Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, forestry can often make Middle East politics seem noncontroversial. I think it is fair to say that today it would be hard to find a topic that is more emotionally flammable than the one that has come to the Senate today. I begin by saying that right now, my home State--and I see my good friend, Senator Smith, on the Senate floor as well--is sending resources to California to help deal with the horrendous fires. But I think it ought to be noted, as we begin this discussion, that just over a year ago the State of California was sending resources to my home State--the State that Senator Smith and I are proud to represent. Just over a year ago, we were on the Senate floor speaking about the huge forest fires that raged in our State. At that time, over 500,000 acres were burning. We had a dozen fires raging at any given time. Seventeen thousand people in one of our valleys alone were on a 24-hour evacuation notice, and 2,500 structures were threatened. So I think we ought to note, as we begin this discussion, that the legislation before us today is critical, not because of last year's tragedies, or even the tragedies that we are seeing in California today; this legislation is critical to address the tragedies and destruction that, as sure as the night follows the day, will be in the news tomorrow if the Senate doesn't start taking reasonable steps to address forest health policy. It seems to me that is the approach before the Senate today. Mr. President, this is the bill that is going to go to the President of the United States. For many months now, a group of us--and Chairman Cochran has referenced this--have been involved in the negotiations. They are difficult negotiations because passions do run so strong on this issue. But I want to make it clear, for myself and the others who have signed the letter, that we cannot accept an unraveling of this compromise; that this is the bill that is going to go to the President's desk, and we are very hopeful the President will sign that legislation into law. It is absolutely critical that the Senate come together on a reasonable plan that is going to help our forests become healthy again and secure the well-being of the families who call these beautiful areas their home. I believe this bill provides an opportunity to remove fire-prone materials from the forests, boost rural economies, and create family- wage jobs, while at the same time protecting the extraordinary treasures--the land and the environment of the West and our Nation--for future generations. Let me outline for a few minutes why I think this is the approach that needs to be signed into law. First, this is the only bill--unlike the one in the other body--that authorizes a significant increase in funding for the hazardous fuels reduction projects that need to be undertaken. The other body doesn't authorize a single dollar--not one-- for the projects that need to be pursued. As a result, there is tremendous concern across the country that if you were to go the route of the other body, the only people that would really be able to afford to get into the thinning work would be commercial logging companies. That would be a huge mistake. Under the bipartisan compromise that has been crafted, that is not going to happen. Second, the other body doesn't make an effort to target the dollars in a flexible way so that the work gets done in the communities that most need it in our Nation. The Senate compromise goes to bat for our rural communities by directing that 50 percent of the funding be spent inside the wildland/urban interface where populations are great, but at the same time we can deal with these infernos, these enormous fires that so often start way out in the country and then come into the more urbanized areas. The other body is silent on this issue. The Senate, after many hours of negotiation--my friend from Idaho and I have literally been talking about this issue for almost 5 years now--strikes a reasonable balance with respect to targeting money for the wildland/urban interface while recognizing that so many of these huge fires start in sparsely populated areas out in the country. Third, this bill is the only one that makes a historic step forward to protect our old growth, our treasures of the West about which our citizens feel so strongly. The other body has no language at all to protect old growth or the large trees and doesn't limit how projects can be executed. What the Senate has said is, yes, there are more than 100 definitions of what constitutes ``old growth.'' We recognize that, but throughout the bill we reference the priority to focus on the trees that are not old growth--the smaller trees, the brush--that contribute to this problem. And then, to ensure that there is actually an incentive to protect our old growth, we offer what I think is a creative approach, the kind of approach Senator Craig and I offered when we broke the gridlock on the county payments bill years ago so our communities could get revenue for schools and roads. Here, to make sure that the old growth work is a top priority, that protecting old growth is not an afterthought, we say that with respect to the old forest plans, the Forest Service would have to go back and revise the old forest plans to make sure there is actual old growth protection that is going to go forward before the thinning gets put in place. We have an actual incentive, beyond the statutory language, which is a historic first and would protect old growth. We have a policy that would actually create incentives to prioritize old growth protection because it has to be done first under the old forest plans for thinning work to go forward. Next, the bipartisan