Ron Wyden

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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate resumes debating the nuclear option for resolving the debate about judges, I would like to ask that the Senate pursue a conventional option, the disappearing art of bipartisanship. Rather than calling for breaking out the nuclear weapons, I believe the Senate should call for breaking out some bipartisanship, and I want to give an example this afternoon of what the possibilities could be for real bipartisanship in this area of judicial nominations. When President Clinton was elected, even though I was a Member of the House, I was the senior Democrat in my State. So I was faced with the challenge then as a Member of the other body of working with two Senators with close to 60 years of experience in the Senate--Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood. Both of them were extremely gracious in their efforts to work with me. I created a formal judicial selection committee. I gave Senators Hatfield and Packwood representation on that committee. We worked together in a bipartisan way and my first selection was confirmed without controversy. I continued that bipartisan selection committee when I was elected to serve in the Senate. Three of my recommendations are now serving on the Federal bench thanks, in great measure, to the bipartisan cooperation of my friend and colleague Senator Gordon Smith. After President Bush was elected in 2000, Senator Smith retained a similar bipartisan judicial selection process, and I was pleased to be able to assist him and the Bush administration in moving their nominee through the process. Now our bipartisanship has been put to the test. In fact, twice, both with respect to myself and with respect to Senator Smith, we had nominees who proved to be controversial to some Senators. In each case, the Senator in the minority party upheld his commitments and shepherded these individuals through the Senate. Doing tough bipartisan work at the front end of the judicial selection process, neither Senator Smith nor I were pulled into a partisan squabble later on as the process went forward. This is precisely the sort of bipartisan cooperation that is now missing between the White House and the Senate, and what is needed is more bipartisan conventional options for resolving this judicial debate and fewer nuclear threats. It seems to me, going nuclear will change the Senate in a very dramatic way. I think it will make it harder, for example, to have breakthroughs in health care such as Senator Hatch helped me achieve when we passed the Health Care That Works for All Americans law. I think it is going to make it harder to have a bipartisan breakthrough to producing a new energy policy. If ever there was a red, white and blue issue for our country, it is getting a new bipartisan energy policy that would shake us free of our dependence on foreign oil. As I held open community meetings last week at home in Pendleton, Irrigon, Monroe, Fossil, Tillamook, and throughout my home State, there were no rallies and citizens calling for the use of a nuclear option. There were an awful lot of people asking: What are you going to do about health care costs that are going through the stratosphere? And I talked to them about the efforts that I and Senator Hatch have put in place. They wanted to know about what is going to be done to deal with crumbling roads. I see our friend from Oklahoma who would like to pull together a bipartisan bill to deal with our country's infrastructure. So folks were talking about health care, creating jobs and a fresh energy policy. They know the only way the Senate is going to achieve any of that is through bipartisanship. I also see the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, my friend Senator Specter. Today the Senate has a choice. Tomorrow or the next day there may not be a choice. I hope my colleagues will choose the conventional option we have been using in Oregon that Senator Hatfield and Senator Packwood assisted me with and that Senator Gordon Smith has assisted me with. I hope we will choose what I call the Oregon conventional option and seek a renewed bipartisan commitment to resolving this matter.

Mr. WYDEN. I would modify my request, Mr. President, that after the distinguished Senator from Vermont has completed his remarks, I would be next for 20 minutes, and the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, would come after me.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business after the distinguished Senator from Vermont has completed his remarks.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. If I could engage my colleague in a colloquy, I assume the leader is going to speak relatively briefly as well. If that is the case, I certainly want to be courteous. I ask unanimous consent, then, that I have up to 10 minutes to speak after the majority leader has spoken and that my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, have the opportunity to speak for up to 10 minutes after me.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly believe that parents in our country should have more wholesome entertainment choices for their children. To make that possible, I am today introducing legislation to require that cable and satellite owners allow parents to purchase a child-friendly tier of television programming. For years, the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have labored, to little avail, to turn off offensive programming with a variety of technologies. My legislation would ensure that America's families, 24/7, could turn on programming that is reliably friendly to our children. While the legislation ensures that parents have more choices, the entertainment industry is assured that it has choices as well. Under the bill, Congress does not direct how the law is to be implemented. The Congress does not set prices. And the Congress does not take any step that is inconsistent with the first amendment. About the only part of the legislation that is nonnegotiable is my belief that Congress should not dawdle any longer when the volume of degrading, violent, and antisocial entertainment our children are exposed to continues to grow. Here is what America's parents deal with now. A recent study found that the average child in America has seen 8,000 murders depicted on television by the time they graduate from elementary school. Kids see about 10,000 television rapes, assaults, and murders each year. And in 2004, Americans filed more than 1 million complaints with the Federal Communications Commission about indecent programming. Yesterday the National Cable and Telecommunications Association launched a new public service campaign to alert subscribers to parental control features that are already available and to introduce new larger TV rating icons. I haven't studied their proposal, but it certainly sounds constructive and I look forward to hearing more about their efforts. The legislation I am introducing today is a truly new approach that has teeth. It is going to give parents more kid-friendly entertainment choices that are easy to understand. The legislation would require that all cable and satellite operators within 1 year of enactment offer a kid-friendly tier of programming. It would require monthly billing statements to include information about how customers can use blocking technology to stop offensive programming. And it would impose big- league fines of $500,000 a day on any cable or satellite operator who doesn't comply with the requirement that they give parents the chance to purchase kid-friendly programming. In this tier parents will know that there will be no content and no advertisements of a violent or sexual nature. Parents and adults who are not concerned about the current level of violence and sex on television would, of course, have access to those options with respect to current law. This proposal is the first to tell cable and satellite operators they must offer a kid-friendly television tier so parents have more choices. The legislation does not dictate how it must be accomplished. It only says this tier of kid-friendly programming must carry a number of channels. The legislation leaves it up to the operator whether to offer the kids tier as part of a basic or expanded basic package or as a completely separate package. Certainly there is going to be some opposition. But I believe good quality programming and an option for families could translate to pretty good profits for those cable and satellite providers. Parents are going to find this option very attractive. If children are watching TV 4 hours a day, you can bet mom and dad are not able to stand there the whole time. A kids tier is going to take the guesswork out of TV time for America's parents. Now there is an awful lot of guesswork. Time magazine found last month 53 percent of respondents said they thought the Federal Communications Commission ought to place stricter controls on broadcast channel shows depicting sex and violence. