Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on March 10, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I did this because I had been trying to obtain information concerning EPA's decision to become involved with the City of Portland combined sewer overflow program since last August. Despite numerous requests, EPA failed to answer my questions and failed to provide me with the documents I had requested, with the exception of a limited number of documents that EPA would have to provide to any requester under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Today, I am releasing my hold on Mr. Steve Johnson to acknowledge that EPA has made a good faith effort to provide documents on the Portland sewer situation since I placed a hold on his nomination. Although I am lifting my hold on Mr. Johnson, I remain troubled by EPA's policy for withholding documents from Members of the Senate and the Environment and Public Works Committee, in particular. I believe the EPA position on this critical issue is contrary to the law and the controlling court decisions. I have also voiced my concern that EPA policy would mean the end of Congressional oversight. I believe that Senators should not be forced to place holds on nominees in order to obtain documents they need to conduct their oversight duties as members of the committee with primary responsibility for oversight of EPA. I will lift my hold on Mr. Johnson's nomination today to acknowledge recent EPA efforts to respond to my requests. I will also be monitoring EPA cooperation in responding to my requests for information in the future. And if EPA again tries to stonewall as it did to my requests for information on the Portland sewers, I will put a hold on other EPA nominations if that is what it takes to get the agency's attention and cooperation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, like you, I was home over the last few days and very much enjoyed being with you, and I particularly enjoyed the honor we received from the Classroom Law Project. It has been a tremendous privilege to be able to team up with you on those kinds of initiatives. I want to discuss one of the issues about which I heard a great deal and I am sure you did as well when we were home. Gas prices in Oregon have now hit an all-time high. Over this past weekend, folks in Eugene and Medford in particular were paying more than $2 a gallon. Of course in our State this works a tremendous economic hardship. Folks have to drive long distances in many communities, and particularly for small businesses it is of tremendous economic concern at this time. In light of what I saw last night on the news program ``60 Minutes,'' I want to talk for a few moments about a resolution I have introduced recently calling on President Bush to put some real heat on the Saudis and OPEC to increase oil production in order to help the kind of people I saw over this last week in Oregon who are getting mugged at the gas pump. When I introduced this resolution recently, to put some real pressure, a full-court press on OPEC to increase oil production, I wrote a resolution that mirrored what a number of our colleagues offered during the years when Bill Clinton was President. There was an objection to the Senate considering my resolution to start putting some pressure on OPEC and the Saudis to increase production. It seems to me given what a lot of us saw on ``60 Minutes'' last night, I hope some of our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle would now reconsider my resolution and reconsider their objection to it. In an interview last night on the CBS news magazine, the Washington Post's Bob Woodward talked about the substance of a reported conversation between our President and Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar. Reading a portion of Mr. Woodward's new book, correspondent Mike Wallace said last night, ``Bandar wanted Bush to know that the Saudis hoped to fine-tune oil prices to prime the economy 2004. What was key, Bandar understood, were the economic conditions before a Presidential election.'' I want to start my discussion this afternoon with the question, Should the United States allow a foreign power to decide our Nation's energy security? Certainly this is a troubling question. It seems to me the pieces of the gas price puzzle are beginning to come together. I will tell you that I believe it forms a very troubling picture. On March 31, the New York Times reported a senior official in an OPEC country as having said the United States is placing ``very little'' pressure on the oil cartel to increase gas prices. The Saudi official continued by saying of OPEC's discussions with the United States, ``We're telling them, keep your mouth shut.'' Days later, OPEC moved to ratify a 1-million-barrel-per-day production cut that would further drive up gasoline prices in our country. The Reuters news service then reported the Saudi Foreign Minister was asked whether the United States had expressed any disappointment over OPEC's production cut. The Saudi Foreign Minister said, ``I didn't hear from this Bush administration. I'm hearing it from you that they are disappointed.'' Last night on ``60 Minutes,'' Bob Woodward told us the Saudi Ambassador indicated to the President that ``certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.'' I can understand why the Saudis would want to cut production right before the heavy summer driving season, the period that is coming upon us. The Saudis want to boost their profits. I have always said OPEC is going to stand up for OPEC. Anybody who thinks OPEC stands up for the American consumer thinks Colonel Sanders stands up for chickens. I understand the Saudis and that country are going to be interested in everything that will boost their profits. I can understand why any President would want gas prices to be low with an election coming fast. But what about what the American families want? We know what the Saudis want. We know about the climate before a Presidential election. While the Saudis count the profits and the President counts on the word of the Saudis, American consumers are counting out more and more of their hard-earned dollars just to fill up at the gas pump. When the market opened this morning, U.S. crude oil futures were $37.74 a barrel, which is about $8.50--or about 30 percent--higher than a year ago. As I noted over this last weekend, Oregon families were paying an all-time high for gasoline. A number of our communities have seen prices of over $2 a gallon. With gas prices through the roof, the administration should have pressured OPEC ahead of the cartel's planned reduction cut, and the President should have used his relationship with the Saudis to bring relief to American consumers. Let me repeat that. You have the prices soaring through the roof. You have the administration with an opportunity ahead of time to put pressure on OPEC ahead of their planned production cut. Certainly the President has had the kind of relationship with the Saudis that would ensure they listen seriously, and yet we saw this morning's report indicating the White House had different priorities when it came to gasoline prices, OPEC, and the Saudis. My view is there just isn't any substitute for leadership when our families are hurting financially. Unfortunately, we haven't seen it in recent days. I call on the Senate once again to send a clear message that the American people come first. The President ought to be using his relationship with the Saudis to help reduce gasoline prices now--not at a time of his choosing or the Saudis' choosing. It ought to be at a time when it best meets the needs of our consumers, and that is right now. I ask the Senate to once again consider my simple resolution. It parallels the one that was authored by our friends and colleagues now in the Cabinet, Senator Abraham and Senator Ashcroft, who were then serving in this distinguished body. The resolution I authored mirrors theirs to bring pressure to bear on OPEC and the Saudis to increase production. The Senate ought to be able to act at least as quickly on my resolution as it did on the one that passed in 2000. That was good enough for President Clinton, and it ought to be good enough for this President. As I noted, we have had a number of our former colleagues in support of it. The previous resolution was introduced on February 28, 2000, and was passed on March 27. I am very hopeful with crude oil prices at a 13-year record high the Senate will now apply the same principle in this administration that was applied in the Clinton administration. We ought to say on a bipartisan basis that every American President ought to have a full-court press in place in order to stand up for the consumer, to stand up to OPEC, and to speak up for our families who are getting clobbered at the gas pumps. In conclusion, this morning I noted the White House had no comment on the Saudi promise to cut oil prices. They said, Well, you can ask Prince Bandar, and essentially said they weren't going to get involved. I will say based on what I heard this weekend that standing on the sidelines isn't good enough. This is an area that the Senate ought to come together on in a bipartisan basis, the way it did in 2000. It is a key part of I think a comprehensive strategy to hold down gasoline prices. I have been trying to get the Federal Trade Commission off the sidelines. Certainly a lot of these refinery shutdowns smell because they look more to be boosting profits than boosting competition. But today I come to the floor of the Senate, given that very troubling report last night on ``60 Minutes'' and say I think there needs to be a full-court press and a comprehensive push on OPEC in order to lower gasoline prices. We have seen this troubling issue raised in the last 24 hours which makes me feel the question of how much pressure is being put on OPEC and when it is being put doesn't seem to be done in a way that is going to best get relief to the American consumer. The American consumer deserves to have a White House that is pushing now and pushing hard to get relief for the consumer at the gas pumps. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their objection to my resolution to urge OPEC to increase production and increase it quickly so it can be passed by this body on a bipartisan basis as soon as possible. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first, the Energy bill would do absolutely nothing over the next few months to lower these gasoline prices. What will help to lower the prices is passing this resolution and pushing OPEC to increase crude oil production. In fact, Republicans have even asked, with respect to the Energy bill, what it would do to gasoline prices. There is no evidence that it will lower prices. This resolution does something in conjunction with making sure we stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, making sure the Federal Trade Commission deals with these anticompetitive practices. This resolution can make a difference by pushing OPEC to stand up for the consumer. It was good enough in 2000 when a number of our colleagues, led by current Secretary of Energy Abraham, said it made sense. I submit this is something, unlike the Energy bill, which can make a difference for the gasoline consumers getting hosed at the pump right now. For that reason, I think it is unfortunate my colleagues have objected. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. WYDEN. Of course.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, what is troubling about the objection of our distinguished colleague from Texas is that this resolution is, in its substance, identical to the resolution that was offered by those on the other side of the aisle in 2000. It is interesting that when I came to the floor first to discuss this resolution, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, our friend Senator McConnell, said that certainly if we applied a set of principles to the Clinton administration, we can look at it as it relates to the Bush administration. That is exactly what I am doing. I will tell you, I listened to all of the arguments for the Bush administration's position. We hear about ``quiet diplomacy,'' for example. Maybe it is quiet diplomacy, but apparently the Bush administration's brand of diplomacy was inaudible to the Saudi royal family. So I cannot understand why there would be an objection from the other side with respect to this resolution. We have the Saudi Foreign Minister saying he had not been contacted by the Bush administration. I outlined the specific timeline of events between 2000 and 2004 that makes the case, in my view, why every Member of the Senate should want to support this resolution, which in terms of its substance is identical to the one passed in 2000. So I think it is very unfortunate that there has been an objection. I note that there has. I hope we will be able to take it up as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I also want to make sure our colleagues understand the timetable that is behind my resolution. On February 28, 2000, then-Senators Ashcroft and Abraham introduced a resolution calling on President Clinton to pressure OPEC to boost oil production before an OPEC meeting. That resolution passed the Senate by unanimous consent. On June 22, 2000, then-candidate George Bush said: I would hope the administration would convince our friends at OPEC to open the spigots. On February 10, 2004, our current Secretary of Energy said: [It is] very clear we are not going to beg OPEC for oil. On April 1 of this year, at a White House press briefing by Scott McClellan, he said: Let me just continue to reiterate that we remain actively engaged in discussions with our friends at OPEC. . . . We continue to make our view known. The President certainly makes his views known when he meets with world leaders and when he talks with world leaders. High-level administration officials from Dr. Rice to Secretary Powell to Secretary Abraham are always in close contact with producers around the world to make our views known. And we continue to do so. But given that timeline, on April 1 of this year--just a few days ago--the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said he had not been contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's decision to cut crude production by 1 million barrels a day. The Saudi Foreign Minister said: I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I am hearing it from you that they are disappointed. That is a direct quote from the Saudi Foreign Minister. We have to have an administration that puts the heat on OPEC, that pushes them to increase oil production and, just as the Senate said in 2000, we ought to say it in 2004. So given what I have just outlined, I now ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 330, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the President should communicate to the members of OPEC and non-OPEC countries that participate in the cartel of crude oil- producing countries the position of the United States in favor of increasing world crude oil supplies so as to achieve stable crude oil prices; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without intervening action or debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the last few days, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia has said--and it has been widely reported by our country's two largest wire services--that Saudi Arabia was not contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's recent decision to cut oil production by 1 million barrels per day. I was very troubled by these comments by the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. I want to read specifically what the Saudi Foreign Minister said when he was asked whether the United States had expressed its disappointment over OPEC's cut in oil production. The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia said: I didn't hear from the Bush administration. I'm hearing it from you that they are disappointed. This ought to be troubling to every Member of the Senate. Up and down the west coast of the United States, our constituents are getting mugged by high gasoline prices. In community after community, citizens are paying more than $1.90 a gallon. The high driving season is just upon us, and escalating gasoline prices are going to be devastating to consumers and to our economy overall. We all understand consumer spending is a major driver of our economy today, and it is going to be harder and harder to grow the economy and create private sector jobs if these gasoline prices continue to skyrocket. I am hopeful my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the resolution I have introduced urging that OPEC increase production. The reason I am hopeful for bipartisan support is that this resolution, in terms of its substance, is identical to one introduced on February 28, 2000, with our current Secretary of Energy, our friend, Spence Abraham, as one of the principal sponsors. Back then it was clear that our colleagues thought it was important, and we had a number of our colleagues who serve today, our friend Senator Grassley, distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Santorum, and others, all of whom said--and I share their view--that it is important for every administration to put the heat on OPEC in order to protect our consumers. It was important then to make it clear that it was the position of the U.S. Senate that OPEC boost oil production, and it is just as clear now. At the time that resolution was adopted in March 2000, a resolution sponsored by then-Senators Abraham and Ashcroft, oil prices were in the $25-per-barrel range with a high of $27 per barrel in February of 2000. In recent weeks, oil prices have been in the range of $35 per barrel, spiking up to $38, a 13-year high, last month. In 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush said it was important to put pressure on OPEC to boost oil production. I certainly share his sentiments. Yet with the comments of the Saudi Foreign Minister last week, it is clear that at best, there has not been a full court press in this administration on Saudi Arabia, on OPEC in order to increase gasoline production. If ever there were an administration that had earned some bargaining chips to push Saudi Arabia to increase oil production, it is this administration. After 9/11, there was an effort to help the Saudis, a number of them, leave our country. When there was concern about charities and the role that charities had played in financing 9/11, it was difficult to get key Government documents declassified. The fact is that Saudi Arabia keeps getting a free pass again and again. On this issue with respect to oil production, if ever there were an administration that had some bargaining chips to play in trying to get OPEC and the Saudis to increase oil production, it is certainly this administration. Now the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, just after OPEC announced another million-barrel-per-day production cut, it was not even contacted by the Bush administration to keep oil production high. There are other troubling signs which have led me to introduce this resolution. When Secretary Powell was in Saudi Arabia about 2 weeks ago, he also had a chance to talk about the oil crunch and how it is so harmful to the American consumer. The press release that came from the U.S. Information Agency--this is another document coming from our Government--indicated that the Secretary and the Crown Prince and Foreign Minister talked about a number of subjects--terrorism, governmental reforms, a variety of issues--but not the question of oil prices and keeping oil production high. I have said that OPEC is going to stand up for OPEC. Anybody who thinks OPEC is going to stand up for the American consumer thinks Colonel Sanders is going to stand up for the chickens. OPEC is doing what they think is in their self-interest. If you think they are going to stand up for the consumer, it is a delusion; it is not going to happen. But it is the job of our administration, just as it was in 2000, to stick up for the consumer who is getting clobbered with these gasoline prices. When the Saudi Foreign Minister says he hasn't even been contacted on this question of boosting oil production, I say that is not good enough. That is not good enough, given the harm it has done to our economy and our consumers by these gasoline price hikes. It is certainly not good enough for the people of Oregon, where consistently we have paid some of the highest gasoline prices in our country. The American people are entitled to some answers. Certainly, they are entitled to an administration, just as they were in 2000, that does what then-Governor George W. Bush says was important, and that was to push OPEC, put the heat on OPEC, have a full court press on OPEC to increase oil production. Instead, what we have learned from the Saudi Foreign Minister in recent days is that the administration has essentially sat on its hands with respect to this oil production issue. I will tell you, I think what is coming on this gasoline situation is a perfect storm. The combination of the shenanigans by OPEC--the fact that we are filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the wrong time, swiping oil from the private market, squirreling it away in the reserve at a time when we have enough for our national security needs; the fact that the Federal Trade Commission is not following up on anticompetitive practices--are the factors that are going to come together for a perfect storm with respect to this gasoline issue. I think it is critically important this Senate go on record on an issue we can do something about, just as we did in 2000 when we were led by a number of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle in making an effort to boost oil production. We ought to do the same now and stand up for the American consumer. I have introduced S. Res. 330, and I ask unanimous consent that Senator Carper, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Daschle be added as cosponsors.