  Citizens in every state will be able to inform themselves about 
predators in their communities with accurate information.
  Under this legislation, offenders will be required to report 
regularly to the authorities in person, and let them know when they 
move or change jobs.
  And if they don't want to follow the rules, they will go to jail, 
because failure to provide truthful information will become a felony.
  Those who break such a sacred trust and harm our children, no matter 
who they are, where they are from, or where they commit their crime, 
will have obligations under this law to make their whereabouts known 
voluntarily or subject themselves to additional prison time.
  The bill also provides money to put tracking devices on high-risk sex 
offenders who are released from jail. If we convict these monsters, we 
can't lose track of them.
  These are all common-sense solutions to a dark and horrible problem 
in our society.
  We have all heard with horror the tales of sexual predators.
  One of those tales that has captured national headlines comes from my 
home state of Utah. Elizabeth Smart, then a 14-year-old girl, was 
kidnapped from her home in 2002. Miraculously, she was rescued nine 
months later.
  Since then, she and her father, Ed Smart, have vigorously labored on 
behalf of sex-crime victims and laws to help them, including this law.
  Ed and Elizabeth have joined me in the Senate today. I thank them 
publicly, both for standing up and for fighting back. It means so much 
to all of us.
  I have come to know and love them both, and I am grateful for the 
devotion they have shown for the children of this country.
  This bill will call for the creation of a new office within the 
Department of Justice--called the SMART Office--the Director of which 
will be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. SMART 
is an acronym which represents the reaffirmed efforts of the Justice 
Department to, Sentence--Monitor--Apprehend--Register--and Track, sex 
offenders. It is also named after Elizabeth Smart.
  I thank the Department of Justice for their commitment to the issues 
of sex offenders, child pornography and the creation of the SMART 
Office--and I want to, again, thank the Smart family for their active 
participation in this debate and for helping to move this bill forward.
  This legislation is truly ``smart'' legislation.
  Also included in this legislation are child protection provisions 
first introduced in the House by Representative Mike Pence, and which I 
introduced here in the Senate.
  This legislation will help prevent children from participating in the 
production of sexually explicit material.
  It strengthens current law by requiring producers of sexually 
explicit material to keep records regarding the identity and age of 
performers.
  I thank the Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, who was this 
bill's original cosponsor, and the 29 other Senators, on both sides of 
the aisle, who joined as cosponsors of this bill.
  As my colleagues are aware, Congress previously approved the PROTECT 
Act of 2003 against the backdrop of Department of Justice regulations 
applying

[[Page 14987]]

recordkeeping statutes to both primary and secondary producers.
  Along with the act's specific reference to the regulatory definition 
that existed at the time, this signaled Congress's agreement with the 
Department's view that it already had the authority to regulate 
secondary producers.
  A Federal court in Colorado, however, recently enjoined the 
Department from enforcing the statute against secondary producers, a 
decision that conflicted with a DC court ruling on this point.
  Title V of the Adam Walsh Act will eliminate any doubt that the 
recordkeeping statute applies to both primary and secondary producers. 
It clearly expresses Congress's agreement with the Department's 
regulatory approach and gives the Department the tools to enforce the 
statute.
  I want to thank the American press corps for the attention it has 
given to this issue. News outlets have diligently raised the American 
public's awareness of the grave threat posed by today's sexual 
predators. And the press have followed the lead of John Walsh, host of 
``America's Most Wanted.'' He and his wife, Reve, have waited nearly 25 
years for the passage of this bill.
  Next Thursday, July 27, 2006, marks 25 years since the abduction and 
murder of their son Adam. And on that 25th anniversary, it is our hope 
the President will sign into law legislation that will help law 
enforcement do what John has been doing all along--hunt down predators 
and criminals.
  Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children, along with Robbie Callaway, John Libonati, and 
Carolyn Atwell-Davis were also very prominent spokespeople for this 
legislation, and I want to personally thank them.
  The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is one of the 
unsung heroes in the efforts to stop the abduction, exploitation, and 
murder of children. Their staff works long hours, and their commitment 
to stopping child pornography and sexual assault against kids is hard 
to match.
  I am grateful that the Senate will soon act on this bill. In the 
preamble to our Nation's great Constitution, we the people promise to 
establish justice, promote the general welfare, and provide for the 
common defense. There is no defense more sacred, nor welfare more 
precious, than those of our children.
  Currently, we track library books in this country better than we do 
sex offenders. With this measure, however, law enforcement will have 
the best means possible to protect our Nation's most precious national 
resource: our children.
  Now, I appreciate the help of all of my colleagues. I certainly 
appreciate this time from the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma 
because I wanted to make this statement, and this was a good time to 
make it. I am grateful to him for providing the time. I yield back the 
remainder of my time and ask everybody in the Senate to vote for this 
bill.

                          ____________________