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed said the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers' moral standards. Sixty-six percent said there is too much violence on open air TV. Fifty-eight percent said there is too much cursing. Fifty percent said there is too much sexual content. I have worked to make sure that this legislation strikes an appropriate balance, offering choices to parents, not taking them away. A recent Pew Research survey found although 60 percent of Americans are very concerned about what kids see and hear on television, about half of those surveyed were more worried about the Government imposing undue restrictions and thought this was essentially the responsibility of the audience. So what we are doing here shows a balanced kind of approach in line with the kinds of values Americans are expressing. Don't make choices for parents, but help parents make good choices for their children. With 8 out of 10 American households getting their television through cable or satellite programmers, it is time that parents be given the chance to sign up for programming that works for their family. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 946 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly believe that parents in our country should have more wholesome entertainment choices for their children. To make that possible, I am today introducing legislation to require that cable and satellite owners allow parents to purchase a child-friendly tier of television programming. For years, the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have labored, to little avail, to turn off offensive programming with a variety of technologies. My legislation would ensure that America's families, 24/7, could turn on programming that is reliably friendly to our children. While the legislation ensures that parents have more choices, the entertainment industry is assured that it has choices as well. Under the bill, Congress does not direct how the law is to be implemented. The Congress does not set prices. And the Congress does not take any step that is inconsistent with the first amendment. About the only part of the legislation that is nonnegotiable is my belief that Congress should not dawdle any longer when the volume of degrading, violent, and antisocial entertainment our children are exposed to continues to grow. Here is what America's parents deal with now. A recent study found that the average child in America has seen 8,000 murders depicted on television by the time they graduate from elementary school. Kids see about 10,000 television rapes, assaults, and murders each year. And in 2004, Americans filed more than 1 million complaints with the Federal Communications Commission about indecent programming. Yesterday the National Cable and Telecommunications Association launched a new public service campaign to alert subscribers to parental control features that are already available and to introduce new larger TV rating icons. I haven't studied their proposal, but it certainly sounds constructive and I look forward to hearing more about their efforts. The legislation I am introducing today is a truly new approach that has teeth. It is going to give parents more kid-friendly entertainment choices that are easy to understand. The legislation would require that all cable and satellite operators within 1 year of enactment offer a kid-friendly tier of programming. It would require monthly billing statements to include information about how customers can use blocking technology to stop offensive programming. And it would impose big- league fines of $500,000 a day on any cable or satellite operator who doesn't comply with the requirement that they give parents the chance to purchase kid-friendly programming. In this tier parents will know that there will be no content and no advertisements of a violent or sexual nature. Parents and adults who are not concerned about the current level of violence and sex on television would, of course, have access to those options with respect to current law. This proposal is the first to tell cable and satellite operators they must offer a kid-friendly television tier so parents have more choices. The legislation does not dictate how it must be accomplished. It only says this tier of kid-friendly programming must carry a number of channels. The legislation leaves it up to the operator whether to offer the kids tier as part of a basic or expanded basic package or as a completely separate package. Certainly there is going to be some opposition. But I believe good quality programming and an option for families could translate to pretty good profits for those cable and satellite providers. Parents are going to find this option very attractive. If children are watching TV 4 hours a day, you can bet mom and dad are not able to stand there the whole time. A kids tier is going to take the guesswork out of TV time for America's parents. Now there is an awful lot of guesswork. Time magazine found last month 53 percent of respondents said they thought the Federal Communications Commission ought to place stricter controls on broadcast channel shows depicting sex and violence. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed said the entertainment industry has lost touch with viewers' moral standards. Sixty-six percent said there is too much violence on open air TV. Fifty-eight percent said there is too much cursing. Fifty percent said there is too much sexual content. I have worked to make sure that this legislation strikes an appropriate balance, offering choices to parents, not taking them away. A recent Pew Research survey found although 60 percent of Americans are very concerned about what kids see and hear on television, about half of those surveyed were more worried about the Government imposing undue restrictions and thought this was essentially the responsibility of the audience. So what we are doing here shows a balanced kind of approach in line with the kinds of values Americans are expressing. Don't make choices for parents, but help parents make good choices for their children. With 8 out of 10 American households getting their television through cable or satellite programmers, it is time that parents be given the chance to sign up for programming that works for their family. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 40 years ago, when having a computer in your home was inconceivable and being able to hold a miniature computer in the palm of your hand was the stuff of science fiction, Gordon Moore, then a young engineer with Fairchild Semiconductor, had a revolutionary idea. In the April 19, 1965, issue of Electronics Magazine, Moore first articulated what would come to be known as Moore's law: that the number of transistors on a computer chip would double in power approximately every 18 months but the price would actually decrease. Moore's law was revolutionary because it said that computer power improves essentially for free. Not only did this mean technology could be accessible and affordable for all Americans, it set the stage for increases in productivity unheard of since the Industrial Revolution. Today, Moore's 40-year-old prediction is not just the thought of a dreamer, written for the benefit of a few early high-tech pioneers; it is the metronome of the technology industry. The drive to keep up with the drumbeat of Moore's law has meant unparalleled innovation in the high-tech industry. It has resulted in quality, high-paying jobs and contributed to our Nation's economic stability. The growth of computer technology in the U.S. has brought countless benefits to consumers and businesses throughout this country. We are proud in my home State of Oregon to be part of the high-tech engine that helped build the digital economy. We are happy to be home to companies like Intel Corporation, which Moore helped found in 1974. Intel, which employs 15,500 people and has invested approximately $11 billion in Oregon, is an important contributor to our economy and an example of the impact that leadership in technology can have at the local level. Oregon's high-tech industry continues to be a vital and growing part of the State's economy, creating jobs, fueling the growth of small and large businesses, and driving the innovation necessary to keep pace with Moore's law today. The fulfillment of Moore's 40-year-old prediction will continue to lead to advances in virtually every aspect of our lives. It means smaller and more affordable computers, and cameras the size of pills that can be swallowed to explore our insides without surgery. It also means family and friends can overcome great distances, connecting in an instant over the digital airwaves. Though his prediction has held true, Gordon Moore could not have foreseen the power and influence of his observation. I'm proud today to pay tribute to his contributions and recognize the impact Moore's law has had on our economy and our world.