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, software programmers in Beaverton, OR, every day have to compete with those in Beijing. I think it is very important for the Senate to set in place bipartisan policies that are going to finally give a fair shake to our workers who are competing in tough global markets. I come to the floor this afternoon because I have developed, with the support of Senator Coleman, our colleague from Minnesota, a bipartisan proposal that would give the Senate a chance to help hundreds of thousands of laid-off high tech workers and service employees by extending trade adjustment assistance benefits to them so they can receive job training, income support, and health insurance tax credits. So often these workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and we know--especially the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate--these high tech workers have been the envy of our American workforce. There is extraordinary ingenuity among these hundreds of thousands of programmers and engineers and designers who have helped drive our economy in this century. Their creativity has generated an exceptional wave of economic prosperity, and trade agreements on services and intellectual property helped carry the fruits of the work of our workers around the globe. Information technology developed by American workers transformed the world and the way business is done. Overseas cable costs have dropped by as much as 80 percent in the last 5 years which, as the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, has spread the Internet far and wide. The Internet has made it a lot cheaper to send work through a phone line than to ship a bulky package on an airplane. Globalization of technology has globalized the technology workforce. So, in fact, the workers I am honored to represent in Beaverton, OR, do have to compete against workers in Beijing, and certainly geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. But the transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one built on packages of light has come at a heavy price. So often trade agreements in the past considered these high technology and service workers as an afterthought. The irony is now some of the very same workers who launched the technology revolution have actually become its victims. Hardly a day goes by without a front-page story in our country about an American programmer on his way out who is having to train a foreign worker who will replace him. Senator Coleman and I have been working with a number of colleagues. Senator Baucus on this side of the aisle has been exceptionally helpful. We talked with a number of colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Senator Coleman and I have developed a bipartisan proposal to make sure these workers, who have not gotten a fair shake in the past, do have an opportunity to get back into our marketplace economy. It is not a moment too soon. The American Electronics Association 2003 Cyberstates report found unemployment among computer programmers jumped from 4.5 percent in 2001 to 6.2 percent in 2003. High tech employment fell by 540,000 jobs to 6 million in 2002 and a further loss of 234,000 jobs was expected in 2003. The average American may think the Federal Government is helping those technology workers and service workers whose jobs have been displaced by trade. But the reality is that assistance is not available because the trade assistance law, which was authored in 1962 for displaced manufacturing workers, did not contemplate the tremendous number of jobs we now have in the technology sector, with all of those software programmers and engineers and designers. The U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era. Since 1962, when workers lost their jobs in a manufacturing plant as a result of trade, they could get help through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act has, in fact, helped hundreds of thousands of those displaced workers. But workers in the technology and the services sector, which now accounts for four- fifths of the U.S. workforce, have not been eligible for trade adjustment assistance. Time after time when a displaced software developer, accountant, or someone who has worked in the telemedicine field has gone knocking on the doors of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, they have been turned away. The bipartisan amendment I have developed with Senator Coleman will open the doors of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act to the hundreds of thousands of displaced technology and service sector workers. All of these workers who have been displaced by trade and by global marketplace forces deserve the same kinds of benefits. All of them have a chance to use these programs as a trampoline back into the private economy, so they can capture the jobs for which their skills have blessed them. Our amendment will establish equity in the program between manufacturing and service workers. The Wyden-Coleman amendment will cover three categories of trade- impacted service workers: those who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of import competition; public and private sector service workers who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance and where a closure has caused a layoff or closure at a secondary firm. This is an extraordinarily important statute because it provides retraining, income support, health insurance tax credits, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs. It can also help secondary workers or individuals who supply parts or services and who may have lost their jobs because their facilities shut down due to import competition or they move overseas. This is exactly the type of trade- displaced service worker opportunity that our citizens need. A self-described ``newly employed software engineer'' from Hillsboro, OR, wrote in December that ``my job was moved to India where the company can pay Indians a fifth of what they pay Americans.'' Another wrote: [A]s a 50-year-old high-tech manufacturing engineer with 26 years' experience, I was laid off in December 2002. I am sure the new factory the company is building in China will prevent my ever returning. I can't even get hired into an entry level position anywhere because I am over-qualified. These unemployed Oregonians and the hundreds of thousands of other information technology professionals who have lost their jobs deserve an opportunity to get the training, health care, and income assistance so they can get back on their feet and use their skills in the private marketplace. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act would target these kinds of workers who have been hurt by unfair competition. Globalization of information technology hardware production from 1995 through 2002 cut information technology hardware costs 10 to 30 percent, translating into higher productivity growth and adding $230 billion to our gross domestic product. Information technology became affordable to business sectors that were previously bypassed by the productivity boom. We are now talking about the small and midsized companies in health care, construction, and a host of related fields. But as information technology hardware prices declined, the importance of information technology services and software increased to almost 70 percent of information technology spending in 2001. With the growth in software and services outpacing hardware spending by almost two to one, the demand for cheaper information technology services has lent strength to this whole trend to move these jobs offshore. No one appears to have anticipated the extraordinary speed in which all of this has taken place or the scale of jobs moving offshore. The workers who lost their jobs and their livelihoods from jobs that have gone overseas cannot afford to wait for the higher skilled jobs that economists keep telling them is right around the corner. Higher value and higher paid systems integration jobs may come along, but in this period unemployed information technology professionals seem to feel they are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of new highly skilled information technology jobs. At the end of the day, what I am saying, along with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, is it should be irrelevant whether an individual works in today's economy in the services and technology sector or whether they work in the manufacturing area. Each of our workers who has been displaced by trade should be eligible for the same benefits. That is what our bipartisan proposal would do. The hundreds of thousands of workers who have been laid off in every part of our country in the technology sector and in the service sector are looking to whether the Senate will modernize the trade adjustment laws so they finally can get a fair shake and so they can pick up the skills and the health care and the income support that is going to let them get back on their feet, use their ingenuity, and use their work ethic to have a chance for a high-skill, high-wage job once again. I call on the Senate in a time of discussion about gridlock and the inability to move forward on important legislation. This is an example of two Senators who have worked with colleagues from both political parties to come up with a proposal that can help hundreds of thousands of workers in an economic crunch today that is sure to continue. We hope the Senate will move expeditiously on our legislation. It seems to me, to put it in the context of my home State, that when a worker who is a software programmer in Beaverton, OR, works hard and plays by the rules, it ought to be the job of the Senate to say when that worker is up against a software programmer in Beijing and the Beijing worker works for a fraction of the wages of the worker in Beaverton we create policies which are going to make it possible for our workers to move ahead to have the kind of quality of life that will allow them to support a family and participate in the community. I call on the Senate to pass our bipartisan proposal as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be back on the floor in the days ahead to talk about this critical question. It seems to me what is coming in this country on this oil issue is a perfect storm. The combination of the fact this administration is unwilling to push OPEC over its production cuts, the fact the Federal Trade Commission is unwilling to do anything about these anticompetitive practices or even investigate this refinery closure in Bakersfield, which has great implications for the west coast, all of these factors are coming together to create what I believe is a perfect storm for the gasoline consumer in this country. Given that consumer spending is what is driving our economy right now, we cannot afford to have these high gasoline prices continue or, as I fear, escalate to $3 a gallon. We will continue to focus on the question of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, swiping oil out of the private sector and squirreling it away into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when it already has a very high level and national security questions are being addressed. But that is not the focus of my comments today. The focus of my comments today is every Member of the Congress ought to be very troubled when the Saudi Foreign Minister says he wasn't contacted by the administration over these production cuts. We ought to do as was done in 2000 when the Senate, led by a number of our distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle who moved ahead on a resolution to boost oil production by OPEC. We ought to do the same now and stand up for the American consumer. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Reuters news service is reporting that Saudi Arabia, and their Foreign Minister specifically, have said in the last day or so they have not been contacted by the Bush administration over OPEC's decision to cut oil production once again. As a result, today I am introducing a resolution urging the President communicate to OPEC that oil production be increased, and I intend next week to ask for its immediate consideration. I am very troubled by the comments of the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia. In fact, what Reuters has reported is the Saudi Foreign Minister was asked whether the United States had expressed its disappointment over OPEC's cut in production and the Saudi Foreign Minister said at the time: I didn't hear from this Bush administration. I'm hearing it from you that they are disappointed. This is very troubling. Up and down the west coast of the United States our constituents are getting mugged by high oil prices. We have to have an administration that is willing to put some heat on OPEC to step up oil production at a critical time, particularly as we move in this country to the high driving season. These high gasoline prices are devastating to consumers. They are going to be very harmful to our economy overall, particularly job production. It is consumer spending that is driving the Oregon economy, and if we continue to see our consumers shellacked with these high gasoline prices, it is going to be harder and harder for us to create family wage jobs and generate business growth. I am hopeful my colleagues will support this resolution I am introducing today and which I am going to ask for immediate consideration of next week. The reason I am hopeful for such bipartisan support is this resolution, in terms of its substance, is identical to one introduced on February 28 of 2000, with our current Secretary of Energy, our friend Spencer Abraham, as one of the principal sponsors. Back then it was clear our colleagues thought it was important, particularly with influential Senators on the other side. Then the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, also the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, Senator Santorum, and a number of our distinguished colleagues were cosponsors of that legislation. The feeling was then it was important to put some heat on OPEC. It was important to make it clear it was the position of the Senate that OPEC boost production. Of course, that is what then-candidate George W. Bush said, that it was important to boost oil production. Yet with the comments of the Saudi Foreign Minister in the last day or so, I think it is very clear at best it is not a case of getting a full court press, in terms of this administration, on Saudi Arabia and on OPEC. I will tell you, if ever there was an administration that had some bargaining chips to play with Saudi Arabia in terms of boosting oil production, it is certainly this administration. If you look at what happened after 9/11, in terms of people being helped out of the country, various issues with respect to declassifying Government documents, it is very clear Saudi Arabia has been treated pretty darned well by this administration. If ever there was an administration that had some bargaining chips to play in terms of trying to get OPEC to increase oil production, it is certainly this administration. Yet the Saudi Foreign Minister has said, just in the last day, he wasn't even contacted by the Bush administration with respect to oil production. Let me also say there are some other troubling signs, and why I feel so strongly about the Senate next week passing the resolution I am introducing. When Secretary Powell was in Saudi Arabia about 2 weeks ago, he also had a chance to talk about the oil crunch and how it is so harmful to American consumers. The press release that came from the U.S. Information Agency--this is again another document coming from our Government--indicated the Secretary and the Crown Prince and Foreign Minister talked about a variety of subjects, terrorism and governmental reforms, but nothing was said about oil prices. What we have, and I have said this before, is OPEC is going to stick up for OPEC. OPEC is not going to stick up for the American consumer. If you think OPEC is going to stick up for the American consumer, then you think Colonel Sanders is going to stick up for the chickens. It is not going to happen. It is the job of our administration to stick up for the consumer, and when the Saudi Foreign Minister says he hasn't even been contacted, that he heard from reporters the administration was disappointed, that is not good enough. It is not good enough for my constituents where consistently we are paying some of the highest prices for gasoline in our country, where we faced anticompetitive practices like redlining and zone pricing for years. It is not good enough where you have a situation such as we have in Bakersfield, CA, where a very large refinery has been closed. They didn't even look for a buyer. There is a lot of oil in the area. The American people are entitled to some answers. They are certainly entitled to an administration that does what then-Governor George W. Bush said was important, and that was to fight for the consumer, to push OPEC to increase production. Instead, what we learned from the Saudi Foreign Minister is the administration has essentially just sat on its hands. I was following the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky a bit ago. He makes the point, and it is certainly one that makes sense to me, that what is good for then-President Clinton should be good for President Bush. What I say to my friend is the same principle ought to be applied when it comes to a Senate resolution on OPEC and high oil and gasoline prices. I hope we will have a good debate in the Senate in the days ahead with respect to our policy as it relates to OPEC and oil production. A number of our distinguished colleagues were there when this resolution was considered earlier: Senator Grassley, Senator Santorum, our current Secretary of Energy, a good friend of mine, Senator Abraham. I also note the distinguished Presiding Officer of the Senate, Senator Chafee, was also a cosponsor of that resolution. I am hopeful we will be able to do as the Senator from Kentucky said and that is apply the same principle to this administration as was applied to the Clinton administration. Every administration ought to be pushing OPEC to increase oil production. We certainly ought to take action when the Saudi oil minister was saying he wasn't even contacted. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Reuters news service. The title of this article is ``Saudi Says Not Heard From Bush Over OPEC Oil Cut.''

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time for the Bush administration to end its campaign of inaction on gasoline price hikes. Tomorrow, OPEC will vote on whether there should be additional production cuts, and this very morning, the Saudi oil minister said OPEC should go ahead with its scheduled production cut in the month of April. If they do, that is going to take 1 million barrels of oil off the market per day, when U.S. private oil supplies are already millions of barrels low and when U.S. gasoline prices are at record highs. Folks on the west coast of the United States are getting clobbered by these gasoline price hikes. People in California pay considerably more than $2 a gallon. Folks in my home State of Oregon are close behind, paying an average of more than $1.80 in some of our towns. There is a perfect storm coming with respect to these gasoline price hikes. The combination of the Bush administration filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the wrong time, the fact we have these refinery cutbacks on the west coast that seem as much to boost profit as anything else, the Federal Trade Commission turning a blind eye to anticompetitive profits, and the shenanigans of OPEC are the factors that are coming together to create what I think could be a perfect storm with gasoline prices of $3 a gallon. On the OPEC issue, less than a month ago the head of the Energy Information Agency told me OPEC would make up the difference for the oil the U.S. Energy Department is putting in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I have to tell you, Mr. President, if you think OPEC is going to be looking out for the American gasoline consumer, you have to think Colonel Sanders is looking out for the chickens. It simply does not add up. For the life of me, I cannot understand the administration's insistence on continuing to swipe oil out of the private U.S. market and squirrel it away in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when the American consumer is getting clobbered each week at the gasoline station. The Bush administration needs to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The administration is spending American tax dollars to buy oil at record high prices and put it in the reserve, and apparently they are saying they will not stop it. But, in fact, they did stop filling the reserve when it helped the oil companies. They stopped filling the reserve in December 2002 when the oil companies needed more supply for refineries. It seems to me the message today is what the administration is willing to do for the big oil companies they ought to do for the American consumer, and particularly the ones I represent on the west coast of the United States. There is no substitute for leadership when American families are hurting financially and getting shellacked by these gasoline price hikes. It is interesting to note that when the President was a candidate in 2000, he said the President ought to be using his bully pulpit to jawbone OPEC. This administration is not doing that. Last week, they took credit for oil coming down about $1 a barrel. The fact was, that was a day late and $7 a barrel short because the price is still way above the OPEC price target level. We come to the floor today to say when the American people are hurting, there needs to be Presidential leadership. These gas prices are hurting my constituents. They are devastating to businesses and to consumers on the west coast, and they are driving up prices for goods and transportation in this country. We have a proposal. It is to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, No. 1. No. 