Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I also congratulate our colleagues who have worked tirelessly to ensure the authorization of the exceptionally important Voting Rights ct. This law plays a critical role in ensuring that the right of all Americans to vote is protected. I intend to speak more extensively later on about the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. WYDEN

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today we must reach across the aisle and make a strong bipartisan statement supporting embryonic stem cell research and challenge our scientists to use embryonic stem cells to see if the promise of treatments and cures can be made a reality for the many around our country and around the world who look to this research for hope. The Web site of the National Institutes of Health says it most clearly. That Web site states embryonic ``stem cells have potential in many different areas of health and medical research. To start with studying stem cells will help us to understand how they transform into the dazzling array of specialized cells that make us what we are. Some of the most serious medical conditions such as cancer and birth defects are due to problems that occur somewhere in this process. . . . Pluripotent stem cells offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat a myriad of diseases, conditions and disabilities including Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.'' Scientists believe that Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, and spinal cord injuries are some of the areas that could be helped through embryonic stem cell research. I see no reason embryonic stem cell research should be treated any differently than other research. Some say embryonic stem cell research has not helped to date. Some point out that there has not been much success in stem cell research since it began in 1998. This kind of research has been only done for less than 10 years. That is a nanosecond when it comes to scientific research. In comparison, Congress passed the National Cancer Act in 1971. This was legislation to make ``the conquest of cancer a national crusade.'' That legislation greatly accelerated the pace of cancer research and its translation into treatment. However it was not until 2005, when cancer deaths in the United States declined for the first time since 1930, when the United States started tracking cancer deaths. In the intervening years treatments evolved to help people fight cancer and live longer and better with the disease. Those opposed to this research say that supporters of embryonic stem cell research have overpromised the benefits of the research. Without expanding the research beyond the bounds of current policy, people will never know what might have been. California, New Jersey, Illinois, and a few other States have stepped up to help fund research, but they should not be expected to carry this burden alone. H.R. 810 will give clear the way for researchers to use Federal funding to access other cell lines than the 22 currently approved lines and provide access to other critical tools needed so research in this promising new area can be accelerated to the benefit of all. I urge support for H.R. 810.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago I came to the floor of the Senate and announced I will do everything in my power to block consideration of the major communications overhaul legislation until it includes language that specifically ensures what is called Net neutrality. Now, since this is a new concept, and certainly much of the country probably has not heard these words before and Senators have been asking questions about it, I am going to begin this morning, and intend on other instances to continue the discussion, to start talking about why Net neutrality is so important and why I will do everything in my power to block legislation, major communications legislation, unless it ensures that Net neutrality is preserved. The bottom line about this concept is pretty simple. It means there will not be discrimination on the Internet. Today, after you pay your access charge, your Internet access fee, you get to take your browser and you get to go where you want, when you want, and everybody is treated the same: the mightiest person in the land, the most affluent, and somebody, say, in rural Georgia or rural Oregon who does not have a lot of power and does not have a lot of wealth. The Internet has been a huge step forward, in my view, for democracy, for the proposition our country is based on which is to give everybody a fair shake, where everybody is treated equally. It has meant a real bonanza for our citizens in areas such as education, health, business-- a whole host of fields. There needs to be a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet. And without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate online, in my view, the Internet would be changed forever, for the worse. I intend to do everything in my power to keep that from happening. Since I came to the floor to announce that I will do everything I can to block this legislation in its current form, the phone companies and the major communications lobbies in this country have launched an all- out advertising blitz. They are now spending millions of dollars trying to win passage of this legislation that does not include protection for Net neutrality. They are spending millions of dollars so they can make billions of dollars when they implement a two-tiered system online. They have been telling Wall Street about their plans for some time. The Wall Street Journal, for example, outlined a pay-to-play plan that the phone companies and the cable companies have been talking about in a fairly open kind of fashion. All this discussion suggests there is something of a looming shortage of bandwidth. Of course, bandwidth is the speed at which all the information on the Web travels to the user. But what has not been given enough attention thus far, and what I will talk about this morning and in the days ahead, is that the real Net neutrality fight is not primarily over bandwidth but who is going to call the shots in this country about content on the Web. Content is all the information that is out there on the Web. It includes music, movies, e-mails, newspaper articles and Web sites. Bandwidth speeds are getting faster and faster, allowing all this content to reach the users faster. But bandwidth without content is akin to a swimming pool without water. It is there, but you cannot do anything with it. So the real Net neutrality fight is going to be about content. Now, those who control the pipes--the way you get to the Internet-- also want to control the content. The reason for that is because content is king. What good is one gigabyte Internet connection if you cannot get to the Web sites you want to visit? Legislation that does not have strong Net neutrality protections will mean the American people will face discrimination in content. The Internet has thrived precisely because it is free of discrimination. It has thrived because consumers, and not some huge cable or phone company, get to choose what they want to see and how quickly they get to see it. I do not think there is anything odd about fighting against a bill that will take control of the Internet away from the American people. What the cable and phone executives propose is that instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content, at the same price, they are going to be in a position to cut sweetheart deals, to give somebody they favor a better break than somebody whom they do not look upon in the same way. Those who own the pipes do not want to be told they cannot discriminate. They do not want to be told by the Congress, or anybody else, sweetheart deals are off limits. What I have done is tried to look at the Senate Commerce Committee legislation and compare it to the kinds of concerns I think the American people are going to have with the legislation in its current form. So what I would like to do now is outline three examples of what could happen in our country if communications legislation that allows discrimination on the Internet was allowed to go forward. The first example involves what I am calling the Barns family. The Barns family owns a struggling electronics store. Sales have been hammered lately because a new ``big box'' electronics store opened up down the road. George Barns' son Mike came up with an idea to save the store. He said: We can reach new customers. We will start a Web site to sell our products on the Net. In a world with Net neutrality, the Barns family would pay to access the Internet, create a Web page, and they would be off to the races with their business and looking for opportunities. Under the Commerce Committee bill, in order for the Barns family to launch their Web page in the fast lane so they could get priority access to customers, they could have to pay an additional fee to hundreds, if not thousands, of Internet access providers across the land. Priority access fees are a drop in the bucket for that ``big box'' store that is already hurting the sales of that small business run by the Barns family. If the Barns family can't pay the extra fees, they lose their business to the ``big box'' store, both offline and online. You see how small businesses and people who are trying to make a contribution to the economy compete in the free markets; you are going to see how they are going to have difficulty under this legislation. The second example involves somebody whom I am calling Joe Green. Joe wants to get Internet broadband in his new apartment. Local cable is the only choice for Internet access, and it charges $32.99 for a 1.5- megabyte-per-second connection. In a world with Net neutrality, when Joe buys his connection from local cable, he gets to visit any Web site he wants, when he wants, how he wants. If he wants to download a song, say, from iTunes for a buck, he can do that. If he wants to search the Web using Google or buy a DVD player online, Joe can do that, too. But under the legislation that came from the Commerce Committee, Joe may not be able to do any of those things unless he pays a new priority access charge on top of the $32.99 Internet access charge he is paying already. Unless he pays the additional priority fee, a Web search at Google could take 5 minutes to load because Google is not paying the extra fee to local cable for priority access. Downloading a song--say the download Joe wants to make at iTunes--could cost him more than the buck he is paying because iTunes is passing on the cost of paying local cable the priority access fee that you could charge if the Commerce Committee bill goes forward as written. Joe wants to switch to another broadband provider but guess what. In a lot of communities, there is no choice. Joe is stuck. This is example No. 2 of how the American people are going to get hammered if discrimination is allowed online under this legislation. Let me offer a third