Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when it comes to subsidies, without the Sununu-Wyden amendment, some of the country's deepest pockets will be triple-dipping. These industries get subsidies under the tax title from Finance. That is dip 1. The Hagel amendment, yesterday adopted, provides loans. That is dip 2. Title XIV that we seek to strike provides loan guarantees of up to 80 percent. That is dip 3. I urge Senators to join all the country's major environmental groups, all the country's major organizations representing taxpayer rights and support the bipartisan Sununu-Wyden amendment.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect National Parks through collaborative efforts on lands inside and outside of National Park System units. This legislation is based on very successful watershed protection legislation enacted for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land management, now commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment. The Wyden amendment, first enacted in 1998 for fiscal year 1999, has resulted in countless Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management cooperative agreements with neighboring State and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private lands. It has not required additional funding, but has allowed the agencies to leverage their scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the federal dollars stretch farther. The legislation I introduce today will allow the Park Service to use a similar authority to attack natural threats to National Parks, such as invasive weeds, before they cross onto Parks' land. The National Park Service tells me that if they have to wait until the weeds hit the Parks before treating them the costs for treatment rise exponentially and the probability of beating the weeds back drop exponentially. I ask unanimous consent that examples of projects the National Park Service would with this authority, as well as the groups with which they would partner be printed in the Record. I am please that Senator Akaka is joining me as an original co-sponsor of this legislation and I hope my other colleagues will join me as co-sponsors of this legislation and in ensuring its swift passage.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect National Parks through collaborative efforts on lands inside and outside of National Park System units. This legislation is based on very successful watershed protection legislation enacted for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land management, now commonly referred to as the Wyden amendment. The Wyden amendment, first enacted in 1998 for fiscal year 1999, has resulted in countless Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management cooperative agreements with neighboring State and local land owners to accomplish high priority restoration, protection and enhancement work on public and private lands. It has not required additional funding, but has allowed the agencies to leverage their scarce restoration dollars thereby allowing the federal dollars stretch farther. The legislation I introduce today will allow the Park Service to use a similar authority to attack natural threats to National Parks, such as invasive weeds, before they cross onto Parks' land. The National Park Service tells me that if they have to wait until the weeds hit the Parks before treating them the costs for treatment rise exponentially and the probability of beating the weeds back drop exponentially. I ask unanimous consent that examples of projects the National Park Service would with this authority, as well as the groups with which they would partner be printed in the Record. I am please that Senator Akaka is joining me as an original co-sponsor of this legislation and I hope my other colleagues will join me as co-sponsors of this legislation and in ensuring its swift passage.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Absolutely. It is my intent to speak on this amendment I offer with Senator Dorgan and then lay it aside. My hope is we can work something out. I know Senator Collins and Senator Levin are working on something and desire to work with you, as well. If we bring it up now, we can start the discussion on it and work something out. I see Senator Bingaman. He has been so thoughtful throughout the process as well. Mr. President and colleagues, the reason I have come to the floor today is because oil prices per barrel are now at an all-time record high. If you scour this legislation, it is hard to find anything in it that would provide relief to the American consumer any time soon. It is my hope as we go forward with this debate, at a time when prices are in the stratosphere, that we work in a bipartisan way and at least provide some help in this legislation for the consumer who is getting clobbered by these historically high costs. What especially concerns me is it seems to this Member of the Senate that the Federal Government actually makes the problem of high oil and gasoline prices worse every day. Every single day, the Federal Government, through its policies, is compounding the problem the consumers are seeing at the pump because it has been the policy of the Federal Government to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the worst possible time--when prices are at record-high levels. When the prices are at a record-high level, it seems to me this is not the time to be taking oil out of the private market and putting it in the Government reserve. It just does not make economic sense to add more pressure to what is already a very tight oil supply. Reducing the supply of oil on the market, of course, leads to higher oil prices. That is simply supply and demand. Because oil accounts for 49 percent of the cost of gasoline, that means higher prices for consumers at the pump. For the life of me, I do not see how it makes sense for consumers, who are already paying sky-high prices at the pump, to then have their Government force them to pay higher prices by taking oil out of the private market and putting it into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So it does not make sense for the consumer, and, in my view, it does not make sense for taxpayers as well, who have to pay record- high prices for the oil that is taken off the market. Now, this is not just my opinion. The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony last year by experts who said the policy with respect to filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are so high jacks up costs. I asked John Kilduff, senior vice president of energy risk management at Fimat USA, whether the SPR fill rate of 300,000 barrels per day was contributing to oil price increases. Before the committee that day, which the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, chairs, and our friend, Senator Bingaman, is the ranking minority Member, when we were all in our committee, the expert witnesses said they do believe these policies are contributing to oil price increases. Mr. Kilduff specifically stated: A fill rate of 100,000 represents, obviously, 700,000 barrels for a week. At 300,000 it is 2.1 million barrels. A 2.1 million barrel increase in U.S. commercial crude oil inventory in a particular weekly report would be a big build for the particular week and would help with downward pressure on crude oil prices. So I would say to colleagues that this notion that this is something the Senate can just let the Secretary of Energy do what he wants is belied by the expert testimony we have had before the Senate Energy Committee where experts specifically said that a fill rate of several hundred thousand barrels per day is contributing to oil price increases. As far as I can tell, under the policy we are now seeing at the Energy Department, it does not matter how high the prices are, they are just going to keep filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They will continue to take oil off the private market no matter how high the prices get. I would just like to say, Mr. President and colleagues, I am not talking about taking oil out of the Reserve. I know people very often bring that up. I am just saying it does not make sense to have the same fill rate when you are talking about historically high prices because that very high cost of filling it at that point directly hurts the consumer at the pump. On Friday, and again today, when the price of oil skyrocketed to the highest price ever recorded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, our Government has continued to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Earlier this spring, when gasoline prices set an all-time record high of $2.28 for a gallon of gas, the Energy Department continued to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So I say to those who have reservations about what I am advocating, I would simply ask, how high do prices have to