Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will safeguard and promote specialty crops and value-added agriculture in Oregon and in the United States. The great farmers and ranchers of Oregon produce over 200 commodities. This bill intends to improve their marketing opportunities, help Oregon farmers and processors get better prices for their products, and help Oregon farmers and processors compete in an increasingly global market. As it will help Oregon farmers so it will help specialty crop farmers from New York to Florida, Wisconsin to California. I introduce this bill as my colleague from Oregon, Congresswoman Hooley, introduces the same bill in the House of Representatives. In the increasingly technological world of microchips, products like potato chips and other agricultural commodities still remain a large part of Oregon's economy. In fact, agriculture is Oregon's second largest traded sector and Oregon's second largest export, behind the electronics industry. Oregon agriculture creates more than $8 billion of direct and indirect economic activity, in both urban and rural areas in the state. At the center of this bill is the expansion of a specialty crop grant program, authorized by Congress in 2001, of which Oregon producers have already made use. Oregon received about $3.2 million that was used for over 50 projects involving product development, marketing, research, and export promotion. The Oregon Department of Agriculture estimates that over 3000 producers benefited from these projects. They also estimate that enhanced sales resulting from these projects reached $20 million--about six times what was invested. The problem with this pilot program was the grants were only available once. Last year Congress passed legislation that reinstated these specialty crop grants but at funding level that would provide only around $500,000 to Oregon. This legislation raises the authorized level to $500 million and makes the grant program permanent. Under this expansion Oregon has the potential to receive $5 million a year in specialty crop grants. The bill I am introducing today also improves USDA's value added grant program. Right now this program is run by bureaucrats in Washington, DC who have probably never been to Oregon and probably couldn't name the top Oregon specialty crops. My office has heard numerous complaints that this program is unwieldy, bureaucratic, and difficult to navigate. Last year every applicant from Oregon was disqualified on a technicality. This bill would make one simple but very important change: instead of having the Federal Government distribute the money, each State would get a share of the money to hand out to their chosen priorities. Between these two grant programs each State in the union should have plenty of money to implement agricultural promotion strategies that match the needs of its individual growers, processors, and citizens. This bill also authorizes funds for farmers and processors to become ``certified.'' Certification comes in many forms like ``Good Agricultural Practices,'' ``Good Handling Practices,'' or ``Organic.'' Often getting certified is necessary before farmers or processors can effectively market products whether in local grocery stores or to foreign countries. Certified products often fetch premium prices. To encourage farmers to get these certifications and increase their market share this legislation would have the USDA reimburse half the cost of the certifications. Last, this legislation improves opportunities for specialty crop farmers to get crop insurance, increase loan availability, provide additional funding for export promotion, and make sure that American trade policy takes specialty crops into account. I know that Oregonians doing a great job growing some of the best quality crops in the world. There are a lot of challenges facing agriculture: cheap imports, low commodity prices, taxation, labor, and dozens of others. This bill won't solve everything, but I think it will make an important contribution to improving Oregon agriculture by making it more competitive on a global level and helping farmers get a decent price for what they produce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to assure the enactment of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I intend to be very brief. Tonight the Senate is passing the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act by unanimous consent. It is certainly not often that such a procedure would be used for a statute of such extraordinary importance. I believe that it is possible to fight terrorism ferociously without sacrificing civil liberties. Tonight I remain concerned that there will be an effort in the conference between the House and the Senate to authorize what are known as administrative subpoenas for the FBI under the law. These administrative subpoenas are warrants that FBI field offices can write themselves without having to make an application to a judge. Under an administrative subpoena, an FBI field office could get records secretly for just about anything from just about anybody. Here is an example of how intrusive these administrative subpoenas could be. There are 56 field offices, one in almost every major city. The head of a field office could issue an administrative subpoena to a hospital director and ask for all of the hospital's medical records simply by claiming they were relevant to an investigation, the hospital director was busy or didn't have the resources to make a challenge. No judge would ever see the subpoena. The patients would not know their records had been seized. They would be totally in the dark. Your mother's, your husband's, your own medical records could move into the Government's hands, and you would be none the wiser. Despite the very aggressive efforts in the Senate to include this power to conduct these what I believe are fishing expeditions, it is not in the version of the PATRIOT Act that is being passed tonight, since it is not in the House bill either. My view is that under rule XXVIII, it would be outside the scope of the conference to include these administrative subpoenas in any form in the PATRIOT Act. If I am informed later that it is in the conference report in some form, I will make a point of order at that time and the conference report would fall. Finally, I want to state that I commend our leader, Senator Reid and Senator Leahy, for their handling of this. I know Senator Durbin has been very involved in these issues for years as well. I also want to commend Chairman Specter who has talked with me about the PATRIOT Act on a number of occasions. We can strike a balance. We can ensure that we pull out all the stops to fight the terrorists without throwing our civil liberties into the ash can. If these administrative subpoenas show up in that conference report, that will skew the balance that is so important to make sure we can win the war on terrorism but also to protect the rights that we have brave men and women fighting for. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. That will be very adequate. I thank the Senator.