example I have developed as I looked at the Commerce Committee bill on overhauling our communications law. The third example involves somebody I have been calling Sally Smith. She is a young computer programmer. She has a great new algorithm for a Web browser that is going to help people access information on the Net faster and in a more user-friendly way. In a world with Net neutrality, Sally can get her idea all over the tech Web sites that exist across the country, and people are going to be able to test it out. If all the people out there in the tech world like Sally's idea, word of her innovation would spread over the Web, across the land, and across the world. Millions of people would be able to download her new Web browser. But under the legislation coming from the Commerce Committee, Sally Smith could be stymied. In addition to what she is already paying for Internet access, Sally is going to have to come up with yet more money to pay for priority access to the Internet fast lane that she so desperately will want in order to test her idea. If she wants her browser to succeed, she is going to be forced to fork over new priority access fees because she knows no one is going to go looking in the slow lane for a good new Web browser. I came to the floor--I have already announced my hold on this legislation, and I will do everything to block this bill until it ensures that the Net in the future will be free of discrimination-- because I wanted to go beyond my original statement to talk about how, under this bill, those who own the pipes to the Net, the phone and the cable people, could extend their reach under this legislation to put a stranglehold on Internet content. According to the business plans, plans that have been published in the Wall Street Journal, that is the direction in which we are headed. Without Net neutrality, the people in these examples I have highlighted--a struggling entrepreneur, somebody getting started in their new home or apartment, a young computer programmer--are going to have real problems getting access to the Web and being able to afford the services that are now within their reach. The big cable and phone lobbies want the public to think Net neutrality is what they call a lose-lose proposition. My view is, no Net neutrality will be the real loss for consumers. It will mean double-barrel discrimination, discrimination in Internet content, and higher prices for the consumers. That is why scores of groups all across the country, all across the political spectrum--groups and people who, I dare say, disagree almost always--are united behind the proposition that the Internet should be free of discrimination. We are going to hear a lot about this issue in the days ahead. We are going to be told constantly that the phone and cable people will not build out the network unless they can sock the consumer and the small businesses with higher access charges. The way the system works today, where there is a true free marketplace, where the mightiest is treated online in the same way someone is treated who doesn't have a lot of money, doesn't have clout, that is the best way to grow the network, to expand communications opportunities, preserve the free marketplace so that people, after they pay that Internet access charge, can go where they want, when they want. Certainly a lot of our competitors around the world, people with whom we will be competing in the marketplace, treat everybody the same online. I can't figure out how we can expect to be competitive in the global marketplace if we start singling out, as I have described in the examples, the small businesses and entrepreneurs for what amounts to two-tiered communications services. They are not going to be able to compete. I want to make sure that somebody who is in a garage, say, in Texas, Oregon, or some other part of the country has the same opportunity to compete against people who are dreaming big in countries around the world. As we discuss this communications issue, there will be a lot of talk about how this is a battle between big communications lobbies--say, the Verizon company and Google. It is sometimes portrayed as a fight between these overdogs, people who have a lot of clout and want to divide up the pie and get more for themselves. Verizon and Google can take care of themselves. They have deep pockets. They have lots of clout. But what I am concerned about are the future Googles, the people who are dreaming, the people with the startups, the people with innovative, cutting-edge ideas who have been able to go online and, as a result, have been successful. That is what the American dream is all about. That is what has made the Internet so exciting. It has created opportunities for those people who are a long way from major financial markets and who don't have deep pockets. I do not want to see the American people face double-barrel discrimination and higher prices on the Net. I don't want to see them not have what they have today, which is a fair shake for all. Equal content gets equal treatment. I am going to stay at it with respect to this legislation as one Senator until we get true Net neutrality principles in the communications bill, until we ensure that the Net is free of discrimination. The reason Net neutrality has become such a lightning rod in the debate about communications is that the Internet is the ball game. The 1996 telecommunications bill barely touched on the Net. In 2006, the Net neutrality debate on the Internet is the ball game because the Internet is how we are going to get all our communications in the future. It means we are going to look first to the Internet, and because it is so central to the future of communications, the Senate ought to insist that the Net be kept free of discrimination. We have done that in the area of taxation. I and other colleagues have said we are not going to allow multiple and discriminatory taxes on the Internet. We ought to make darn sure that it is done in this area as well so that consumers don't get walloped with unnecessarily high prices and deteriorating service. I will continue the fight to hold up this legislation until, for all time, the Net is free of discrimination. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think we all know that during this part of the session the Senate is going to spend considerable time focusing on energy issues. That is certainly warranted because, if there is one thing that can be agreed on, getting a fresh energy policy is just about the most red, white, and blue step our country can take at this critical time. During the course of this debate, one issue that is sure to come up is the issue of oil company profits. The oil companies have consistently said that they need these very large profits in order to have the funds to drill and explore for new energy sources. I certainly feel strongly about developing new energy sources and increasing production, but I have been concerned about the role of government. At a time when the oil companies are making record profits and charging record prices, Congress has still been making available record subsidies. To get some clarity on this issue, I believed it was important to get the Congressional Research Service, the independent authority, to look at these issues, to analyze the question of exactly where the oil companies are putting this gusher of revenue they have accumulated recently. The findings in the new report the Congressional Research Service has given to me are striking. What the Congressional Research Service has found is that the return on equity of the major oil companies has gone up in the last few years six times; the amount of cash reserves of the major oil companies have has gone up, over the same time, about six times; but the amount of money the companies have devoted to exploration and capital investment has only doubled. So what that means, the bottom line, is that the major oil companies are only putting back in the ground a modest fraction of what they have been siphoning away from consumers at the pump across our country. What I would like to do is break down this report and talk about where I believe Congress ought to go on a bipartisan basis in the years ahead. On the issue of return on equity, I asked the Congressional Research Service to examine the years of 1999 to present. They found that, with respect to return on equity for the oil companies, it was about 4.5 percent in 1999 and it is nearly 30 percent as of last year. That is an increase of more than six times over the last 6 years. The Congressional Research Service also looked at the cash reserves of the largest oil companies over the last 6 years. They have found that this, as well, has gone up sixfold. So the companies are clearly sitting on gushers of cash from higher oil prices and higher gas prices that consumers are now paying across the country. I believe it was then appropriate to have the Congressional Research Service analyze what the oil companies are doing with all of this money. Certainly the companies have made the argument that they are investing these profits in exploring for oil and developing new energy technology. That certainly is part of the story, but it is far from the whole picture. According to the Congressional Research Service, the major oil companies have approximately doubled their exploration costs and their overall capital investment over the past 6 years, but that rate of increase is just a fraction of how much their cash reserves and their return on equity have grown over that period. In addition, Congressional Research Service experts indicate that much of the oil companies' capital investment has been for operating expenses, not for increasing production, and much of what they seem to have invested in exploration has gone for overseas exploration. Again, you come back to what I think is the clear conclusion of this particular analysis: The American people are seeing the oil companies put back in the ground just a modest part of what the consumer is coughing up at gas pumps across the land. One of the questions I hope we will ask over this next period of the Senate being in session is, Why are the oil companies not putting some of their burgeoning cash reserves into investment in other technologies, particularly new renewable energy technologies which could help the oil industry diversify and help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy? We ought to examine that issue, and certainly what the Congressional Research Service has done for my office makes a different contribution with respect to this debate and one that I think warrants thorough examination. The Congressional Research Service looked, for me, at the 10-K reports the oil companies file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That is the information which Exxon and BP and Shell and Chevron and ConocoPhillips, Valero and Sunoco and Total report to their investors and to Wall Street. But what is in those 10-Ks that are given over to the Securities and Exchange