Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with crude oil prices at almost $54 a barrel, and OPEC meeting in 9 days, I have come to the floor this afternoon to urge the administration to pursue what they promised; that is, to stand up for our consumers who are facing high oil and gasoline prices. The news just this last weekend was not good on the pricing front as it relates to the American consumer. The Lundberg survey of American gasoline retailers came out Sunday and confirmed what a lot of Americans suspected. The price of gas is rising high, and it is rising fast. According to the survey that came out Sunday, the price of gasoline has risen nearly 7 cents per gallon in the last 2 weeks, across the board, for all grades. And the Lundberg survey indicates that this is just the beginning, that higher prices are on the way. Now, last week, Mr. President and colleagues, I asked the U.S. Secretary of Energy, Mr. Bodman, whether he was going to do what the administration promised; that is, to stand up for the consumer and try to push OPEC as hard as possible to get some pricing relief when they meet in a few days. Mr. Bodman said, in response to my questions, that he had not made that call and, well, he had a whole lot on his plate. I do not think that is good enough. I think we have to ask this administration, and the President specifically, about using their political capital now to stand up for the American consumer who is getting clobbered by these gasoline and oil prices. If they are not going to use it now, when are they going to use it? Why not use it on behalf of American consumers when there is such a demonstrable cause and effect between the price of crude oil rising and the price of gasoline rising? Over the weekend, the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Snow, said rising energy prices have the potential to stifle economic growth in the near future. Maybe Secretary Snow is willing to get on the phone with OPEC if Secretary Bodman will not. But I know somebody ought to be doing it. And that is exactly what the President of the United States promised in 2000. He said that if the country elected him, he would push OPEC very hard to try to turn on the spigot and get some pricing relief. OPEC is making all the usual noises. They are concerned, they have said, about rising prices. They think the market has plenty of oil. As I said before, OPEC is going to look out for OPEC. The question is whether this administration is going to stand up for the American consumer as they promised in 2000. If the Secretary of Energy won't pick up the phone to do that, the American people deserve a better answer than to say, Well, gosh, I have a whole lot on my plate. If the average American didn't send their tax return in on April 15 saying, Gosh, I have a lot on my plate, I don't think that would be acceptable, not to this administration, not to me, not to anybody. So the excuse doesn't wash when it comes to the Energy Department's duty to go to bat against high oil prices. We need, at home, on a bipartisan basis, as it relates to OPEC abroad, to stand up for our consumers who are faced with escalating energy prices that seem to go up by the day. I don't think it is right to let OPEC run roughshod over the American consumer and we make no comment other than to say, Gosh, we have a lot on our plate. Nine days from now OPEC is going to meet. Time is ticking away. But there is still time for the administration to deliver on what they promised to the American people; that is, to protect our consumers from high oil and gasoline prices. I urge they take just that action. If Mr. Bodman won't do it, as he indicated last Thursday, maybe somebody else in the Bush administration will. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the pace of technological innovation offers American consumers an eye-catching array of electronic gadgets. But for every new lap top or HDTV that goes home from the store with a consumer, an old computer or TV gets moved to the garage or shoved into the back of a closet. What to do with the growing amount of trash from the digital economy is a question that Senator Talent and I believe must be addressed before our landfills are full and foreign countries close their ports to ships loaded down with old US computers. Today we are introducing bipartisan legislation to jumpstart a nationwide electronic waste recycling initiative. When I was a member of the Commerce Committee, I helped write the ground rules for the digital economy. My goal was to help create a climate that would spur the development of technology so it would become accessible and affordable to all Americans. This approach seems to be working. One measure of the success of the digital economy is the sheer number of computers and electronic gadgets that Americans own. Americans now spend more than $130 billion a year on electronics, from computers to HDTVs. The boom in consumer spending on electronics and the growth in the digital economy are not without a downside. In one year alone, some 60 million computers and 20 million television sets become obsolete and more than 500 million computers will be discarded in the decade ending in 2007. These obsolete computers alone will result in over 6.3 billion pounds of plastic and 1.6 billion pounds of lead in our landfills or incinerators. Electronic waste, or e-waste, is not even a blip on the radar screen of most policymakers. There have been a few news articles here and there, but so far they've been buried, well behind page one. I want to tackle the problem of e-waste in the same way we went about solving the Y-2K problem: putting policies in place to help all stakeholders deal with it before it overtakes us. Some communities across the country have begun to talk about how to deal with the accumulation of electronic waste. A few States, like California and Maine, recently passed laws to get recycling programs going. Several other States, including my own State of Oregon, will likely consider legislation this year. Among the options, some States favor an upfront fee, tacked onto the price of electronics, intended to help pay for the cost of recycling, others are looking at end-of-life fees. No one yet has looked at the approach Senator Talent and I are proposing. My own sense is that slapping a fee on consumers for the purchase of a new computer or television is not necessarily the best way to encourage them to drag those old 80-pound computers and TVs out of the basement and get them to a recycling facility. Someone who needs a new one may just pay the fee but leave their old computers and TVs at home. End-of-life fees mean that today's manufacturers and retailers end up paying for e-trash left over from manufacturers that have gone out of business or from off-shore companies. The bipartisan legislation Senator Talent and I are introducing today, The Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act, takes a novel approach to the problem. First, to get consumers motivated to move their old computers or televisions out of the garage and to a recycling facility, the bill would give them a one-time tax credit based on showing they gave their old computers or televisions to a qualified recycler. Second, to build up the recycling infrastructure nationwide, the legislation would give manufacturers, retailers and qualified recyclers tax credits over a 3-year period, based on showing that they had recycled a certain amount of e-waste each year and done it in a way that is safe and environmentally sound. Third, the bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency a year to come up with options for a nationwide e-waste recycling program that would, if approved by Congress, preempt State plans. Manufacturers, retailers and recyclers are going to find it increasingly difficult to deal with a crazy quilt of 50 different State e-waste recycling laws. These are the incentives, but incentives without teeth won't work. So at the end of 3 years of tax credits, if EPA determines that there are enough recyclers in place, no one who operates a municipal solid waste facility could knowingly accept any computer, computer monitor or television unless the e-waste is to be recycled. The bill would also ask EPA to consider the benefits of requiring manufacturers who sell computers and TVs to take them back for recycling. And, to make sure we're keeping our own house in order, the legislation would require the federal government to properly recycle its computers. The goal here is to provide incentives to build a nationwide e-waste recycling infrastructure. EPA estimates that electronic waste already constitutes 40 percent of the lead and 70 percent of the heavy metals found in landfills today. If this waste is not handled properly, there is a real risk that toxins from the lead, mercury and cadmium will leach into the air, soil and water. The health effects of these toxins are well known and include an increased risk of cancer as well as harm to kidneys, the brain and the nervous system. As one who has worked so hard to foster the digital economy, I believe there is also a duty to assure that e-waste is