go before we stop pursuing policies that drive the prices even higher? At some point, there should be some limit when it comes to the Federal Government actually compounding the difficulties consumers are having at the pump. Under the language currently in the bill, there are no limits. There seems to be some language about ``excessive'' costs, but there is nothing that actually blocks our Government from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve if the price goes even higher than the current record price of $59.23 per barrel. So I want to repeat that. Even if the price goes to $60 or $70 or $80, there is nothing that would force our Government to change its policy of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at these very high prices. So with no restrictions in sight, I guess the Government can just continue indefinitely to fill the Reserve with these record prices. To address this problem, my amendment directs that the Secretary of Energy suspend the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when the prices go above the record-high level in the market and stay above that record-high level for 10 consecutive trading days. The suspension of filling would continue until the price of oil falls back down for 10 consecutive days. I also note the House of Representatives at least is trying to move in the direction of a bit of consumer protection because they have included a prohibition against continuing to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until the price drops below $40 per barrel. Under my amendment, current SPR filling could go forward. But additional filling would be halted when prices are at record-high levels unless there is some consumer protection for our citizens. The bottom line is we cannot continue to allow filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when our economy suffers due to high gas and oil prices without providing some safety valve. Unless this amendment is adopted or unless we can work out a compromise with Senator Collins and Senator Levin and other colleagues who worked on this--unless we can get some legislation in place--there will be no standard for action or any certainty there will be some consumer protection for our citizens when oil prices are out of control. Now, some may argue there should not be these kinds of price triggers for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I guess that argument is: Let's just leave it to the Secretary of Energy. Well, there are parts of this bill, such as section 313, that do not leave matters to the Secretary's discretion, such as when you are talking about price relief, royalty relief for oil and gas producers. Section 313 of the legislation has clear price levels for when the oil companies get a break from the normal royalty policy. So what we have here is a double standard. There are price levels to protect oil and gas producers when it comes to their royalties but absolutely no protection for the consumer who is getting clobbered at the pump and who could get some relief if the Government simply did not fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a time when prices are at a record-high level. The last point I would make is suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices are at a record-high level will not hurt this country's energy security. The Reserve already has more than 693 million barrels now in storage. That is the highest level in history. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is expected to be filled to its current authorized capacity by the end of the summer. What is more, a 2003 study by the Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee found that increased filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when prices were high did not increase overall U.S. oil supplies. Instead, because of the higher prices, oil companies took oil out of their own inventories rather than buy higher priced oil on the market. That does not increase our overall oil supply or our Nation's energy security. So what we have is record prices for the consumer, record costs in terms of filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the Federal Government, in effect, providing free oil storage for high-priced oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so oil companies can reduce their own inventories and storage costs. That is not energy security; that is just pounding the consumer and taxpayers once more. For these reasons, I strongly urge colleagues to place some limits on when the Energy Department can fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. When prices are at an all-time high, it seems that to do otherwise denies consumers a fair shake and taxpayers a fair shake. It is my view the Senate can take pressure off the price of a barrel of oil and off consumers who are getting squeezed at the pump without compromising our national security. One way to do it is along the lines of the amendment I propose this afternoon. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his thoughtfulness.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici. I ask unanimous consent to call up at this time an amendment I filed with Senator Dorgan, No. 792.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is clear that legislation is needed to combat the methamphetamine epidemic sweeping my State and much of the country. This drug is destroying the lives of the people abusing it, their families and their communities. For years, the problem has been talked about, but not enough has been done. To draw attention to Oregon's meth crisis, my colleague Senator Smith and I will be periodically coming to the Senate floor to talk about the meth problem in our State. Today, I would like to introduce a recent newspaper article from the Oregonian. The June 1 article describes a police bust of ``a massive methamphetamine lab capable of producing 400,000 doses of pure meth at a time--enough to intoxicate the entire adult population of Portland.'' The bust was one of the largest in Oregon history. This is the good news. The bad news is that this lab had been in business for at least five months--producing and distributing thousands of doses of meth. Despite successes like this bust, the meth epidemic is getting worse, not better. Congress cannot wait any longer to act--we have a duty to address this crisis now. Enough is enough. It is critical that the Congress pass and the President sign the Combat Meth Act, on which Senator Smith and I are original cosponsors. We must also fully fund the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program and the Byrne Grant program. These initiatives provide much needed reforms and much needed funds, which will help give communities in Oregon and across the Nation the tools they need to fight this terrible problem. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Oregonian article be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, no one is saying the FBI should not be allowed to conduct voluntary interviews. A voluntary interview is certainly a legitimate and often nonintrusive investigative technique. But the FBI agents must not be out there in effect demanding the records of our citizens without following proper legal procedures. Since the FBI has been so reluctant to discuss the activities relating to these discreet inquiries of libraries, the PATRIOT Act should require the Bureau to report on this topic. At a minimum, they should be required to tell the Congress how this information is being used so the Congress can determine whether the FBI's use of this provision is appropriate. In several other areas of the PATRIOT Act there should be modifications. A major problem area, for example, is section 505 that deals with national security letters. National security letters are another way for FBI agents to obtain records. Unlike FISA warrants, national security letters do not require the approval of a judge. The FBI has said the national security letters can be appealed, but the current PATRIOT Act does not specifically discuss this. It is often difficult for recipients to learn more about the requests in their letters and their right to refuse since they are usually barred from discussing the letter with anyone, including a lawyer. In the recent case of Doe v. Ashcroft, the Federal judge found that the FBI had abused this authority by using a national security letter to demand records from an Internet service provider without telling the provider that the letter could be challenged or even that it could be discussed with a lawyer. Congress should reform the national security letter statute to make it clear that national security letters can be challenged, that they can be discussed with a lawyer, and that anyone who receives one has the right to be informed as to their rights. Congress certainly ought to consider adding sunset to this provision. Section 206 