2, it is for the Federal Trade Commission to get off the dime and look at these anticompetitive practices. I have introduced legislation, S. 1737. If the Bush administration does not like that bill, I would like to hear their proposal. Let's hear what they are going to do to stand up for the west coast consumer. It seems the administration is busy filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no regard for rising gas prices. They are busy with their campaign of inaction that seems to help nobody but the oil companies and will not direct the Federal Trade Commission to take steps now to protect the consumer. I think the American people deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to reiterate how important it is that Congress and the administration act to protect the American people from rising gas prices. I call on the Bush administration to stop its campaign of inaction on this critical consumer issue. This week the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, will vote on whether to cut their cartel's production by 1 million barrels a day. This vote comes at a time when the American Automobile Association tells us that the national average price of gasoline is the highest it has ever been. Of course, we know it is not yet the peak driving season. In California, consumers consistently pay over $2 a gallon. In my home State, it is $1.80, and in some towns, $1.85, such as Eugene and Medford. Consumers in Oregon are getting clobbered. The vote OPEC will be making comes at a time when according to the Associated Press private gasoline inventories are already down by 2.5 million barrels. The vote comes at a time when, in spite of these very low supplies, the Bush administration stubbornly persists in filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve instead of steps that I and others favor, which are to put more oil on the market. In my view, it is imperative that the United States push OPEC in every possible way not to cause further harm to our already injured gasoline market and to vote against any further production cuts. The Lundberg Survey tells us that even if OPEC were to agree this week not to cut production, we would still face skyrocketing prices. Here is how I read that: If OPEC doesn't agree not to cut production, the problem will be that much worse. When oil prices were high in September of 2000, then-candidate George W. Bush blasted former President Clinton for not pushing OPEC to increase production. Prices at that time were not as high as they are today. And at least the administration at that time was making some efforts to wring some relief out of OPEC. But still then Texas Governor Bush said: We need to be mindful of the power of strong and consistent diplomacy. We need to start playing with chips we have earned in the past on behalf of American consumers. If anybody has chips to play now in order to get a fair shake for the consumer, it is this President. Certainly he has chips to play with the domestic oil producers who enjoy the tax breaks he favors and environmental breaks and help when those companies are having difficulty supplying their refineries. With regard to the OPEC vote, we ought to be clear. I hope the President of the United States will follow the advice he gave years ago. I hope he will do everything possible to push those OPEC countries now, telling them they should not allow the gas problem in this country to worsen with yet another production cut. Pushing OPEC to stop a planned production cut is the very least this administration could do for the gasoline consumer. It would be the least that could be done, but at least it would be something. At least it would end the weeks' long, months' long campaign of inaction that this administration has waged as gasoline prices have crept higher and higher and clobbered consumers in every part of the United States. For several weeks now OPEC's per barrel price has been well above their target per barrel price range of $22 to $28. OPEC committed to keeping prices in this range. They long ago discarded that commitment, and yet nobody has heard anything from the administration until just in the last week or so, as I and others started calling for answers. We sure heard from the White House last week when OPEC prices dropped to $35.51 per barrel. They said: Well, we are making progress. But the fact is, that amount is more than $7 higher than the top of OPEC's target price range. So any pressure this administration has put on OPEC is a day late and more than $7 short. Taking credit after the fact for a pittance of accommodation from OPEC is not going to solve this Nation's gasoline price problems, and it certainly is not going to provide the consumer any real relief. I will tell you what else is not going to help American consumers. That is for the administration to continue to turn a blind eye to the rampant anticompetitive and anticonsumer practices that are plaguing our country's gasoline markets. Scores of communities, including those in my State, have few if any choices for the gasoline consumer. Nationwide the gas market in Oregon and at least 27 other States is considered tight oligopolies where four companies control more than 60 percent of the gasoline at the pump. In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices have driven the independent wholesalers and detailers completely out of the market. They use red lining and zone pricing. The fact is, with these and other practices, the independent stations can't compete. They go out of business, and the oil companies can widen their net to grab even more cash from the consumers. The Federal Trade Commission, when they have looked at these practices in the past, have admitted that they are anticompetitive and drive prices higher. They just say they don't have the power to do much about it. I don't think that is true. To be fair, the past administration didn't do a whole lot either when it came to going to bat for the consumer to stop these oil company anticompetitive practices. But this administration has proven that if they want to make something happen administratively, they certainly can do it. They have done that in area after area. It seems to me that if the administration will end its campaign of inaction to stop the price-pumping shenanigans of private oil companies, they could certainly take steps now to help the American consumer. In December of 2002, they stepped in to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to keep more oil on the market, when the oil companies couldn't keep their refineries full. But now when American consumers are paying $2 a gallon at the pump, we don't see any effort to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So the fact is, what this administration is unwilling do for the driving public, they are willing to do for big oil. What ought to be done in the face of this campaign of inaction? Certainly, you can make a start by having congressional action. I sponsored S. 1737, which would give the Federal Trade Commission additional tools to promote competition in these very tight markets. They would have the power to issue cease and desist orders to prevent companies from gouging consumers. That is a vehicle that can be used right now to help the American consumer. We are certainly going to have problems in the days ahead. And even the oil companies admit that the market won't solve the problems on its own. Last August a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. Last November the Energy Information Administration also issued a report on the causes of last summer's record high gas prices. They said--and this is the position of the Federal Government-- ``There is continuing vulnerability to future gasoline price spikes.'' The Congress needs to act now before gasoline rises to $3 per gallon, and we are hearing that from some independent oil industry analysts. The administration, however, has the power to act now. They need to be on the phone. They need to be pushing OPEC today. They need to get off the dime at the Federal Trade Commission, where action can be taken administratively. Rising gas prices don't just hit families in the pocket during the weekly fill-up; those rising gasoline prices are producing a disturbance and causing ripples throughout our economy. There are huge consequences of this price manipulation. When gasoline costs more, businesses' transportation costs go up. Their profits go down. So either the price of the goods they sell to consumers has to go up, or the number of people they employ must plummet. So higher gas prices either mean bigger costs for consumer goods, or fewer jobs in an economy that certainly cannot afford to lose any more. Let me close by saying that I hope my legislation, S. 1737, will pass in the days ahead. Right now, consumers are getting socked at the pumps in person. That is not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to any Member of the Senate. It is time to stand up to the status quo. It is time for the Bush administration to take the lead. They ought to do it with OPEC and with the Federal Trade Commission. If the administration doesn't support the proposals I offer today, they ought to end their campaign of inaction and offer their own. I hope we will have a chance to debate this on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

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, I rise today to discuss a draft legislative proposal I have developed and am soliciting comment from people in my State to add 160,000 acres of new wilderness in the Mount Hood National Forest. The year 2004 is momentous for wilderness in Oregon. It marks the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 20th anniversary of the last Oregon wilderness bill. Perhaps most importantly, 2004 marks the bicentennial of the single most important exploratory committee ever launched by the Federal Government and that is the Lewis and Clark Expedition. One way to mark this very special time would be to enact a new Oregon wilderness bill, which I could conceive of as the Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2004. In tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, I believe it would also be appropriate to add four free-flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. In the last few years, Congress has protected some of my home State's most important treasures: Steens Mountain is now home to 170,000 acres of wilderness. The Little Sandy watershed is now part of the Bull Run Management unit and will help provide drinking water for over 700,000 Oregonians. Soda Mountain has been designated a national monument. Fort Clatsop National Memorial has been expanded, and this year it may be designated as Oregon's second national park. The draft I have been discussing with my constituents would take a fresh look at protecting the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge. These forests symbolize the natural beauty of my home State. They provide the clean water for the biological survival of threatened steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, and