Commission is not the story the oil companies seem to be telling the American people. The oil companies have been running ads in newspapers, claiming that their profits are in line with those of other industries. For example, the American Petroleum Institute has been running a newspaper ad showing the oil and natural gas industry's earnings of 5.9 cents on a dollar of sales, which is just above the 5.6-percent average for all industries. But suffice it to say, how many of the industries listed in these oil company ads are getting the 30-percent rate of return on equity that the Congressional Research Service has found in the report that I make public today? The oil industry wants the public to believe that the record profits they are making are in line with other businesses, but it seems to me the Congressional Research Service analysis of the oil companies' own reports to the Government tells a very different story. This is particularly important right now because I believe the American people deserve a true accounting of what has been going on behind the numbers at the gas pump and where their hard-earned money has been going for the past several years. The report I release today on oil company financial data shows the oil industry's profits are not only greater than the profits of other businesses, but they also show how the oil companies have not been straight with the American people. I also think it is timely to have this information about oil company profits because of the debate in both the Senate and in the other body about oil royalty giveaways to the oil industry. At a time of record prices, when oil companies are making record profits that are above what other industries are earning, the question is, Should the oil companies continue to get record subsidies from the taxpayers? In May, the House of Representatives held a historic vote to put an end to taxpayer-funded royalty giveaways to profitable oil companies. The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis to put a stop to this waste of taxpayer funds. Just a few weeks before that House vote, I spent nearly 5 hours trying to get a vote here in the Senate on exactly this issue. But despite that extended discussion, I was unable to get an up-or-down vote on my proposal to stop ladling out tens of billions of dollars of unnecessary subsidies to the oil sector. I believe the Senate ought to have an opportunity to debate and vote on the oil royalty issue, and it seems especially timely after the new report the Congressional Research Service has supplied to me. With the Government Accountability Office estimating that tens of billions of taxpayer dollars could be lost as a result of the oil royalty program, this issue is too important to duck. Over the next few weeks, as the Senate debates energy, I am hopeful that the Senate will think carefully about the findings of the independent Congressional Research Service. The Congressional Research Service analysis indicates to me that the oil industry in their advertisements and other promotions is not being straight with the American people. The Congressional Research Service has given us a good sense of where the oil sector is actually putting their money, and at a time when their rate of return on equity--30 percent--is certainly very strong and we look at where their cash reserves are--and they are sitting on piles of money--we are not seeing those dollars put back into exploration and development here in our country so we can have a new red, white, and blue energy policy that makes us independent from sources of foreign oil. Let's work to have a debate in the Senate based on the facts. The Congressional Research Service has now given us illuminating information about what the facts are. Let's make better use of taxpayer dollars than to give away tens of billions of dollars in royalties in a program that began when oil was $19 a barrel and now frequently is well over $70 a barrel. This is a time for the Senate to come together on a bipartisan basis to look at these issues carefully. The Congressional Research Service report provides an opportunity to get the facts out-- the real facts--about what is going on in this critical sector of our economy. I ask unanimous consent that the report of the Congressional Research Service be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus for moving quickly to have the Senate consider the nomination of Henry Paulson. I am convinced he is the right man at the right time. It is my intent to strongly support his nomination and vote for him later in the course of this afternoon. My hope, in particular, as Henry Paulson moves to this vital position, is that he will move quickly to set in place a strategy for reforming our Tax Code. Suffice it to say, a lot has happened to our tax system since 1986, the last time the Tax Code was overhauled. For example, since 1986, there have been more than 14,000 changes to the Tax Code. It comes to three changes for every working day for the last 20 years. There are substantial questions with respect to fairness in the Tax Code. I am one who feels it is critically important that every American have the chance to build and accumulate wealth. That is pretty hard to do, given some of this country's tax policies. For example, this spring, Warren Buffett, who is the second wealthiest person in the United States, told me he was going to be paying a lower tax rate than his receptionist. That is not right. I am not interested in soaking anybody. I am not interested in any kind of class warfare. But I want middle-class people to be able to get ahead as well. For the first time in decades, we have seen corporate profits go up. We are glad to see that. We have seen productivity go up. We are glad to see that. But middle-class people are not seeing much growth in their wages. They are living paycheck to paycheck. As Hank Paulson goes to the Treasury Department, I know he is interested in coming up with a fresh approach to the Tax Code, an approach that can allow us to simplify it, get a fair shake for middle- class folks and all Americans. I particularly commend our ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, because I think Senator Baucus, in talking about global competitiveness and what it is going to take to create high-skill, high-wage jobs for Americans in the global economy, has done some of the heavy lifting on this key issue by spending a lot of time over the last few years looking at these issues, talking to people on both sides of the aisle, with business leaders and the like. I commend Senator Baucus because he has laid some of the key groundwork to discuss tax reform as a result of his focus on global competitiveness. I also thank Chairman Grassley for his discussions with me and with the committee. We have begun to look at corporate issues in this area. Senator Grassley, as he begins the effort to look at tax reform, particularly because of the bipartisan way in which he has led our committee, is a person ideally suited to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle and the administration, for us to build a strategy with a new Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, to get this job done. Suffice it to say there will be some very tough issues. Look, for example, at the issue of State and local jurisdictions and the differing tax treatment we have for these jurisdictions. A State that may have high taxes, such as New York, looks at this differently than a part of the country that does not have the same dependence on revenues from that source. With the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus and a new Secretary of the Treasury who is going to look to bring people together, look at how we can modernize the Tax Code so we can make the kind of decisions that are necessary to give our citizens a better quality of life in a global economy. We are up to it. We do not have a lot of time. The next 6 months, particularly the time between now and January, is key. That is why I have been so pleased Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus have been interested in looking at these issues. As a result of their examination of these topics, we can lay the groundwork so the administration next January could work with Senators on both sides of the aisle, work with the other body and work with the Senate, and we can enact comprehensive tax reform. There will be a host of other issues we will have to look at. Obviously, health care, the fastest rising expense in the American economy, is dramatically affected by the Tax Code. I happen to think there are some good ideas on both sides of the aisle with respect to tax treatment of health care expenditures in our economy. We are spending over $150 billion through the Tax Code on American health care. I don't think we are getting our money's worth. In too many instances, we are subsidizing inefficiency. This is certainly going to be a controversial area. Democrats and Republicans, under the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, and the new Secretary of the Treasury can dig into that issue. The last point I mention, in the Commission that was set up that was chaired by Senator Mack and Senator Breaux, there are some good ideas the Congress can pick up on, working with the administration. Certainly, I don't agree with all the Commission has proposed, but let me give a couple of examples. In legislation I have authored, the Fair Flat Tax Act, I have made it clear I want a Tax Code that is simpler, fairer and flatter. If you look at what the President's Commission has come in with, there is some opportunity for common ground. For example, in my Fair Flat Tax Act, there is a 1-page 1040 form, something a typical person can fill out in about half an hour. The administration's version, the one that came out with the advisory committee, is probably six, seven lines longer. I have a 30-line, 1040 form; theirs is six or seven lines longer. Big deal. For purposes of Government work, we can find common ground in a hurry in order to have a simpler Tax Code. That alone would be a real contribution for the American people. On the question of making the Tax Code flatter, there are six brackets today in our Tax Code as it relates to the individual side of the code. My proposal involves three brackets. It is a progressive structure. Essentially, it is the same one that Ronald Reagan started with when he looked at tax reform. The President's advisory commission comes in with four brackets. Once again, big deal. We can find common ground as it relates to making the Tax Code flatter. There are differences of opinion, certainly, in other areas. I have mentioned trying to get a fair shake for middle-class folks. We all understand what Henry Ford said about capitalism. Henry Ford was an industrialist. He said he wanted to do well, but for him to do well, his people had to have enough money to be able to buy cars. Middle-class folks are getting hammered in a way today that makes it hard for them to make a lot of these purchases that are essential to them, which is why they wrack up so much debt. I think both political parties can find common ground on this tax issue. For example, Henry Paulson yesterday talked about the value of low rates. I certainly agree with his interest there. Marginal rates are particularly important. It was something Ronald Reagan recognized in 1986. Senators on our side of the aisle, including Bill Bradley, said exactly the same thing. We can get the rates down. We can ensure fairness for middle-class folks. What we are going to need is leadership. We are going to need it in a hurry. