Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. That would be fine.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I could have 3 additional minutes so I could speak for a total of up to 6 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator from Montana is gracious. Does the Senator from California need any additional time?

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein and I have 10 additional minutes, Senator Thomas would be afforded the same amount, so that the total amount for this provision would only be expanded at a maximum amount of 20 minutes. I would take 5 minutes from our side.

Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry: My understanding is that if I take about 7 minutes or so to discuss the Feinstein-Wyden, and others, amendment with respect to energy, that would still leave the Senator from California about 5 minutes to conclude for our side?

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think 7 minutes would be fine.

Mr. WYDEN. What is so staggering is, when these big oil companies are charging record prices, making record profits, they are being given record tax subsidies that they show up and tell the American people they do not want. So I intend to speak on this after the distinguished Senator from California is done. But she has an excellent amendment. I say to the Senator, you have characterized their testimony correctly.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from California has accurately reported it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today reauthorizes a very successful cooperative watershed restoration program that I originally sponsored, and that was originally enacted for the Forest Service, in the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill. The original legislation lasted through fiscal year 2001 after which it was reauthorized by the Appropriations Committees, at my request, through fiscal year 2005 and then again through fiscal year 2011. It is time this legislation had a full hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and was made a permanent authority. The bill making what is commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment permanent authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use appropriated Forest Service funds for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements that benefit the ecological health of National Forest System lands and watersheds. The Wyden Amendment does not require additional funding, but allows the Forest Service to leverage scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the Federal dollars to stretch farther. During the 7 years the program has existed the Forest Service has leveraged three dollars for every Forest Service dollar spent on these agreements. The Wyden amendment has resulted in countless Forest Service cooperative agreements with neighboring State and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private watersheds. The projects authorized by these agreements have improved watershed health and fish habitat through the control of invasive species, culvert replacement, and other riparian zone improvement projects. In addition to ecological restoration, use of the Wyden amendment has improved cooperative relationships between the Forest Service, private land owners, State agencies and other federal agencies. I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will have a hearing on this program soon to highlight its successes and that thereafter this legislation can pass the Senate expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today reauthorizes a very successful cooperative watershed restoration program that I originally sponsored, and that was originally enacted for the Forest Service, in the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations bill. The original legislation lasted through fiscal year 2001 after which it was reauthorized by the Appropriations Committees, at my request, through fiscal year 2005 and then again through fiscal year 2011. It is time this legislation had a full hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and was made a permanent authority. The bill making what is commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment permanent authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to use appropriated Forest Service funds for watershed restoration and enhancement agreements that benefit the ecological health of National Forest System lands and watersheds. The Wyden Amendment does not require additional funding, but allows the Forest Service to leverage scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the Federal dollars to stretch farther. During the 7 years the program has existed the Forest Service has leveraged three dollars for every Forest Service dollar spent on these agreements. The Wyden amendment has resulted in countless Forest Service cooperative agreements with neighboring State and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private watersheds. The projects authorized by these agreements have improved watershed health and fish habitat through the control of invasive species, culvert replacement, and other riparian zone improvement projects. In addition to ecological restoration, use of the Wyden amendment has improved cooperative relationships between the Forest Service, private land owners, State agencies and other federal agencies. I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will have a hearing on this program soon to highlight its successes and that thereafter this legislation can pass the Senate expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, This year's intelligence authorization bill is a key piece of legislation for all Americans and one that I hope to be able to support. But, as written, the bill is