compromise effort keeps the current standard for judicial review of projects and ensures that what we have as a result of the changes in the judicial area, in the appeals area, sends a message across this country that citizens have a right of access with respect to their concerns about timber sales, but they don't have a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every single timber sale. The bipartisan group spent a great deal of time on this effort. In my view, the legislation that comes out of the other body would actually change the outcomes of these lawsuits that would rob the judiciary of the independent ability to weigh the evidence put before them. In the bipartisan compromise that was crafted, we strike a reasonable balance. Citizens are going to have a right that is undiluted with respect to access to the judicial system, but we will not set up a litigation derby that goes on for years and years and keeps the essential work from going forward. Next, the Senate legislation ensures that the public will always be in the debate, will always be in the process and at the table. The Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill in the other body basically drives the public out of the process by predetermining these National Environmental Policy Act alternatives. The Senate compromise preserves all current opportunities for public input and appeal while streamlining the process and eliminating some of the most frustrating and exasperating aspects of bureaucracy. But it is clear, and I want to make this point early in the debate, that not one current opportunity--not one--for public comment would be lost under this compromise. The compromise requires the Forest Service to rewrite their appeals process using a process that has been used by the Bureau of Land Management since 1984, and the sponsors of this compromise believe this will change a process that is now confrontational to one that is vastly more collaborative. Finally, much of the argument made against this compromise is very similar to the arguments that were made in 1999 when I and Senator Craig and others got together and put before the Senate the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. They said that was going to restrict the opportunities for citizens to be heard. There were some, when I offered that legislation, who said I was proposing a clear cut for kids program, and we had pickets before our office for over a year. We have some of that same sort of activity going on right now. That did not happen in 1999 when the Senate moved forward with its first substantive forestry bill in more than a decade, and it is not going to happen again under this legislation if this bill actually becomes law. I say to my colleagues that this legislation is needed. Some have asked, Why can't the issue of healthy forests simply be addressed by investing in the fire plan? They have said the national Governors made some recommendations, so why don't we just go ahead with those recommendations? Their suggestions were very useful, but the Governors even acknowledge that simply spending more money, the heart of their proposal, was not the entire answer. How that money is spent is as important as simply offering more dollars. I have made it clear that I think additional funds are critically important. That is why the Senate bill authorizes an 80-percent increase in funding for these thinning projects, but we also need to make some changes in terms of the endless paperwork and redtape to actually get the real work on the ground that is so important in communities across the West. A number of Senators have said this is as far as they can go in terms of forestry policy. I know colleagues in the Senate and certainly in the other body feel strongly about it. But I reemphasize, as the Senator who organized that letter, that if there is an effort to unravel the compromise that will be voted on in the Senate, that will, in my view, kill the effort to pass this critically important legislation. It was an urgent priority before the tragic events in California. I think it is urgent not just because the Senate needs to respond in a heartfelt way to the tragedies in California, but if this legislation is not passed, I think we will see what happened in Oregon a little over a year ago and what has happened in California in the last week repeated again and again. I am not willing to see these communities and the people who live in them turned into residents of sacrifice zones. It is urgent this legislation be passed. I close by expressing my thanks to those who have been part of this 5-year odyssey and, first, to Senator Craig. I served as chairman of the subcommittee when he was a ranking minority member. It is vice versa now. Suffice it to say there are a lot of people in the country who would say: What in the world can Larry Craig and Ron Wyden find common ground on? And we have said again and again in this area that if people are willing to look at what is practical, what is a priority in terms of the thinning work that needs to be done and in protecting our old growth treasures, we can do it. That was accomplished in the county payments bill. It can be accomplished now. Before I wrap up my remarks, I will read into the Record part of a statement today that the administration has issued. It states that the administration strongly supports Senate passage of H.R. 1904, the bipartisan managers' amendment; it opposes any further amendment to assure quick resolution with the House. I ask unanimous consent that statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. I have one question for the Senator from California, but first I want to thank her for the exceptional work she and her staff have done on this issue for over 4 years.