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus are going to do everything they can to find common ground on this issue. I am very pleased that Henry Paulson, who could certainly find other things to do in his life besides public service, is willing to step up and take on this effort. He will have to move very quickly to drive this tax reform debate. As I pledged to him in my private meeting and said again yesterday, I am interested in working with him and the administration in a bipartisan way. There is a lot of good faith and a lot of interest in this issue. It is a key consideration in how we are going to create high-skill, high-wage jobs for Americans in the future and enhance the quality of life for middle-class folks. Henry Paulson is the right person at the right time. He is going to have a lot to do, and he is going to have to do it in a hurry. I intend to work with Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus to ensure we have an opportunity, on a bipartisan basis, to tackle these big economic issues in the right way. Right at the top is tax reform. I urge colleagues today to indicate their strong support for Henry Paulson, head of the Treasury Department. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the major telecommunications legislation reported today by the Senate Commerce Committee is badly flawed. The bill makes a number of major changes in the country's telecommunications law, but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse. This one provision threatens to divide the Internet into technology haves and have-nots. This one provision concentrates even more power in the hands of the special interests that own the pipelines to the Internet. This one provision codifies discrimination on the Internet by a handful of large telecommunications and cable providers. This one provision will allow large, special interests to saddle consumers and small businesses alike with new and discriminatory fees over and above what they already pay for Internet access. This one small provision is akin to hurling a giant wrecking ball at the Internet. The inclusion of this provision compels me to state that I will object to a unanimous consent request to the Senate proceeding with this legislation until a provision that provides true Internet neutrality is included. This bill means the American people will no longer be able to use the Internet free from discrimination. Sure, the time it takes you to access the Web might be slower with dial-up, or you might zoom around the Web at warp speed, but you get to choose the speed. Today, whatever speed you chose doesn't make any difference in which sites you can visit. You still get access to any site you want. This is the beauty and the genius of the Internet. The Net is neutral. The days of unfettered, unlimited, and free access to any site on the World Wide Web, what I call Net neutrality, are being threatened. Those who own the pipes, the giant cable and phone companies, want to discriminate in which sites you can access. If they get their way, not only will you have to pay more for faster speeds, you will have to pay more for something you get for free today: unfettered access to every site on the World Wide Web. To me, that is discrimination, pure and simple. The Internet has thrived precisely because it is neutral. It has thrived because consumers, and not some giant cable or phone company, get to choose what they want to see and how quickly they get to see it. I am not going to allow a bill to go forward that is going to end surfing the Web free of discrimination. The large interests have made it clear that if this bill moves forward, they will begin to discriminate. A Verizon Communications executive has called for an ``end to Google's `free lunch.' '' A Bell South executive has said that he wants the Internet to be turned into a ``pay-for-performance marketplace.'' What they and other cable and phone company executives are proposing is that instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content at the same price, they will set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites. Without net neutrality protections, this bill is bad news for consumers and anyone who today enjoys unlimited access to all of the Net's applications, service and content. There is no doubt in my mind that American consumers and small business will be the losers in this fight if this bill is allowed to move forward. Right now, a computer science major at the University of Oregon is working on the next big thing for the Internet. But she will never get the chance to get the next big thing out there if she cannot pay the big fees that will be charged tomorrow for the same Internet access she gets for free today. Right now in Pendleton, OR, there is a small family wheat farm where dad is monitoring the fertilizer on their crop via a new Web service program that his son bought. If the network operators have their way, this Web service will get so expensive that it will be out of reach for this family farmer. As a Senator who has devoted himself to keeping the Internet free from discrimination, from discriminatory taxes and regulations to assuring offline protections apply to online consumer activities as well, I cannot stand by and allow the bill to proceed with this provision. The inclusion of this provision compels me to inform my colleagues that I will object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to move to consider S. 2686, the Communications Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act. There are other provisions in this legislation, such as the one relating to my proposal for the creation of kids television tiers, that are problematic, but none of them rises to the same level of concern as the one relating to network neutrality. Therefore, I will object to any further action on this telecommunications bill until it includes a strong net neutrality provision that will truly benefit consumers and small business. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I have spent over a decade fighting to ensure that when a Senator puts a hold on or blocks a major piece of legislation that there is accountability. We have required, under our proposal, that holds are publicly announced. Because I feel so strongly about this way of approaching holds, I have come to the floor tonight to announce that I intend to object to any unanimous consent request for the United States Senate to move to consider S. 2686, the telecommunications reform legislation that came from the Senate Commerce Committee a bit ago. The reason I have come to the floor to make this announcement is that I believe this legislation is a license to discriminate on the Internet. Right now, we all know that when you use your browser, you get to go where you want, when you want, how you want. The Internet's special quality is that all content is treated equally. It is my fear that, as a result of this legislation without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet, and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be changed forever against the public interest. In the beginning of these remarks--and it is my intent to be brief--I compliment Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Ranking Member Inouye, with respect to the procedure for how this legislation was considered. Late last winter I was allowed to come to the Senate Commerce Committee as a former member of the committee and make a presentation with respect to why I thought an Internet free of discrimination was so important. I introduced the first legislation, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act, back in March. Since then I have worked closely with colleagues, particularly Senator Snowe and Senator Dorgan, who have done such a great job championing an Internet free of discrimination. We have all worked for many months in trying to preserve a free and open Internet. Unfortunately, despite the valiant work of those two Senators, Senators Snowe and Dorgan, and with the help of others, particularly Senator Cantwell, who spoke eloquently about why a free-from- discrimination Internet is so important, they were not successful. So now there is the prospect of major changes in the way the Internet works, changes that will affect millions of businesses and millions of consumers. At a minimum, I believe these changes are so important and mean so much to our country, it ought to be possible for the Senate to slow this down and take the time to consider what the implications are of a badly flawed piece of legislation with respect to its treatment of the Internet. The failure to include what is called ``Net neutrality'' legislation is failure to keep the principle of keeping the Net free from discrimination. In my view, we run the prospect of dividing the Internet into technology haves and have-nots. What will happen is even more power will be concentrated in the hands of special interests that own the pipelines to the Net. In effect, the legislation codifies discrimination on the Net by giving a green light to a handful of large telecommunications and cable providers to set up what could be a system that will allow for differential treatment. It means, for example, one small business may get service that won't be as good as another's. That translates, in my view, if it is done by deliberate design on the basis of who can pay, into discrimination. The failure to include the Net neutrality legislation that Senators Dorgan and Snowe and I and others have worked on for so long is going to allow the special interests to saddle the startup businesses, the consumers, and the innovators with a variety of new and discriminatory fees over and above what they already pay for Internet access. In my view, what has happened today, failing to include provisions that keep the Net free of discrimination, is like throwing a huge wrecking ball at this extraordinary telecommunications innovation that we all enjoy, known as the Net. The failure to include this provision compels me to state this objection to going forward on this legislation because I believe the days of unfettered, unlimited access to any site on the World Wide Web is threatened by this bill as written. Those who own the pipes, the cable companies and the phone companies, will be able to play favorites with respect to the sites that Americans can access. If they get their way, not only will Americans