Mr. WYDEN. I have 15 under the agreement.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, sometimes the test of legislation in the Senate is did we do less harm than good. Some might say, by that test, this Energy bill is worth voting for. I will tell you that test is not good enough when America is at war and our dependence upon foreign oil is putting our citizens at risk each and every day. The test in the Senate that, well, maybe this legislation has some good is unacceptable when there is a rare opportunity and a rare obligation to avoid the terrifying human costs of future wars. In those rare instances, the test in the Senate should be did Congress meet its obligations. I have concluded that in this energy bill we have not. Our dependence on foreign oil will not be reduced as a result of this legislation. As a result, we have not reduced the prospect of going to war once again in the Persian Gulf in the next decade. I do not understand how we will explain to every man and woman who fights so courageously in Iraq and Afghanistan, or how to explain to every veteran who fought in the Persian Gulf in the last decade, how we failed to meet our obligation to avoid future wars. For this reason, I want to express a deep regret to those soldiers and veterans because your children are now no less likely to be asked to fight a very similar war. I want to express a deep regret to the families of those soldiers and veterans because their children may someday face the very same burdens. I want to express a deep regret to the American public, which is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to prosecute the war in Iraq and may someday be asked to spend far more on the next war because the Senate is about to pass a pre-9/11 energy policy. After 9/11, it became clear that energy policy was a national security issue and that reducing our dependence on foreign oil had to be a national security priority. That hasn't been done. So today Americans continue to pay what I call a terror tax--the price we pay in insecurity for our dependence on foreign oil. I call it a terror tax because when each of us pulls up to the corner gasoline station and pays $2.40 a gallon, or so, for gasoline, a portion of that money goes to foreign governments that in turn send it out the back door to Islamist extremists who use the money to perpetuate hate and terrorist acts. But in this bill Congress has squandered a golden opportunity to dam that river of terrorist funding. It is not good enough to accept business as usual when our citizens pay record prices at the gas pump, only to see foreign governments wink and nod while terrorists make off with substantial amounts of the money and use the funds to target America. The recent bombings we have seen have been a sober reminder of just how vulnerable America, our allies, and our strategic partners remain to terrorism. In my view, there is an indisputable link, not only between the American dependence on foreign oil and the price our citizens pay at the pump but between our oil addiction and our vulnerability to attack here at home. What I have come to learn as a member of the Energy Committee, and as the one member of the conference who was unwilling to sign the report, is that any energy policy proposed in the future should have to contain a statement of how that bill will reduce the terror attacks. There ought to be a statement in the future with respect to energy legislation on how that legislation would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil in the short term and in the long term. If that had been required for this legislation, there is no way this bill would get a passing grade. This legislation does virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You look at what was said in 2003, not by partisans on one side or the other but by the Bush administration's Energy Information Agency. They said that bill would have increased our imports of foreign oil by 2025 by about 85 percent. This legislation, with respect to oil imports, would produce virtually the same result. Now, to give the country a sense of just what we were up against-- those of us who wanted to break our dependence on foreign oil--I would like to discuss an amendment I tried to offer in the conference. In the conference, I proposed that the automobile industry be required to increase auto efficiency by 1 mile per gallon for each of the next 5 years. The reason I did that is a basic fact of energy policy. You cannot transform this country's energy sector if you give the automobile industry a free pass. So when I made that proposal, I said to myself, what a modest step, just 1 mile per gallon for just 5 years. Yet it would have had a huge impact in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Unlike this legislation, which doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that would have made a difference. In the 2001 report, the national academy found that the technology exists today to raise the average fuel economy nearly 40 miles per gallon by 2012 without sacrificing safety. My proposal was much more modest than what the leading scientific experts in this country found was both technologically feasible and affordable to consumers. Yet the conference rejected even this modest proposal out of hand. I particularly thank Senator Bingaman, who supported it and said we ought to at least, at the very minimum, not go to the American people and say, gosh, 5 miles a gallon over 5 years is too much. But even that modest advance could not make it into this legislation. So, as a result, Americans will get no relief from this terror tax brought about by our addiction to foreign oil. And at the same time, their hard- earned dollars will flow out the back door straight to the entrenched energy interests. Now, even the President has said that when oil is trading at upwards of $55 a barrel, the oil companies are not in need of any more incentives. When the President says the oil companies don't need a deal from the Government, that ought to tell you something--you are going too far. But even so--even with the remarks of the President, who was dead right--this bill is now stuffed with a smorgasbord of subsidies for a whole host of energy special interests. The buffet of subsidies is so generously larded that, in many cases, it will allow second and even third helpings from the energy subsidy buffet table. Loan guarantees are letting these special interests double dip and even triple dip on some energy projects. Projects that would already be subsidized in other provisions of the Energy bill will also receive loan guarantees under the incentives title. They are also going to get tax credits in the finance title. That is dip 1. Then they are going to get loans under the incentives title. That is dip 2. Then there will be loan guarantees on top of that. That is dip 3. These guarantees are some of the largest subsidies in the Senate Energy bill, and they are risky ones. Mr. President, the subsidy title of this legislation, in my view, is a blank check for boondoggles that simply doesn't decrease our foreign oil dependence. In closing, the most patriotic thing this Congress could have done in the summer of 2005 was to write an energy bill that did three specific things: reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gasoline prices for working families and businesses, and end the energy subsidy smorgasbord that has offered these heaping helpings of taxpayer dollars to the energy industry for decades. I am sad to say, as one who was involved in this from the outset as a member of the committee and the conference committee, that the final product does not accomplish any of those three things. It doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nobody has to take my word for it. That has been on the front pages of the papers all this week. It doesn't lower gasoline prices. And, again, you don't have to take my word for it. The President has already stated that. It doesn't end the subsidy buffet for the big energy interests, and you won't have to take my word for that either. You are going to hear those special interests breaking out the champagne bottles all over town in the next few days. My constituents have been hit especially hard by high energy costs, and they and millions of Americans had hoped that the Congress would step up and take bold action, truly bold action, to shake us free of our dependence on foreign oil and these other concerns that I have addressed tonight. What I hope is that, as the country sees how little is actually accomplished here, there will be an opportunity--and an opportunity soon--to come back and address some of the shortcomings that have been discussed on the floor of the Senate tonight. I hope there will be a transformational policy put in place with respect to the automobile sector. That is the ball game in terms of energy