of course the majestic bald eagle. These are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for millions of Oregonians and all of our visitors. Mount Hood is the highest mountain in my home State. Captain Clark described it as ``a mountain of immense height, covered with snow,'' while John Muir described Mount Hood a bit more poetically as ``one glorious manifestation of divine power.'' ``Wy'East'' is the American Indian name for Mount Hood. Before Lewis and Clark came to what we now know as my home State, these forests and species they supported in turn supported native Indians for thousands of years. These are the forests that connect the high elevation snowfields with the rich, diverse lower valleys that produce our famous salmon which were described as so plentiful one could walk across the river on their backs. Although the history of Mount Hood and her environs are fascinating, the need to designate these areas as protected wilderness and wild and scenic rivers is best expressed by the very modern stories of increased pressures from development and recreational use that are at the heart of our State's future. The need to protect and build on Oregon's wilderness system that is as important now as it was in 1804, 1964, or 1984. There are currently 189,200 acres of designated wilderness on the Mount Hood National Forest. I believe it would be appropriate this year, 2004, to discuss a draft bill which would almost double that amount by designating approximately 160,000 new acres of wilderness thereby lessening the pressures of overuse while also staving off the threat of development. Today, the economic role of these important public lands has shifted. Communities on the highway to Mount Hood often market themselves as the ``Gateway to Mount Hood,'' and see this as a special opportunity to improve their tourism. They should. On weekends, crowds of Oregonians come out of the cities seeking a natural and often wild experience. In the 20 years that has elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area, the population in the local counties has increased significantly--20 percent in my home county of Multnomah, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 41 percent in Clackamas County. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness, and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation, it seems to me that very often we are in jeopardy of loving our wild places to death. A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people who could hike the south side of Mount Hood. I can tell you the public outcry was staggering. So it seems to me, rather than to tell people they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, the solution lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy our great places. I have heard from community after community that they fear a threat to their local drinking water or the need for further protections from development. Congressional statutory designation as wilderness provides the only real protection of the historic, scientific, cultural, environmental, scenic, and recreational values that contribute to the quality of life of which the people of my State are so proud. The protection of the special Oregon places is going to depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians, and especially my colleagues in the Congress. I have had a chance already to discuss this with Senator Smith. He and I always work in a bipartisan way. As always, he has been very gracious with respect to saying he would work with me and will join me in listening to the people of Oregon. I have also been pleased today to be able to talk to Congressman Walden, who is the new chair of an important subcommittee who will be in a position to listen to the people of our State, take their ideas, and take their input on this draft. I also have talked to Congressman Blumenauer today, who represents the congressional district that I was so proud to represent for 15 years in the House of Representatives. I believe the four of us in particular will take the time now to listen to the people of our State, the county commissioners, the environmentalists, the entrepreneurs, the chambers of commerce, the Governor, various State- elected officials who have an interest in this issue, and other interested parties and work to try to get this important work done in the right fashion. I have been very proud to have been involved in two natural resource efforts in the last few years where people thought the polarization was so great that you could not get anything done. With respect to the county payments legislation Senator Craig and I teamed up on a matter that was absolutely critical to funding schools and roads. We worked in a bipartisan way, listened to people, and got an important piece of legislation passed. We did the same thing with respect to forest health legislation earlier in this Congress. People said we couldn't get a bill out of the Senate. A lot of people of good will, including the Presiding Officer tonight, came together and we got 80 votes for it in the Senate. When you listen to people, it is possible to get important natural resources legislation passed. I think it would be very appropriate to take the draft I am now circulating to the people of Oregon, spend the necessary time listening to people of our State, and turn it into legislation that could be considered formally by the Congress and perfect it in the coming weeks and days ahead. Congress ought to try to pass this legislation after listening to the people of my home State. The grandeur of Mount Hood and other Oregon treasures can be assured for future generations if we can come together and approach this in a bipartisan way. That is what I am committed to doing based on my conversations today with Congressman Walden and Congressman Blumenauer, the Members who are most affected by the legislation, and Senator Smith who has joined me so often. I am convinced our delegation is committed to doing this job right, recognizing that 2004 is a momentous year for wilderness in our State. I would very much like to see the people of our State, working with our congressional delegation, coming together and passing a Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2004. We have a lot of work ahead of us in the days ahead, but we are committed to approaching this in a responsible and bipartisan fashion. I want to tell the people of my State I think it would be exciting to make sure that we could take steps in this session to ensure that, for the millions who will come to visit Mount Hood in the days ahead, we have acted to preserve the grandeur of this spectacular treasure. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York for taking this time. I want to spend a few minutes trying to put in context the debate about Mr. Clarke's new book. It seems to me that first and foremost this debate is about more than ``he said/she said.'' Invariably that is what these discussions become fairly quickly. I want to review a couple of instances that have caused me to be particularly concerned about the way the Clarke book has been handled. When former Ambassador Wilson was concerned that the administration had no evidence that the Iraqis had attempted to buy yellow cake from Nigeria, there was a very significant effort to try to discredit him. When former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, a close friend of the Vice President, in effect talked about the administration going after Saddam Hussein, everybody in the administration said he was all wet as well. Now we see the same tactic employed against Mr. Clarke, who served both Republican and Democratic administrations, beginning with the Reagan administration. Having worked closely with Mr. Clarke on a number of issues relating to cyber terrorism, Mr. Clarke has been very critical of actions taken by executive branch officials of both political parties. My sense is that, when you look at what people such as former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have said over the years, you don't go with a story unless you have two independent sources to confirm it. What you have this morning is Mr. Clarke in effect confirming Secretary O'Neill's account of the administration's focus on Saddam Hussein. That is particularly important. These are two people with a long history of working in Washington, DC. Both of them have been fiercely independent. Both are known for calling the issues on the basis of how they see them. In effect, you have Mr. Clarke now confirming Secretary O'Neill's account with respect to the focus on Saddam Hussein. There is an old saying that all roads lead to Rome. It seems the administration so often clearly believes that no matter what the evidence was at any particular time, essentially everything led to Saddam Hussein. It is clear that Saddam Hussein, throughout his leadership in Iraq, consistently looked for opportunities to inflict pain and trauma on the people of that country. It is beyond question that this was an evil individual. But at the same time, it is critically important that we be in a position to follow the facts. I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I have always tried to work in a bipartisan way. I see the Presiding Officer of the Senate, Mr. Smith. He and I together have tried to set an example of bipartisanship. That is the way we need to proceed in this critical area. When you have the Clarke book backing up what former Secretary O'Neill said, that ought to set off alarm bells. That ought to set off alarm bells with respect to exactly how information is filtered now in the executive branch. I am hopeful we will see this independent inquiry get to the bottom of the situation and find out exactly what transpired after this critical situation with the attack on our country. It is important that our Nation get the facts. It is important that they are found in a dispassionate fashion. Now with this new book by Mr. Clarke making it clear that he shares the judgment of Secretary O'Neill, it ought to renew a concern in the Congress and a concern on a bipartisan basis that this country has a right to know, this country has a right to the facts. Certainly the question of responsibility for 9/11 is an issue the American people should be able to see in a dispassionate fashion, what really happened and how it happened. If anything, the events of the last week reaffirm in my mind how important it is that the American people get the real story. I yield my time. I note the Senator from North Dakota is on the floor as well. He and I have worked together on many issues. Certainly on the foreign policy arena, we share the view that these issues have to be worked on in a bipartisan way. I will continue to focus on the evidence and focus on that evidence no matter where it leads. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts coming to the floor because he has done so much to help the consumer in this area. My concern--and I would be interested in the Senator's reaction--is I think the consumer is about to get hit by a perfect storm with the combination of failure to push OPEC, as the Senator has said, to try to help on the production issue, plus the refinery cutbacks that apparently are primarily to boost profits, plus filling the strategic petroleum reserve. With these factors coming together, it seems to me a perfect storm is going to push the consumers' gasoline price at the pump to $3 a gallon. I would be interested in the Senator's reaction, and I am anxious to work with him in this effort to push the administration to go after OPEC.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, gasoline prices are soaring to the highest levels ever and once again the response of the Federal Government is to do nothing. I have come to the floor today because I believe the gasoline consumer is about to be hit by a perfect storm, a combination of refinery cutbacks that boost profits, the fact that oil is being moved into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no plan to protect the consumer from resulting shortages, and the prospect of even higher OPEC prices when OPEC cuts production possibly in June, just at the start of the high travel season. I want to discuss this today because inaction in the face of spiraling gas prices is the worst possible response Congress and the administration could have at this time. Higher oil and gasoline prices act like attacks on our consumers, causing them to defer spending in order to pay for gasoline. Right now, consumer spending is the principal ingredient driving our economy. If consumer spending declines, economic recovery is going to be delayed and there is the chance of the economy sliding further into a recession. I know gasoline prices are already as high as they have ever been, and the perfect storm I see coming in the days ahead is going to soak consumers for even more money at the pump with the prices already staggering. According to the American Automobile Association, the national average price of gasoline is $1.72 per gallon. That is just 2 cents short of the alltime high set last August and, of course, it is not even the peak driving season. California prices are consistently way over $2 per gallon. The prices in my State are consistently in the ballpark of $1.80. I will outline this afternoon why I believe it is likely to get even worse. One major oil company, Shell, has announced it is deliberately shutting a 70,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Bakersfield, CA. This refinery is critical to the entire West Coast market. The fact is, when Shell permanently constricts gasoline supplies and drives up prices along the West Coast, our area, which already has staggeringly high unemployment, is going to be hit very hard. Earlier this month, at a Senate Energy Committee hearing, I asked the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration whether the closing of Shell's Bakersfield refinery could boost West Coast prices even higher. That day he agreed that could be the result of that refinery shutting down. Yet, in the face of these kinds of problems, the response of the Federal Government is simply to sit on the sidelines. Shell's announcement of its decision to close the Bakersfield refinery claimed in a statement that there is simply not enough crude supply to ensure the viability of the refinery in the long term. Recent news articles have reported that both Chevron/Texaco and State of California officials estimate that in that valley where the Bakersfield refinery is located, there is a 20- to 25-year supply of crude oil remaining. In fact, Bakersfield, CA, reported on January 8 of this year that Chevron/Texaco plans on drilling more than 800,000 new wells in the valley, which is 300 more new wells than last year. The fact that Texaco, Shell's former partner in the Bakersfield refinery, is increasing drilling in the area calls into question this claim by Shell that a lack of available oil supply is the real reason for closing the Bakersfield refinery. Shell also claimed that its decision was not made to drive up profits, but the company admitted to the Wall Street Journal that there will be an impact on the market. Of course, the impact is going to be to drive up prices even higher. The question for the Senate, and why it is so important for us to act now, is, How much are these prices going to go up and when is the Senate going to finally stand with those who have to make these gasoline purchases? In 2001, I revealed internal oil company documents that showed major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for stifling competition and boosting their profits. These documents raised significant questions about whether American oil companies are trying to pull off a financial triple play: Boosting profits by reducing refinery capacity, tagging consumers with higher pump prices, and then going out and arguing for environmental rollbacks and additional financial incentives. I say, and I want to use this to make clear why I think it is important the Senate should act, that I believe these practices I described in 2001 are still ongoing today as gasoline prices rise even higher and consumers suffer even more. In memos detailed in a report I issued then, oil companies articulated a desire to reduce oil and gas supply. One document from Texaco reads: Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline in order to increase prices and grow profit margins. Oil company competitors also discussed-- Discussed with each other, Mr. President-- mutual opportunities to control oil and gas supply, thus keeping markets tight. In one case, they were trying specifically to prevent the restart of a closed refinery in southern California. One company document revealed if the refinery in question, Powerine, was restarted, the additional gasoline supply on the market could bring down gas prices and refinery prices by 2 cents to 3 cents per gallon and it called for a ``full court press'' to keep the refinery down. The Powerine refinery's capacity was 20,000 barrels per day. The Bakersfield company Shell wants to shut down has a capacity of 70,000 barrels a day. If oil companies in the mid-1990s thought a much smaller shutdown would raise the price of gas by 2 cents to 3 cents, you can't tell me the shutdown of a refinery with 3\1/2\ times the capacity will not have an even larger impact on prices at the pump. What makes Shell's decision to close its Bakersfield refinery especially curious is it seems the company has done virtually nothing proactively to find a buyer. But, to date, in spite of my requests and the requests of others, the Federal Trade Commission has made no effort to stop or even slow plans for Shell's refinery closure. The Federal Trade Commission has been arguing they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out blatant collusion, setting out a standard that is virtually impossible to prove against these very savvy oil interests. But in this case the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to act because the Agency allowed two megamergers to go through that directly affect the refinery Shell now plans to shut down. The Federal Trade Commission had a chance to act when it allowed Shell to acquire full ownership of the Bakersfield refinery in 2001 from a Shell-Texaco partnership. The Federal Trade Commission had another chance to act when it allowed Shell to acquire Pennzoil-Quaker State in 2002. Then last November, when Shell announced it was closing the Bakersfield refinery, the Federal Trade Commission had a third chance to act, using its continuing authority to reexamine these earlier mergers. I say it is time to get the Federal Trade Commission off the sidelines and onto the side of the consumer who is getting shellacked at gasoline pumps all across America. Today I am calling on the Federal Trade Commission to exercise its continuing authority over these past mergers and to either block the shutdown of Shell's Bakersfield refinery or to otherwise keep refineries in that area viable. That set of decisions will affect the entire west coast gasoline market. At a time when our economy is being hit so hard, it is absolutely critical to the public interest. The Energy Department ought to be doing more to address the problem of high gasoline prices, but at a minimum the Energy Department should not be making the problem worse. When Secretary Abraham was asked recently about the problem of rising gasoline prices, he told reporters he was extremely concerned but did not specify the Department would do anything. One thing that could be done by the Department that would help address the problem is the Energy Department could stop making the current supply situation worse by taking oil from the tight U.S. market to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve without any protections for the consumer. On February 12, as crude and gasoline prices were spiking up, the Bush administration awarded five new long-term contracts to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These new contracts will run from April through the summer, the very time period where prices typically shoot upward. If the Bush administration were concerned about high gasoline prices, the Energy Department could have either delayed awarding these long-term contracts or arranged to defer the delivery of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as was done last winter, to minimize the impact on the market and on the consumer. But now the administration is taking oil off the market and moving it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with no concrete plan to protect consumers from the higher prices this action will cause. Earlier this month, Guy Caruso of the Energy Information Agency told me OPEC would be making up the difference in supply for oil that is being moved into America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So you have a situation where the administration, through the Energy Information Agency, is telling people to not really sweat these OPEC decisions. But now OPEC is telling us they are going to cut production by 1 million barrels a day. This morning we hear they might hold off until June instead of making cuts in April. But even if they do that, the OPEC production cuts would come at the beginning of the summer travel season. So certainly OPEC is engaged in some doubletalk. For some time they have not kept their promise to hold oil prices within their own target price range. In fact, some members of OPEC just want the price range increased. Some in OPEC say they are concerned prices are too high. Yet this cartel is taking oil off the market. Others are saying they see a glut of oil on the market, justifying the production cut. These are mixed signals, but the message for our consumers is clear: OPEC is certainly going to do what is best for OPEC, not what is best for the American consumer. My bottom line is the Federal Government certainly is challenged, in terms of stopping OPEC from cutting production. But certainly the Federal Government can take steps and take steps immediately to make