authorizes the FBI to use roving wiretaps in national security investigations. The roving wiretap authority allows the FBI to tap not just a particular phone but any phone the person being targeted might use. Unlike criminal investigations, there is not even a requirement for the FBI to make sure that the person being investigated is using a line. If a suspected terrorist worked in a warehouse, roving wiretap authority could be used to tap a pay phone in that warehouse, and every person who used that phone could have their conversations secretly recorded. This provision, in my view, again, should be modified, and the sunset should definitely be renewed so the Congress has more time to investigate how it has been used. Finally, some of the tricky wording in several places of the PATRIOT Act needs to be clarified. A provision that looks like a safeguard for civil liberties may expose Americans to unfair scrutiny when they exercise their rights. In several places, the PATRIOT Act prevents the use of various investigative techniques when the investigation is based solely on the first amendment activities of U.S. persons. Our colleague, Senator Levin, has pointed out that simply saying ``solely'' without clarification can create problems and seems to indicate that it is acceptable to investigate Americans largely or even primarily on the basis of their first amendment activities. I am not convinced this safeguard is actually a safeguard. I hope it will be clarified and strengthened throughout the consideration of the PATRIOT Act. The Intelligence Committee may finish drafting a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in the near future. My sense is the Judiciary Committee will move shortly afterward. It is possible other committees may wish to weigh in on these portions of the PATRIOT Act that fall under their jurisdiction. As we go forward in this debate, as the Congress proceeds to try to walk on that high wire, striking a balance between fighting terrorists ferociously while protecting our civil liberties, I simply say to the Senate this afternoon that the Senate can do better. It is possible, for example, to give the FBI additional emergency power, power that should address the concerns they have raised in the open hearings, without removing the independent checks so necessary in circumstances that are not emergencies. The bottom line is, let's make sure law enforcement has the tools that are necessary to fight terrorism, to protect the people of our country, but not hang up a sign on this PATRIOT Act reauthorization that says: You hereby have a right to go on any fishing expedition you desire. The Senate can do better. The job of creating a more balanced protector of security and civil liberties still has work ahead of us. I look forward to working with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to achieve those ends. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence gets back on the national security high wire as the committee continues to work on legislation reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act. I described this process as a high-wire act because success means striking a balance, an equilibrium, between fiercely protecting our country from terrorism while still preserving the privacy and civil liberties that make our democracy so precious. Chairman Pat Roberts, to his credit, has held several open hearings on this issue. I gladly participated because I believed the open hearings would help to address some of the skepticism about why the PATRIOT Act has almost totally been debated in secret. Unfortunately, the most important part of the debate, the part where the committee must actually discuss how to walk that high wire, is still going to be done behind closed doors. In my view, this secrecy in going forward will undermine any public confidence that open hearings helped to create. I have repeatedly and vigorously opposed making these decisions out of public view. Holding the decisionmaking process in secret is a mistake because it makes it harder for citizens to hold elected officials accountable. Holding the decisionmaking process in secret is unnecessary because it is not difficult for the committee to go behind closed doors, certainly, briefly, when necessary, to discuss any PATRIOT Act-related issue that requires secrecy. Holding the decisionmaking process in secret gratuitously feeds the cynicism that citizens have about the Government's true intentions with respect to this law. Keeping these proceedings secret fuels concerns that the committee is making choices that will not stand up to public scrutiny-- deciding, for example, that you can only have security if you sacrifice privacy. In my view, that is a false choice. I simply do not believe that protecting our country from terrorism and securing the privacy rights of our citizens are mutually exclusive objectives. So here is my bottom line: Give law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to protect our country, but stay away from the fishing expeditions. I do not think anybody will argue with me when I say that Congress passed the PATRIOT Act shortly after September 11, 2001, because it was necessary to move in a hurry. It was clear no one could have conceived of the way in which our country was exposed to attack. It was clear that the Federal Government needed to make major changes in how it fought terrorism, and those were needed immediately. The best parts of the law tore down the unnecessary walls that had grown up between law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. Today, if you go out to the National Counterterrorism Center, the people on the ground there will tell you that those walls have been torn down, and they have stayed down. So the men and women on the front lines in the fight against terror are, in my view, more effective than they were. However, other provisions of the law have sparked serious concerns. Giving Federal authorities broad powers of investigation has raised the specter that the rights of law-abiding citizens might be severely compromised, accidentally or even intentionally. In moving forward, I want to make sure that the right of our citizens to privacy is certainly not compromised intentionally. I am not suggesting our national intelligence or law enforcement agencies are currently being misused the way they have been during our history--such as in the Watergate scandal. But it is important for us to make sure that appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent unintentional abuses and prevent future even darker episodes in our country's history. In my view, a proposed addition to the PATRIOT Act, one that certainly warrants open debate, is the administrative subpoena which, in my view, raises the risk of real abuse. I want to make it clear on this subject today, I believe reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act should simply not include new administrative subpoena authority for the FBI. I am opposed to giving the FBI this authority to write their own administrative subpoenas for foreign intelligence investigations for a number of reasons. Doing so would give the FBI the authority to demand just about anything from just about anybody, with no independent check, simply by claiming that it is relevant to a national security investigation. The FBI already has access to the waterfront of personal information through the FISA warrant process. All they have to do is go before a judge and explain why it is relevant in the most general terms. By giving the FBI the authority to write their own administrative subpoenas, the Congress would be removing this even last modest safeguard. Administrative subpoenas are currently used by many Federal agencies in many contexts. But, except in a very few limited cases, they are not used for national security investigations. National security investigations are simply different than criminal investigations. They, of course, are conducted in secret and do not require evidence of a crime. This is why there are different rules for the two types of investigations. It is not enough, in my view, to say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The question here is, What is good for the American people? The answer is not administrative subpoenas. As proposed, these subpoenas would be extraordinarily broad in their scope. They could be used to gain access to your credit records, your video rentals, your medical records, your gun purchases. They could be used to obtain just about anything. These subpoenas would only be seen by a judge if the recipient of the subpoena decided to challenge it. Even if the recipient was properly notified of his or her right to challenge, they might not be in the position to have the time or the resources to even make that challenge. For example, there are 56 FBI field offices, one in just about every major American city. The head of the local