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I may be the only one with time remaining and I yield back the remainder of my time as well.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining under the agreement that was entered into earlier?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is not easy for a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to oppose Ambassador Negroponte's nomination on the floor of this Senate. I am well aware that many do not share the concerns, and the views I will express this afternoon have not been arrived at casually. The Ambassador is the consummate diplomat, a dedicated public servant, a well-liked person who is popular with Members of the Senate of both political parties. He has been confirmed by the Senate for a variety of posts. I have voted twice for those confirmations, but I am not convinced that Ambassador Negroponte is the right man for this job. I have reached this judgment based on my strong belief that a prerequisite for this position should be a willingness to be direct and forthcoming with policymakers even when the truth is difficult. Unfortunately, directness was nowhere in sight in the Ambassador's responses at his confirmation hearing last week. At that hearing, the Ambassador was not even as direct and forthcoming in discussing controversial matters as he has been in the past. For example, at the hearing I discussed with the Ambassador his service in Honduras. I made it clear at the outset that I understand it makes no sense to relitigate a war that took place in Central America more than 20 years ago. In spite of the lengthy news accounts printed that morning, the morning of his confirmation hearing, providing new information documenting the Ambassador's continued backing of the Contras after the House had voted to halt U.S. support, I chose not to focus on those issues. I raised the Honduras issue last week and return to it this afternoon because I believe the record of the Ambassador's service there is particularly telling in terms of his judgment and his willingness to confront difficult facts, which I believe are two key requirements for the Director of National Intelligence. For example, I find it especially troubling that the Ambassador's perception of the human rights situation in Honduras differs so dramatically from that expressed by the Central Intelligence Agency, the InterAmerican Court, the Honduras Human Rights Commission, and others. The Central Intelligence Agency released a report entitled ``Selected Issues Relating to CIA Activities in Honduras in the 1980s'' which found: Honduran military committed hundreds of human rights abuses since 1980, many of which were politically motivated and officially sanctioned. The CIA report linked the Honduran military personnel to death squad activities. Mr. Negroponte, on the other hand, said in a September 12, 1982, letter that was printed in the New York Times Magazine that: Honduras's increasingly professional armed forces are dedicated to defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, and they are publicly committed to civilian constitutional rule. The InterAmerican Court for Human Rights heard cases concerning human rights abuses in Honduras. In 1989, the Court found: A practice of disappearances carried out or tolerated by Honduran officials existed between 1981 and 1984; and The Government of Honduras failed to guarantee the human rights affected by that practice. In an October 23, 1982, letter printed in the Economist, Ambassador Negroponte wrote: Honduras's increasingly professional armed forces are fully supportive of this country's constitutional system. The Honduran Human Rights Commissioner released a report on forced disappearances that occurred in Honduras during Ambassador Negroponte's tenure. The report states: [t]here existed within the Armed Forces a deliberate policy of kidnapping and forcibly disappearing persons. Yet the introductory passage of the 1983 State Department Country Report issued while Mr. Negroponte was Ambassador stated: The Honduran military, which ruled the country for almost 20 years before 1982, supports the present civilian government and is publicly committed to national and local elections, which are scheduled in 1985, as well as the observance of human rights. The fact is, when you read what the Ambassador has said about Honduras, and what the CIA and others have said about the same time period, it is as if John Negroponte was an ambassador to a different country. Given these sharp differences, I asked the Ambassador last week to reconcile this very large gap between what he saw and what others reported. I expected an answer that would have at least acknowledged these very substantial differences and indicated that in hindsight the Ambassador would have been more outspoken about human rights practices. Instead, the Ambassador tried to dismiss the issue altogether by simply saying the differences were not so great, something I thought was pretty hard to fathom, given the accounts I had provided to him. The fact is, in trying to brush off this issue of Honduras, the Ambassador actually showed less candor last week than he has in the past. For instance, at his 2003 hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee when he was being considered for Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Negroponte stated the following about Honduran human rights abuses: Maybe it was a mixed picture, Senator. I am more than willing to acknowledge that. At the same hearing he said: Could I have been more vocal? Well, you know, in retrospect, perhaps I could have been. So you have to ask, as I have done, Why would the Ambassador be less direct last week than he had been previously? Certainly there was no national security reason for him to duck questions about events that are decades old. Perhaps the newspaper articles that morning made him fear Congress would get into issues he might find uncomfortable. That is certainly understandable, but it is absolutely unacceptable for a nominee tapped to head our Nation's intelligence community at a time when directness and forthrightness is more important than ever before. Throughout his confirmation hearing, on issue after issue, the Ambassador ducked and avoided giving anything resembling a straightforward answer. I asked the Ambassador whether he foresaw his office involving itself in decisions relating to the implementation of the PATRIOT Act's surveillance powers, and in particular whether his office might weigh in on whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation should seek a FISC warrant. His answer? Senator, I am not entirely certain what my authorities would be under FISC. I asked the Ambassador whether he would be willing to take a fresh look at the United States rendition policy, possibly the most controversial weapon being used in fighting terrorism today. Rendition involves sending a suspected terrorist from one country to another without court proceedings. Republican and Democratic administrations have used renditions in the past, but their use has increased significantly since 9/11, and the policy has certainly changed. Previously, most suspects were rendered to the United States. Now it works the opposite way. More and more often the United States is rendering suspects to foreign countries. News reports indicate that suspects are frequently being rendered to countries known to torture suspected terrorists, such as Syria, Egypt, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia. While the United States gets assurances from foreign governments they will not use torture, U.S. officials have little control over the situation once a suspect is in the hands of the foreign country. Rendition is the practice used to address a very difficult dilemma. America may lack the evidence to bring a suspected terrorist into court; there is some proof of wrongdoing, but not enough for a court of law. If the suspect is not an American citizen, it is possible to send them elsewhere to be dealt with, but that can be a dicey prospect. Renditions get suspects off the streets, something which makes Americans safer. But the tactic has raised serious concerns for many of our citizens and for many people in other countries as well. I have heard those concerns, but I also recognize that renditions can serve a legitimate and valuable purpose. It is a question of how this policy is carried out. Our country needs to have a frank and candid and direct discussion about this policy of rendition. But, before that can happen, there needs to be some answers to some tough questions: Have any suspects been rendered based on faulty intelligence and, if so, what amount of intelligence should be necessary before a rendition takes place? Are there certain countries to which the United States should not render suspects? Are