have to pay more for faster speeds, they will have to pay more for how they use the Internet once they choose what speed to access it by, something they get for free today after they pay their basic access charge. In my view, the Internet has been such a great success precisely because it was free of discrimination. It thrives because the marketplace, consumers, small businesses, and others were able to choose what they wanted to see and how quickly they wanted to see it. So I am not going to let a bill like this go forward because it will end surfing the Web free of discrimination. The large interests that have backed the legislation have written and have already made clear what their designs are. This is not some kind of atomic secret, Mr. President. There have been lengthy articles in the Wall Street Journal, for example, about pay-to-play. It outlined in great detail all of the ways in which the companies could play favorites, could give a break to a business who had a bit more money, and send somebody else who didn't have the funds off to the second tier. Instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content at the same price, what we would have are sweetheart arrangements where certain parties would win and other parties would lose. This, in my view, is bad news for consumers and anyone who enjoys unlimited access to all of the Net's applications, services, and content. Right now, there is a computer science major at the University of Oregon in my home State who is working on the next big thing for the Internet and has great dreams. I am sure that at universities and in garages in Oklahoma, where the Presiding Officer is from, there are constituents who are also working on the next big thing. My concern is that those dreamers in Oklahoma and Oregon, and the innovators and the people with the cutting edge ideas, would not get the chance to get the next big idea out because they would not be able to pay the big fees that Internet providers will charge tomorrow for them to get priority access to consumers or get stuck in the slow lane. Of course, they are going to be up against people, as they fight to show the worth of their idea, who can pay those big fees and have an advantage over them in the marketplace. What is especially troubling to me, Mr. President, is it seems that if you have an innovative startup in Oregon or Oklahoma or elsewhere in our country, you are going to be up against these new barriers. But guess what? Our competitors around the world don't have the same kind of barriers with. So what I am concerned about is that if you have a good idea in our country, a promising kind of startup, and you run up against all of these hurdles--these new discriminatory hurdles placed on the Internet--you are going to say, what the heck, I cannot compete in that kind of situation, so I will just take the business overseas. What I want to do--and I know the Senator from Oklahoma wants to do it--is create high-skill, high-wage jobs in our country. We ought to keep the incentives here rather than making it attractive to take promising ideas overseas. I have been involved in a lot of technology issues, and the principle that I have always thought was most important was ensuring that there is no discrimination. Today, I was very pleased that the Senate Finance Committee accepted my amendment to make permanent the ban on discriminatory and multiple taxes on electronic commerce. We have been at this since 1996. We passed it three times in the Senate, always by large majorities, and I said let's get at it now and make it permanent so that we give predictability and certainty in the marketplace. I was very pleased that, with the support of Grassley and Baucus, I was able to win passage of that legislation that involved taxes, ensuring that there was no discrimination in the tax and the electronic commerce areas. I was pleased that it passed. Unfortunately, what was done today in the Commerce Committee by giving a green light to discriminators undoes a lot of what the Senate has done over the last few years in terms of ensuring nondiscrimination in electronic commerce. We made sensible decisions in the tax arena because we barred discrimination as it related to taxing electronic commerce. Now the Senate Commerce Committee comes along and says we are going to pass on this Net neutrality issue; we are not going to include it, so now there can be other forms of discrimination on the Net. That makes no sense to me, and it seems particularly ironic today, of all days, as the Senate has been trying to prevent discrimination in the taxation area of electronic commerce, to essentially undo that important policy by allowing unprecedented discrimination in the marketplace. There is another area I think is worth noting as I object to the consideration of S. 2686. We have heard from a number of those opposed to Net neutrality legislation that there has been no problem, that there are no instances of discrimination. No. 1, that is factually incorrect because there is already a major Federal Communications Commission case, Madison River case, and No. 2, the big telecoms and cable companies have already announced their plans to discriminate. I have described the plans in the Wall Street Journal which are not any kind of hidden effort to sneak something by people. The Wall Street Journal describes the plans for differential treatment. I note, as we consider this issue, the consequences of discrimination. If those who want to discriminate--and my sense is, by their own admissions, they are going to start very quickly--are able to set in place the discriminatory routers and other equipment that would allow them to treat those small businesses and individuals differently, once those routers and other discriminatory systems are in place, it is going to be very difficult to undo them. They will be embedded in that system of pipes and infrastructure which makes it possible for Americans to enjoy the Net. I am not willing to sit by and let all of those discriminatory routers and other kinds of complicated systems that make up the pipes for the Net go into effect without an opportunity for the Senate to really consider the consequences. We are talking with respect to this legislation and its absence of strong Net neutrality language, about changing policy that has been the bedrock of the telecommunications field for many years--non- discrimination. This legislation contains a variety of major changes in the country's telecommunications law. I happen to support many of them. But I will tell the Senate tonight that a communications bill that does not embed, and do it clearly, that the Internet will be free of discrimination is legislation that I believe is badly flawed. This is a complicated subject. There are differing views on Net neutrality and I am the first to admit it. But I think all sides would agree that this is a complicated issue. It ought to be one the Senate takes the time to really think through. And I will make it clear to the Senate that I, for one, feel so strongly about ensuring telecommunications policy continues to be based on principles that bar discrimination that I am taking this action tonight for purposes of carrying out that objective. Let me state again, it is my intent to object to any further action on this legislation, S. 2686, until it includes a strong Net neutrality provision that will ensure there is a vibrant, healthy Internet for decades to come. My colleagues, Senator Snowe and Senator Dorgan, did a superb job this afternoon in making the case for our point of view. I am very proud to have been able to work with them. The legislation they introduced is very similar to mine. Unfortunately, the Snowe-Dorgan legislation went down on a tie vote in the Commerce Committee today. However, this discussion needs to continue. I hope the Senate will insist that the way the Internet works today, and particularly its egalitarian nature where everybody uses their browser and gets to where they want, when they want, how they want, is continued for generations to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Smith said it very well. I wanted to wrap up by noting a comment from pitcher Dallas Buck, who was the winning pitcher in the championship game. When asked about why he stayed at Oregon State instead of going pro out of high school, I quote: ``Best decision I ever made.'' And we happen to think that is the best decision a lot of young people are making in our State, to go to Oregon State University. It is a wonderful university, both for sports and academics. We are going to salute them, as Senator Smith has indicated, when we get a chance to join them at the White House with the President. That is what makes this so special for us.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the midst of all the serious business that is before the Senate, I and my good friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, wanted to take a few minutes tonight and talk to the Senate about the great pride and joy that Oregonians are feeling tonight as a result of our terrific Oregon State Beavers who have won the college world series. Showing incredible determination, they would not give up spirit. After losing their first games in both the tournament and in the championship series, the players at Oregon State and the coaching staff came back. They came back to be the first team since 1998 to lose their first game and go on to win the college title. Senator Smith and I are especially proud because in this day of professional sports seeming to be part of every college environment, most of these players are from Oregon. They come from almost every nook and cranny of our State. They come from the Pacific Northwest, and they represent the best values of our State--particularly hard work and a sense that if you just stay at it and you are persistent, you can get the job done. We want to salute all the players, and particularly three we are going to be losing--three star pitchers: Jonah Nickerson, Dallas Buck, and Kevin Gunderson. They are going on to play professional next season. But we are going to be back in that world series next year. I get a chance, along with my colleague, to enjoy so much that makes our State special. We try to team up on a bipartisan basis on some issues. But we are particularly thrilled as Oregonians' two U.S. Senators to make sure that the country sees that when you work hard, you play by the rules, and you don't give up, nearly always good things happen. Tonight, Oregonians are wearing the orange and black of the Beavers. I want to yield the rest of my time to my friend and colleague because, as Oregonians' two U.S. Senators, we are savoring this moment along with more than 3 million people who represent our State. I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. It is the hope of the bipartisan group of Senators that have followed this issue that this program, run by the Minerals Management Service, can be corrected. These are costly, costly