Mr. WYDEN. I have chaired the subcommittee. I have been the ranking minority member. I do not think my knowledge on this subject compares to that of the knowledge of the Senator from California.

Mr. WYDEN. She has thrown herself into this, and we thank her for all her efforts. We all empathize with what your constituents are going through. The people of California, a year ago, helped my constituents. We are trying to help yours. We thank you for it.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. One very brief question. I have sensed from the beginning of the debate that probably the most contentious issue coming up is this question of making sure the public is still involved in the process, the whole question of what is called NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. The Senator is so correct in saying we have made it clear that the Senate bill is not something we are going to allow to be unraveled. But I think one of the reasons for it is because the Senate bill differs very dramatically with what the other body is talking about with respect to keeping the public in the process. The other body, in effect, takes the public out of the process by predetermining these NEPA alternatives. What we have said in our compromise would be to say the public can actually offer an alternative. The public has a right to go into this process, known as scoping, and actually come to the table and offer an alternative. The Senator has made the point that not one current opportunity for public comment would be lost under this compromise. I would be interested in the Senator's analysis of how the public stays involved, because I think this is probably the most contentious question we may be faced with as we try to wrap up this bill, hopefully today.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague and again tell her how much I have appreciated a chance to be her partner.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, for purposes of asking the distinguished chairman of the committee, it is your desire, I gather, we would then have the vote at 3:45 and that would in effect end the opening statements on this legislation; we would move to amendments, beginning with the Boxer amendment, and then throughout the rest of the day pick up the rest of the amendments and hopefully move as quickly as possible.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I am pleased to see what is the first formal statement of the administration saying that the Senate bill is the way to go. It is an acknowledgment of the fact that a number of us said we cannot have this compromise unravel, and it is a constructive statement from the administration today. I commend them for it. In addition to Senator Craig, who has worked with me on this for literally 5 years, Senator Smith and I cannot go anywhere in our home State without people asking, when is the Senate going to respond to this? I thank him for his efforts, as well as those of Senator Crapo, who is in the Chamber. I see Senator Bingaman, who has been so helpful to me as I have had to wrestle with these issues that come up in my home State day after day. We have not agreed on every single bit of this debate for 5 years, but Senator Bingaman has performed an extraordinarily important service. He has some ideas on a matter that has been documented in our hearings with respect to how these funds get moved around, almost manipulated, from one account to another when there is underfunding of the thinning work that needs to be done. I thank him for all of his help over the last 5 years. We have spent many hours on this. With the statement that I have just put into the Record that the administration wants this legislation and is opposed to efforts to alter it, I think we are in a position to show the country the Senate can find common ground on an issue that is about as contentious as any imaginable. I look forward to seeing the amendments of our colleagues and getting this critically important legislation passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, very briefly, I support Chairman Cochran in his request. We have been working on this legislation, in effect, for more than 4 years. It is now particularly timely, obviously, because of the events in California. Many of the amendments, at least those we have been told about, are coming from my side of the aisle. I ask colleagues--I know Senators have strong feelings on this--if they could present them to the staffs tonight--Senator Cochran's staff, Senator Harkin's staff. Myself and others are available to work through the evening with Senators who have amendments because we very much would like to finish it tonight. I urge my colleagues on both sides to heed what the chairman has said: If possible, get it to us tonight. I thank you and yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I supported Governor Levitt's nomination in the Environment Committee, but that does not mean that I support the Bush administration's environmental polices. Far from it. Under the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency has ignored the law and gutted its enforcement. It has been a 30-month polluters' holiday. I think the record is clear. There is also an enormous gap between the bipartisan approach that Mike Levitt supported in dealing with environmental issues while he has served as Governor of Utah, and this administration. For example, the bipartisan Western Governors' policy states ``Westerners do not reject the goals and objectives of federal environmental laws, nor the appropriate role of federal regulation and enforcement.'' Recently, the EPA Office of Enforcement found that during the past 2 years, only 24 percent