conservation and reducing oil consumption. This legislation took a pass on it. With respect to reducing carbons, again, there was a marketplace approach--a bipartisan marketplace approach--that the Congress could have moved ahead on. The bottom line, the Congress could have done much better. I think our colleagues in the Senate know this bill is literally a series of missed opportunities. It is right to vote no on this legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there has been a significant development in private pension law this week, and I have come to the floor to discuss it briefly because I think it is something that will be of enormous interest to working families across the country who, of course, have been reading for months now about their pension plans going belly up. These are workers who work hard, play by the rules, hope to have a dignified retirement and have understood that Social Security was never going to cover all of their retirement security needs. So they have sought to have a private pension, and companies across this country have given them the impression--falsely, in a number of instances--that their private pension would be secure and there for them when they retire. One of the aspects of this whole challenge, with respect to pension security, has been to eliminate what I believe is a double standard today in private pension laws. There is in fact a double standard in private pension law because so often the executive retirement benefits get hidden in a lockbox while the worker ends up getting creamed in the process. What we have done, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate Finance Committee, is to say that that double standard, the standard that protects the executives while it clobbers the workers, will no longer be tolerated under our private pension statutes. As a result of a change that a number of our colleagues worked on, which was backed by Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus, if this provision that we have developed becomes law, if a company pension plan is funded at less than 80 percent, then the executive pensions cannot be hidden under the ruse of being ``deferred compensation.'' That is what we have seen come to light in the last few months, that somehow the executives walk away with millions of dollars worth of pension benefits under the guise of it somehow being something called deferred compensation while the workers end up seeing their pensions disappear by 40, 50, 60 percent. This provision, in my view, is extremely important because it will prevent companies whose pension plans are at risk of going under from protecting the executive pension while allowing the employees' pensions to sink like a stone. An example of this would be a flight attendant from Tigard, OR, who gave United Airlines 16 years of service, saw her pension fall recently to a net of $138 a month, while the CEO of United is going to continue to receive $4.5 million. Now, of course, the CEO claims it is not really a pension, that this was compensation worked out before the executive came to United. But I can tell you that elderly woman in Tigard, OR, would sure like to have what the United executive has, regardless of what it is technically referred to under pension law. A lot more needs to be done to ensure that the executives are not going to reap these huge gains at the expense of their workers. Captain Duane Woerth of the Airline Pilots Association said it well, in my view, when he said, ``While thousands of pilots will retire with only a fraction of the pension benefits they earned and expected, airline executives can look forward to retirements knowing that their nest eggs are solid gold.'' This was reported in Fortune magazine. And there are numerous other examples where generous executive pensions have been protected at the expense of the workers' retirement. In March of 2002, for example, US Air CEO Stephen Wolf took a lump- sum pension payout of $15 million, including benefits, for 24 years of service that he never actually performed. Six months later, the company filed for bankruptcy and terminated its pilot pension plan, leaving the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation with $2.2 billion in liabilities. Where is the fairness in all of that? The executive takes this huge golden parachute away while the workers try to figure out how to make ends meet when the company files for bankruptcy and terminates the pension plan. Three months before United filed for bankruptcy in 2002, the company placed $4.5 million in a special bankruptcy protected trust for their CEO, Mr. Glenn Tilton. United then terminated all of its pension plans in 2005, leaving the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation with $6.6 billion in liability. In 2002, the Motorola Company chose to not make any contributions to its pension plan for 70,000 employees and retirees, a plan that was underfunded by $1.4 billion. At the same time, Motorola found another $38 million to give its top executives a variety of pension perks. In 1999, IBM's cash balance conversion resulted in dramatic pension cuts for the older workers. It is still being litigated in the courts, but in 2002, IBM CEO Lou Gerstner, who oversaw the cash conversion, retired with a pension of $1.1 million per year. In November of 2002, Delta began phasing out its traditional defined benefit plan for 56,000 employees and replaced it with a cash balance pension plan. As Delta was shorting its workers, their former CEO got a generous guaranteed pension plan of $1 million per year that will be available to him when he turns 65. These are a few examples, Mr. President, of excessive executive generosity, and they have been particularly egregious in the airline sector, where there have been numerous threats of bankruptcy and actual problems with respect to keeping the workers' pensions intact or even a portion of them secure. I am pleased the Finance Committee took a significant first step yesterday toward cutting off this corporate spigot that has been gushing millions of dollars for executive pensions but produces less than a trickle of funds for tens of thousands of hard-working Americans. There is more to do. Certainly the first step that began yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee at ending this double standard came about because Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus worked in a bipartisan fashion, and Senator Bingaman, Senator Kerry, Senator Schumer, and others joined me in pressing for this change. But suffice it to say there is more to do in this area. Certainly the question of what companies are required to do in terms of making their premium payments is important. In the days ahead the Finance Committee and eventually the Senate as a body will have to take up these issues. What I wanted to bring to the Senate's attention today is that this is an important start. It is a start that keeps faith with American workers who have come to my townhall meetings. The Presiding Officer is from Georgia and represents a number of workers affected by the financial problems of Delta Airlines. People come to our town meetings and ask, how is it that the executives get off scot-free with respect to these pension issues while we are getting clobbered? I am tired of reading about how the executives have somehow been able, under the guise of deferred compensation or special retirement benefits that are protected from bankruptcy proceedings, and I am tired of seeing how the executives always come out hunky-dory while the workers end up trying to figure how to make ends meet when their pensions have been slashed by 40, 50, or 60 percent. There is more to do in terms of reforming private pension law, but this effort to eliminate the double standard where executives get protected and workers get hurt, eliminating that double standard is at the center of what good bipartisan pension reform ought to be all about. Fortunately, the Senate Committee on Finance took a big step in the right direction by saying yesterday that if a company's pension plan is not actually funded, then the executives cannot find their way to yet another lockbox and protect themselves with these deferred compensation arrangements. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman.