mistakes involving billions of dollars. The Presiding Officer, the Senator from North Carolina, has been a great advocate of renewable energy. For example, think what you could do if you took just a fraction of the money that is being wasted on royalty relief and moved it to the renewable energy field. You could help stimulate renewable energy production and reduce the deficit simultaneously. So that is what the bipartisan group of Senators want to do on this key issue. Since I talked at some length about this a few weeks ago, I think I will move on to the other pocketbook issue. But I do hope, with hundreds of bills having been introduced in the Senate in both the energy and health care areas, that as we go into these last days of the session, the focus can be on those pieces of legislation that have significant bipartisan support. That is true in the case of oil royalty relief and cutting those needless subsidies. It is also true with respect to prescription drugs, and I will wrap up with a few comments in that regard. Mr. President, on the prescription drug issue, we saw, just a few days ago, two reports issued, one by AARP and the other by Families USA, indicating we have seen a very significant increase in the cost of prescription medicine since the beginning of this year. This comes, of course, at a time when Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program, is just kicking in. It comes at a time, of course, when we have seen the costs of this program skyrocket far beyond the original projections. It would indicate to me that some of those who said competition in the private sector alone was going to do the job have not dealt with the consequences of what happens when the Government does not back up those private-sector kind of efforts. As you will recall, in the prescription drug debate, I was one of nine on this side of the aisle who voted for the legislation. I have got the welts on my back to show for it. Senator Snowe and I said then that we have to make sure the Government isn't the only part of the prescription drug arena where there is no opportunity to hold down the cost of medicine. Everybody else bargains today for the cost of medicine. That is true for any manufacturing in North Carolina. It is true in Oregon. It is true anywhere. Nobody ties their hands behind their back when it comes to trying to get the full value for their dollar in the health care sector. The only one who has their hands tied behind their back is the Federal Government when it comes to prescription medicine purchased under the Part D Medicare Program. My sense is that this is another area where, with significant bipartisan support, Congress can move ahead. On the question of lifting the restriction so that Medicare can bargain to hold down the cost of medicine, Senator Snowe and I got 54 votes for our bipartisan proposal to change the law. Once again, significant bipartisan support was given for a major change that will help taxpayers and consumers. My sense is the price increases in prescription drugs we are seeing today is because there are few restraints on the prices that can be charged. There are what are called PBMs, pharmaceutical benefit managers. They have a role to play. It can be a useful one. But if we are really going to make sure we are using all the tools to hold down the cost of medicine, the Government ought to have authority to say, if the private sector isn't going to give a fair shake to seniors and taxpayers, there ought to be backup authority. The Government should be able to say: We are going to now make it clear that there is an opportunity to bargain and do what everybody else in America does to hold down the cost of medicine. The price increases we have seen in the first 3 months of this year comprise the largest quarterly price increases in 6 years. It comes at a time when the Medicare prescription drug program is going into effect. The prices jumped something like four times the general inflation rate. We are seeing, right at a key time when the Medicare prescription drug program is getting off the ground, prices go up four times faster than the inflation rate. We are seeing the biggest quarterly price increases in 6 years. That makes the case for the Congress looking at a bipartisan way to beef up opportunities to contain the cost of prescription drug medicine. In the Snowe-Wyden legislation which received 54 votes, we specifically state that there can be no price controls and no uniform formulary which would be, in effect, a backdoor Federal price control. I know the Senator from North Carolina has been interested in the question of what will happen to research, what will happen to innovation. I happen to share the view of the Senator from North Carolina that to come up with big price control regimes and Federal arbitrary standards for the formularies that make judgments about medicine would be a mistake. Under our legislation, we specifically say we will lift the restriction on bargaining power so the Government will not be the only part of the health care sector that is not trying to get value for the dollar. But our amendment said no price controls and no uniform, one-size-fits-all formulary that, for all practical purposes, would be a backdoor set of price controls. These two studies from AARP and Families USA are extremely alarming because the theory behind the Medicare prescription drug program was that having a variety of plans in the private sector would produce competition, and competition would serve to hold down the cost of medicine. Now there is concrete proof that competition alone is not serving to be an adequate strategy for containing the cost of medicine. That is why the bipartisan amendment Senator Snowe and I have been pursuing since the prescription drug program went into effect several years ago is much needed. When you have these higher prescription drug prices, premiums seniors have to pay almost always bump up. Let's think about what happens if you bump up the premiums the seniors pay for Medicare Part D. One of the things I have seen in my years of working with older people--it goes back to my days when I was director of the Gray Panthers--is you jack up the premiums on seniors and, as sure as the night follows the day, you will get fewer seniors enrolling in the program. We understand that if this program is going to be successful over the long term, you have to get more seniors signed up. You have to get more seniors enrolled. But what happens when you have higher drug prices as AARP and Families USA found, will be higher premiums next year for seniors in the Part D program. Then all of a sudden, with higher prices and higher premiums, what will happen is fewer seniors will sign up for the program. And without them enrolling in this program, Part D will not be the success we all would like to it to be, especially those of us who voted for it. I wanted to take a few minutes today to talk about two issues: the question of needless oil company subsidies, an effort Senator Kyl and I have spearheaded that has significant bipartisan support for saving taxpayers money, getting us on track for a fresh, new energy policy that can truly make us free of our dependence on foreign oil; and this question of prescription drug costs where, as well. There is significant bipartisan support to put bargaining power in Medicare. The Snowe-Wyden amendment received 54 votes the last time the Senate voted on it. There is a real role for the Senate to play at this key time now that it has been reported that drug prices jumped up in the first quarter of this year just as the Medicare Part D Program was going into effect. Finally, we understand that on the Senate calendar there is not going to be a time for every possible issue to be considered. In the case of energy and health care, there are hundreds of bills in both areas, both energy and medical services, that have been introduced by Senators of both parties. My hope is that a handful of these issues can be moved to the head of the queue. The real measure for consideration ought to be significant bipartisan support. In the areas I have talked about this afternoon, that test has been met. The other body has already passed efforts to reduce these needless oil subsidies, essentially passed the very thing I talked about on the floor of the Senate for 5 hours. A majority of Senators have voted for the effort Senator Snowe and I have spearheaded to hold down the cost of medicine. There are opportunities, at a time when the country is looking at the partisanship coming from Washington, DC, to bring the Senate together around good and bipartisan legislation that addresses the pocketbook concerns of the American people. That is why I have come to the Chamber to talk about how we can make a difference working together for the public. It is my intention to come back in the weeks ahead to talk about similar efforts that can actually be passed in the Senate before the session wraps up and constitute the kind of good government the American people expect from the Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with the Senate heading for the break for the Fourth of July recess, obviously, there will not be many more days left in this year's schedule. I am going to spend some time on the floor in the days ahead focusing on those areas where there is significant bipartisan support for making a real difference for the American people, especially on those key domestic issues of energy and health care, two areas I know the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, cares a great deal about. For example, on the energy front, today, I and Senator Kyl and Senator Snowe and Senator Lieberman sent a letter to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, asking that we have an opportunity to debate how the Government can save between $20 billion and $80 billion on an energy program that is totally out of control. It involves the Federal Government's oil and natural gas royalty program. It is a program that began at a time when oil was somewhere in the vicinity of $20 a barrel. It has been a bipartisan concern of Senators that it makes no sense to spend billions and billions of dollars subsidizing the price of oil when it is at record levels. I spent, as you know, Mr. President, about 5 hours on the floor of the U.S. Senate discussing this issue a few weeks ago, and I certainly have no intention of duplicating that this afternoon. But I do think it is important to zero in on those issues that have bipartisan support, and I want to describe what has happened in the Senate and in the other body since I and Senator Kyl talked about this program a number of weeks ago. After we discussed it for those many hours on the floor of the U.S. Senate, on May 17 the House of Representatives voted on a measure that was virtually identical to the final Wyden-Kyl amendment. Two-hundred and fifty Members of the House of Representatives, with regard to this issue, after a lengthy debate, voted to address a mistake that