handled responsibly. Consumers need to know that potentially harmful e-waste is being handled properly and I can't find a reason to add millions of tons of new toxic waste to our environment. I also believe that the United States, as the leading innovator and consumer of electronic products in the world, has a duty to deal with e-waste responsibly. Sending shiploads full of e-junk that contains harmful lead, mercury and cadmium to poor countries overseas is not my idea of responsible. Senator Talent and I have worked with a group of folks that normally don't see eye to eye on such issues. Through many hours of negotiation they have helped us produce a bill that represents a solid first step toward solving this problem. I am pleased that we have support for the approach taken in our legislation from environmental groups and industry groups, ranging from manufacturers like HP and Intel to retailers and solid waste recyclers, like Waste Management. We are committed to continuing to work with them to move the legislation through Congress. In closing, electronic waste is not going away. It's time to put bipartisan policies in place that will jumpstart the creation of a nationwide e-waste recycling infrastructure so that consumers have access to recycling facilities and get in the habit of recycling these items. I've talked to manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, environmental and consumer groups and they tell me that this issue must be addressed now by a national rather than state-by-state approach. This bill is a common-sense, first step that will help us get a handle on the growing problem of electronic waste. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the pace of technological innovation offers American consumers an eye-catching array of electronic gadgets. But for every new lap top or HDTV that goes home from the store with a consumer, an old computer or TV gets moved to the garage or shoved into the back of a closet. What to do with the growing amount of trash from the digital economy is a question that Senator Talent and I believe must be addressed before our landfills are full and foreign countries close their ports to ships loaded down with old US computers. Today we are introducing bipartisan legislation to jumpstart a nationwide electronic waste recycling initiative. When I was a member of the Commerce Committee, I helped write the ground rules for the digital economy. My goal was to help create a climate that would spur the development of technology so it would become accessible and affordable to all Americans. This approach seems to be working. One measure of the success of the digital economy is the sheer number of computers and electronic gadgets that Americans own. Americans now spend more than $130 billion a year on electronics, from computers to HDTVs. The boom in consumer spending on electronics and the growth in the digital economy are not without a downside. In one year alone, some 60 million computers and 20 million television sets become obsolete and more than 500 million computers will be discarded in the decade ending in 2007. These obsolete computers alone will result in over 6.3 billion pounds of plastic and 1.6 billion pounds of lead in our landfills or incinerators. Electronic waste, or e-waste, is not even a blip on the radar screen of most policymakers. There have been a few news articles here and there, but so far they've been buried, well behind page one. I want to tackle the problem of e-waste in the same way we went about solving the Y-2K problem: putting policies in place to help all stakeholders deal with it before it overtakes us. Some communities across the country have begun to talk about how to deal with the accumulation of electronic waste. A few States, like California and Maine, recently passed laws to get recycling programs going. Several other States, including my own State of Oregon, will likely consider legislation this year. Among the options, some States favor an upfront fee, tacked onto the price of electronics, intended to help pay for the cost of recycling, others are looking at end-of-life fees. No one yet has looked at the approach Senator Talent and I are proposing. My own sense is that slapping a fee on consumers for the purchase of a new computer or television is not necessarily the best way to encourage them to drag those old 80-pound computers and TVs out of the basement and get them to a recycling facility. Someone who needs a new one may just pay the fee but leave their old computers and TVs at home. End-of-life fees mean that today's manufacturers and retailers end up paying for e-trash left over from manufacturers that have gone out of business or from off-shore companies. The bipartisan legislation Senator Talent and I are introducing today, The Electronic Waste Recycling Promotion and Consumer Protection Act, takes a novel approach to the problem. First, to get consumers motivated to move their old computers or televisions out of the garage and to a recycling facility, the bill would give them a one-time tax credit based on showing they gave their old computers or televisions to a qualified recycler. Second, to build up the recycling infrastructure nationwide, the legislation would give manufacturers, retailers and qualified recyclers tax credits over a 3-year period, based on showing that they had recycled a certain amount of e-waste each year and done it in a way that is safe and environmentally sound. Third, the bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency a year to come up with options for a nationwide e-waste recycling program that would, if approved by Congress, preempt State plans. Manufacturers, retailers and recyclers are going to find it increasingly difficult to deal with a crazy quilt of 50 different State e-waste recycling laws. These are the incentives, but incentives without teeth won't work. So at the end of 3 years of tax credits, if EPA determines that there are enough recyclers in place, no one who operates a municipal solid waste facility could knowingly accept any computer, computer monitor or television unless the e-waste is to be recycled. The bill would also ask EPA to consider the benefits of requiring manufacturers who sell computers and TVs to take them back for recycling. And, to make sure we're keeping our own house in order, the legislation would require the federal government to properly recycle its computers. The goal here is to provide incentives to build a nationwide e-waste recycling infrastructure. EPA estimates that electronic waste already constitutes 40 percent of the lead and 70 percent of the heavy metals found in landfills today. If this waste is not handled properly, there is a real risk that toxins from the lead, mercury and cadmium will leach into the air, soil and water. The health effects of these toxins are well known and include an increased risk of cancer as well as harm to kidneys, the brain and the nervous system. As one who has worked so hard to foster the digital economy, I believe there is also a duty to assure that e-waste is handled responsibly. Consumers need to know that potentially harmful e-waste is being handled properly and I can't find a reason to add millions of tons of new toxic waste to our environment. I also believe that the United States, as the leading innovator and consumer of electronic products in the world, has a duty to deal with e-waste responsibly. Sending shiploads full of e-junk that contains harmful lead, mercury and cadmium to poor countries overseas is not my idea of responsible. Senator Talent and I have worked with a group of folks that normally don't see eye to eye on such issues. Through many hours of negotiation they have helped us produce a bill that represents a solid first step toward solving this problem. I am pleased that we have support for the approach taken in our legislation from environmental groups and industry groups, ranging from manufacturers like HP and Intel to retailers and solid waste recyclers, like Waste Management. We are committed to continuing to work with them to move the legislation through Congress. In closing, electronic waste is not going away. It's time to put bipartisan policies in place that will jumpstart the creation of a nationwide e-waste recycling infrastructure so that consumers have access to recycling facilities and get in the habit of recycling these items. I've talked to manufacturers, retailers, recyclers, environmental and consumer groups and they tell me that this issue must be addressed now by a national rather than state-by-state approach. This bill is a common-sense, first step that will help us get a handle on the growing problem of electronic waste. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, getting a good deal for our senior citizens on prescription medicines is too important for word games. In the public debate over the prescription drug benefit, it is regrettable, because the administration seems to be confusing the matter of negotiation to get the seniors a good price with what constitutes price controls. This afternoon I would like to set the record straight. First, I want to be clear: I am against price controls for this program. I am not in favor of mandating prices. I am against the whole concept. But what I have been talking about over the past 3 years, particularly with the bipartisan legislation I have with Senator Snowe, is negotiating, which has Medicare sitting down and negotiating for the millions of older people who are going to be relying on this benefit in the years ahead. If anybody is not sure what negotiating is, if anybody can't tell the difference between negotiation and price controls, I want to be specific about what constitutes negotiation. First, with negotiation, you simply sit down at the table. You say to the people you are negotiating with: I am one of your best customers. And third, you say: So, buddy, what are you going to do for me. And this, of course, is what goes on in the private sector in Minnesota, in Oregon, in Florida, every part of the country. To tell the truth, I guess I have more faith in the folks over at Medicare than they do in themselves, because I noted that the Medicare chief actuary said yesterday this kind of negotiating power isn't going to do anything, isn't going to produce any savings, and talked about how this was going to lead to price controls and that sort of thing. I happen to think that Medicare, through their talented folks, does have the ability to negotiate better prices, as does the private sector. But if they don't think they do, they can bring in some negotiators who make sure that the older people do get a good deal. The story that has been trotted out in the last 24 hours is about previous and fruitless negotiations for other drugs. Cancer drugs have been cited, for example. I think that is comparing apples to oranges. There wasn't any negotiation in the past. Medicare paid up. Medicare paid up, and that was the end of it. What I hope the Senate will see is that there is a real distinction between the kind of bargaining power Senator Snowe and I want to see this program have at a critical juncture and the notion of price controls, which we do not support and oppose strongly. It comes down to whether the Senate wants Medicare to be a smart shopper. I have said that Medicare purchasing of prescription drugs is like the fellow in Price Club buying toilet paper one roll at a time. Nobody would go out and do their shopping that way. Yet that is essentially what the country faces, if there are no changes at all. One other point on this issue is also worth noting. Yesterday Secretary Leavitt came to the Finance Committee and was asked by me and Senator Snowe and others about this question of how to contain costs for prescription drugs. The Secretary said he was hopeful that in July and August Senators and Members of Congress and others would go home and make the case to constituents this was a good program and that older people and their families would sign up for the benefit. I said to the Secretary during the course of questioning, as somebody who voted for the benefit, I hoped that was the case, that folks would sign up, but that the big barrier to older people signing up is they were skeptical that the costs would be restrained. Older people were concerned about the costs of medicine in Georgia and Oregon and everywhere else. The Secretary's comment was: Well, there are going to be plenty of private plans, and the private plans are going to hold the costs down. My response was, I certainly hope that is the case. That was one of the reasons I felt it was important to get started with the program and why I voted for it. But I pointed out to the Secretary that may be the ideal, but what would be done in areas where there weren't a number of private plans and the opportunity to hold the costs down. That will certainly be the case in areas where there are what are called fallback plans. My guess is in rural Georgia and rural Oregon, we are going to see a number of those fallback plans because those are communities where you are not going to see multiple choices for the seniors. You will be lucky to have one plan, if there is to be any coverage for the older people. What Senator Snowe and I have said is that at a minimum, let's make sure in those areas where the older people don't have any bargaining power, it is possible for the Government to step in and make sure seniors and taxpayers can get the best possible deal on medicine. In effect, what Senator Snowe and I have been talking about is the position of Mr. Leavitt's predecessor, Secretary Thompson. At Secretary Thompson's last press conference he said, almost verbatim, that he wished the Congress had given him the power Senator Snowe and I believe is important for this program. In saying so, the Secretary made it clear, also, he was not for price controls; he wasn't interested in a one-size-fits-all approach to containing costs. He simply made clear that if it is apparent in a community that the older people won't have any bargaining power at all because choices are limited, the Secretary wanted essentially a kind of fallback authority, which would mean the Government at that point could make sure the older people and taxpayers were in a position to have some leverage in the marketplace. I asked the Secretary why he disagreed with his predecessor. I asked specifically: Why do you see it differently than Secretary Thompson? Essentially, he said he simply believes in the marketplace, and there are going to be lots of choices. I hope he is right. I know he is certainly sincere in his views. What I am concerned about is, I think it is going to be very hard for the Senator from Georgia and other colleagues to go home in July and August and get the older people to sign up for this program if they don't see this body is taking additional bipartisan steps to control costs. The older people are reading the newspaper and walking into their pharmacies, and they are seeing what is going on. Regrettably, the cost of the program has continued to go up. We can debate how much it has gone up. I am not interested in some kind of partisan wrangle on it. But the cost of the benefit has gone up. And the number of seniors who have signed up for the first part of the benefit was really very low. So what this has created is a situation for the prescription drug benefit, where there is a real likelihood that a huge amount of Government money will be spent on a very small number of people. That is not a prescription for the survival of the program. Certainly, as somebody who voted for the program, I want to see it survive. So I will keep up my end of the bargain. I will keep working on a bipartisan basis. I want to express my continued interest in working with the Bush administration to save this prescription drug benefit that we worked so hard to get off the ground. We need to have an honest conversation about how to do it. I don't think that conversation is helped by this confusion about what is the difference between negotiating--which I and Senator Smith and Senator Snowe have advocated--what goes on in the private sector and what constitutes price controls. Senator Snowe and I want to be for what goes on in the private sector. We are against price controls. This will certainly not be the last time this topic is discussed on the floor of the Senate. It certainly won't be the last time that I discuss it. I am glad to have the chance to take a few minutes to set the record straight because I think there was needless confusion on this point in the last 24 hours. I think the remarks of the Medicare chief actuary were unfortunate. I guess I have more faith in the folks at Medicare to be able to negotiate good deals than they apparently do in themselves. I simply urge that there be a continued focus on this program during this crucial month, where it is going to be important to get older people to sign up. The key to getting them to sign up will be to hold down the cost. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last week, the Treasury Secretary, Mr. Snow, testified before the Senate Budget Committee that high energy prices act like a tax on consumers. Given that, what the Bush administration has called for is a huge tax on consumers throughout the Pacific Northwest. I am talking specifically about their proposal to require that people in our region pay $2.5 billion more for energy in the days ahead because this administration wants to extract money from the Bonneville Power Administration's ratepayers above and beyond their costs. I am very troubled about this proposal, particularly because when Energy Secretary Bodman came to my office, I asked specifically about the administration's plan for Bonneville, and not just in the office, but when he came to the Senate Energy Committee for his confirmation hearing. Both times I was assured by Secretary-designate Bodman that he opposed proposals to privatize Bonneville. The assurances were provided just a couple of weeks before the Bush administration's budget was released with the plans that do, in fact, privatize Bonneville, for all practical purposes, by going to a different rate structure that seeks to extract money from Bonneville beyond its costs. When I met with Dr. Bodman in my office, he was accompanied by Clay Sell, the White House energy adviser. I learned last night that Mr. Sell was well aware of the discussions within the administration that led to the Bonneville privatization proposal at the time Dr. Bodman was assuring me that he opposed privatization. In that meeting, and at his hearing, Dr. Bodman assured me that as far as he knew, the administration also opposed privatization. Clearly, that was not the case. Mr. Sell has since been nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. I have come to the floor today because the White House and the administration need to get the message. They cannot impose these devastating electricity rate increases on our region, first, without changing the law and, second, without an understanding that I and other Members from our region, Democrats and Republicans, will do everything we possibly can to prevent this misguided proposal to take huge amounts of dollars from our ratepayers and taxpayers. We are going to do everything we can to keep that proposal from passing in the Senate. Now, I am not, this morning, going to announce a hold on the appointment of Mr. Sell as Deputy Secretary of Energy. In accord with the policy that I and Senator Grassley have led the Senate on over the years, I do announce my holds publicly; and unless something changes, unless the administration drops this misguided concept--a concept that would be so punitive on our region at a time when we have very high unemployment and a world of economic hurt throughout our region--unless the administration drops their proposal, I will be forced to come back to this floor and have a public hold placed on the Sell nomination. I remain very troubled by Mr. Sell's role in the discussions that took place in my office and Dr. Bodman's testimony before the Energy Committee when I was assured in both instances that there was opposition to privatization. I and other Members of the northwest congressional delegation are simply not going to let a sign be put up on the Pacific Northwest saying: Closed for business and energy tax hikes headed through the roof. This is too important to our area. I am very hopeful that, working with colleagues--and I am particularly interested in working with my good friend, the chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici--we can resolve this matter out so our region will not be devastated economically. Senator Domenici, to his credit, has raised concerns about this misguided proposal to raise our energy prices in the Northwest. I intend to work closely with him, and I am very hopeful I will not have to come back to this floor and put a public hold on Mr. Sell's nomination to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. But if this is not worked out and it is not worked out quickly, I will have no other option because the ratepayers of our part of the world, at a time when they have experienced enormous economic pain, deserve to know there is not going to be a huge additional rate hike imposed on them and one that would do so much to cripple their hopes and aspirations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, on Friday, the President said he would veto any changes that would, in his words, undermine the Medicare prescription drug benefit. As one Democratic Senator who voted for the program and who wants to work very much in a bipartisan way to fix this program, I would ask this afternoon, with all due respect, that the President of the United States reconsider his position. The President says that making changes to the Medicare drug benefit is going to take away benefits our seniors need. But I believe that smart changes now are the key to preserving seniors' benefits. Wise changes are not going to endanger the Medicare drug benefit, but, mark my words, refusing to mend it could end it. Spiraling costs and the low levels of participation we have seen thus far may jeopardize the very survival of the Medicare drug benefit. Colleagues, the reason I believe that is the combination of these costs that continue to soar--they were originally appraised at about $400 billion; now they are upwards of $700 billion, and there are some estimates of $1 trillion--the combination of the escalating costs and the paltry rate of seniors signing up, at least to date, means this program will require a great deal of money to be spent on a relatively small number of people. That is not a prescription for the program to survive. I, for one, as someone who voted for this program and who feels passionately that it is important to get this right, hope the Senate comes together to try to put in place the changes that the program needs to get it back on track. I simply believe ignoring the obvious problems I have mentioned and the threat to veto any bipartisan solution is not a productive or responsible reaction. Making changes to contain costs and increase participation--making those changes on a bipartisan basis--is precisely what the Congress and the administration ought to be spending their time doing. I, for one, think the legislation that Senator Snowe and I have worked on for more than 3 years is a very good place to start. But, obviously, colleagues of both parties have other ideas. I see my friend, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, in the Chamber. He and I served in the House on the Health Committee. He has excellent ideas with respect to ways to hold down some of the costs in the Medicare program overall, particularly in the preventive area. I think he is dead on target. Senator Snowe and I have what we think is a bipartisan first step with respect to getting the prescription drug program back on track. But certainly colleagues in this body have other ideas. The reason Senator Snowe and I advocate the approach we are taking is that it essentially builds on what is going on in the private sector. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why Medicare will not be a smart shopper the way everybody else is in the private sector. I have said that Medicare, as a purchaser, is pretty much like the fellow in Price Club buying toilet paper one roll at a time. Nobody would shop that way. It defies common sense because all across the country, if you are interested in purchasing something, and you are already going to purchase a certain amount, and you agree to buy more of it, then people give you a discount. It is just economics 101. Yet Medicare has not gotten that message. So under the legislation that Senator Snowe and I have been pursuing, we take a sharp-pencil, fact-based, cost-containment approach that essentially builds on what is going on in the private sector across the country. In addition to the effort to use those private sector cost- containment techniques, we would provide that drug prices be monitored to make sure artificial price increases do not negate the benefit to older people. We would make sure that seniors have the information about real savings so they can choose the plan that best makes sense for them. It seems to me, by refusing the opportunity to make any improvements to this program, the White House is writing a prescription for a program that cannot survive. I do not want to see that happen. A number of us in this body took some real risks to be part of this bipartisan plan. What I want to do is roll up my sleeves and work with the President, work with colleagues of both political parties, on a bipartisan, cost-containment strategy that will save this program. That is what this effort ought to be all about: saving this program. I am not the only one who believes that Medicare's needs ought to take precedence at this time. Here is what David Walker, the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, said recently: The Medicare problem is about seven times greater than the Social Security problem and it has gotten much worse. It is much bigger, it is much more immediate and it is going to be much more difficult to effectively address. The President has said he is going to tackle Medicare when he is done with Social Security. But the facts are the facts, and the timetable for trouble in Medicare is a lot tighter. At the very least now, changes should be made to shore up the newest element of Medicare: the hard-won prescription drug benefit, that every time we turn around the costs go up and up. So it is time to introduce the cost-containment, attention-to-detail, and sharp-pencil accounting that has been lacking in this program so far. I want to make it clear, failure to put in place those kinds of approaches jeopardizes, in my view, the very survival of this program. I do not want to see that happen. Like a lot of colleagues--and the Senator from Oklahoma has devoted his professional life to health care--I feel very strongly about this subject. I got involved in health care back in the days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers and I could only dream about this kind of opportunity for public service and to get this issue right. The reason I voted for the legislation initially is I thought it was a first step. I thought it was a constructive step because it would help