the assurances the United States gets in the rendition area sufficient with regard to the use of torture? Does the United States need to retain more control of suspects it renders, especially to countries that have weak human rights records? How good is the intelligence the United States is getting from rendered suspects? What is the effect of a rendition policy on America's diplomatic relations with other countries? These are some of the important questions that need to be answered. So in an effort to examine Ambassador Negroponte's openness and to try to determine his judgment in a difficult area such as this, I asked the Ambassador whether he would be willing to take a fresh look at our rendition policy; not a point-by-point description of what he would do, but simply would he be willing to take a fresh look, a new inspection of this country's approach in rendition. The Los Angeles Times summed up the Ambassador's response to my question about rendition with four words. They said: ``Negroponte avoided the question.'' The Ambassador, I would point out, ducked other important questions asked by members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For example, our colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, asked the Ambassador to explain what action he would take if the Ambassador concluded policymakers were making public statements that differed from the classified intelligence. There was no direct answer to that important question asked by Senator Levin. Senator Feinstein sought detailed information on how, with regard to countries such as Iran and North Korea, the Ambassador intended to assure the United States developed much needed credible intelligence. Ambassador Negroponte responded: Well, Senator, the law prescribes a number of approaches to this. Then I asked the Ambassador about the issue of overclassification of material in the area of national security. This is an issue that has concerned many in the Senate, of both political parties. I have been interested in this matter for some time. I was, frankly, flabbergasted when 9/11 Commissioner Tom Kean, who did such a superb job in his work, with Lee Hamilton, former Member of the other body--Tom Kean said 75 percent of everything he saw when he chaired the 9/11 Commission that was classified should not have been classified. This is what Tom Kean said in the extraordinarily important inquiry he conducted. The Central Intelligence Agency initially blacked out over 50 percent of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on Iraq's WMD programs and links to terrorist groups. I will tell colleagues I thought Chairman Roberts and Senator Rockefeller did a superb job in guiding our committee to a unanimous judgment with respect to Iraq and that important report. But if the CIA had had its way, page after page after page would have been blacked out. The National Archives Information Security Office reported 14.2 million classification actions in 2003, twice the number recorded 10 years earlier. The agencies are becoming more creative in terms of how they overclassify. In addition to the traditional ``limited official use,'' ``secret'' and ``top secret,'' some agencies now have ``sensitive security information,'' ``sensitive Homeland Security information,'' ``sensitive but unclassified'' and ``for official use only'' classifications, as well. Secrecy has become so pervasive it makes you wonder whether facts are being classified for legitimate reasons or to protect the individuals and agencies involved. As I mentioned, this has been a bipartisan concern. I am particularly grateful for the work Senator Lott has been willing to do with me. We took some modest steps in the intelligence reform bill to open this process and try to bring some balance back into the area of classification. But given this history, given the huge explosion in terms of overclassification of Government documents, I was interested in what the Ambassador had to say with respect to this. When I first asked, he said: Senator, I don't know about classification or overclassification. But then he went on to make the mind-boggling claim that ``Certainly the trend in my lifetime has been to reduce levels of classification wherever possible. And I've seen that happen before my own eyes.'' Troubling as that answer was and the nonanswers that I received to the other important questions I asked with respect to the PATRIOT Act and relating to rendition and other topics, as troubling as what I was told and wasn't told, is it is not only what the Director of National Intelligence will know that is so important but what he is willing to say that is vital. In spite of the Ambassador's responses to these questions, I have no question in my mind of Ambassador Negroponte's ability to master the facts. What I am not confident of is his steadfast commitment to speaking those facts to ears that do not want to hear them. And history tells us the consequences of an inability or an unwillingness to speak truth to power can be disastrous. This country saw what happened in the Bay of Pigs, an unsuccessful attempt by United States-backed Cuban exiles to overthrow the Government of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. It is a classic example of what can happen when America's intelligence community is unwilling or unable to be candid. In his review of the Bay of Pigs invasion release to the public in 1998, CIA Inspector General Lyman Kirkpatrick identified numerous failures. These include: [The f]ailure to subject the president, especially in its latter frenzied stages, to a cold and objective appraisal by the best operating talent available, particularly by those not involved in the operation, such as the Chief of Operations and the chiefs of the Senior Staffs; [The f]ailure to advise the president, at an appropriate time, that success has become dubious and to recommend the operation be, therefore, canceled and that the problem of unseating Castro be restudied; The failure to maintain the covert nature of the project-- ``[f]or more than three months before the invasion the American press was reporting, often with some accuracy, on the recruiting and training of Cubans. Such massive preparations could only be laid to the U.S. The agency's name was freely linked with these activities. Plausible denial was a pathetic illusion.'' This is what the inspector general said. This is not what a partisan said. Yet the CIA unrealistically plowed ahead, unwilling or unable to face the reality of the situation that the operation was doomed to fail, and as a result the CIA was humiliated, many died, our prestige was damaged. Throughout the entire time our country was in Vietnam the intelligence community also failed to be forthright and was plagued by overoptimism. One example was particularly worth noting. In 1963, the Board of National Estimate's draft Nation Intelligence Estimate concluded that ``The struggle in South Vietnam at best will be protracted and costly [because] very great weaknesses remain and will be difficult to surmount.'' Unhappy with the pessimistic conclusion, the Director of Central Intelligence John McCone rejected the draft and instructed the board to seek the views of senior policymakers in revising the Nation's Intelligence Estimate. So the final version of the 1963 stated: We believe that Communist progress has been blunted and that the situation is improving . . . As those who put together the Pentagon papers later observed: The intelligence and reporting problems occurring during this period cannot be explained away . . . In retrospect [the estimators] were not only wrong, but more importantly, they were influential. As a result, a generation paid the price for the unwillingness or the inability of the intelligence community's inability to be forthright. Now our country deals with those consequences. Many in the Senate will remember George Tenet told the President of the United States that the weapons of mass destruction case against Iraq was a ``slam dunk.'' Now America knows what George Tenet knew and what he was unwilling or unable to tell the President of the United States, that it wasn't a slam dunk at all. The Niger yellowcake, the high-strength aluminum, the mobile weapons lab, the aerial vehicles, the intelligence provided by Curveball and the Iraqi National Congress witnesses, all of this intelligence was questionable and was being questioned by at least some members of the intelligence community. However, George Tenet was not direct. He was not forthcoming. He told the President of the United States what the President wanted to hear. Whether he was unwilling or unable to be straight with the President, I cannot possibly determine. What I do know is that as a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence I want to do everything I can. I know every Member of the Senate wants to make sure these mistakes are not repeated. The stakes are simply too high. The Intelligence