has been pointed out by Senators of both political parties here on this floor. So my hope is--and this is the point of our bipartisan letter to Senator Frist today--we can get an opportunity for a real debate on this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate before the Senate breaks for the August recess. It is one thing to talk about subsidies at a time, for example, when the price of oil is low, when the oil sector is hurting, when they are having difficulty getting the adequate dollars together for the investments that are needed in this vital part of our economy. But certainly that is not the case today. Today we are talking about record profits, we are talking about record prices, and we certainly do not need record subsidies. I and Senator Kyl would like a chance to put this issue before the entire U.S. Senate. On our letter today to the majority leader, Senator Snowe and Senator Lieberman--two Members who have been very involved in these issues for a number of years as well--are joining us. I also point out the mistakes in this program are bipartisan. Certainly, there were mistakes made during the Clinton administration when there was a failure to address what is called the threshold issue to ensure you do not subsidize these oil companies at a time when profits are extremely high and you do not need these incentives. So the Clinton administration mangled the job before President Bush and his team took over. But certainly the problem was compounded by Gale Norton, who was then Secretary of the Interior, who insisted on raising the subsidies even more administratively. And then, as I talked about on the floor of the Senate when the Congress passed the energy bill as part of this session, the deal was sweetened even more. Again, virtually no independent expert thought the subsidies were needed. When I asked the oil company executives, who came before the Energy Committee, on which the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and I both serve, the executives, to a person, said: We do not need these subsidies at a time of record prices and record profits. So the Congress is behind the American people. Frankly, the Congress is lagging behind even what the oil executives have said they could live with. At a time when the House of Representatives--more than 250 in number--has voted to cut these subsidies, the Senate should not be dawdling on this issue any longer. We are talking about substantial sums of money. The General Accounting Office has said it is in the vicinity of $20 billion. There is litigation underway now. If the litigation is successful, the bill to the Government could be in the vicinity of $80 billion. That is a substantial amount of money to be frittering away now when there are all these pressing needs here at home and for our country. So given that I am going to be talking in the days ahead about issues where there is significant bipartisan support, specifically focusing on these key domestic issues of health care and energy, I start today by making a unanimous consent request that the letter that I, Senator Kyl, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Snowe have sent to Senator Frist be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me begin by saying I very much share the view of the Senator from Alabama about our troops. Day in and day out, they bring the utmost professionalism and the utmost courage and valor to the cause of standing up for American values. I very much share his views with respect to the tribute we ought to be paying to those who serve us, who wear the uniform of the United States and who do it with such extraordinary patriotism and service to our country. (Mr. SESSIONS assumed the Chair.) What I am here to talk about, though, is the political decisions that are made and how they affect those courageous troops and how they affect the security of the country. In March of this year, at a press conference, a reporter asked President Bush: Will there come a day, and I'm not asking you when, not asking for a timetable--will there come a day when there will be no more American forces in Iraq? The President responded: That, of course, is an objective and that will be decided by future Presidents and future governments of Iraq. . . . decided by future Presidents. . . . . . . decided by future Presidents. . . . . . . decided by future Presidents. . . . I found that statement troubling for two major reasons. First, staying in Iraq for years and years, in my view, will threaten Americans' preparedness to deal with a host of other threats that ought to concern all of us. Certainly at the top of that list would be Iran and North Korea, but suffice it to say, it is a dangerous world. I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I know the distinguished Senator from Alabama has a great interest in military affairs. No Senator who looks at the facts and the world in a realistic way would conclude otherwise. It is a dangerous world. There are real threats to our country. It is my view that to stay and stay and stay in Iraq will threaten the preparedness of our country at a dangerous time. Second, it seems to me that making this kind of open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq, an open-ended commitment that in effect says we will be there at least until 2009, doesn't send the right message to the Iraqis about getting serious about their most serious challenges. For example, when I was recently in Iraq with my colleague, Senator Snowe, I was especially troubled by the Iraqis' response to my concerns about corruption in the Iraqi oil sector. We all know that 90 percent of the revenue generated in Iraq comes from oil, and there has been one independent analysis after another documenting widespread corruption in Iraq's oil sector. I brought that to the attention of the officials Senator Snowe and I met with on our trip. Essentially, the response was one of denial: Well, Senator, it really isn't that bad; well, Senator, we are getting serious about it; well, Senator, we are thinking about trying X, Y, and Z. But I say to the Senate today that we continue to read these independent analyses which have documented widespread corruption and malfeasance in the Iraqi oil sector. Yet it is not being dealt with. My view is that to say the future of American forces in Iraq will be decided by future Presidents is yet another signal to the Iraqis that they have plenty of time to deal with serious problems like corruption in the oil sector, which should have been dealt with some time ago. Again, I share the view of the Senator from Alabama concerning the professionalism of our troops. Our country and the world is better as a result of the death of Mr. Zarqawi. The kind of carnage and the brutal campaign that Mr. Zarqawi conducted is well understood. We are all very hopeful, because we all root for success in Iraq, that this will deal a blow to the insurgency. Our soldiers and all concerned ought to be proud of what they accomplished in taking down Zarqawi. I am proud of them. I know the Senator from Alabama is as well. But let us think about the implications of overstretching our Armed Forces. That is why I say I am troubled about what is going to happen to American preparedness for a dangerous world if we stay and stay and stay--until at least 2009. Oregon Guard members, for example, of whom we are exceptionally proud, are on their third rotation in the theater. Some Active-Duty Forces are on their fourth rotation. Others are getting ready for their fifth rotation into harm's way. I am sure that is also the case in Alabama. I am sure it is also the case in every part of the United States. I will tell the Senate today that I think the stress our courageous Armed Forces are dealing with now is at the point where, if we can't get the Iraqis to speed up securing their own defense, this is going to undermine America's preparedness to deal with a dangerous world. Our Armed Forces are maintaining an exceptional level of professionalism under exceptional stress, but at a certain point it is just not possible to continue in that way and be ready for the kinds of crises and the kinds of national security challenges that exist today. So the preparedness of our U.S. military to deal with a host of national security challenges hinges on what happens in Iraq. The more responsibility the Iraqis take for their future, the less the United States must shoulder, and the sooner we can start bringing our troops home. When our President says that a future American President will decide when to bring U.S. troops home, it seems to me that sends a message to the Iraqis that they have a lot more time. For the sake of preparedness, for the sake of Iraq securing its own future, we have to speed this timetable up. American troops cannot and should not be in Iraq forever. Shortly, I will introduce a very simple resolution. It is a sense of the Senate on the President's intention to keep U.S. forces in Iraq until at least 2009. The resolution is very simple. I will just read it this afternoon: That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) the members of the Armed Forces deserve the enormous respect and support of the Senate and the American people for the sacrifices that they are making on behalf of our country; and (2) the President's intention, as stated on March 21, 2006, that ``future Presidents'' will determine whether to keep members of the Armed Forces in Iraq undermines the preparedness of the United States military to respond to other crises and should not be supported. I will close. Again I pick up on the Chair's statement about the commitment of our troops and their courage and their valor. This is not, today, a debate about whether it was right to go to war. We had that debate. I was on the side that voted against, and other Senators were for it. We are long past that point. What we are dealing with now is how to win the peace. That is something which all Senators should be looking to try to work together on and find some bipartisan common ground. I commend the Senator from Alabama for his statement about our troops. But I do believe we have to find a way to get beyond some of these artificial choices--like cutting and running or staying the course. Hopefully we can do that. I believe one area for bipartisan cooperation should be to try to speed up Iraq taking over its own future. I was very troubled by the statement that it was the President's intention that the future of our Armed Forces in Iraq would be dealt with by future Presidents. We have to deal with it now. We have to find a way to win the peace and do it on a bipartisan basis. I intend to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this goal, which is not about whether you are for the war or against the war, it is today about winning the peace, and that is why I will be offering my resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Patty Murray in introducing the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2006--or FRIMA. Our legislation