people with very big bills and very low incomes. There were a lot of other deficiencies in it, but I thought: At least we are getting started because we are helping two groups where the need is very great. But I think the events of the last few months, as I say, raise real questions about whether this program can survive. I do not think, frankly, the prescription drug benefit program can stand a whole lot more bad news. So what I would hope we would do, in addition to having the debate about exactly how much this has gone up--it is very obvious it has gone up and up repeatedly, and is sure to go up even more--is spend our time with our sleeves rolled up, working in a bipartisan way, working with the President of the United States, to make sure this program delivers on its promise. A good prescription drug benefit is something this country can't afford not to have. Senator Coburn knows about this. He has probably heard exactly the same experience I hear from physicians in Oregon who tell me that they have actually put seniors in hospitals because there is not an outpatient prescription drug benefit. That is pretty bizarre, even by the standards of Washington, DC, to have people go into a hospital, roll up these enormous costs under what is called Part A of Medicare, because we don't have a sensible, well-designed prescription drug benefit on an outpatient basis under Part B of the program. When people say we cannot afford to do this, I think we can't afford not to do it. But it has to be properly designed. It has to be structured so as to make the best possible use of taxpayer resources during a belt-tightening time in our Government. I hope the President will reconsider his position. I hope the President will recall his threat to veto changes to the Medicare drug benefit. I assure colleagues, particularly colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that I want to work with them in a bipartisan way. Having voted for this legislation and having the welts on my back to show for it, I want this legislation to succeed. So Congress has some heavy lifting ahead to make sure there are responsible, practical adjustments to this program that are going to save it for the future and to get the job done right for the country's older people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and that the time be taken out of the time allocated to speak on the nomination.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2005. My friend and colleague, Senator Smith, joins me in introducing this important bill. In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster. Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face bankruptcy. This legislation helps by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the transition by groundfishers and other fishers in economic peril away from fishing. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936, amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, solely for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. It was conceived at a time when the Federal Government wanted to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The program was a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However, fish populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now over-capitalized. The CCF's restrictions have not kept up with the times, and now it exacerbates some problems facing U.S. fisheries. Now is the time to help those fishers who wish to do so to leave the fleet. In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so. This bill takes a significant step towards making the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other type of retirement account, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and conservation by allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to develop or purchase new gear that reduces bycatch. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2005. My friend and colleague, Senator Smith, joins me in introducing this important bill. In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster. Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face bankruptcy. This legislation helps by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the transition by groundfishers and other fishers in economic peril away from fishing. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936, amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, solely for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. It was conceived at a time when the Federal Government wanted to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The program was a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However, fish populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now over-capitalized. The CCF's restrictions have not kept up with the times, and now it exacerbates some problems facing U.S. fisheries. Now is the time to help those fishers who wish to do so to leave the fleet. In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so. This bill takes a significant step towards making the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other type of retirement account, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and conservation by allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to develop or purchase new gear that reduces bycatch. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the staggering cost estimates for the Medicare prescription drug benefit, coupled with the small number of seniors who have signed up so far, has threatened the very survival of this program. I do not want to see that happen, having voted for this program. I want to see the Senate take the steps to ensure that it works; that it delivers medicine to our seniors in a cost-effective way, and ensures that it reaches the hopes and expectations that millions of older people and their families have for this program. The fact is, the Medicare prescription drug program now faces two very serious problems. The first is the skyrocketing cost. These are the costs we have been debating throughout the week, that have been far greater than anyone could have predicted. A second problem may also herald very big concerns. To date, a small number of older people have signed up for the first part of the drug benefit, the drug card. So what you have is a pretty combustible mix. The combination of escalating costs and a skimpy number of older people signing up thus far raises the very real problem that a huge amount of Government money will be spent on a very small number of people. That is a prescription for a program that cannot survive. I do not want to see that happen. As someone who voted for this program and worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this program work to meet the urgent needs of the Nation's older people, I think the Senate ought to be taking corrective action and take corrective action now, in order to deal with what I think are looming problems. As I said, we learned a bit about the escalating costs of the program. But when you couple that with low levels of participation by older people, that is particularly troublesome. I think it is fair to say, if the drug card debacle--the first part of the program and the small number of older people signing up for the drug card continues into the full benefit phase of the program, what you have is a situation where I believe people are going to say this program cannot be justified at a time of scarce Government resources. To turn for a moment to the drug card part of the program that I don't think has been discussed much lately, the choices are eye- glazing. There are more than 70 cards available; 39 you can get in any part of the country, the other 30-plus you can get only in some States. The Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported in an informal survey that the program information was confusing and inadequate. What makes it amazing is that a lot of folks who were looking at it are people who were relatives of HHS employees. So you have a situation where even folks connected with those who would know a fair amount about this program are having difficulty sorting through it. I have come to the floor today to try to sound a wake-up call, to say those of us who voted for the program, like myself, and those who opposed it, we ought to be working together on a bipartisan basis now to correct it. The first part of that effort should be to put in place sensible cost containment like we see in the private sector. It is incomprehensible to me that this program is not using the kind of cost containment strategies that you see in Minnesota and Oregon and all across the country. The Medicare Program is pretty much like a fellow standing in the Price Club who buys one roll of toilet paper at a time. They are not shopping in a smart way. They are not using their purchasing power. I and Senator Snowe have sought to correct that and to take steps to use sensible cost containment strategies and ensure that the costs of this program are held down. Second, I think we need to take steps to make sure that some of the mistakes of the past are avoided. CMS, the agency charged with