sure there is competition in our gasoline markets so consumers are not getting ripped off at the pump. Today I am calling for Congress to take action on a specific, concrete package of procompetition initiatives to help consumers at the Nation's gas pumps. First, Congress needs to direct the Government regulators to act to eliminate anticompetitive practices that currently siphon competition out of gasoline markets. Scores of communities, including those in my home State, have few if any choices for the consumer. Nationwide, the gasoline markets in Oregon and in at least 27 other States are now considered to be tight oligopolies, with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gas supply. In California, where Shell's Bakersfield refinery is located, 4 oil companies control 70 percent of the market. In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices have driven independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called redlining, limits where independent distributors can sell gas. As a result, independent stations have to buy their gas directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand-name stations are paying. With these higher costs the independent stations can't compete. Last year I sponsored legislation, S. 1732, that would give the Federal Trade Commission additional tools to promote competition in these areas that are essentially small monopolies. Under my bill, in these very highly concentrated markets you would have consumer watch zones. In these zones there would be greater monitoring of anticompetitive practices by the Federal Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission would also be empowered to issue cease-and-desist orders to prevent the companies from gouging the consumer, and Congress would stipulate certain anticompetitive practices like redlining and zone pricing are, per se, anticompetitive and oil companies engaging in these anticompetitive practices that manipulate supply or limit competition would have the burden of proof to show these anticompetitive practices are not harming consumers. There is a vehicle right now. Right today there is a vehicle, S. 1737, Congress could use to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices, because the companies admit the market is not going to solve the problem on its own. Last August, a report by the RAND Corporation revealed even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. This means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years. Last November, the Energy Information Agency also issued a report on the causes of last summer's record high gas prices. The Energy Information Agency found, ``There is continuing vulnerability to future gasoline price hikes.'' The industry and the Bush administration both agree gasoline price spikes are going to be a continuing and significant problem. But neither, as of today, is willing to step in and work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to do anything about the problem. I am here to say the Congress needs to act now. This is legislation to act now before gasoline shoots up to $3 per gallon, as some oil industry analysts are predicting. The reasons Congress ought to act are twofold. Aside from the obvious cost to the consumer at the pump, there are hidden costs to the price manipulation. There is a huge economic impact that will only worsen as prices rise. When gasoline costs more, the costs for our businesses in the transportation area go up. Our businesses see their profits go down. So we have one of two things--either the prices of the goods they sell to consumers have to go up or the number of people they employ is going to plummet. Higher gasoline prices either means bigger costs for consumer goods or fewer jobs in our economy. And certainly in our home State, we cannot afford to see that. This isn't high economic theory. This is basic math. Just this month, the New York Times quoted a truck driver from Wisconsin saying eventually the added cost of transporting household goods and snacks and other items will once again come back and clobber the consumer. You have a double whammy. Consumers get socked at the pump in person, and then get hit again with higher prices for the goods they buy. That is not acceptable to me, and I don't believe it is acceptable to the American people. The challenge now is for the Congress to stand up to the status quo in the oil industry. I understand--and certainly nobody would minimize this--this will be a hard row to hoe in terms of taking on these very powerful interests. When I first introduced legislation that now can be used to protect the consumer from gasoline prices going up to $3 per gallon, various oil interests and Bush administration officials voiced great consternation and argued vociferously that the legislation I believed will protect the consumer was unacceptable to the oil industry and the administration. I still believe the proposals which I have put forward in legislation and on which the Congress could move now would protect competition and free markets. My legislation doesn't involve big expenditures from Government. It doesn't involve setting up new agencies. It involves bringing some competition and free market forces back to this country and to the gasoline business--particularly in those States where we have these quasi-monopolies. But for those who disagree with my legislation, S. 1737, which I believe would protect the consumer who is getting clobbered at the gasoline pumps, I issue a challenge. If they think they have a better approach than my legislation for bringing competition and free market forces back to the gasoline market, they have an obligation to come forward at a time when our consumers are being hit so hard at the pump. Unless people who are opposing my legislation are prepared to say the record high gasoline prices aren't a problem, they have an obligation to come forward with their proposals to promote competition. Put an alternative on the table and stand up for the consumer. I also think Congress needs to address the growing gap between consumer demand for gas and what the oil companies can produce. When supplies are tight and there is no spare gasoline in inventories, consumers are especially vulnerable to supply shortages and price spikes. That frequently causes severe price spikes when refineries shut down unexpectedly or a pipeline breaks, as happened last summer. Congress should ensure consumers are not left stalled by the side of the road or being pounded at the pump by taking steps to keep supplies available in an emergency. One option would be to require major oil companies to maintain minimum inventories to address unexpected supply crunches. Alternatively, the Federal Government can create a strategic gasoline reserve to provide supplies during refinery or pipeline shutdowns. This proposal would build on the strategic reserves that already exist for petroleum and heating oil supplies. It seems to me what it all comes down to is the American people deserve better, and they deserve better than the Federal Government being AWOL when our consumers are facing skyrocketing gasoline prices across the country. With a new energy bill expected to come before the Senate in the next several weeks, this is an opportunity to put the Government on the side of the American consumer when they are filling their tanks at the pumps across the land. I conclude by again commenting on the role of the Federal Trade Commission. This is the agency that is charged by Congress with promoting competition and free markets. Again and again in the energy field they have either sat on the sidelines or simply looked the other way in the face of increasing concentration in this critical sector of our economy. With gasoline prices already soaring at the highest level at this particular time, it seems to me it is absolutely critical for the Federal Trade Commission to reverse its present course, get on the side of the consumer, and promote marketplace forces and competition in the gasoline business. I intend to use my seat on the Senate Commerce Committee at every possible opportunity to force the Federal Trade Commission to do the job it has been charged by the Congress to do. It ought to start with looking seriously into the shutdown in Bakersfield, which is going to, in my view, have calamitous consequences for the entire west coast gasoline market. But it also should include a broader look at the implication of concentration in the gasoline business. I am hopeful that ultimately the Federal Trade Commission will support my legislation, S. 1737, which would promote more competition in the gasoline business. And if they disagree with it, the head of that agency, Mr. Timothy Muris, ought to propose his own alternative. 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. Madam President, today, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I did this because I have been trying to obtain information concerning EPA's decision to become involved with the City of Portland's combined sewer overflow program since last August. Despite numerous requests, EPA has to this point failed to answer my questions and failed to provide me with the documents I have requested, with the exception of a limited number of documents that EPA would have to provide to any requester under FOIA. There are legitimate questions about EPA's decision to intervene 10 years after the City signed an enforceable order with the State of Oregon and after the city and its ratepayers have spent more than $500 million to reduce sewer overflows. But to date, I have been unable to get answers to my questions from EPA despite repeated requests. Last August, I wrote to the Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko requesting answers to a number of questions concerning EPA's decision to become involved with the City of Portland's combined sewer overflow program. I also requested copies of documents about the Portland sewer situation. I never received answers to my specific questions, and I have received only a small number of the documents I requested. I also submitted written questions following a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on September 15 to then EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, Tracy Mehan. I never received a response from Mr. Mehan, who has subsequently left the agency, or anyone else from EPA. In October, I received a letter from Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko promising to ``work[] with your staff to identify which of the documents that are not enforcement sensitive or confidential would be most helpful to you.'' Since then, I have received only a slim file of documents that doesn't begin to answer my questions. Finally, I ask EPA Administrator Leavitt to look into this personally more than a month ago. Until I receive answers to my questions and the documents I need to exercise my oversight responsibilities over EPA as a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I will continue to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.