field office could issue an administrative subpoena to a hospital director and ask for all the hospital's medical records simply by claiming they were relevant to an investigation. If the hospital director was busy or did not have the resources to make a challenge, then no judge--no judge would ever see this administrative subpoena. The patients would not even know that their records had been seized. They would be totally in the dark. Even the FBI acknowledges that the agency can get all the information they could possibly need with the investigative powers they currently have. The only reason they have suggested for supporting this judge- free administrative subpoena is speed. They say that the FISA warrant process is simply too slow for time-sensitive, emergency situations. This afternoon I would like to propose on the floor of the Senate an alternative. In this year's reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, Congress can balance protection for the public with the right of privacy by creating an emergency use provision to the FISA business records authority. This way, under the proposal I make today, if the FBI needs information right away, the FBI could notify a judge that they were going to get it--send an e-mail, leave a voice message--and then go get it without waiting for a response. Then they would have 72 hours to apply for the warrant so they could do it after the emergency had been addressed. If the judge felt the FBI had acted inappropriately and decided not to grant the warrant, then the Agency would not be able to use whatever information they had gathered. The idea of adding an emergency use provision along the lines I have described would address the FBI's concern for speed without creating a broad new authority that would remove all the independent checks, even in situations where there were not emergencies. Although time was not taken in 2001 to thoroughly discuss the privacy issues related to the PATRIOT Act, most of the law's more controversial provisions were made subject to sunset. This was done in hopes of a more thoughtful, informed debate during the reauthorization. The sunsets, in my view, have had an unanticipated benefit. They have made the agency very careful about how it uses the powers that have been granted. In addition to the proposal that I am making today to give the FBI more authority to deal with emergencies, I believe the Senate should also focus its attention on sharper scrutiny for the sunset provisions in the act. Some of the sunset provisions that have existed have not attracted any controversy. Others have not only attracted controversy, serious questions have been raised about their use and possible misuse. I want to consider some of these provisions in detail today and, in addition to the proposal I have made with respect to giving the FBI emergency authority, I urge firm action to safeguard the American people as the sunset provisions are considered in the PATRIOT Act's renewal. The provision that has attracted the most attention is probably section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. It is commonly referred to as the library records provision, but in fact it ought to be called the business records provision. Suffice it to say, it is a sweeping one. This provision gives law enforcement access to all types of information from video rentals and gun purchases to tax and medical records. In a nutshell, here is how it works. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA--which I have referred to several times already--it is possible for FBI agents to go to a judge and request a secret warrant to obtain business records. The person to whom the records pertain is not informed. This means that if the FBI serves a FISA warrant on a bank or hospital, the bank president or hospital director would know about it, but the customers or patients whose records had been seized would know nothing at all. Before the PATRIOT Act, if the FBI wanted to get one of these warrants, they had to show a judge specific and articulable facts that the records pertained to a terrorist or a spy. The PATRIOT Act lowered the standard, so now the FBI simply has to assert that the records are, in their view, relevant to a terrorism inquiry. To protect innocent Americans, the business records provision needs to be modified in several ways. First, the Congress should require that the application for a FISA warrant include a statement of facts explaining why the records are relevant to an investigation. Congress should also raise the standard for the most sensitive type of records. The ``relevance'' standard may be appropriate for a hotel or car rental record, but it may be necessary to require the FBI to show hard evidence before giving access to more sensitive records such as medical records. Finally, there must be an increase in the reporting that is done in this area. Congress's duty to look out for abuses of the PATRIOT Act is often a challenging one. Little reporting is required on the use of some provisions. Details regarding the use of the PATRIOT Act are reported, even when reporting is not required. When there is a report, the information is often classified. National security investigations often need to be conducted in secret, but revealing how often particular techniques are used does not make them less effective. Congress needs this information to perform its constitutional responsibilities, and the fact is too often Congress has been doing oversight over the intelligence community in the dark. The Intelligence reform bill that passed a few months ago tried to fill several of the reporting gaps, but there are others that need to be closed as the PATRIOT Act is reauthorized. These reports should also be made public, to the maximum extent possible so that the American people can know all that is safely to be known about FBI activity under the law. One of the major reporting gaps I am concerned about involves what the FBI calls discreet inquiries that the agency uses to obtain library records. The FBI Director, Mr. Mueller, has testified before several Senate committees that, while FISA warrants could be used to obtain people's library records, this has never been done. But the FBI director went on to say that the Agency does obtain library records through what he called discreet inquiries. So I think that the American people deserve to know what a discreet inquiry is. The American people deserve to know how often they are used. And I have asked the FBI to get me this information. Over a month later, despite multiple requests by the staff of the Intelligence Committee, the FBI has still not provided an answer to the question. Suffice it to say, the longer the Agency waits, in terms of answering the question of how they obtain library records, the more Americans believe that the Agency is stepping over the line and into the lives of law-abiding citizens. Those most directly affected by the library records provision have been expressing strong concerns. The American Library Association recently wrote me: ``[D]iscreet inquiries'' by the FBI put our librarians at risk of breaking state laws if agents approach them for information without subpoenas or other properly executed legal documents and intimidate them into complying with the request. I ask unanimous consent the letter from the American Library Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the cost of medicine is a matter of concern to every Senator. Today, Senator Sununu and I have introduced legislation to take a fresh approach to holding down the cost of medicines in our country. Under our bipartisan legislation, the Federal Government would pay less for pharmaceuticals that are advertise when the Federal Government buys those medicines for Medicaid, the Veterans' Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Public Health Service. One can barely turn on the television or open a magazine these days without getting the hard sale on a hot new medicine. There is no doubt that medical science is making miracles for our citizens who need help with their health. For that, we are, of course, grateful. But the advent of advertising for prescription drugs presents pitfalls as well, not just for patients but for every American taxpayer. Senator Sununu and I introduced our legislation today because as the marketing gets savvier, the Federal Government needs to get smarter and contain costs wherever possible for these popular and expensive drugs. The fresh approach that Senator Sununu and I unveil today will amp up the Government's purchasing power on prescription drugs that are advertised directly to consumers. The Pharmaceutical Advertising and Prudent Purchasing Act will reduce drug costs for the beneficiaries of Medicaid and other Federal programs. It will ease the burden on States struggling to stretch their health care dollars through Medicaid, and it will lower the overall costs for taxpayers footing the bill for these advertised drugs. When a drug company figures the price of a pill, it passes along the advertising costs to consumers. Right now, Medicare and Medicaid pay that cost like any other consumer. But it is time to take the advertising costs out of the equation for taxpayer funded programs. The Federal Government, of course, gives drug companies a tax break for advertising which, of course, every other American company gets for its business expenses. There is no need for a double subsidy. There is a need for more prudent purchasing of prescription drugs by the Federal Government. If that is going to happen, the changes in the pharmaceutical market that have been caused by the explosion of advertising cannot be ignored any longer. I do not have to tell our colleagues that drug advertising in the United States is an immense and growing industry. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the pharmaceutical industry spent nearly $4.5 billion on advertising to consumers. The penetration of this advertising may be more than most people realize. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 90 percent of Americans had seen or heard an advertisement for prescription drugs. Today, more and more Americans can go to their doctor and ask to have a medication they have seen advertised on TV, in a magazine, on the radio or on the Internet. Of course, that is what is happening. There is a proven direct connection between the advertising of drugs and a big uptick in the rate of prescriptions written for them. Take a look at the 10 most advertised drugs in the United States. That is 2003, and I would guess that few Americans would say they have not heard of any of these drugs. On each of these drugs, at least $100 million was spent in 2003 alone on direct consumer advertising. The advertising works. A study published in the April issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrates the link. Researchers sent actors to doctors' offices to complain of mild depression. Those who mentioned seeing an ad were five times more likely to get a prescription for an antidepressant as those who simply described their supposed symptoms without talking about a drug ad they had seen. It is no wonder the heavily advertised drugs make up most of the top 10 medicines prescribed under Federal health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and others. Take a look. These are the 10 drugs on which Medicare spends the most total money for outpatient care. Nine are advised directly to consumers. Here are the 10 drugs on which Medicaid spends the most money. Four of the ten are advised directly to consumers. The next 4 drugs, Nos. 11 through 14, are advertised as well. It is the view of Senator Sununu and I that the Federal Government is one consumer that does not need to receive advertising from the drug companies. The Federal Government is buying medicine for a lot of people with a limited pool of funds. It is vital to get a handle now on the connection between advertising and increased sales and to insist on more prudent purchasing. Our legislation does just that. It makes the Government a more prudent purchaser in a straightforward way. It will require Medicaid and other vital programs under Health and Human Services and the Veterans' Administration to get a discount that cuts out the advertising costs figured in each pill. In Medicaid, this would be done by adjustments in the Medicaid rebate program. That is an existing program that requires a pricing agreement between drug manufacturers and the Federal Government for any drug to be sold through the Medicaid program. The Health and Human Services Secretary and the VA Secretary will also be able to negotiate reduced prices for other Federal programs such as the Public Health Service, programs administered by the Indian Health Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Defense Health Program. This is smart and effective spending. It ends the spending of taxpayer dollars to fund advertising that has already received a tax break. It is a commonsense step, the kind of common sense that is all too uncommon when the Federal Government buys drugs. Our legislation will address another issue that speaks both to the taxpayers' interests and the health of patients in these programs. When advertised drugs are purchased, it is not enough to make sure the price is right, although that is important. It is vital the drug is right for the patient's particular problem. Taxpayer dollars should buy drugs that will work best for patients by a doctor's best judgment. Just because a patient recognizes a drug's name enough to request it from their provider does not mean it is the best medicine. More and more drug companies are treating doctors as a middleman they wish to skip. They make a lot more money if patients, without medical degrees, are encouraged to start writing their own prescriptions, whether the drug is the right one or not. Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal programs have a charge to keep for their patients and a trust to maintain with American taxpayers. They should not be exploited financially by the pharmaceutical ``flavor of the month.'' I close by expressing my thanks to the Senator from New Hampshire. This is a bipartisan approach that is going to hold down the cost of medicine for taxpayers in our country. It will be a benefit to beneficiaries certainly at a time when the Medicaid Commission is trying to find responsible savings. We ensure that we take the time to study how this approach would work for other programs such as Medicare. And because I see my friend in the Chamber, I will wrap up simply by saying that it is time to take out a sharp pencil and eliminate the hidden costs for taxpayers from advertised drugs. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the cost of medicine is a matter of concern to every Senator. Today, Senator Sununu and I have introduced legislation to take a fresh approach to holding down the cost of medicines in our country. Under our bipartisan legislation, the Federal Government would pay less for pharmaceuticals that are advertise when the Federal Government buys those medicines for Medicaid, the Veterans' Administration, the Department of Defense, and the Public Health Service. One can barely turn on the television or open a magazine these days without getting the hard sale on a hot new medicine. There is no doubt that medical science is making miracles for our citizens who need help with their health. For that, we are, of course, grateful. But the advent of advertising for prescription drugs presents pitfalls as well, not just for patients but for every American taxpayer. Senator Sununu and I introduced our legislation today because as the marketing gets savvier, the Federal Government needs to get smarter and contain costs wherever possible for these popular and expensive drugs. The fresh approach that Senator Sununu and I unveil today will amp up the Government's purchasing power on prescription drugs that are advertised directly to consumers. The Pharmaceutical Advertising and Prudent Purchasing Act will reduce drug costs for the beneficiaries of Medicaid and other Federal programs. It will ease the burden on States struggling to stretch their health care dollars through Medicaid, and it will lower the overall costs for taxpayers footing the bill for these advertised drugs. When a drug company figures the price of a pill, it passes along the advertising costs to consumers. Right now, Medicare and Medicaid pay that cost like any other consumer. But it is time to take the advertising costs out of the equation for taxpayer funded programs. The Federal Government, of course, gives drug companies a tax break for advertising which, of course, every other American company gets for its business expenses. There is no need for a double subsidy. There is a need for more prudent purchasing of prescription drugs by the Federal Government. If that is going to happen, the changes in the pharmaceutical market that have been caused by the explosion of advertising cannot be ignored any longer. I do not have to tell our colleagues that drug advertising in the United States is an immense and growing industry. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the pharmaceutical industry spent nearly $4.5 billion on advertising to consumers. The penetration of this advertising may be more than most people realize. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 90 percent of Americans had seen or heard an advertisement for prescription drugs. Today, more and more Americans can go to their doctor and ask to have a medication they have seen advertised on TV, in a magazine, on the radio or on the Internet. Of course, that is what is happening. There is a proven direct connection between the advertising of drugs and a big uptick in the rate of prescriptions written for them. Take a look at the 10 most advertised drugs in the United States. That is 2003, and I would guess that few Americans would say they have not heard of any of these drugs. On each of these drugs, at least $100 million was spent in 2003 alone on direct consumer advertising. The advertising works. A study published in the April issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association demonstrates the link. Researchers sent actors to doctors' offices to complain of mild depression. Those who mentioned seeing an ad were five times more likely to get a prescription for an antidepressant as those who simply described their supposed symptoms without talking about a drug ad they had seen. It is no wonder the heavily advertised drugs make up most of the top 10 medicines prescribed under Federal health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and others. Take a look. These are the 10 drugs on which Medicare spends the most total money for outpatient care. Nine are advised directly to consumers. Here are the 10 drugs on which Medicaid spends the most money. Four of the ten are advised directly to consumers. The next 4 drugs, Nos. 11 through 14, are advertised as well. It is the view of Senator Sununu and I that the Federal Government is one consumer that does not need to receive advertising from the drug companies. The Federal Government is buying medicine for a lot of people with a limited pool of funds. It is vital to get a handle now on the connection between advertising and increased sales and to insist on more prudent purchasing. Our legislation does just that. It makes the Government a more prudent purchaser in a straightforward way. It will require Medicaid and other vital programs under Health and Human Services and the Veterans' Administration to get a discount that cuts out the advertising costs figured in each pill. In Medicaid, this would be done by adjustments in the Medicaid rebate program. That is an existing program that requires a pricing agreement between drug manufacturers and the Federal Government for any drug to be sold through the Medicaid program. The Health and Human Services Secretary and the VA Secretary will also be able to negotiate reduced prices for other Federal programs such as the Public Health Service, programs administered by the Indian Health Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense and the Defense Health Program. This is smart and effective spending. It ends the spending of taxpayer dollars to fund advertising that has already received a tax break. It is a commonsense step, the kind of common sense that is all too uncommon when the Federal Government buys drugs. Our legislation will address another issue that speaks both to the taxpayers' interests and the health of patients in these programs. When advertised drugs are purchased, it is not enough to make sure the price is right, although that is important. It is vital the drug is right for the patient's particular problem. Taxpayer dollars should buy drugs that will work best for patients by a doctor's best judgment. Just because a patient recognizes a drug's name enough to request it from their provider does not mean it is the best medicine. More and more drug companies are treating doctors as a middleman they wish to skip. They make a lot more money if patients, without medical degrees, are encouraged to start writing their own prescriptions, whether the drug is the right one or not. Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal programs have a charge to keep for their patients and a trust to maintain with American taxpayers. They should not be exploited financially by the pharmaceutical ``flavor of the month.'' I close by expressing my thanks to the Senator from New Hampshire. This is a bipartisan approach that is going to hold down the cost of medicine for taxpayers in our country. It will be a benefit to beneficiaries certainly at a time when the Medicaid Commission is trying to find responsible savings. We ensure that we take the time to study how this approach would work for other programs such as Medicare. And because I see my friend in the Chamber, I will wrap up simply by saying that it is time to take out a sharp pencil and eliminate the hidden costs for taxpayers from advertised drugs. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Sununu's remarks, Senator Reed be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that Senator Sununu speak after me for up to 10 minutes as well to discuss bipartisan legislation the two of us have introduced today.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to report that the Senate transportation bill not only continues but also greatly expands a program I authored in the TEA-21 law to promote smart growth initiatives. When TEA-21 became law in 1998, this pilot program was the first Federal program ever created to provide incentives to help States and local governments pursue smart growth policies. The good news is that the Senate transportation bill recognizes the value of this groundbreaking program by providing a substantial funding increase. The original smart growth pilot program I authored, the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program, TCSP, provided $25 million per year to investigate and address the relationships between transportation projects, communities and the environment. Under the SAFETEA bill now before the Senate, funding for this program would nearly double to about $47 million per year. The not so good news is that 7 years after Congress enacted the TCSP program it remains the only Federal program to provide incentives for smart growth. In the last 7 years, the problems of urban sprawl have only gotten worse. Clearly more needs to be done. Sprawl development not only hurts our citizens where they live and breathe, it also hits them in their wallets. A number of studies have come out that show the costs of sprawling growth are significantly higher than more compact, managed growth patterns. These studies show that taxpayers can save billions of dollars in public facility construction and operation and maintenance costs by opting for growth management. Because of the major impacts federally funded transportation projects can have, there is an appropriate role for the Federal Government in ensuring these projects and the development they spawn are both economically and environmentally sound. That role should not be to embroil the Federal Government in land use decisions that have historically been State and local issues. We do not want Federal zoning. Instead, the proper role for the Federal Government is to create incentives to encourage and build on the State and local efforts to address transportation and growth that are already underway. I am very pleased that the Senate SAFETEA bill extends and expands the TCSP program to help local communities grow in environmentally sustainable ways by creating incentives for smart growth management. The additional funding for TCSP in the Senate transportation bill is a good start. But if we are going to improve both our Nation's infrastructure and our quality of life, we need to do more at the Federal level to provide incentives to support smart growth policies. My home State of Oregon leads the Nation in developing innovative approaches to manage our growth and to tie transportation policies in to growth management. Our statewide land conservation and development program requires each municipality to establish an urban growth boundary to define both the areas where growth and development should occur and those areas that should be protected from development. This system keeps agricultural and forest lands in productive use and preserves ``green corridors'' for hiking, biking and other recreational uses that are located in or close to urban areas. Our transportation planning and construction efforts reinforce these policies by not only avoiding developing in environmentally sensitive areas but also by helping make the areas where we want development to occur more accessible. Oregon recognizes that it is not enough to tell people where they can not build. For our system to work, we have to make it easier to develop the areas where we want growth to occur. And we do not just give lip service to this principle. We actually put our money where our mouth is to make sure the development we want occurs. These policies make the State of Oregon, Metro, the city of Portland, and other localities in our State ideal candidates to apply for funding under the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program. I greatly appreciate the support of Chairman Inhofe, Chairman Bond and Senators Jeffords and Baucus in working with me to increase funding substantially for this important program in the bill. Thanks to their efforts the bill now before the Senate will enable State and local smart growth policies to merge more smoothly with our transportation policies. As Congress considers other Federal infrastructure programs, I will be looking for ways to build on the success of TCSP. The TCSP model can also be adapted for water, sewer and other federally funded infrastructure to help save taxpayers money and support State and local governments smart growth efforts. By following that approach, Congress can provide our citizens with both better infrastructure and better quality of life.