marred by the presence of provisions that pose serious concerns for Americans' privacy rights. Among them is one provision that would permit military intelligence officials to conduct covert interviews of U.S. persons on U.S. soil to assess them as potential intelligence sources without disclosing their government affiliation. With this provision in the legislation, I am compelled to announce my intention to object to any unanimous consent request to bring S. 1803, the intelligence reauthorization bill, to the Senate floor for approval without the opportunity for debate and consideration of amendments. This legislation has been considered by three different Committees: The Senate Intelligence committee, the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Three different committees have reviewed the legislation, but there has not been a single hearing on the expanded power the administration is seeking to enable DOD personnel to demand information of law-abiding U.S. citizens without having to disclose to them who they are, on whose behalf they are seeking personal and other information or what they intend to do with this information. The CIA already possesses the statutory authority to engage in such surreptitious interrogations of U.S. citizens, and the Department of Defense has not in my mind made the case for gaining this new authority as well. In fact, the DOD has not provided any evidence that the failure to have this authority has resulted in damage to U.S. national security. According to recent press reports, the FBI has gained access to tens of thousands of pieces of information about U.S. citizens through national security letters. This information reportedly ranges from where a person makes and spends money and who they live with to where they travel and who they email. All of this information has been deposited in government data banks, and according to press reports, this personal information is shared widely, without restriction. The same press reports say that tomorrow not only will such information be shared within the Federal bureaucracy but it will be made available to State, local and tribal entities, and ``appropriate private sector entities.'' I remain steadfast in my belief that you can protect national security without gutting civil liberties; and this legislation, as it currently is written, is out of balance. A debate on something as important as protecting the rights of our constituents to their privacy and shielding against the surreptitious shakedown of law-abiding citizens is one instance when Americans can and must be invited into the process. Shining sunlight on intelligence information for the benefit of Americans and policymakers alike is critical to our security. Congress must work to improve information sharing, and we owe it to the American people to make sure that safeguards remain in place to ensure that sensitive personal information is not tossed around inappropriately.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, you cannot look the public in the eye after all the speeches about how the oil is needed here at home and pass legislation that is an invitation to export Alaskan oil to countries such as China. The history is, if you do not ban these exports, this oil is going to go to Asia. That was confirmed not long ago by oil company executives who came before the Senate Commerce Committee. Without this amendment, there is no assurance that even one drop of Alaskan oil will get to hurting Americans. I hope the Senate agrees to this amendment to, at the very least, put a Band-Aid on a flawed policy. I yield to my cosponsor, the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I call up the Wyden-Collins amendment.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been a long day in the Senate, especially for our capable and dedicated staff. I wish to take a couple of minutes to say thank you to the Senators who, a bit ago, supported the Snowe-Wyden legislation to hold down the cost of prescription medicine. Tonight a majority of the Senate voted to make the Federal Government a smart shopper when it comes to prescription drugs. For the first time, the Senate voted to remove an error of commission: the authorization of a provision in the prescription drug law that bars the Federal Government from negotiating to hold down the cost of prescription drugs. For the life of me, at a time when the Federal budget is hemorrhaging, when the Government must pay for the costs of Katrina, I do not see how you can argue against the Snowe-Wyden amendment that was offered tonight. It prohibits price controls--that is certainly critical--so we can encourage innovation and research in the pharmaceutical area, but what the Snowe-Wyden amendment does is ensure that the Federal Government is going to do what everybody does in the marketplace--and that is use its bargaining power to hold down the costs. That is what the Federal Emergency Management Agency does when it buys cots, what every Federal agency does to make sure taxpayers and our citizens have their concerns addressed responsibly. Now, tonight, Senator Snowe and I had to get a supermajority to prevail. I want it understood that no matter how many procedural hurdles are put in front of us, no matter how many roadblocks are put up, we are going to keep coming back on this issue again and again and again until the needs of seniors and our taxpayers are met. The older people of this country are insisting that an offensive piece of special interest legislation, one that defies common sense, get changed. The AARP made the case when they backed our bipartisan bill. They pointed out that drugs seniors use, such as Lipitor, are going up more than twice the rate of inflation. Seniors want that changed. They will not abide it. Taxpayers will not abide