Mr. WYDEN. If that is at all possible. Perhaps I will ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes after the vote; would that be acceptable?

Mr. WYDEN. If the chairman could allow that, I would be appreciative.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I had approached the chairman to ask if I could speak for a few minutes as in morning business and if it would be possible at this time for me to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in this Congress, no issue has riveted the attention of the American people like the heart-wrenching circumstances of the late Terri Schiavo. No issue has generated more public debate, more heated controversy, or more passion than that tragedy. On the eve of the Easter recess, I blocked the effort in this Senate to dictate from the Senate a specific medical treatment in that end-of-life tragedy. I did that for two major reasons. First, I believe that under the Constitution, the Founding Fathers intended for our citizens and their families to have the privacy to decide these types of matters. Second, under the Constitution, to the extent government has a defined role in medical practice, it is a matter for the States and certainly not a subject that should prompt Federal intrusion and meddling. In my opinion, the events that unfolded in the Senate over Terri Schiavo need to be remembered as the Senate begins the consideration of the nomination of Judge John Roberts to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It is important for the Senate to reflect on those events because while the Court ultimately did not take up the Schiavo case, it was not for lack of effort on the part of those who read the Constitution very differently than the intent of the Founding Fathers and longstanding legal precedent prescribe. I have come to the Senate today because I believe there will be many more end-of-life cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. Current demographic trends, the advancement of medical technologies, and certainly the passions this issue has generated ensure that the Court will be confronted again and again with end-of-life issues. Therefore, in my opinion, the Senate--under the advice and consent clause--has an obligation to inquire into how Judge Roberts sees end- of-life issues in the context of the Constitution. I don't believe in litmus tests for Federal judges, but I intend to weigh carefully Judge Roberts' judicial temperament in this regard. Moreover, I have a longstanding policy, begun first with our legendary Senator, Mark Hatfield, and continued with my good friend, Senator Gordon Smith, that I will work in a bipartisan way to select Federal judges from our State for the President's consideration. Repeatedly, Oregon judges have been confirmed with whom I have disagreed on a number of issues and with whom Senator Gordon Smith has disagreed on a number of issues. I have put the ``no litmus test'' policy to work often here in the Senate. I want to make clear that I hold to that principle today, but I will follow Judge Roberts' views on end-of-life issues carefully as his nomination is considered. My statement today is also not an attempt to tease out a preview of how Judge Roberts might rule on end-of-life cases that come before the Court. I do believe, however, that the Senate would be derelict, given the importance of this issue, not to ask the nominee questions that will shed light on how he interprets the Constitution as it relates to end-of-life medical care. End-of-life health care presents American families with immensely difficult choices. In a country of 290 million people, our citizens approach these choices in dramatically different ways. Their judgments about end-of-life care often blend religion, ethics, quality-of-life concerns, and moral principles together and as the Senate found out this spring, these judgments are considered extraordinarily personal and are passionately held. What the Senate learned last spring in the Schiavo case is that the American people want what the Constitution envisioned as their right-- just to be left alone. Privacy law is complicated, and surely Senators have differing interpretations about the meaning of legal precedent in this area but the American people spoke loudly last spring that they considered the congressional action to mandate a specific medical treatment for Terri Schiavo to be a gross overreach. I said at the time that I agreed. I do not believe the Constitution should be stretched so as to crowd the steps of the Congress with families seeking settlement of their differences about end-of-life medical care. However, the U.S. Supreme Court is another matter. That body will most definitely see more such end-of-life appeals. That is why the views of Judge Roberts on this issue are so important. Even as the Constitution envisioned a wide berth for individuals to decide these private matters, it also provides parameters if there is to be any government involvement at all. Those parameters are guided by the 10th amendment to our Constitution. The 10th amendment stipulates that the powers not delegated to the United States--the Federal Government--by the Constitution are reserved for the States. Historically and correctly, that includes the determination of medical practice within a State's own borders. There are few medical practice decisions more wrenching than those at the end of life. Once again, in the Schiavo case, the Congress sought to overstep its constitutional bounds. What I want to know is whether Judge Roberts is similarly inclined to stretch our Constitution or whether he will consider end-of-life issues with respect for our hallowed Constitution and the doctrine of stare decisis. Finally, as we approach these issues, I make clear that I do not intend to prejudge the outcome of the confirmation process, but ask only that the Senate weigh carefully these important issues and that questions about end-of-life care be posed to the nominee. I look forward to learning about the nominee's views, not just on end-of-life care, but on a variety of other critical matters and look forward to the Judiciary Committee beginning its thorough and careful evaluation in the days ahead. I have tried to make bipartisanship a hallmark of my service in the Senate. I certainly intend to use that approach as the Senate goes forward and considers the nomination of Judge Roberts. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to draw attention to the meth crisis facing Oregon and a growing number of States around the country, I stand once again on the floor of the Senate introducing two more newspaper articles into the Record. Both articles highlight the plight of the most vulnerable victims of the meth crisis: America's children. As the first piece, ``The Little Round Faces of Meth,'' from The Oregonian points out, ``The drug lurks behind nearly all of Oregon's most shocking and horrifying cases of child abuse and neglect.'' The second article, ``A Drug Scourge Creates Its Own Form of Orphan'' was printed in the New York Times a little over a week ago. As the article explains, ``In Oregon, 5,515 children entered the [foster care] system in 2004, up from 4,946 the year before, and officials there say the caseload would be half what it is now if the methamphetamine problem suddenly went away.'' The burden that meth is placing on Oregon communities is enormous. And we have to do something about it. Because even if we get the epidemic under control right now, we are going to be dealing with the consequences for years to come. And one of these consequences will be taking care of the child victims of meth. As Jay Wurscher, director of alcohol and drug services for the children and families division of the Oregon Department of Human Services explains in the New York Times article, ``In every way, shape and form, this is the worst drug ever for child welfare.'' We cannot afford to wait any longer. Each day we fail to act, another child is neglected, abused or even worse--dead--as a result of meth. I urge Congress to pass and the President to sign the Combat Meth bill, a solid step that will help us fight this terrible drug in Oregon and around the country. Among other things, the bill provides $5 million in grants to help kids affected by meth. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the full text of The Oregonian article and the New York Times article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act, Medicare cost contracts were kept as a health plan option for seniors. However, Congress also limited the ability of cost contracts to operate in areas if a Medicare Advantage plan decided to offer service in that area and stayed for a year. Medicare cost contracts are plans that offer more benefits than basic Medicare and are often available in areas in which Medicare Advantage plans are not offered. Many of the thousands of Oregonians who have cost contract plans are in rural Oregon, where there are few options for care. The legislation I am introducing today, ``The Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2005'', would allow seniors to keep their cost contracts longer even if a Medicare Advantage plan is offered. The bill also adds more consumer protection provisions that are similar to those already in law for Medicare Advantage plans. I believe that it is not only important to ensure seniors have choices, but that they can keep the choice that works best for them as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act, Medicare cost contracts were kept as a health plan option for seniors. However, Congress also limited the ability of cost contracts to operate in areas if a Medicare Advantage plan decided to offer service in that area and stayed for a year. Medicare cost contracts are plans that offer more benefits than basic Medicare and are often available in areas in which Medicare Advantage plans are not offered. Many of the thousands of Oregonians who have cost contract plans are in rural Oregon, where there are few options for care. The legislation I am introducing today, ``The Medicare Cost Contract Extension and Refinement Act of 2005'', would allow seniors to keep their cost contracts longer even if a Medicare Advantage plan is offered. The bill also adds more consumer protection provisions that are similar to those already in law for Medicare Advantage plans. I believe that it is not only important to ensure seniors have choices, but that they can keep the choice that works best for them as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the tragic bombings in London are a sober reminder of how vulnerable America and our allies remain to terrorism. What happened in London last week is likely to be tragically replicated if our country does not act boldly to reduce what ought to be called a terror tax now imposed on the American people. I call it a terror tax because when we pull up to the corner gas station and pay $2.40 a gallon or so for gas, the reality is a portion of that money is then turned over to foreign governments that ``back door'' it over to Islamist extremists who use that money to perpetuate terrorism and hate. What I call the terror tax is not posted as a price at our gas pump. We do not see it in our pay stub. It is not calculated in our balance of payments to foreign governments. It is a tax measured not in dollars and cents but in risk and insecurity to the American people. It is as real as everything else the American people put their money toward each week. Of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans consume each day, almost 12 million barrels of it is imported. That percentage, now nearly 60 percent, is growing. It was only about 33 percent at the time of the Arab oil embargo years ago. Our addiction to foreign oil has nearly doubled in what amounts to just a few years. In the next few weeks, the House and Senate will be sitting down as part of an effort to write an Energy bill that must take as its priority helping to shake us free of this addiction to foreign oil. I voted against the Energy bill in the Senate because I felt it did not do enough to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but I hope, especially at this critical time, on a bipartisan basis during this conference it will be possible to make this legislation better. I believe it is important to do as much as possible to reduce the terror tax that comes with our dependence on foreign oil. It is not good enough to accept business as usual when our citizens pay record prices at the gas pump, only to see foreign governments wink and nod while terrorist groups make off with substantial amounts of money and use those funds to target the United States. In my view, there is an indisputable link not only between the American dependence on foreign oil and the price our citizens pay at the pump, but between our oil addiction and our vulnerability to attack here at home. For this reason, as the House and Senate get together to look at a strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, I intend to propose five concrete steps to reduce the terror tax. First, I want the State Department to publish each year for the next 10 years a report on the flow of money paid by Americans at the gas pump to foreign governments that ends up in the hands of Islamic extremists who target America with acts of terror. Second, since most foreign oil goes to the transportation sector, I want the American automobile industry to be required to increase auto efficiency by just 1 mile per gallon each year for the next 10 years. Think about what a modest step that is--just 1 mile per gallon. Otherwise, the auto industry ought to explain to the American people why they cannot meet this objective that I am calling for that is so important to the national security of our people. Third, for each of the next 10 years, the Energy Department should publish a list of the most energy-efficient cars in each of the major types of vehicles so the auto industry would have to compete on the basis of the most fuel-efficient automobiles. Fourth, to increase the responsible production of oil in America, not overseas, companies that increase oil production at existing wells shall receive a 2-percent annual increase in their tax writeoffs for this production for each of the next 10 years that the company increases production from existing wells in the United States. Finally, this bill must promote new alternatives to oil. I have proposed a no-risk way to kick-start efforts to get hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road within the decade. By creating incentives for selling hydrogen vehicles and fuels, we would pay only for performance. Only actions that put hydrogen vehicles on the road or provide stations to fuel up would qualify for the incentives. In the nearer term, other alternatives would become readily available. They include cellulosic ethanol made from plant materials grown by American farmers as well as electricity produced by flexible fuel hybrid electric vehicles that can be plugged in as well as refueled at the pump. Getting a fair energy bill that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is just about the most red, white, and blue step this Congress could take. It is absolutely critical if we are to do everything possible to ensure our national security. Experts from a range of political stripes agree that the single most important step Congress can take to make America more secure is to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. As a member of the conference committee on the energy bill, I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure these commonsense steps to end the terror tax brought about as a result of our addiction to foreign oil. Doing so is simply a matter of life and death for the citizens we respect so much here at home. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Oregon's 363 miles of coastline are extremely susceptible to tsunamis. Just 2 weeks ago, at 7:40 p.m. on June 14, 2005, the tsunami threat became reality for those living on or visiting the coast. A 7.0 earthquake off the coast of California triggered an automatic tsunami warning for the entire west coast of the United States. The emergency response capabilities of these communities were put to the test. Fortunately, the warning was called off at 9:09 p.m. after it was determined that the earthquake failed to produce a tsunami. Looking back, a lot of things went right. In Oregon, in cities such as Seaside and Cannon Beach, the alarms were sounded and people evacuated. However, there is a lot more that needs to be done. Models indicate that should an offshore earthquake trigger a tsunami, coastal towns will only have between 12 and 30 minutes before the first wave hits the beach. On June 14, for many people on the coast, the information would have come too late. I am pleased that the Tsunami Preparedness Act, S. 50, of which I am a consponsor and strong supporter, will pass the Senate by unanimous consent today. The world has recently seen how potentially devastating a tsunami can be. America needs to take steps to prepare and be ready. Oregonians are acutely aware that, at some point, a tsunami could hit the coast of the United States. This bill will give our coastal communities opportunities that weren't afforded the victims of the tragic tsunami in Southeast Asia last year. It will harness the brains and expertise of universities, like Oregon State University and Oregon Health and Science University, to improve our tsunami detection and warning system and to make available the resources necessary to adequately prepare, inform, and protect U.S. citizens. The U.S. has the tools to establish a top-notch national tsunami warning system and hazard mitigation program. Oregon universities are leading the way in tsunami research, and the practical applications of this research must be used. Our region, and the other vulnerable areas in the Nation, will benefit from better knowledge about the tracking, forecasting, and effects of tsunami waves. I look forward to the implementation of the Tsunami Preparedness Act and to reviewing the first annual report to Congress on the status and progress of work on this issue. The committee amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 1101 (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have decided to support CAFTA. Because I know I will have a lot of welts on my back for it, I want to take a few minutes to describe how I arrived at my decision. A special concern to me is that if CAFTA is rejected, China will have yet another opportunity to grow its economy and strengthen its economic base at America's expense. Why Americans would want to do that defies logic. China is already an economic juggernaut. But as of now, they are not going to get duty-free exports to Central America. Only the United States has that prospect, and only with CAFTA-DR. If America walks away from this agreement, does anyone really think the Chinese will sit on the sidelines? As the kids say, ``hello!'' The Chinese would love the opportunity to get an economic toehold in our backyard. I, for one, don't think we ought to give them that opportunity. Personally, I believe we ought to be more vigilant in terms of watchdogging trade with China than we have been. That is why last week I pushed the Bush administration to immediately move to do a review of the proposed purchase of Unocal by China's state-run oil company under the Exon-Floria law, to examine the national security and economic implications of a deal that is essentially unprecedented. If you are a free trader--and I am willing to be called that--you ought to protect your interests. That is why I favor, for example, doing a vigorous review of that proposed purchase of Unocal, and I also propose standing up for our interests in Central America rather than walking away from the region and handing the Chinese yet another golden economic opportunity to strengthen their economic base. In my view, it will be an opportunity we have given up, and gratuitously so. My view is that with respect to international trade, we ought to make things and grow things in the United States of America and then sell them around the world. Particularly, I want to sell more value-added products made in the United States of America. There is an opportunity in Central America to sell those value-added products made in the United States such as health care equipment, energy production and conservation goods, computer chips, communications gear--a whole host of products. The reason I say that is that the Presidents of various countries in Central America have written me indicating they are prepared to now make those purchases. They are interested in U.S. suppliers. Some have asked, how is someone in Central America going to have the money to purchase these health care products and chips, computers, and communications gear? The reality is, the first purchases will be made by governments in Central America. The governments have indicated to me they are the ones that want to spend on our value-added products: computers and chips and energy-production devices. For example, Honduras is starting a ``Telephony for All'' program. They intend to increase dramatically the number of telephones, wireless devices, and the various technologies that will allow them to be part of the information age. We ought to make sure those products are made in our country and sold there. We will have an opportunity to do more of that under this agreement, which will allow us to send American exports into Central America duty free. Now, I would be the first to say this is not the agreement I would have written. For example, I feel very strongly about using the Jordan Free Trade Agreement as the model for labor and environmental standards. I think it is a major mistake that was not done. I also think our inability to get a strong trade adjustment package into this legislation is something the Senate will greatly regret. I see my good friend from Montana on the floor, Senator Baucus. He has championed Trade Adjustment Assistance, along with myself and Senator Rockefeller and Senator Coleman. We got 54 votes in the Senate not long ago for our bipartisan legislation to try to assist workers who are adversely affected by trade. It seems incomprehensible that we cannot modernize this program. It is decades old. It ought to be extended to service workers. There is bipartisan support for it in the Senate. It would be yet another message to the workers of this country, who are out on the shop floors, that we are concerned first and foremost for their well-being. So I am going to continue to come back and prosecute this cause with the Senator from Montana. The chairman of our committee, Senator Grassley, knows full well how strongly Senator Coleman and I feel about it, because it is unacceptable to me there is not a trampoline for workers who are adversely affected by trade to get other family-wage jobs. We ought to have that opportunity for them to bounce back when they are adversely affected by trade. We have it in other areas. The failure to extend it to service workers, who could be affected by this and other trade agreements, I think is a major mistake. There are other changes I would have wanted, particularly in the pharmaceutical area. I think this legislation is not well conceived in that it clearly favors brand names over generic ingredients. But I will say to colleagues that even with these concerns--the inability to have a modernization of the trade adjustment program and some of the labor issues addressed in the way I would--it is a bigger mistake to reject this agreement. If you reject this agreement, you send a message to China: You ought to head for Central America as fast as you can because you have an opportunity to get a toehold in America's backyard. You are denying the opportunity to a lot of American exporters, people in Oregon and other states who make those value-added products, the high-skill, high-wage products and technologies to sell those goods in Central America. I want colleagues to know I have met with a lot of those companies and the governments in Central America. I would like to see us bring them together. There is no reason why energy production and conservation products made in our country, and computers and chips and health care technologies, should not be sold in Central America, when the governments in that part of the world are prepared to make major purchases. Let's do more to try to make sure those purchases come from American exporters rather then Chinese exporters. I urge colleagues to support the agreement.