Reorganization Act gave the Director of National Intelligence a whole lot of responsibility but very little enforcement power. As the Director works to make 15 intelligence agencies pull together, his credibility will be his currency. Critical to his success will be the understanding of all concerned that this person is going to be direct, that the person will be forthcoming, that the person will make sure that no matter who the truth hurts, no matter what policymakers think, they are going to get the facts. Here is what I think the country needs. The United States needs a Director of National Intelligence who is going to speak truth to power, somebody who has, in Hamilton's words, the ``gumption'' to tell the President and other senior policymakers what they don't want to hear. The United States needs a Director of National Intelligence who has the knowledge and the experience to step in and begin fixing the problems facing the intelligence sector immediately. The United States needs a Director of National Intelligence who will break down existing walls inhibiting analysts throughout the intelligence community and, when appropriate, officials and citizens outside that realm from getting access to the information they need to keep Americans safe. The United States needs a Director of National Intelligence willing to, when necessary, go head to head with the agencies under his control, especially the Department of Defense. If the Director lets them push him around, he is doomed. The United States needs a Director of National Intelligence to take control over the intelligence budget. Before Congress created the position, the intelligence community lacked a leader willing to make tough budget priority and tradeoff decisions. Each agency asked for funds. It was, in effect, a matter of passing the request along. This has to stop. There are not limitless resources. A strategic view, not a parochial lens, ought to be guiding budget decisions. The United States needs a Director of National Intelligence to shape the intelligence agencies he oversees into a true community because, at this point, the phrase ``intelligence community'' is pretty much a misnomer. While coordination and cooperation have improved, the individual intelligence agencies persist in maintaining their own culture and collection practices. As the military services have learned to fight jointly, our intelligence collection agencies need to learn how to act together to gather critical information our policymakers and warfighters need to protect our country. The United States needs a Director of National Intelligence who recognizes he cannot do this alone. This position is new and its authority, while substantial, is unclear. His fights with the administration over matters of significant national policy need not, and should not, always be kept quiet. If the Director of National Intelligence is to succeed, he will need to look to allies in the executive branch and here in the Congress to help. While Ambassador Negroponte is surely a skilled diplomat and has many allies in the Senate, Senators of both parties I admire greatly, I am not confident the administration's nominee will meet these expectations. For that reason, I will be voting no on the nomination of Ambassador John Negroponte to be Director of National Intelligence. Mr. President, I want to wrap up with one additional point. I am pleased to be in strong support of General Hayden, who will, when the nominee is confirmed, be the deputy. I thought General Hayden's directness and openness at his confirmation hearing was particularly welcome. For example, I asked him, on the matter of privacy rights, which is pretty important, given his past background at the NSA, how he would handle that issue. I think there was a sense it is possible to fight terrorism ferociously while still protecting civil liberties. General Hayden, in contrast to what we heard at the earlier confirmation hearing, was refreshingly direct in his responses, where he talked about pushing right up to the line--I believe those were his exact words--but being sensitive to civil liberties. So I am pleased to be able to say, on the floor of the Senate, I am looking forward to the support General Hayden will be receiving from the Senate shortly. I expect Ambassador Negroponte and General Hayden to be approved. My door will be open to both of them. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, it is my hope that both of these individuals will not hesitate to ask me and ask colleagues for help. The safety of our country depends on the performance of these two individuals in this key post. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will speak very briefly on this matter because I would like to support Senator Rockefeller's call for an inquiry into this area, particularly as it relates to rendition. Let me begin by saying that I strongly agree with my friend and chairman, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, with respect to how important a time this is with our people in harm's way. Chairman Roberts is absolutely right that the fight against terrorists certainly is not a nice business. We understand that. I want to take a minute and support Senator Rockefeller in the hopes we can work this out and do it in a bipartisan way along the route we took with respect to Iraq, where we got a unanimous agreement in our committee and showed a difficult area could be tackled in a bipartisan way. The reason I support Senator Rockefeller and want this matter addressed is I think this inquiry could especially provide another useful tool in our fight against al-Qaida. I say that because the longer the war against al-Qaida and its associates goes on, the more we realize what a sophisticated enemy we are facing. Bin Laden and his followers understand the modern media, both here and abroad. They know that allegations of torture and mistreatment undercut our efforts amongst our allies and influences world opinion against the United States. It seems to me we cannot allow ourselves to be defamed by deceitful and murderous madmen who have learned how to manipulate public perception. What Senator Rockefeller is talking about would provide us, through an inquiry, the opportunity to discredit information collected from al- Qaida and other terrorists in custody. Torture is not an effective way of getting valuable, credible intelligence. A suspect in extreme pain or psychological stress will lie about anything and everything necessary to stop what that suspect is enduring, and if the possibility of torture is removed, those analyzing the information will have greater faith in the reporting. If, however, an investigation proves that torture was used by anyone, we will have an additional reason to question the information and better ability to determine the truth from fabrication. So I come to the floor today to say I support Senator Rockefeller in terms of his request. I think Senator Roberts, the chairman of our committee, makes a very valid point about the sensitivity of this time, our people being in harm's way, terrorists will stop at nothing, and I think what Senator Rockefeller is talking about could provide an additional tool, an additional opportunity, to strengthen the fight against al-Qaida by publicly correcting their lies and to give us an opportunity to expose the al-Qaida spin machine. I have spoken at some length on the floor this afternoon, but I want to make clear that I hope the distinguished chairman and the ranking member can work this out. I support Senator Rockefeller. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a remarkable coalition of agricultural employers and farm workers has come together behind the Craig-Kennedy amendment. I commend them for all of their efforts. I simply wanted to spend a few minutes and talk about a bit of lineage behind this whole effort. To some extent, this began on the afternoon of July 23, 1998, when I had the opportunity to join with my friend and colleague Senator Gordon Smith and we offered an amendment to overhaul this program. It was, in fact, entitled the AgJOBS amendment. It had the strong support of Senator Craig at that time. We received 68 votes for that legislation. I think it was an indication then, as we see today, how the system works for no one. To a great extent, we see so many who feel we have lost control of our borders. The system surely does not work for the honest agricultural employer, and the vast majority certainly meet that test, and for many farm workers who work hard and contribute every single day. The system simply does not work for anyone. So what Senator Smith and I tried to do that July day in 1998 was to begin to address the foundation of a sensible immigration policy based on the proposition that what we have been doing does not work for anybody. It does not work for our country. We live under a contradiction every day with respect to immigration. We say we are against illegal