it. And Senator Snowe and I are going to stay at it until Medicare is liberated and can act as a smart shopper. Fifty-one Senators--a majority of this body--said tonight it is time to get serious about holding down the cost of medicine in the United States. Fifty-one votes is not the supermajority we needed, but Senator Snowe and I are going to stay at it until we get justice done for our older people. Finally, I want to say a special thanks to our bipartisan group of sponsors and particularly thank Senator Stabenow, Senator McCain, and Senator Feinstein. They are all Senators who got this from the get-go. They understood this was a question of making sure that, at a time when the Federal Government begins the biggest expansion of entitlement health care in years, we take steps to protect the interests of taxpayers and the interests of older people who, right now, are beginning to sign up for the program and will, in fact, start participating formally next year. We believed it was important tonight to offer this amendment. We wish we had more time to discuss it this evening. I went into it at some length yesterday, but I am pleased we made real progress. For the first time, a majority of the Senate says that this provision that keeps the Federal Government from being a smart shopper simply does not add up. It does not make sense. It defies logic. It is contrary to what everybody else does in the marketplace across the country. I wish we could have gotten the 60 votes needed to prevail tonight, but for the first time we got a majority, and we are going to come back again and again and again. We are going to do it because the older people of this country deserve a fair shake. They are going to insist we keep coming back. I close my comments tonight by thanking the Presiding Officer, as well, for his support in this effort. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as all Members of this body know, the Federal Government is about to begin one of the biggest expansions in Federal entitlement programs in our country's history. In a few weeks, the senior citizens of our country will be eligible for a much-needed prescription drug benefit, and I rise to talk about that program tonight. I am particularly troubled about the fact that the Federal Government, in launching this program, is not going to be a smart shopper. You would think, after Katrina, given the huge hemorrhaging in our Federal budget, this would be a top priority for the Federal budget, to shop smart, to squeeze every possible bit of value out of the money that is being spent for critical programs, such as purchasing prescription drugs for senior citizens. Unfortunately, that is not the case. At a time when the costs for this program have escalated from about $400 billion to over $530 billion, with a 10-year estimate for this benefit projected to cost over $720 billion, what is locked into current law is an inability to get the best value for the purchase of those medicines. It is well understood all across the country that anybody who goes shopping in the private sector tries to get the most for their dollar by stressing their bargaining power. Certainly, the senior citizens of this country have a whole lot of bargaining power. You would think it would be the position of the Federal Government to try to take advantage of that bargaining power in order to strike the best deal for older people and taxpayers. Notice that I emphasize the words ``bargaining power''--not price controls, not rules set in Washington, DC, a one-size-fits-all approach, nothing that would discourage innovation among pharmaceutical companies, but simply bargaining power. Of course, that is what all the smart buyers do in the private sector today. Take, for example, a big timber company in my part of the world. They represent a lot of workers. They go out and bargain with pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, and others. They get the most for their dollar. The small company, on the other hand, doesn't have that kind of leverage and, to a great extent in this country, individuals and small companies basically end up subsidizing the big companies and people with clout in the marketplace. Again, nobody is talking about price controls. We are talking about economics 101. If you are buying in volume, if you have the opportunity to use marketplace forces to get the most for your dollar, you try to do it. You try to use the powerful forces of economics 101, which is the market power of bulk purchasing. Unfortunately, that is not going to be done in the area of purchasing prescription drugs for older people in our country, beginning the first of the year. In fact, what the Federal Government is doing is essentially turning on its head the principle of smart shopping. What the Federal Government would be doing, unless the Congress steps in, is pretty much like somebody going to Costco and buying toilet paper one roll at a time. The Federal Government isn't using its bargaining power to hold down the cost of medicine. At a time when prescriptions are one of the fastest growing forces in American health care, that defies common sense. Some errors are known as errors of omission; others are known as errors of commission. The fact that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is prohibited from using the power of bulk buying to hold down the cost of medicine for seniors is, in my view, one of the most outrageous errors of commission in the history of health care legislation. The Medicare prescription drug statute didn't forget to give the Secretary of Health and Human Services bargaining power to hold down the cost of medicine; the statute specifically told the Secretary he could not have such authority to get a fair deal for older people. So what we have at a time when the cost