dealing with this program, needs people with expertise to answer the questions of seniors and family members. There needs to be better information, on the net and elsewhere, that is not incomprehensible gobbledygook. Seniors are going to need information about real savings for each plan. Pie-in-the-sky projections, which is what they have gotten thus far, are not going to cut it. That is what we saw this week with respect to these cost estimates. Suffice it to say, the U.S. Congress is not satisfied. I believe without effective cost containment and without good administration of the program, particularly as it moves into this next stage, we are going to see the bills continue to run up and we are going to see the participation of seniors continue to run down. That is a prescription for a Government program that cannot survive. I do not want to see that. I stuck my neck out in order to get that legislation passed. I believe it can survive. Congress needs to hustle, now, to mend it, to mend it with sensible bipartisan cost containment along the lines of what is used in the private sector; mend it with changes in the way the program is administered so it goes into the second phase without some of the problems we saw connected with the drug card. I just hope, as a result of what the Congress has learned this week, that there has been a real wake-up call as to how urgent it is that Congress take these corrective steps and that Congress move quickly. I believe this program now, because of the huge new cost estimates and the problems with getting folks signed up, could well be headed for life support. I don't want to see that. I think it would be a tragedy. I want the program that I voted for to work. That means it has to be supplemented with good cost containment and improvements in the way it is administered. I intend to work with my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle--Senator Snowe and Senator McCain, who joined me in this legislation--to deal with the cost containment features, plus many colleagues on this side of the aisle who have bills of their own. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate got the eye-popping news that prescription drug benefits will cost far more than anyone had ever anticipated. In fact, the early appraisal was that it would cost $400 billion, and then it shot up to over $500 billion. Yesterday, we learned that it would cost $720 billion over the next decade, and perhaps would even go to $1 trillion. A lot of us in the Senate, frankly, were not too surprised because the legislation doesn't allow for the use of cost containment strategies that are utilized in the private sector. To me, it is incomprehensible, for example, that Medicare, with all of its bargaining power, wouldn't use the same kind of clout that a timber company does in Alaska or Oregon or an auto company in the Midwest or any other big purchaser. Under this law as it is constituted today, what Medicare does is the equivalent of standing in the price club and buying toilet paper one roll at a time. There is absolutely nobody in the United States who goes out and purchases that way. What Medicare is going to be doing just defies common sense because we all know that if you buy more of something, whether in Oregon or in Alaska or anywhere else, you say, Let us try to negotiate a better deal. But Medicare is not allowed to do that under current circumstances. I have come today to say that in addition to the debate about how the numbers are crunched, what we ought to be doing is working on a bipartisan basis to ensure that we have real cost containment in this program that seems to grow in costs almost by the day. I have worked with Senator Snowe for more than 3 years on legislation to do that. We have introduced it. It has bipartisan support. On our side of the aisle, Senator Feinstein and Senator Feingold were original sponsors. Senator McCain joined Senator Snowe and me in this bipartisan effort. We simply believe that at a time when we are seeing so many Government programs cut and reduced and tremendous financial pressures for belt tightening, we shouldn't leave seniors without even the kind of private sector bargaining, the kind of private sector cost containment power that we see in communities all across the country. I will tell you, I can't for the life of me figure out why Medicare shouldn't have the power to be a smart shopper. As it stands today, everybody in the United States tries to be a smart shopper instead of Medicare. What I would like to do for a couple of moments is try to lay out the legislation that Senator Snowe and I have spent so much time working on and why I think it is particularly critical right now. For a senior who lives in rural America where there may be only one private plan serving that area--and maybe there is no private plan at all--that senior is likely to be part of what is called the fallback plan. As of now, all of those seniors in those small communities, many of them in Arkansas--I see our distinguished colleague has joined us; like me, she vetted for the law. We would like to see people in Arkansas and Oregon, in areas with large, rural populations, have some bargaining power the way smart shoppers would. Under the Snowe-Wyden legislation, we say that the seniors in those fallback plans could in effect be part of a group that could use private sector bargaining power in order to hold costs down. Many of us also represent the larger cities. I have Portland, but we want to hold down costs in Miami, New York, and Chicago. These people might have a choice of larger health programs to try to deal with their benefits. Maybe they are in a managed care organization or what is called a PPO, preferred provider organization. However, these private entities ought to have some bargaining power to hold down the cost for all of their members. Our bipartisan legislation that I have with Senator Snowe and Senator McCain stipulates we can have bargaining power for seniors in those metropolitan areas as well. This legislation is going to save taxpayers money as well, not just seniors but taxpayers because, as the Senate knows, we put out a substantial amount of money to offer assistance to employers to not drop their coverage. When the Medicare plans save seniors money on medicine, that means less cost for the retiree plan to make up. Containing costs on the Medicare side, in our view, will help keep costs down for employers insuring retirees as well. We have an opportunity to get beyond the debate about the numbers that came out in the last day or so, these shocking numbers that Medicare prescription drug care will cost $720 billion. We can get beyond those numbers and go to a comprehensive, bipartisan, market- based cost-containment strategy, a bipartisan plan that will contain costs for rural and urban seniors in plans across the country, in plans in rural and urban areas, and a plan that will also provide cost containment for employers insuring retirees as well. It is our view we desperately need some common sense as it relates to cost containment for prescription drugs in our country. It is my view that giving bargaining power to millions of seniors through the private sector is essentially Economics 101. There is no sense waiting when the costs of this program go up almost daily. It started at $400 billion, then $500 billion, now we are at $720 billion, and we are still counting. With these costs continuing to go through the stratosphere, the choice for the Senate, in my view, is to either sit around and say we will just wait and see what happens--and maybe the next report will put this at $1 trillion--or we can take the opportunity in a thoughtful, bipartisan way to do what is being done in communities all across the country. Virtually everyone who buys in quantity says: Excuse me, wouldn't you be willing to give me a break given the fact I am making additional purchases? Medicare is not doing it. It defies common sense. We have a bipartisan opportunity to reign in these costs that continue to soar. I hope the Senate will do this as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in his inaugural address and again in the state of the union President Bush promised to take on tyranny around the world. There's one corner of the world where tyranny is the currency of the realm, and where one country stands head and shoulders above the rest for its record of brutality towards its own people and hostility toward its neighbors. That country is Iran. The lifeblood of the Iranian economy is oil. Oil accounts for 80 percent of Iran's export earnings, almost half of the government's budget and nearly one-fifth of the country's GDP. Every time the price of crude oil rises $1 a barrel, Iran gains about $900 million in export revenues. Crude oil prices rose around $15 over the course of 2004, giving Iran a hurricane-force revenue windfall last year. Although most U.S. energy companies ceased dealing with Iran when President Clinton imposed sanctions against the regime in 1995, some appear unable to resist the lure of investing in a country that holds 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, is OPEC's second largest producer and has the world's second largest natural gas reserves, behind Russia. In June of last year, for example, a grand jury in the U.S. issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information on the work in Iran of its Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Department of Justice has an ongoing criminal investigation into whether Halliburton violated any laws by trading with Iran through a subsidiary. Just a few days ago, Halliburton's CEO announced the company would withdraw its employees from Iran and end its business activities there when it fulfills its ongoing contracts, including a $35 million gas drilling project it just won last month. GE just made a similar announcement about its subsidiary's activities in Iran. Foreign companies seeking profits from Iran's energy reserves do not have to worry about such impediments as economic sanctions. Indeed, their governments often bless and sometimes lend Them a hand to help win lucrative contracts. When U.S.