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is a time when millions of our families are walking on an economic tightrope. I will talk for a couple of minutes about the double standard that applies with respect to the pension rights of our workers. When we look at what is happening today in America with the workers--for example, at United Airlines, we saw it at Enron, as well--the pensions of our workers are in a free fall, but the pensions of the executives, the CEOs, are safe and secure in a tidy lockbox. I don't think that is right. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I will do everything I can to change it. I have been trying to figure out exactly how much money the CEO of any major company is receiving in this country in his or her pension package. This is a very difficult exercise. It is sort of like trying to find a needle in multiple haystacks. To begin the effort to try to figure out what these executives are paid, I was first instructed to call the Department of Labor to obtain a copy of a company's annual report of employee benefit plans. This is what is called the form 5500. After I did that, I was told to contact the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to get hold of the company's 10(k) filing for the year in question. Armed with these two documents, you then have to figure out the amount of unfunded liability for all of the groups the company pays, and then subtract that number from a line item in the 10(k) form. Even when you go this route, what you have is, at best, a rough estimate that requires a background in pension legislation, an intimate knowledge of SEC requirements, and a degree in calculus. It seems to me that American workers, at a time when they are seeing their pensions shellacked--we saw it at Enron in Oregon where we had workers who used to have close to $1 million, and their private pension funds now have $3,000 or $4,000. They deserve better than to have to try to figure out, through a bevy of forms and stock options, deferred accounts, years of service calculations, equations--one form of paper after another--they deserve better than to try to have to sort all that out to see what the executives are making in their pensions while they are seeing their pensions evaporate in front of their eyes. Senator Kennedy has done very good work in terms of trying to sort this out so as to determine when a company tries to unload their responsibilities at a time of crisis. The Senate Finance Committee, on a bipartisan basis, should do more. What the Senate ought to be doing at a time when we are seeing our workers suffer and their pensions disappear, the Senate ought to make sure that shareholders and the public can find out exactly and conveniently what these executives will be getting upon their retirement. I am proposing a bit of sunshine come into these executive pension lockboxes. Let's do for the workers whose pensions are being offered up for the CEOs, a bit of justice. Let's also do it for taxpayers because with every company that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation steps in to rescue, the agency's deficit grows. From an estimated $23 billion today, it is anticipated to grow to an expected $40 billion with the takeover of additional airlines. We are seeing our workers sacrifice. The question is, What are they sacrificing for? Apparently, on the basis of the news in the last couple of weeks, some of these workers are sacrificing in order to fund the retirement packages for the CEOs. That is not my view of making tough decisions together. That is not my view of coming together and dealing with a tough problem in an equitable way. It is a double standard. If you ask the average person on the street if they knew, for example, that the worker was going to be at risk with their pensions while the enormous pension of the CEO was protected, those workers wouldn't have any idea that was the case. They would say the same rules apply to everyone. We are seeing they don't. Look particularly at the pension arrangement for the CEO at United. Three months before United Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2002, the company placed $4.5 million in a special bankruptcy protected trust for the CEO. So right now we are seeing the workers of United Airlines face the devastation of their pensions literally disappearing. They look at this double standard. The people at the top do not have to sweat it. That is not right. We ought to have one set of pension rules for everyone in this country. It ought to be based on disclosure and transparency. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee I am going to do everything I can in this session, on a bipartisan basis, to get this passed. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I very much appreciate the work of the Senators from Vermont and Oklahoma, and if we have a Senator, I will wrap up within a couple minutes of time at that point.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Hatch and I are taking this time to prepare our colleagues in the Senate and the public for a health care revolution that is long overdue. Right now, just over the river in Arlington, a group of dedicated citizens from every corner of the country is preparing to do something that has never been done before, and that is to tell the American people the hard truths about where nearly $2 trillion in health care goes each year and then to walk the public through the tough choices that must be made to create a health care system that works for all Americans. The Citizens' Health Care Working Group was created by a law that I wrote with Senator Hatch. That law is just now beginning to be implemented. Beginning this week, the American people will have a place to go to find out more about the working group. I encourage them to take the opportunity to go to this Web site and learn about a very fresh approach to delivering health care for all of our citizens. For 60 years, our country has tried the same thing. Literally from Harry Truman in 1945, in the 81st Congress, through 1993 and 1994 in the Clinton administration, the effort was to write legislation in Washington, DC. Then the American people would find it hard to understand, various interest groups would attack the legislation and each other, and everything would die. Under the law I have written with Senator Hatch, this approach is turned on its head. Instead of starting in Washington, DC, the Health Care That Works for All Americans law begins outside the beltway. I would say to the Senate, I think health care reform has been like getting dressed in the dark for both the public and for policymakers. The American people have never been told where the money is going, so how can they, in a thoughtful way, offer suggestions on what needs to be done to improve the system? Without this essential information from the American public, how then can policymakers write legislation that thoughtfully addresses the public's concerns and garners the public's support? This time, beginning in the fall, that is going to change. In senior centers and libraries, at business organizations, online and offline, a Health Care Report to the American People will lay out the facts for the first time. The public is going to be told in understandable language the facts as to where the $1.8 trillion spent each year on health care goes. Then the American people will have the opportunity-- again offline and online--to give their ideas about how to create a health care system that works for everyone. For the first time, public involvement will be followed by political accountability. Under the law, once Americans learn where the health care dollar is going and they have the chance to talk about how they would rather spend those dollars, Congress must follow up. All the committees of jurisdiction have to hold hearings within 60 days of the recommendations coming from the citizens of our country. Once there is a clear citizens' roadmap to health care that works for all Americans, it will be hard for Congress to reject the citizens' health care needs. Congress can continue to ignore what the citizens are calling for, but with genuine public momentum behind this effort, Congress will ignore the citizens at its peril. For the first time, with this approach, there is the potential to create a true juggernaut to get a bill a President of either political party can sign. It is about time. If Americans