of the facilities that were in major noncompliance with respect to the Clean Water Act faced enforcement actions. So the EPA's own enforcement office says on major water violations, there hasn't been enforcement. Gap number two, the Western Governors Association has always stressed consultation with all the parties and involving the States. Two examples where the administration isn't doing that are on the question of these closed door negotiations with industrial livestock firms, behind closed doors they are talking about amnesty from the Clean Air Act and the Superfund law. Another is the lack of consultation with the States on the proposed rule to limit the scope of the Clean Air Act. Thirty-nine States have objected and said they were not party to that discussion. So on the question of consultation involving States, there is a big gap between the Western Governors and this administration. The third big gap can be seen in the Western Governors Association positions on the environment where there is a clear commitment to following the law. Certainly that hasn't been done with the Bush administration when it comes to the Clean Air Act. I was on the conference committee that wrote the law in 1990, and I can tell you there was absolutely no question that it was the intent of Congress that powerplants, oil refineries and industrial facilities would be required to install pollution controls. This is a blatant example of the Bush administration's failure to follow the law. What I am interested in is seeing an effort to go back to the kinds of policies that the Governors, particularly those in the West, have sought to try to bring people together on these contentious issues and find common ground. That has not been what the Environmental Protection Agency has done in Washington, D.C. But that is what is needed. When Governor Leavitt came before the Environment and Public Works Committee, I was particularly concerned about his willingness to use the enforcement tools of the agency against serious and egregious violations of the environmental laws. My sense is that the collaborative model that he wishes to pursue is one I support. But it is clear, Mr. President and colleagues, that when companies abuse that kind of good-faith effort by government, the government has got to be willing to come down with hobnail boots on those who are putting at risk our air and our land and water. Prior to the committee vote, Governor Leavitt sent me a memo making it clear that he is willing to look at a different enforcement approach than this administration has used in the past. In the memo, Governor Leavitt wrote ``in warranted circumstances I would use the enforcement power rigorously.'' By contrast, during the Bush administration, enforcement has been essentially abandoned, and even the EPA's own internal reports indicate that that is the case. The American people need an administrator who is going to end this polluters' holiday and put the Environmental Protection Agency back to work protecting the environment. I think that the Governor's ideas about collaboration are important. They are fresh and creative, and I think that if he is willing to do as he pledged to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, that they could revitalize the agency and bring a fresh approach to environmental policy. But it is important for senators to understand that those who talk about collaboration only, without a willingness to back it up with tough enforcement policies, could be talking about just window dressing for business, or really lack of business as usual. Over the past several weeks, Governor Leavitt has worked hard to convince me he means business. He has reached out and made the extra effort to show he will be no just an advocate for collaboration but also a tough, no-nonsense enforcer when he needs to be. He has also committed to look at the situation involving the City of Portland's sewer overflows during wet weather and whether this is an appropriate case for enforcement, given that the local community is making progress in addressing the situation and that local ratepayers have already spent more than $500 million toward what will eventually be a $1 billion project. So the Governor, in my view, has made clear that he wants to bring to EPA a fresh and independent approach to these kinds of issues. He has convinced me that he understands that tough no-nonsense enforcement of this country's environmental laws is absolutely essential when the environmental collaborative approach does not work. I will be closely watching how Governor Leavitt follows through on these changes in EPA's approach to enforcement. It is very obvious to me that there needs to be a dramatic set of changes put in place at the Environmental Protection Agency. My vote today is essentially a vote because I think the Governor of Utah has the potential to do this job right. I am supporting the Mike Leavitt who I know can be a tough, independent administrator of EPA. For all Americans' sake, I hope Governor Leavitt will be successful in bringing about this change in EPA's direction. I want to give him a chance to succeed, and that is why I am supporting his nomination today.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on this side of the aisle?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe the minority has 9 minutes left. I would like to respond to the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, would that be acceptable?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President. First, I express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the committee. I think he knows I agree with so much of what he just previously said. I want to emphasize, on this side of the aisle we believe there are 60 votes to move forward on this legislation. We want to work constructively to get this done. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, has emphasized again and again how important it is to move forward with this legislation. We do want to address the concerns of the Members. We know a lot of Senators feel strongly about this issue. But it is absolutely imperative--absolutely imperative--Madam President and colleagues, that this bill get out of the Senate this year. That is my goal. I am going to put every ounce of my energy and strength into it. The reason I think the Senate ought to move forward with this legislation is the bipartisan compromise that has been discussed by the chairman of the committee steers, in my view, a narrow path through 20 million acres of highly vulnerable forest land that lies close to highly vulnerable communities and their drinking water sources. I have already outlined this morning the five or six major ways in which this compromise differs from what has been considered in the House of Representatives. For example, under this legislation that has been crafted in a bipartisan way by a group of nine Senators, we have authorized an increase of 80 percent in funding for thinning projects. There has been tremendous concern all across the country that without adequate funding for thinning projects, the only people who would have the resources to do the work would be the large commercial logging companies. In our discussions among Senators, we said: There is a better way to proceed. That is why we came up with a funding proposal that sends a responsible message all across the country that this is not some sort of giveaway to big timber companies; this is something that represents responsible forestry. On provision after provision with respect to this compromise, we see those kinds of efforts to ensure that we strike a responsible balance. We have to make sure we protect our rural communities. The House legislation doesn't do that. The Senate compromise directs 50 percent of the funding to be spent inside the wildland and urban interface; the House bill is silent with respect to those funds. Again, we see an effort on the part of Senator Cochran, chairman of the committee, and the nine Senators who worked together on this legislation, to strike a reasonable compromise. The old-growth provisions are the first statutory protection ever for these trees that the American people feel so strongly about. There is a concrete incentive to get the old-growth protection in place. Under something for which I commend the chairman that is genuinely creative, we stipulate that the old forest plans actually have to be revised to protect the old growth in order for the thinning work to be done. So we have something which strikes a genuine balance, and it is done in a creative way. I said earlier that forestry issues are about as contentious as Middle Eastern politics. It is very difficult to find the common ground. We have done that in this area. This compromise ensures that the public will be involved in every single aspect of the debate with respect to forestry. That is something on which Senator Feinstein and I insisted. We have worked on this legislation for many months with Senator Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I hope we will move quickly and do it in a fashion that addresses the concerns of all Senators. There have been a number who have come to Chairman Cochran and me with ideas and suggestions. We want to hear from them. But we want this bill passed this year by the Senate. Senator Daschle has communicated that again and again and has been extremely constructive. Nobody is interested in an obstructionist kind of approach. This has to get done. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend from Pennsylvania and, Madam President, ask to be recognized.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President. I think we will have a discussion about forestry. I see my colleagues from Idaho and Mississippi. I will take just a few minutes because I think in recent days there has really been the suggestion that in some ways Senate Democrats don't want to move ahead on this forestry issue. Senator Daschle, in particular, in my view, has been very constructive on this issue and wants to have the Senate vote on this legislation. I wish to make it clear that I think it is urgent we vote on this bill before the Senate adjourns for this year. I happen to believe there are 60 votes for the Senate compromise that has been worked out. I think it is important to address the concerns of all the Members. I really hope this isn't left to just the political season, which gets awfully silly sometimes in the course of a Presidential election season next year. I think the Senate must vote on it this year. Senators know that this issue sort of makes Middle East politics look noncontroversial. This is a very difficult and contentious subject. But I think the Senate has come together around an important compromise. I wish to take a few minutes this morning to outline how the Senate bill would differ from what has been done in the House of Representatives. First, the Senate compromise authorizes $760 million for hazardous fuel reduction projects. The House bill does not authorize any additional money for these projects. The Senate compromise--I want to emphasize this to my Democratic colleagues--does not rely on commercial logging to get these projects done. The House bill does. I think this is unfortunate. The Senate compromise protects our rural communities. The House bill does not. The Senate compromise directs that 50 percent of the funding be spent inside what is known as the wildland-urban interface. The