-based Conoco had to terminate its $550 million contract to develop some offshore oil and gas fields in 1995, France's Total and Malaysia's Petronas jumped in. In March 1999, France's Elf Aquitaine and Italy's Eni/Agip won a $1 billion contract for a secondary offshore recovery program. In April 1999, TotalFinaElf teamed up with Eni and Canada's Bow Valley Energy to develop an offshore oil field. Shell, BP and Lukoil are also frequently mentioned as being in the chase for Iranian oil and gas contracts. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates Iran has attracted $15-$20 billion in combined foreign investment in hydrocarbons. Not only are foreign companies heavily invested in Iran's hydrocarbon sector, but Iran ships some 2.6 million barrels of oil a day to Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe. If President Bush is serious about chasing down tyrants around the globe, he should use every possible means. The legislation I am introducing today, the Investor in Iran Accountability Act, would give the President a powerful tool by holding accountable those who lend the Iranian regime crucial financial assistance by investing in its energy sector. First, the legislation would shine a spotlight on those American companies, like Halliburton, which have used the loophole in the Iran sanctions act to continue to do business with Iran in the energy sector. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to publish a list of the United States companies whose subsidiaries continue to do energy deals with Iran. While I personally do not believe there should be any more backdoor deals with Iran, my view is that an informed American public is best equipped to hold these companies accountable. Second, the legislation would hold up to the light of public accountability those foreign companies that have more than $1 million invested in Iran's energy interests by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of those companies as well. Third, the legislation would give American investors for the first time an idea of those U.S. pension and retirement plans, mutual funds and other financial instruments that hold investments in these U.S. and foreign companies by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of all public and private U.S. financial interests that hold more than $100,000-worth of investment in these companies. Finally, because unilateral economic sanctions penalize American companies and open the field to foreign companies without inflicting any real economic pain on Iran, the bill directs the President to negotiate an end to foreign investment in Iran's energy sector with the appropriate foreign governments. Some of my colleagues will remember that in the late 1970s and 1980s Congress struggled with ways to force the South African regime to abandon apartheid. One of the most effective tools in that fight was a public armed with information about which companies were doing business there so that American shareholders could choose to place their money elsewhere. The movement by American investors to rid their portfolios of holdings in companies that persisted in doing business with the apartheid regime in South African proved to be one of the most potent tools in the fight to end apartheid. This legislation will arm American investors with knowledge about which U.S. and foreign companies are supporting Iran's critical energy sector and which U.S. entities hold investments in them. With this knowledge, it is my hope that American investors will choose not to aid and abet the Iranian regime by continuing to hold shares in companies or funds that invest in the Iranian oil and gas sector. The Iranian regime has made no secret of its desire to attract billions of dollars-worth of foreign investment, particularly to the energy sector. It even adopted a law in January 2003 specifically designed to attract foreign investors. Iran, which has recently discovered some new reserves of 30 billion barrels of crude oil, has ambitious plans to expand oil production from around 3.9 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5 million barrels a day in 2009. But with deteriorating equipment and the natural decline rate of existing wells, it simply cannot achieve those goals without significant foreign help. In closing, I would point out that the Securities and Exchange Commission has determined that significant corporate operations in countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions, such as Iran, can represent a material risk to United States investors and that such investments should be properly disclosed. My bill would make sure this information is disclosed to the American public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in his inaugural address and again in the state of the union President Bush promised to take on tyranny around the world. There's one corner of the world where tyranny is the currency of the realm, and where one country stands head and shoulders above the rest for its record of brutality towards its own people and hostility toward its neighbors. That country is Iran. The lifeblood of the Iranian economy is oil. Oil accounts for 80 percent of Iran's export earnings, almost half of the government's budget and nearly one-fifth of the country's GDP. Every time the price of crude oil rises $1 a barrel, Iran gains about $900 million in export revenues. Crude oil prices rose around $15 over the course of 2004, giving Iran a hurricane-force revenue windfall last year. Although most U.S. energy companies ceased dealing with Iran when President Clinton imposed sanctions against the regime in 1995, some appear unable to resist the lure of investing in a country that holds 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, is OPEC's second largest producer and has the world's second largest natural gas reserves, behind Russia. In June of last year, for example, a grand jury in the U.S. issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information on the work in Iran of its Cayman Islands subsidiary. The Department of Justice has an ongoing criminal investigation into whether Halliburton violated any laws by trading with Iran through a subsidiary. Just a few days ago, Halliburton's CEO announced the company would withdraw its employees from Iran and end its business activities there when it fulfills its ongoing contracts, including a $35 million gas drilling project it just won last month. GE just made a similar announcement about its subsidiary's activities in Iran. Foreign companies seeking profits from Iran's energy reserves do not have to worry about such impediments as economic sanctions. Indeed, their governments often bless and sometimes lend Them a hand to help win lucrative contracts. When U.S.