immigration. One can hear that in every coffee shop in the United States. Then we look the other way so as to deal with agriculture or perhaps motels, hotels, restaurants, and a variety of other establishments. We have to resolve that contradiction. We ought to resolve it by making the kind of start the Craig-Kennedy legislation does by saying we are going to put our focus on legal workers who are here in compliance with the law. That is what we sought to do that July day in 1998, requiring the growers to hire U.S. farmworkers first before they could seek alien workers. Then we took steps to try to ensure a measure of justice that would be required in our legislation for the migrant farmworkers by providing employment, housing, transportation, and other benefits, access to Head Start. I think Senator Kennedy remembers this well from 1998. One would have thought Western civilization was going to end when that amendment offered by Oregon's two Senators got 68 votes in the Senate. I think it was an indication of how the animosity and fear that has surrounded this issue has enveloped the whole debate over the last few years, and that is why I commend Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy for the thoughtful way they have worked since 1998 in order to build a coalition for this idea and to refine what the Senate voted for in 1998. For example, in 1999, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the employer group that helped start the process that led to the first AgJOBS bill of 1998, started reaching out directly to the Hispanic community representing agricultural workers, as well as churches and community groups. A dialog was begun then about how reform could benefit everyone. In 2000, people from the agricultural employer community and those representing the farmworkers started talking more publicly about some of the issues that were particularly contentious. All of a sudden, there was an extended and thoughtful debate among people who were avowed enemies with respect to the topic of H-2A reform. Those people who had fought each other so bitterly began to come together and form a coalition that is behind the Craig-Kennedy amendment today. In 1996, I formulated certain beliefs with respect to this issue that still hold true today. First, I believe willing and able American workers always should be given a chance to fulfill the needs of employers seeking agricultural labor. This was addressed in 1998 and it remains in the language before the Senate today. The amendment offered by Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy requires employers seeking to use the H-2A program to first offer the job to any eligible U.S. worker who applies and who is equally or better qualified for the job, and then issue notice to local and State employment agencies, farmworkers organizations, and also through advertising. We also said back then we wanted to have recommendations for a more straightforward, less cumbersome, less unwieldy process to address the shortage of primary foreign workers. I commend Senator Craig and Senator Kennedy because what we had been concerned about then--the need for simplicity and certainty--is now embodied in a number of aspects in this amendment. Employers are required to provide actual employment to the worker, a living wage and proof of that employment so the worker can move freely between jobs. The employee is required to show proof of legal temporary worker status in the United States to the employer before becoming employed. Each party shoulders the burden of ensuring their documentation is legal. That is the way we said it ought to be in 1998. That is the way it is in the Craig-Kennedy proposal. Third, I have always maintained and still maintain that a farmer using the H-2A program should not be able to misuse it to displace U.S. agricultural workers or make U.S. workers worse off. The language before us today meets that test by ensuring that H-2A workers must be paid the same wage as the American worker. There is no incentive to seek a guest worker because there is no opportunity to indenture that worker by paying lower wages or not providing enough work. Fourth, and perhaps most important, we said then and it is clear in this amendment as well that any program must not encourage the illegal immigration of workers. This bill addresses that by requiring agricultural workers to show they are legally in the United States in order to collect the benefits available under this program, such as housing, transportation, and the civil right to sue their employers for back wages or for wrongful dismissal. So the goal of this legislation is to take out some of the uncertainty and the lack of predictability that has been in this program, and that uncertainty would be removed for both growers and workers. Certainly my State has a great interest in agriculture. There are certainly billions of dollars of direct economic output in this sector and there is a need to enact H-2A programs for my State, where we feel we do a lot of things well, but what we do best is we grow things, and the need for enacting this program is as great today as it was in 1998. Both sides in this debate are going to continue to have their differences, and my guess is, as the Senator from Idaho knows, there are probably some residual and historical grudges. This Craig-Kennedy proposal shows that in a very contentious area that has been gridlocked in the Senate since a July date in 1998, we can still find a creative process that brings people together to solve mutual problems. I hope my colleagues will support this historic effort. I look forward to working with Senators on both sides of the aisle on this matter. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the proposal offered by Senators Craig and Kennedy. I see Senator Kennedy on the floor and Senator Craig on the floor. Their work is a testament to their persistence and the staying power of a handful of agricultural workers and employers who have been willing to set aside ideology and partisanship to hammer out a major overhaul of our law in this area.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senator has summed it up very well. I pick up on his comments with respect to health care. As my friend knows, this has always been my first love, going back to my days with the Gray Panthers. I have been especially proud that Oregon has been a leader in this area, first essentially in home health care, using dollars that could have gone for institutional care for home care, or the Oregon health plan, which began the debate about tough choices. I particularly want to note with Senator Smith on the floor this morning that Oregon again is in a position of leading on health care, and that is because my friend and colleague, through an extraordinary effort, has been able to send a message across this country that those on Medicaid, the most vulnerable people in our society, people who always walk an economic tightrope, balancing their food costs against their fuel costs and their fuel costs against their medical bills-- because of Senator Smith's efforts during the budget, there is an opportunity now to renew the protections those vulnerable people have. He and I agree completely that there are opportunities to promote reforms in Medicaid and we are committed to that, but because of Senator Smith's effort we are not going to put budget cuts ahead of reforms. So as we go to this discussion about health care, I particularly want to commend my colleague because his leadership on Medicaid is part of the long tradition of Oregon being first in terms of making judgments about health care. I am proud to be able to assist in his efforts. My colleagues will see that the Medicaid reform commission Senator Smith envisions and other reforms we have worked on are a big part of our effort. With respect to catastrophic care, what is so striking about this debate is that experts have known what to do about this issue for years. One can get an awful lot of protection for a relatively small amount of dollars. For example, on any given day in our country, if somebody gets sick in a small business, it essentially blows the whole premium structure for everybody. If just one of the employees, where there is a little store of five or six people, gets sick, then rates skyrocket for everyone. What Senator Smith and I are going to do in our catastrophic care bill is spread the risk, look to a way, for example, where Government might pick up a bit of that risk. Democrats have proposed it. Republicans have proposed it. Once there is that kind of risk spreading, instead of what happens now when one person gets sick and everybody pays higher bills, Government picks up a bit of that risk and the costs go down for everybody. The two of us are on the Senate Finance Committee and we are going to do everything we can to try to bring the committee and the Senate together around these ideas. Members of both political