of the program is going through the stratosphere, at a time when seniors are trying to decide whether to sign up, is we have a statute that denies the Secretary of Health and Human Services the same marketplace tool that any consumer has in our communities across the country--the power to leverage bulk purchasing to get a better price. Federal law now denies the Secretary of Health and Human Services what hundreds of other Federal officials have--the power to get a better price for the taxpayer. The Congress did not tell the Army they had to go out and buy one tent at a time for our soldiers in Iraq. The Congress didn't tell the Federal Emergency Management Agency they had to buy one mobile home at a time for hurricane victims. But unbelievably, Congress told Medicare they have to go out and buy one drug at a time as it relates to other people. So Medicare can't do what any savvied shopper in our country does, which is use their leverage in the marketplace to get lower prices. I think it is outrageous to have this double standard that prohibits Medicare from doing what all the other consumers in America can do, and it is time, in my view, to fix that. Tomorrow, the Senate will have a bipartisan opportunity to do just that. Senator Snowe and I, along with Senator McCain and Senator Stabenow and a number of others, will offer an amendment that will lift the outrageous restriction on the Federal Government's ability to bargain, and under our bipartisan amendment the Secretary of Health and Human Services would have the authority to negotiate for lower drug prices. I particularly wish to thank Senator Snowe. She and I have worked on this a number of years. Both of us voted for the prescription drug legislation. We have the welts on our back to show for it, and even the night of the vote we said we were going to come back and try to improve this, particularly to improve it in a way that would make sense for older people and for taxpayers. So we see our bipartisan amendment as an effort to follow up on the promise we made to our citizens back home. I thank Senator Snowe, who is always trying to find common ground, bipartisan common ground, which is, of course, the only way you get important work done in the Senate. I also want to say a special thanks to Senator McCain, who is constantly focused on ways to expose waste, get more for the taxpayer dollar, and also Senator Stabenow of Michigan. Senator Stabenow has spent enormous amounts of time on a whole host of issues advocating for older people and the cost of prescription drugs, and I am convinced that this issue would never have gotten the visibility and the attention that it warrants were it not for Senator Stabenow's focus on it. I also would like to say the same about Senator Feinstein. She and I agreed on the night of the vote that we were going to join Senator Snowe in a bipartisan effort to get a fairer and better deal for older people, and I thank her as well for all of her effort. Now, Mr. President, the Snowe-Wyden legislation includes specific language that prohibits price controls and the setting of prices in America. This is something I feel very strongly about, and I know the Presiding Officer has a great interest in encouraging innovation and research. I think we all understand what is going on in the pharmaceutical field. We are seeing breakthroughs every single day, and one of the most important steps we can take in the public policy arena is to foster innovation and research even in my fair flat tax proposal that I introduced this week, and I know the Presiding Officer has great interest in tax reform, keeping the research and development tax break because it is important. So I don't take a backseat to anybody in terms of encouraging innovation and research, and one of the key ways to promote innovation and research is to avoid price controls, the setting of prices in Washington, DC, anything that would lead to policies that freeze the Government's ability to encourage innovation. So what we have done in this particular amendment is put in a statutory restriction on price controls, on the setting of prices so that it is clear to everyone in the Senate that all we wish to do in our bipartisan effort is to untie the hands of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and put Medicare in the position of being a smart shopper. I cannot for the life of me think why Medicare should not have the same power to negotiate what other programs and governments have, that others in the private sector would have, and with our bipartisan legislation, Medicare would have that power. This is particularly important because savings from negotiations are only going to come about as it relates to single-source drugs if this restriction is lifted. Without it, it seems to me we will not have negotiations for these single-source drugs where there isn't the kind of competition and marketplace forces. Many single-source drugs are particularly important for older people. We are talking about drugs such as Lipator, Zocor, and Prevacid. Lipator, for example, was at the top of the list of drugs most often taken by older people, and all of the drugs I mentioned were in the top 20 in terms of drugs used by seniors. So when it comes to savings--and this was noted by the Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me and Senator Snowe last year--it seems to me that you especially need the power to negotiate when you are talking about single-source drugs. Given the importance of Lipator in the marketplace, prevalence in terms of the older population, I hope that as Senators look at this amendment, they will see the value of giving the Secretary the power to negotiate. It is particularly critical when it relates to single-source drugs. In my view, it is disappointing that the way the underlying