extends a homegrown, commonsense program that has a proven track record in helping restore Northwestern salmon runs. Dollar-for-dollar, the fish screening and fish passage facilities funded by our legislation are among the most cost-effective uses of public and private restoration dollars. These projects protect fish while producing significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be reauthorized and funding be appropriated now. Since 2001, when the original Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000, FRIMA, was enacted, more than $9 million in Federal funds has leveraged nearly $20 million in private, local funding. This money has been used to protect, enhance, and restore more than 550 river miles of important fish habitat and species throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. For decades, State, tribal and Federal fishery agencies in the Pacific Northwest have identified the screening of irrigation and other water diversions, and improved fish passage, as critically important for the survival of salmon and other fish populations. This program is very popular and has the support of a wide range of constituents, including community leaders, environmental organizations, and agricultural producers. Senator Smith and I are proud of the successful collaborative projects that irrigators and members of the Oregon Water Resources Congress have completed while putting this program to work in our home State. Our program also has the support of Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, irrigators throughout the Northwestern States, Oregon Trout, American Rivers and the National Audubon Society. FRIMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to plan, design, and construct fish screens, fish passage devices, and related features. It also authorizes inventories to provide the information needed for planning and making decisions about the survival and propagation of all Northwestern fish species. The program is currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Interior Secretary. FRIMA provides benefits by: keeping fish out of places where they should not be--such as in an irrigation system; easing upstream and downstream fish passage; improving the protection, survival, and restoration of native fish species; helping avoid new endangered species listings by protecting and enhancing the fish populations not yet listed; making progress toward the de-listing of listed species; utilizing a positive, win/win, public-private partnership; and, assisting in achieving both sustainable agriculture and fisheries. Since FRIMA's enactment in 2001, 103 projects have been installed. This is a true partnership and fine example of how our fisheries and farmers can work together to protect fish species throughout the Northwest. While he was Governor of Idaho, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said, ``. . . the FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of government and private land owners working together to promote conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions plays a key role in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon populations while protecting rural economies.'' [from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Programs, FY 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., July, 2005, p. 13] The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the authorization for this program through 2012; gives priority to projects costing less than $2.5 million--a reduction in a targeted project's cost from $5,000,000 to $2,500,000; clarifies that projects funded under the act are viewed as recipients of a ``pass through program'' and not a ``grant'' program; that any Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant to another entity shall be considered non-Federal matching funds--because BPA's funding comes from ratepayers; requires an inventory report describing funded projects and their benefits; and changes the administrative expenses formula used by the Fish & Wildlife Service and the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, so that administrative costs are scaled in proportion to the amount of funds appropriated for the program each year. Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon. State, Tribal and local governments, local watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal Government need to continue working together. Initiatives such as the bill I am introducing today help to sustain the partnerships upon which successful salmon recovery will be based. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation pass. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from Oregon Governor Kulongoski be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Larry Craig and Senator Patty Murray in introducing the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2006--or FRIMA. Our legislation extends a homegrown, commonsense program that has a proven track record in helping restore Northwestern salmon runs. Dollar-for-dollar, the fish screening and fish passage facilities funded by our legislation are among the most cost-effective uses of public and private restoration dollars. These projects protect fish while producing significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be reauthorized and funding be appropriated now. Since 2001, when the original Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000, FRIMA, was enacted, more than $9 million in Federal funds has leveraged nearly $20 million in private, local funding. This money has been used to protect, enhance, and restore more than 550 river miles of important fish habitat and species throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana. For decades, State, tribal and Federal fishery agencies in the Pacific Northwest have identified the screening of irrigation and other water diversions, and improved fish passage, as critically important for the survival of salmon and other fish populations. This program is very popular and has the support of a wide range of constituents, including community leaders, environmental organizations, and agricultural producers. Senator Smith and I are proud of the successful collaborative projects that irrigators and members of the Oregon Water Resources Congress have completed while putting this program to work in our home State. Our program also has the support of Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, irrigators throughout the Northwestern States, Oregon Trout, American Rivers and the National Audubon Society. FRIMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to plan, design, and construct fish screens, fish passage devices, and related features. It also authorizes inventories to provide the information needed for planning and making decisions about the survival and propagation of all Northwestern fish species. The program is currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Interior Secretary. FRIMA provides benefits by: keeping fish out of places where they should not be--such as in an irrigation system; easing upstream and downstream fish passage; improving the protection, survival, and restoration of native fish species; helping avoid new endangered species listings by protecting and enhancing the fish populations not yet listed; making progress toward the de-listing of listed species; utilizing a positive, win/win, public-private partnership; and, assisting in achieving both sustainable agriculture and fisheries. Since FRIMA's enactment in 2001, 103 projects have been installed. This is a true partnership and fine example of how our fisheries and farmers can work together to protect fish species throughout the Northwest. While he was Governor of Idaho, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said, ``. . . the FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of government and private land owners working together to promote conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions plays a key role in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon populations while protecting rural economies.'' [from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Programs, FY 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., July, 2005, p. 13] The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the authorization for this program through 2012; gives priority to projects costing less than $2.5 million--a reduction in a targeted project's cost from $5,000,000 to $2,500,000; clarifies that projects funded under the act are viewed as recipients of a ``pass through program'' and not a ``grant'' program; that any Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant to another entity shall be considered non-Federal matching funds--because BPA's funding comes from ratepayers; requires an inventory report describing funded projects and their benefits; and changes the administrative expenses formula used by the Fish & Wildlife Service and the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, so that administrative costs are scaled in proportion to the amount of funds appropriated for the program each year. Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon. State, Tribal and local governments, local watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal Government need to continue working together. Initiatives such as the bill I am introducing today help to sustain the partnerships upon which successful salmon recovery will be based. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation pass. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support from Oregon Governor Kulongoski be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senators Stevens and Inouye, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, for their efforts in incorporating my amendment into the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005, S. 2012. My amendment makes Oregon's salmon fishermen eligible for disaster assistance. Their willingness to accommodate my concerns and help Oregon's salmon fishers means that I can withdraw the objection I issued 2 weeks ago to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to act on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act. I also wish to thank Senator Smith and Senator Boxer for their important contributions and assistance. I look forward to swift passage of the legislation, as amended. The inclusion of the disaster declaration in the Magnuson-Stevens authorization is an important first step in getting relief for our salmon fishers and coastal communities that depend on salmon for their livelihoods. After waiting months for a disaster declaration from the administration, our salmon fishers now finally have some movement to help address their immediate financial needs. Even with this important language, the fight to help Oregon's salmon fishermen is far from over, and I will continue to press for congressional appropriations to fund the disaster assistance fishing families and the coastal fishing communities need.