House bill is silent with respect to directing these funds. The Senate compromise protects old growth and large trees and requires projects that thin--not clear-cut--our forests. Again, that is in contrast to the House bill. The House bill does not protect old growth and large trees, and it doesn't limit how the projects can be executed. Fourth, the Senate compromise keeps the current standard of judicial review of these projects and rejects the House of Representatives standard which is not as balanced. The House bill would actually change the outcome of lawsuits, in my view, regrettably, by robbing the judiciary of an independent ability to weigh all of the evidence put before them with respect to forestry matters. Finally, the Senate compromise keeps the public in the process. Regrettably, the House bill does not. The Senate compromise allows the public to actually propose what is known as a NEPA alternative. The National Environmental Policy Act is an extraordinarily important statute. It has been of great importance to a lot of Members of the Senate. Look back to people such as the late Scoop Jackson who were so involved in this issue. The Senate compromise clearly allows the public, through a public process, to propose NEPA alternatives. In my view, the House bill pushes the public out of the process by, in effect, predetermining these alternatives in the NEPA area. Talking for a few minutes about the compromise, in particular the value of having the first ever statutory protection of old growth, preserving the public's right to participate, while streamlining the appeals process to get at some of the abuses we have seen, strikes the right balance. With respect, for example, to this question of making sure citizens can be involved in appealing matters relating to a forest resale, it is critical those rights be protected. I also do not think there ought to be a constitutional right to a 5- year delay on every timber sale. The Senate compromise which we put together strikes that appropriate balance. As we get ready to vote, some very creative work has been done. Folks have asked, How do we know the old-growth protection is actually going to get put in place? We say, for example, for the old-forest plans that in effect the Forest Service would have to go back and revise those plans to make sure the old growth is protected before the overall projects with respect to thinning go forward. We create for the first time in these old-forest plans an actual incentive for the Forest Service to get busy, get going, and protect the old growth while allowing the thinning to go forward. The compromise makes it less likely that old growth will be harvested under current law because under the compromise we mandated the retention of the large trees and focused the hazardous fuels reduction programs authorized by the bill on thinning the small trees. Several of my colleagues want to talk on this, but I make it clear, again, Senator Daschle has said publicly, privately, in every conceivable forum, he wants this legislation to move forward expeditiously. Let us address the concerns of all Senators. This is a matter Senators feel strongly about. Let us vote on this legislation this year. The fires we have seen in the west are not natural. They are infernos coming about as a result of years and years of neglect. The compromise we have crafted reflects a balanced approach. We are not stripping the American people of their rights to be heard with respect to forestry policy. Quite the contrary. We protect all of those avenues of public participation. I know we are going to hear from our colleagues who have been involved in the compromise. I thank Senator Craig and Senator Cochran, in particular, for working with myself and Senator Feinstein for many months. A number of Senators have already come out for this proposal, including, of course, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, but also Senator Dayton and Senator Johnson. We have a host of Democratic Senators. We can get 60 votes on this legislation and see it passed from this body. We want to have it done this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, will the Senator from Utah yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I also support the amendment. This is a compromise. Both of these topics are topics about which we really have not heard a lot. We have not had a chance to discuss them in hearings. Senator Corzine has been working constructively with us. I urge the passage of it. The bounty issue essentially comes from Professor Lessig at Stanford, looking at innovative ways to create incentives to deal with the problem. It is certainly one the Federal Trade Commission should look at. The question about making sure every unsolicited e-mail has ADV has been contentious among a number of small business groups, ones that have really been burdened by these costs. But I think this is a fair compromise. It gives the Federal Trade Commission ample opportunity to study this and look at the feasibility of it. I urge our colleagues to support it. As soon as we agree to the Corzine amendment, I believe Senator Harkin has a unanimous consent request he needs to make, and then we are ready to go to final passage. I urge my colleagues now to support the Corzine amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I think we are about ready to actually move to final passage. We have the Corzine amendment and another one coming from the Senator from Iowa. I think we are very close to being able to move ahead. I wish to express my thanks to the leadership of the committee and my partner for over 4 years, Senator Burns, on this legislation. The bottom line here is that when this bill becomes law, big-time