legislation was drafted, the fundamental base bill is going to require more than a simple majority for us to prevail. Certainly, there are a lot of special interests in this town that do not want the Federal Government to be a smart shopper. The number of lobbyists that are working against this legislation, which I will tell you I think is just about the most offensive restriction I have seen in health policy, the number of lobbyists working against our bipartisan amendment is just staggering. And make no mistake about what the special interests who oppose our legislation want to do. They would rather soak the taxpayer and add to the budget deficit than to have to negotiate with the Federal Government like all other businesses. They are basically saying: Look, we are special. Don't require us to have to go out and bargain. We shouldn't have to do what everybody else does. Everybody else in America who has marketplace clout is allowed to use it. That is what markets are all about. But because of the power of the special interests, this restriction prohibits Medicare from using the kind of marketplace forces that everybody else uses, and it is not right. I am sure that seniors and their families across the country are going to be especially concerned about the fact that this legislation is going to increase their Part B premiums. But it seems to me that at a time when their part B premiums are going to go up, when they are going to have to pay extra costs out of their pocket for copays and deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses, that alone would be a reason why we would look to give Medicare more bargaining power to hold down the cost of this program. Seniors are going to have less in their pocket to pay for prescription drugs and to sign up for this program. But the legislation was carefully written to make it tough on us and to increase the number of Senators we would have to have to pass this legislation. We are going to need more than a simple majority, and I think it is particularly unfortunate that at a time when seniors are going to see their Part B premiums go up, that we are not going to give them this opportunity to seek some real savings in what they have to pay for prescription medicine. I hope that Senators are going to be supportive of this legislation. I am sure when a Senator goes home and discusses prescription drugs, one of the first things that folks at home are going to ask is: How are you going to keep the cost down? What are you doing, Senator, to hold down the cost of medicine? The private sector is doing it, other Government programs are doing it; what are you doing, Senator, to hold down the cost of medicine? Tomorrow, the bipartisan group of Senators I mentioned--Senator Snowe leading our effort, myself, Senator McCain, Senator Stabenow, and others--will be saying: Look, we have something that is going to provide an opportunity for the Federal Government to be a smart shopper, to use its marketplace clout, and to hold down the cost of medicine when seniors are seeing an increase in their out-of-pocket expenses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that there is going to be an 8.5-percent increase in the cost of this program, and the Government Accountability Office has shown that the prices for existing drugs are increasing two and three times the rate of inflation. This is a prescription for a program that does not work. That is a failure, and I will tell you I don't want to fail our country's seniors. I voted for the prescription drug law. I want to make it work. But I will tell you, I am very troubled about the prospect that if steps are not taken to hold down the costs of this program, there is a real prospect that a great deal of money will be spent on a relatively small number of people because we will not have the number of seniors signing up that we need. We need to make this program work. It is important. Prescription drugs are a lifeline. Affordable prescription drugs are essential for the Nation's older people. Too many of these drugs are simply priced out of the reach of older people. At the end of the day, the bipartisan legislation that Senator Snowe will offer with myself and our bipartisan group is simply common sense. Let's make Medicare a smart shopper by allowing bargaining power. Let's stop this idea of forsaking our ability to be a savvy shopper, and let us make sure that when Medicare goes out and tries to make sure that the costs of this program are held down, that it has the tools it needs in its cost-containment arsenal to get the job done right and to make sure that the costs of this program, for both taxpayers and seniors, are held down. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Feinstein, Dayton, Kohl, and Feingold be added as cosponsors of the legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the offer from the Senator from New Hampshire. When the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from North Dakota have completed the processing of the various amendments, I would like to have the opportunity to speak for up to 45 minutes. Perhaps other colleagues will want to participate on the question of holding down the cost of prescription medicine. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. If the Senator from New Hampshire has given me his response, I gather you would like me to hold off on my unanimous consent request.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent once the Senate has completed its business on this legislation for tonight to be able to speak for up to 45 minutes on the issue of bargaining power for the Medicare Program to hold down the costs of prescription medicine.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, that is correct. I want to propound a unanimous consent request.