parties have had good ideas on this for literally a couple of decades. I remember talking about catastrophic care when I had a full head of hair, and we should have done it then. Senator Smith and I are going to try to tackle it. We will also look at some other issues that have great implications for our State but also for our country overall. One of them involves equity for health care providers. Today, at a time when we have this demographic revolution, and we are going to have so many more older people, one would think the Federal Government would try to reward providers for doing the right thing, offering good quality care and holding costs down. Instead, the Federal Government sends the opposite message. The Federal Government basically says to Oregon and to other States that are doing a good job, well, tough luck, folks. Instead of rewarding you, we are going to actually stick it to you. We are going to penalize you and limit your reimbursement in spite of the fact that you provide higher quality, more efficient health care. We are going to try to change that reimbursement system. It will obviously help our State, but I would submit, if one looks at the challenges for Medicare, the head of the General Accounting Office, David Walker, has said Medicare is seven times as great a challenge as is Social Security. And we cannot afford not to have the Smith-Wyden reforms with respect to reimbursement for health care providers. I am very hopeful we will be able to win support in the Finance Committee and in the Senate for those reimbursement changes as well. They make sense for our State, but they are absolutely critical for our country as well. In addition to health care, which will be a prime focus of our work, Senator Smith and I want to make sure we promote the use of innovative technologies, making sure that they are accessible and affordable so as to capture the opportunity to use technology to grow incomes and strengthen our economy. Depreciation will be a topic we will focus on because right now businesses that need new technologies to keep up in tough global markets take a big tax hit if they change their equipment as frequently as they need to in order to keep up with the competition. We intend to work together on the Finance Committee to change tax laws and be able to accelerate the depreciation of equipment and end the penalties our businesses pay for staying on the cutting edge of our economy. We also intend to promote nanotechnology to continue to work to make Oregon a national leader in the new small science. Americans are not completely sure what this field is all about. A woman came up to me in a small store in Oregon recently and said: Ron, I do not know what this nanology is, but I am glad you are working on it. The science of small stuff is going to be the wave of the future, and unprecedented collaboration between the public and private sectors has made Oregon one of America's leading microtechnology and nanotechnology centers. Senator Smith and I joined to be part of an effort in the Senate to provide billions of dollars for nanotechnology that would create regional centers in this exciting field, and we intend to work to make certain that those efforts receive the Federal attention and credit they deserve. We will also work to build out broadband and the telecommunications technologies. We intend to work again in the Finance Committee to create appropriate tax incentives that will ensure broadband gets to the four corners of our State, and, of course, to pick up on our theme that what we are doing makes sense for Oregon and for our country. I submit that the Smith-Wyden effort, as it relates to broadband, technology, and the Web, will be of great benefit to Alaska as well. We are fortunate to have had a good relationship with Senator Stevens as well who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee. The last point I make with respect to technology is as we try to bring all of those folks on to the Web and to be part of our Web-based economy, we should not hit them with a variety of new taxes. The bipartisan Internet tax Freedom Act makes it illegal to level double taxes or discriminatory taxes when one surfs the Web or makes Internet purchases. The two of us will be working on our committees, both the Commerce Committee and the Finance Committee, to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent to preserve Web access and Web commerce for the future. We want to work together with our colleagues, and we have come today to say we want to promote smart solutions, the kind Oregonians and Americans should expect from the Senate. I will yield back to Senator Smith so he can close out our joint presentation, and in yielding tell him that in addition to what we are trying to do for our State and the impact I think our ideas will have for the country in a variety of these areas, technology and health care and the issues we have mentioned, I hope what we are doing in the Senate today will be infectious and will cause other Senators to join in these kinds of efforts. Very often colleagues have come up to Senator Smith and me and sort of said, what is in the water out there? What are you guys doing? I have never heard of this. We always respond, try it, you will like it. It is not going to be painful. I see our friend from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, who has always been very kind to me in working on infrastructure and other issues, and I will say that in an acrimonious time, when there are certainly divisions, let us try to find every possible way to come together. We realize it is not always possible to do it, but what is exciting about America is we debate issues in a vigorous way. Certainly Senator Smith and I do not agree on everything under the Sun, but we certainly agree on a lot of critical matters. Even if we do not, we talk about them in a way that we think is respectful and promotes to our citizens the reality that debate can be thoughtful, it can be contemplative, and it does not always have to be about scorched earth kind of politics. I am very pleased that Senator Smith will conclude for both of us in our joint presentation. I thank him again for all of his efforts to work with me. When I had a chance to come to the Congress, and Senator Jim Inhofe and I were then Members of the House, I dreamed of having this kind of opportunity to work in a bipartisan way in representing our State, and I thank my colleague for doing so much to make that possible. I yield to him to wrap up not just on behalf of himself but to wrap up on behalf of both of us.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, there has been a tumultuous start to this session of Congress with often acrimonious debate about judges, budget, and the tragic situation involving Terri Schiavo and her family. But I rise this morning with my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, to speak not of division but of bipartisanship and of the hopes we share for our home State of Oregon and for our country. This morning marks the fifth time Senator Smith and I have unveiled what we call our bipartisan agenda for our home State. It has been our privilege and our pleasure at the beginning of each Congress to travel together around Oregon to listen to our fellow Oregonians and to find common ground on issues that matter to our citizens around their dining room tables and in their kitchens. We suspect that what we hear in our joint townhall meetings is what other Members of the Senate hear as well. Oregonians, and all Americans, now struggle with health care--families and farmers and business owners and health care providers. Oregonians and all Americans are struggling to make ends meet in this economy, and this means workers and employers. Oregonians and all Americans want opportunities--educational opportunities, job opportunities, opportunities so their children have better lives. Oregon has two U.S. Senators--a Democrat and a Republican--but we realize that for the most part, our citizens are not interested first in Republican solutions or Democratic solutions; they want solutions that work for Oregon and for our country. They want ideas, and they get frustrated when they see political figures letting petty and partisan differences get in the way of their interests. In the bipartisan agenda for Oregon in the 109th Congress, we are seeking to expand a number of our shared legislative goals to seek good for our fellow Americans. I was especially pleased to join Senator Smith as a member of the Senate Finance Committee this year. The committee oversees vital areas of policy, including health care, technology tax, trade policy, and many of the items on our agenda fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. We are also, in this agenda, working to expand our reach not only for Oregonians but for all Americans by working to tackle one of the most important and difficult issues in American health care, and