spamming, in effect, becomes an outlaw business. For the first time, the kingpin spammers are going to be at risk of Federal prosecution, Federal Trade Commission enforcement, million-dollar lawsuits by State attorneys general and Internet service providers. The reason that is the case is that big-time spammers would have to violate this bill in order for their sleazy operations to continue. If they don't hide their identity, their messages will get filtered out. If they don't use misleading subject lines, people are going to go click and these garbage messages will go straight into the trash unread. It seems to me there is a chance now, recognizing that we still need international cooperation and tough enforcement, to make a very significant step forward for consumers all across the country. I will conclude by way of saying that, again, I think enforcement is going to be the key to making this legislation work. When this bill is signed into law, I have been saying that the enforcers--the Justice Department, State attorneys general, Internet service providers, and others--have to be prepared to come down on those 200 or 300 big-time spammers with hobnail boots. A lot of them are not exactly quaking tonight at the prospect of Senate action. They are not convinced that the Senate is really going to insist on strong oversight. We saw today, because of what was said by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy, that they are committed to strong enforcement and vigorous oversight. I believe as a result of the attention the Senate has given to this issue, when this bill is signed into law, we are going to see very quickly a handful of very tough, significant enforcement actions with real penalties and the prospect of spammers going to jail and paying million-dollar fines. That is the kind of deterrence we need. The text of this law is very important, but it is only as good a law as we see backed up by enforcement. We have a commitment today from Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy to follow up and ensure that that kind of enforcement takes place. With that, I think we take a very significant step forward in terms of protecting the rights of consumers who right now find a blizzard of spam every single time they turn on their computer. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, on behalf of the minority, Senator Hollings believes that Senator Landrieu is raising a very important issue for consumers and kids. We do want to work closely with her and move ahead on her initiative. It is an important one for families.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the committee. Every Member understands that pornography being transmitted through spam is a scourge. There is no question about it. What we have done, because we have just seen this, is we have asked the minority on the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Senator Leahy, to take a look at this. We are very hopeful that we will be able to approve this language in just a few minutes. Again, we are hoping that this bill will be passed, certainly within 20, 25 minutes, and we will have a comment from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee very shortly. I share Chairman McCain's view that this is an extremely important issue. When you think about spam, the first thing parents all over this country think about is the flood that is being targeted at families from coast to coast. I am hopeful we will get this approved in a matter of minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Before the Senator from Tennessee leaves the floor, I say to him I have my hands full today with spam so I am not going to get into the substance of the Internet Tax Freedom Act that, as my friend knows, I have been a sponsor of in the Senate with Congressman Cox in the other body. I am always anxious to work with my colleague from Tennessee. Essentially, the arguments being made today against the Internet Tax Freedom Act are identical to the ones that were made 5 years ago. If we were to look at the transcript 5 years ago before the Senate Commerce Committee, we were told the States and localities would be stripped of the revenue they needed. We were pretty much told western civilization was going to end at that time. Ever since then, as we have gone through 5 years of experience, we have not seen that to be the case. States and localities have not been stripped of the revenue they need. Internet sales are still perhaps only 2 percent of the economy. No jurisdiction has shown that they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against the Internet, and that is all this law stands for is technological neutrality, treating the online world like the offline world is treated. As I said to my good friend, I have my hands full today with spam so we will debate the Internet Tax Freedom Act another day. I am anxious to work with my colleague. I would only point out the reauthorization of the Internet Tax Freedom Act passed the Commerce Committee unanimously. It is the first time since we have been at this that it has been passed unanimously. I think it is going to be an important debate I will certainly be anxious to talk with my colleague about at that time. Again, we are hoping those with the amendments that have been made in order to the spam bill will come to the floor. We could finish this legislation in perhaps half an hour, pass a very important proconsumer measure by pretty close to a unanimous vote in the Senate. Senator Burns and I are certainly hoping that will be the case and hope in particular that Senator Corzine, Senator Enzi, and Senator Santorum will come to the floor and we could be done very quickly. I suggest the absence of a quorum.