Mr. WYDEN. No.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her excellent work and concur with her remarks. Mr. President, you cannot look the public in the eye and say you are going to drill in ANWR and then ship this oil to China or one of the highest bidders around the world. That is, in my view, exactly what would happen without the Wyden-Talent legislation that is going to be offered now. Under the legislation, the Secretary could adopt oil lease terms that ensure what is described as the receipt of fair market value. The legislation does not make any mention whatsoever of what we have heard constantly for months and months; and that is this is somehow supposed to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil or increase our energy security. So what you would have is a situation where if the highest price is in South America, Arctic oil would go to South America; if the highest price is in the Far East, Arctic oil would have to go to the Far East; and, certainly, given the insatiable demand for energy in China, I think, with the dollar being weak, as sure as the night follows the day, without the Wyden-Talent amendment, this oil would end up going to the highest bidder in the Far East, particularly the Chinese. I do think this amendment is the very least the Senate can do to put a Band-Aid on what I think is a fundamentally flawed decision. I hope, as colleagues look at this--we had the debate in the Energy Committee-- they get a sense of exactly what is involved. With the inflated revenue projections of $2.4 billion from oil leases in the Arctic included in the budget, the Federal Government is going to be forced to sell the oil to the highest bidder to even come close to that amount. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that net Federal proceeds, over a 10-year period, would be $2.6 billion, with the initial royalties from production near the end of the decade. The budget assumes nearly all of those revenues in the next 5 years alone. So what that means is, if we are going to have any prospect of making sure this oil goes to the United States, we have to have this legislation. I also point out that the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon-- we still describe him as the senior Senator--Mark Hatfield, shared this position for years. He was a supporter of the oil industry, but he said: By God, aren't we going to keep this oil here at home? Yet what we heard in the Energy Committee is we are concerned about the Mercantile Exchange, we are concerned about all kinds of questions about trade law. This is not about the Mercantile Exchange. This is not about trade law. This is about whether the pledge that has been made by supporters, that this oil is going to stay in the United States, gets honored. I would like to tell my colleagues, particularly my good friend from Alaska, who said, ``Oh, it is a sure bet this oil will stay in the United States,'' that I specifically asked--I have the transcript with me--executives from BP, when they came to the Senate Commerce Committee, whether they would make a commitment to keep Alaskan oil in the United States. According to the official Senate transcript that I have, they would not make that commitment. That is why this legislation is needed. To allow drilling, and then shipping it overseas, in my view, is a case of two wrongs making a colossal wrong. So I hope the Senate now will accept this amendment. In my view, it is the very least that can be done to address the needs of consumers in our country. I thank my friend from Missouri, who contacted me about his interest in this issue. With supporters of oil drilling claiming oil is needed to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, we ought to recognize that in this Senate budget reconciliation bill we are not increasing U.S. energy security by one drop of oil--not one drop of oil--unless we have the assurance that this amendment provides that the oil would stay in the United States. I thank my colleague from Washington State for giving me this time. I appreciate the cooperation of the Senator from Missouri, who I think is prepared to speak at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 2362