that is providing catastrophic health care coverage so that our citizens do not have to go to bed at night fearing they are going to get wiped out by medical costs. This is a matter about which Democrats and Republicans have been talking for years, and there have been good Democratic and Republican ideas about catastrophic coverage for years. The fact is that if you own a hardware store in Alaska, Oregon, Iowa, or Florida, and you have five or six people and one of them gets sick, everybody gets wiped out in terms of their medical bills. Senator Smith and I believe we can develop a plan that will bring this Congress together, give us the opportunity to pass catastrophic health care legislation to be enacted and the President can sign into law. So ours is a bipartisan agenda for Oregon, but it is also an invitation on the part of the two of us to contribute ideas and good will on issues where we have struck common bipartisan ground. Our intention for a few minutes this morning is to speak on a number of these items--in effect, one of us speaking for both of us. I am very pleased to yield to my good friend and colleague, Senator Smith, and to thank him for all of the opportunities to work with him, particularly for his willingness to consistently meet me more than half way in our efforts to try to work for our State. I thank Senator Smith.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. That is fine with me. I am waiting for Senator Smith. Madam President, if I could, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Alexander completes his remarks, Senator Smith, my colleague from Oregon, and I may speak for up to 30 minutes. We may not consume all of that time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I tell my colleague, I am pleased to be able to team up with him on this effort. Over the last few months, we have been digging into a variety of areas where waste of taxpayers' dollars has occurred. I think Senator Dorgan has made the central argument with respect to our amendment; that is, you do not get tough with somebody by wasting money. In other words, we are going to have a fair amount of discussion, I suspect, on this amendment about whether you are being soft minded on Castro, or something of that nature, whether you agree with Castro's political agenda. What we are talking about is stopping foolishness with respect to frittering away taxpayer dollars. As my colleague has said, what we are faced with is a situation where Fidel Castro has jammed TV Marti's airwaves since their conception. As a result, instead of feeding the Cuban people a glimpse of honest television, what we have been feeding the Cuban people is static and snow. Now, the snow on Cubans' TV screens may be the only snow they get in Cuba, but I can assure you this is about the most expensive snow we have seen on the planet. What we want to do is protect the interests of taxpayers. We have gone through Fat Albert. Now you have the question of the sequel to Fat Albert, with the President having proposed slashing other programs, particularly programs here at home. How do you argue that something such as this ought to be preserved, that the use of taxpayers' dollars in this area ought to be preserved, where everything here at home is on the chopping block during a belt-tightening environment in Government? TV Marti was intended to follow in the footsteps of Radio Marti, providing Cubans access to balanced information from the outside world so that Cubans living under Fidel Castro's regime would have a taste of the freedom that Americans enjoy here at home. We are willing to stipulate for purposes of this discussion and debate we are having on the floor of the Senate that Radio Marti enjoys a strong listening audience and successfully transmits news to Cubans from the outside world. But the bottom line is, TV Marti has never come close--never come close--to meeting the standards of Radio Marti. I defy anybody to find a significant group of people in Cuba who see this television. As Senator Dorgan has mentioned, the process of surveying people, which under normal circumstances would be a good way to determine the extent of use, has now been hot wired so they do not even do the surveys anymore because they are not going to get the results they want to have. They want to have surveys that show a significant number of people are getting this, and they cannot prove it. So if you cannot prove it, you do not put out a survey that says: Oh, no viewers. You sort of figure out a way to make the surveys disappear. That is essentially what has happened. Our discussions and examination, as we have pursued this issue over the last few months in an effort to root out this waste, indicates virtually nobody sees this. That is where we are now. So we are looking at the prospect, after all of this waste of money--well over $100 million sunk into this static, this static and snow over the years--of spending still more money. Senator Dorgan and I believe it is time to draw a line in the sand and say: Halt this waste. Halt this frittering away of the American people's scarce dollars. The President does have a new plan to circumvent the jamming. His idea is to use military aircraft to broadcast TV Marti that way. We have our folks, men and women from Alaska and North Dakota and Oregon, and they are in harm's way today. So at a time when our troops are in harm's way and face great peril around the world, we are talking about transferring military assets that we need to protect their well-being and the well-being of this country. I do not see how you can make the case again that that is a wise expenditure at this time. So I hope as the Senate debates the Dorgan-Wyden amendment, we can make it clear that when programs such as Radio Marti work, we are willing to make sure the United States plays an active role in trying to make sure people have information, accurate, objective information, on what freedom is all about. But where you are talking about waste, where you are talking about funding programs that may make people say, ``oh, you're getting tough, you're getting tough on Castro,'' when in fact you are wasting money, that is where the two of us are trying to blow the whistle and prevent further efforts to throw taxpayers' money at TV Marti, when there is no evidence it will work. The money we have spent year after year goes, as I have said, to finance some of the most expensive static, the most expensive snow in the history of television screens. What we ought to be doing is making sure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely. Here it could be used in a whole host of other areas. It is our hope, and the purpose of this amendment, to pull the plug on a program that does not work now, has not worked in the past, and is not going to work in the future.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we conclude with this amendment, I particularly thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for this extra time and get back to this question of what the amendment is really all about. I do not quibble at all with the fact that this is a laudable effort to promote freedom, as the Senator from Florida is talking about, but I believe it has to be about more than effort; it has to be about a result. For example, something that strikes me as something that would be very useful is to set up Internet Marti. We have seen, for example, what happened in China. What really rattled the Chinese Government was the presence of the Internet. As far as I can tell, they have been struggling to block that out as well. They have not been able to do that. But that is the kind of investment that would make sense to me. I would be thrilled to work with the distinguished Senator from Florida on wireless technology, for example. I have served on the Commerce Committee. I have a great interest in technology. I think there is a lot of potential as it relates to these kinds of concerns: wireless technology, Internet Marti. What brings us to the floor today is that we talk about the flicker of freedom, which I am certainly for. As far as I can tell, the only thing the Cuban people see flickering is all that static on TV. So I hope we can save some money, which is the point of this amendment Senator Dorgan and I have offered, and then counsel together on a bipartisan basis through the chairman of the committee, Senator Lugar, Senator Martinez, our friend Senator Nelson, on something that would be practical. Sign me up for something like Internet Marti, something that would be a well-targeted investment, would allow us to build on the potential to cap other technologies, wireless technologies, Web-based technologies. That is something that seems to me makes sense. I hope my colleagues will approve this money, allow us to start targeting these Government expenditures during a time of belt- tightening in a more cost-effective way. I urge the passage of the amendment, and I yield the floor.