do not have their health, we all understand nothing else matters. Before I had the honor of coming to the Congress, I served as director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I saw then how important it was that a fresh, innovative approach be taken in this area. Two weeks ago, the chairman of Starbucks sat in my office. This is a company that gets it when it comes to health care. They are doing something that is hard for any company to do, providing health insurance not only to their full-time employees but to their part-time workers. They have done this because their founder, Howard Schultz, remembers what it was like to grow up in a family at risk because they did not have health care. He believes a secure, covered workforce contributes to his company's great business success. But Howard Schultz will tell us, just as other concerned business leaders will tell us, they may not be able to keep that commitment if costs continue to grow exponentially. What I appreciate about what Starbucks is saying is they are not waiting for the bottom to fall out. Mr. Schultz has come to Washington to ask that the Congress and the executive branch partner with businesses that want to do the right thing and to cover their employees. He does not have all the answers, but he told me and Senator Hatch as part of this bipartisan law that makes a break with 60 years of failure in this area, he wants to try fresh approaches. Since millions of Americans come in contact with Starbucks each week, that is a pretty darned big contribution and an indication of what the business community is willing to do as we take a fresh look at coming up with health care that works for all Americans. Frankly, what we have heard from Starbucks and others is exactly the kind of teamwork we wanted when we wrote the law. We are talking about a unique approach where the public has the facts, where the public gets a chance to weigh in, where Congress then has to act. This kind of approach, where you rewrite the book with respect to health care reform, is long overdue. There are going to be tough choices. Senator Hatch and I have acknowledged that at the very beginning. Certainly end-of-life issues present us with some very difficult, gut-wrenching concerns but establishing this kind of process is, in the view of myself and Senator Hatch, absolutely critical if our country is to move and to move quickly to deal with the health care challenge in the days ahead. This health care wrecking ball is not going to hit in 2040 or 2050, colleagues. We are going to get clobbered on New Year's Day 2007 when 70 million baby boomers start retiring. I see my friend Senator Hatch is here and Senator Inhofe has been so kind to give this time so I will wrap up. I encourage each Senator to urge their citizens at home to get involved with the Citizens' Health Care Working Group. They are going to be getting out into the communities across the country, making their information available online. This is their Web site. I encourage Senators to have folks at home ready to pitch in. I thank my partner in this effort, Senator Hatch. If we look at the important health care legislation in the last few years, Senator Hatch's name is virtually always on it, whether it is programs for kids or how to address issues relating to pharmaceuticals. I could not have a better partner in the Senate as we try to break new ground in health care. I yield now so Senator Hatch can have the time. I do it with my thanks.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. As I said or touched on in my earlier comment, Senator Hatch and I had talked several days ago with the cloakrooms on both sides. We do want to be sensitive to our colleague. His point is valid. I think both of us could finish our remarks in about 10 minutes each, or thereabouts.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend from Oklahoma, several days ago Senator Hatch and I were told that we could speak on the floor at 2:15. So I ask unanimous consent that I can speak as in morning business, that I will be followed by Senator Hatch, and in deference to our friend from Oklahoma, who makes a very good point, that this time be charged postcloture.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, several weeks ago, I outlined what I believed this country needs to do in order to address the true issues related to how we care for those who are dying. Today, I am introducing 3 bills to improve access to pain management, increase the number of providers trained to care for those with life-threatening illness, and improve the Medicare hospice benefit. Our medical system is geared towards curing patients, and gives short shrift to those we cannot cure. Modern advances in technology allow us to live longer, but that also means that many of us will live longer with chronic diseases including pain. The Conquering Pain Act will help those patients living and dying in pain, support their families and assist providers in getting information and guidance. This legislation will provide an opportunity for the country to develop and test different ways of providing pain management to patients 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It would create and fund regional networks to assist patients so they would not have to wait until normal business hours to get relief and help providers receive timely information and guidance as they treat difficult cases. This bill would create a website and require access to it in health care settings so families, patients and providers can have instant information. In addition, the bill requires several studies so we can better understand the other roadblocks for patients seeking pain management. These roadblocks include the lack of health insurance coverage for pain management and the interaction of the enforcement of laws concerning controlled substances and the delivery of appropriate pain management. I am pleased that my colleague from Oregon is cosponsoring the Conquering Pain Act. Another aspect of our health care system that needs strengthening, is in assuring that we have providers who know how to provide support and comfort care to the dying. The Palliative Care Training Act will increase the number of providers trained in palliative care. Palliative care is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness. It does so through the prevention and relief of suffering by early identification, assessment and treatment of pain and other problems. Palliative care affirms life and regards dying as a normal process. It neither hastens nor postpones death and is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy, and offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible until death. My legislation provides grants to individuals with appointments as junior faculty at accredited medical schools so they will teach other providers palliative care. This is modeled after existing awards for the training of other specialties. When it comes down to it, assuring there is faculty in schools to teach this area of medicine, is an inexpensive way of strengthening the health care system in providing this needed care. I am pleased to note that when the National Hospice and Palliative Care Association recently testified before the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee, they identified this legislation as addressing an important need. As we look at how to better care for those at the end of life, Medicare's hospice benefit bears examination. When the benefit was added to Medicare, it was hailed as a cost effective benefit that would assist many. In truth, few Americans know what hospice really is and the benefits it can provide. Too often seniors are advised of the benefits too late to get the full effect of the medical, social and spiritual support this benefit can provide. Part of the reason for this is Medicare requires the patient to choose between continuing to seek ``curative'' care or hospice and palliative care. This means that literally the patient must choose between the hope of a cure and accepting that they are dying. Not many of us would want to give up seeking a cure or want to give up hope. However, that is what the Medicare program requires now. The Medicare Hospice Demonstration Act tests the idea that patients would not have to give up seeking ``curative'' care, to get hospice. It is my belief that as people experience what hospice can do for them and for their families, they will find they can accept living the end of their lives with hospice and palliative care instead of seeking less effective care that will not cure them or enhance the quality of their life. It the U.S. Senate is going to examine end of life issues, we should not just look at legal issues. I believe these proposals are essential elements of the health care system that need to be supported and strengthened. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.