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, because we have a number of Senators on the floor--I am happy to defer to my senior colleagues, but if we could establish a kind of queue? I know Senator Leahy has a statement. I am interested in speaking on CAFTA. I ask the distinguished Senator from Montana, could we see if we could get an order among the Senators who are on the floor?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I concur with my colleague and ask through the chair that the managers of this bill fix this small but important typographical error in conference on this bill with the House of Representatives.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, across this country, on couches in front of televisions and video game consoles, a silent killer called obesity is stalking America's youngsters--in epidemic numbers. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing a bipartisan bill, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', to jump-start a nationwide, community-based campaign against this menace and help our children grow up healthy. In my home State of Oregon, obesity may well become the number-two killer of our citizens--after tobacco, also the number-one killer nationally. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, fully 22 percent of the adults in Oregon are obese and 60 percent are overweight. Even more tragic, and why we are here today, is that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says at least 31 percent of low income children between two and five years of age in Oregon are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. A lot of those overweight kids are going to become overweight and obese adults if we just sit on our hands today. Our children are beginning to show signs of devastating diseases that will only lead to a life-long illnesses and increased health care costs. And no statistic can measure the emotional toll that illness takes on a child, their families and others who love them. The Frist-Wyden legislation, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', will work to turn the tide against childhood obesity in two ways. First, it will give teachers, parents and other community leaders a one-stop shop to fight obesity. The Congressional council created by this bill will launch a comprehensive website to help everyone from Physical Education teachers to scout leaders learn what's working in schools and public-private programs. It will also offer information about how to connect with those successful programs and how to adapt them in their own schools. For example, when a teacher wants to see what can be done to help kids get 30 minutes of activity, something that studies have shown helps to combat childhood obesity, that teacher could go to the website and see what others in a similar situation have done. They would be able to see there are partners like Nike who are willing to step up to the plate and help with programs. But that teacher might also see that physical activity is only one part of the solution and they might find ways to bring in the nutritional aspect as well through other programs that have already proven successful. The website will also offer help in establishing goals for cutting childhood obesity at that school or in that community--and all these plans will have been evaluated by outside experts for their effectiveness. Second, after two years, the Congressional council turns the work over to a brand-new foundation. The foundation will keep the one-stop website up and running. But at the same time, they'll be able to raise money, and use it to reward programs that work and fund programs that are sorely needed where childhood obesity threatens most. Here's an example of how the second component of our bill would work: say an urban school wants to work on getting kids to choose vegetables instead of French fries. When they visit the Web site, they may find a successful program about actually growing fresh vegetables--so they don't think vegetables just come from a freezer or a can. The Foundation will have the wherewithal to do more than just share that information--they may be able to provide the seed money, literally, for a school garden that will grow fresh produce, and change the way those children look at food. It is not realistic to think that children won't be in a situation where unhealthy choices for foods and snacks are available. The goal ought to be to help them know what the healthy choices are, how to balance what they eat and drink and to know that they need exercise. And the Foundation can keep pursuing those goals for the long term. I believe that our bipartisan bill is significant for two reasons. First, it emphasizes both sides of the equation--the need for proper nutrition and the need for physical activity. Second, it and because it will create an immediate, one-stop resource, in the form of a Web site, about what we know is working now so that individuals can begin to mobilize their communities and help their children. These are also important steps in assisting our children to become healthy adults. All of us have the same, simple goal here: getting America's children healthy. There are a lot of folks competing for our kids' attention in this arena. A lot of the competition is pretty attractive: food that's not so nutritious but sure tastes good, and video games that don't burn any calories but can occupy you for an entire afternoon. It's tough for kids to make good choices on their own. That's why it's time to mobilize this nation--and particularly this Congress, by way of legislation--to beat the epidemic of obesity plaguing our children.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, across this country, on couches in front of televisions and video game consoles, a silent killer called obesity is stalking America's youngsters--in epidemic numbers. Today, Senator Frist and I are introducing a bipartisan bill, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', to jump-start a nationwide, community-based campaign against this menace and help our children grow up healthy. In my home State of Oregon, obesity may well become the number-two killer of our citizens--after tobacco, also the number-one killer nationally. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, fully 22 percent of the adults in Oregon are obese and 60 percent are overweight. Even more tragic, and why we are here today, is that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says at least 31 percent of low income children between two and five years of age in Oregon are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. A lot of those overweight kids are going to become overweight and obese adults if we just sit on our hands today. Our children are beginning to show signs of devastating diseases that will only lead to a life-long illnesses and increased health care costs. And no statistic can measure the emotional toll that illness takes on a child, their families and others who love them. The Frist-Wyden legislation, ``The Childhood Obesity Reduction Act'', will work to turn the tide against childhood obesity in two ways. First, it will give teachers, parents and other community leaders a one-stop shop to fight obesity. The Congressional council created by this bill will launch a comprehensive website to help everyone from Physical Education teachers to scout leaders learn what's working in schools and public-private programs. It will also offer information about how to connect with those successful programs and how to adapt them in their own schools. For example, when a teacher wants to see what can be done to help kids get 30 minutes of activity, something that studies have shown helps to combat childhood obesity, that teacher could go to the website and see what others in a similar situation have done. They would be able to see there are partners like Nike who are willing to step up to the plate and help with programs. But that teacher might also see that physical activity is only one part of the solution and they might find ways to bring in the nutritional aspect as well through other programs that have already proven successful. The website will also offer help in establishing goals for cutting childhood obesity at that school or in that community--and all these plans will have been evaluated by outside experts for their effectiveness. Second, after two years, the Congressional council turns the work over to a brand-new foundation. The foundation will keep the one-stop website up and running. But at the same time, they'll be able to raise money, and use it to reward programs that work and fund programs that are sorely needed where childhood obesity threatens most. Here's an example of how the second component of our bill would work: say an urban school wants to work on getting kids to choose vegetables instead of French fries. When they visit the Web site, they may find a successful program about actually growing fresh vegetables--so they don't think vegetables just come from a freezer or a can. The Foundation will have the wherewithal to do more than just share that information--they may be able to provide the seed money, literally, for a school garden that will grow fresh produce, and change the way those children look at food. It is not realistic to think that children won't be in a situation where unhealthy choices for foods and snacks are available. The goal ought to be to help them know what the healthy choices are, how to balance what they eat and drink and to know that they need exercise. And the Foundation can keep pursuing those goals for the long term. I believe that our bipartisan bill is significant for two reasons. First, it emphasizes both sides of the equation--the need for proper nutrition and the need for physical activity. Second, it and because it will create an immediate, one-stop resource, in the form of a Web site, about what we know is working now so that individuals can begin to mobilize their communities and help their children. These are also important steps in assisting our children to become healthy adults. All of us have the same, simple goal here: getting America's children healthy. There are a lot of folks competing for our kids' attention in this arena. A lot of the competition is pretty attractive: food that's not so nutritious but sure tastes good, and video games that don't burn any calories but can occupy you for an entire afternoon. It's tough for kids to make good choices on their own. That's why it's time to mobilize this nation--and particularly this Congress, by way of legislation--to beat the epidemic of obesity plaguing our children.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sununu-Wyden amendment to strike the so-called incentives title of this legislation because I believe this title is a blank check for boondoggles. The fact is, we are now at the point when some of the special interests in this country are going to be triple-dipping. They are going to get tax incentives as a result of the tax cut; they are going to get loan guarantees under the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska; and this amendment, this section that we seek to strike, offers additional loan guarantees. These loan guarantees are not only costly, they are also risky. American taxpayers would be required, under title XIV, to subsidize as much as 80 percent of the cost of constructing and operating new and untried technologies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the risk of default on these projects funded by guarantees is between 20 percent and 60 percent. The amendment that Senator Sununu and I offer today would block this unwise and risky investment and stop throwing good taxpayer money after bad. I see our friend from Tennessee is here. He heard me discuss this to some extent in the Energy Committee. I have believed that this legislation is already stuffed with a smorgasbord of subsidies for various industries. As I touched on earlier, the buffet of subsidies is so generously larded that you are going to have industries in this country come back for seconds and even third helpings from this taxpayer-subsidized buffet table. You look for examples: the Hagel amendment, which provides secured loan guarantees for virtually the same projects and technologies as title XIV loan guarantees; coal gasification, advanced nuclear power projects, and renewable projects receive up to 25 percent of their estimated costs for construction activity, acquisition of land and financing. There is no need to double the subsidies for these projects with the incentives under title XIV as well. I want to be clear. I am not against incentives for new technologies. That is why, as a member of the Finance Committee, I supported the energy tax title that provides tax benefits for a variety of energy technologies, ranging from fuel cells and renewable technologies to fossil fuel and nuclear energy. So I am already one who has voted, at this point in the debate, to say that we ought to have some incentives with respect to these promising industries. But what concerns me is the double- and triple-dipping. There is an important difference between the tax incentives that I supported in the Finance Committee and the loan guarantees under title XIV. The tax incentives that were produced on a bipartisan basis in the Finance Committee reward those who produce or save energy. By contrast, the loan guarantees subsidize projects whether they produce energy or not. As I mentioned, the Congressional Budget Office says there is a very substantial risk of failure. I might even be persuaded to go along with the 25-percent subsidy provided by the Hagel amendment to help kick- start new energy technologies, but I don't think it is a wise use of taxpayer money to provide up to an 80-percent subsidy for the very same projects that would also get a 25-percent subsidy under the Hagel amendment. Just with that example alone, you are talking about some projects that would receive a subsidy of 105 percent. With respect to who reaps the benefits from these extraordinary loan guarantees, we know a variety of interests would. In my area of the country, we still remember WPPSS, the nuclear powerplants where there was a huge default and we had many ratepayers very hard hit. Our ratepayers are still paying the bills for the powerplants that were planned years ago but were never built. Skyrocketing cost overruns led to defaults. The collapse shows that Federal loan guarantees are a gamble that taxpayers should not be forced to take. I am very hopeful my colleagues will support the Sununu-Wyden amendment. At this point, I think it is fair to say that we have voted for multiple subsidies for a lot of the industries that we hope will help to some degree cure this country's addiction to foreign oil. But at some point the level of subsidies ought to stop. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes and then allow my friend and colleague to conclude on behalf of the Sununu- Wyden amendment.