-based Conoco had to terminate its $550 million contract to develop some offshore oil and gas fields in 1995, France's Total and Malaysia's Petronas jumped in. In March 1999, France's Elf Aquitaine and Italy's Eni/Agip won a $1 billion contract for a secondary offshore recovery program. In April 1999, TotalFinaElf teamed up with Eni and Canada's Bow Valley Energy to develop an offshore oil field. Shell, BP and Lukoil are also frequently mentioned as being in the chase for Iranian oil and gas contracts. The Economist Intelligence Unit estimates Iran has attracted $15-$20 billion in combined foreign investment in hydrocarbons. Not only are foreign companies heavily invested in Iran's hydrocarbon sector, but Iran ships some 2.6 million barrels of oil a day to Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Europe. If President Bush is serious about chasing down tyrants around the globe, he should use every possible means. The legislation I am introducing today, the Investor in Iran Accountability Act, would give the President a powerful tool by holding accountable those who lend the Iranian regime crucial financial assistance by investing in its energy sector. First, the legislation would shine a spotlight on those American companies, like Halliburton, which have used the loophole in the Iran sanctions act to continue to do business with Iran in the energy sector. The bill would require the Treasury Secretary to publish a list of the United States companies whose subsidiaries continue to do energy deals with Iran. While I personally do not believe there should be any more backdoor deals with Iran, my view is that an informed American public is best equipped to hold these companies accountable. Second, the legislation would hold up to the light of public accountability those foreign companies that have more than $1 million invested in Iran's energy interests by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of those companies as well. Third, the legislation would give American investors for the first time an idea of those U.S. pension and retirement plans, mutual funds and other financial instruments that hold investments in these U.S. and foreign companies by requiring the Treasury Department to publish a list of all public and private U.S. financial interests that hold more than $100,000-worth of investment in these companies. Finally, because unilateral economic sanctions penalize American companies and open the field to foreign companies without inflicting any real economic pain on Iran, the bill directs the President to negotiate an end to foreign investment in Iran's energy sector with the appropriate foreign governments. Some of my colleagues will remember that in the late 1970s and 1980s Congress struggled with ways to force the South African regime to abandon apartheid. One of the most effective tools in that fight was a public armed with information about which companies were doing business there so that American shareholders could choose to place their money elsewhere. The movement by American investors to rid their portfolios of holdings in companies that persisted in doing business with the apartheid regime in South African proved to be one of the most potent tools in the fight to end apartheid. This legislation will arm American investors with knowledge about which U.S. and foreign companies are supporting Iran's critical energy sector and which U.S. entities hold investments in them. With this knowledge, it is my hope that American investors will choose not to aid and abet the Iranian regime by continuing to hold shares in companies or funds that invest in the Iranian oil and gas sector. The Iranian regime has made no secret of its desire to attract billions of dollars-worth of foreign investment, particularly to the energy sector. It even adopted a law in January 2003 specifically designed to attract foreign investors. Iran, which has recently discovered some new reserves of 30 billion barrels of crude oil, has ambitious plans to expand oil production from around 3.9 million barrels a day in 2004 to 5 million barrels a day in 2009. But with deteriorating equipment and the natural decline rate of existing wells, it simply cannot achieve those goals without significant foreign help. In closing, I would point out that the Securities and Exchange Commission has determined that significant corporate operations in countries subject to U.S. economic sanctions, such as Iran, can represent a material risk to United States investors and that such investments should be properly disclosed. My bill would make sure this information is disclosed to the American public. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my very dear friend and colleague, Senator Craig of Idaho, as his principal cosponsor on legislation to reauthorize a law that has spawned a revolution in forest dependent communities in 42 States and in over 700 counties across the country. Our bill will reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000. This bill is short and simple but also extraordinary: it renews the original law and its programs for 8 more years. It also makes some technical and grammatical corrections to the original law and adds an oversight report on some of the projects done under this Act. As we introduce this bill today in the Senate, our friends and colleagues in the House are introducing the exact same bill with the same, bi- partisan spirit. The reason we can pursue reauthorization of such a far reaching law with such little language is because the folks that it affects, the forest dependent communities, as well as the educators, the county leaders and the environmentalists in those communities, have made this law work. The reason we want to reauthorize this legislation is because these same folks want to continue the work this law allows them to do together, on federal and private lands, and in rural communities. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of2000 is sustaining rural communities as well as encouraging industry and creating jobs based on natural resources. If I may paraphrase a famous commercial to describe this legislation, I'd say: Stabilization of payments to counties for roads and schools--millions of dollars; Additional investments and the creation of new jobs through forest related projects--thousands of projects; Improving cooperative relationships among the people that use and care for federal lands: Priceless. Title I of the Act stabilizes funding for public education in rural communities. It also fortifies local government budgets that provide health and safety services in rural America, as well as maintains the transportation corridors that move people and material to and from forest communities. Title II of the Act provides resources for community-based stewardship for local federal lands. By establishing Resource Advisory Committees, RACs, tasked with reviewing and recommending to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management projects to be completed on Federal lands that benefit the community and the federal lands associated with that RAC, this Act has resulted in over a thousand projects making Federal lands more environmentally healthy today than before this Act passed in 2000. RACs enlist community members representing environmental interests, recreations users, farmers, local officials and forest products industry. This collaborative planning of management of local Federal lands has put people to work building fish- friendly culverts; reducing hazardous fuel loads; enhancing picnic, camping and hiking facilities; and removing debris and noxious plant species. The kinds of projects the RACs have supported are varied: watershed restoration and maintenance; wild life habitat restoration; native fisheries habitat enhancement; forest health improvements; wild land fire hazard reduction; control of noxious weeds; removal of trash and illegal dumps; road maintenance and obliteration; trail maintenance and obliteration; and campground maintenance. Title III of the Act supports activities protecting federal infrastructure and the forest ecosystem. Fire Planning, emergency response, law enforcement and search and rescue services make federa1lands safe. They reinforce county government's commitment to the partnership between the Federal Government and local communities. These funds are being used to respond to forest fires conduct search and rescue missions and improve forest health while teaching at-risk children and rehabilitating prisoners in prison-work camp programs. Title III projects, like Title II projects, are also helping to develop cooperative projects between counties, local, State and Federal officials and agencies. The Act's greatest financial footprint is felt in the West, but financial benefits flow to counties nationwide. Significant investment in Federal lands has taken or will take place: $121 million from Title II and $124 million from Title III. At least 1,168 Title II projects were approved during the Act's first two years. Under the reauthorization we are sponsoring the payment amount will continue to be based on the average of timber receipts for the three top federal land timber production years: FY 1985 through FY 2000. Currently, on lands where there is no harvest and no safety net, the communities get no money. For those lands, funds will be provided from the general treasury. For others, there would be funds available, first from receipts but then from the general treasury. Still, for counties where the status quo is their best source of funds, they could stay with the status quo until they feel the need to use the safety net. No longer will there be an absolute a reliance on receipts, thus decreasing pressure on land managers to produce timber harvest for schools and counties. While there is widespread application of the Act, 86 percent of counties nationwide have opted for the ``stable payment;'' under the reauthorization bill, if a county that has been part of this Act would like to opt out it may do so. It is only fair to allow this, given that the county may have opted in by assuming the law would only last through 2006. Very strong support exists across the nation from stakeholders for renewal of the Act past fiscal year 2006. I urge my colleagues to work with me and my colleague across the aisle on this bi-partisan, bi-cameral effort to renew a law that is actually working on the ground.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my very dear friend and colleague, Senator Craig of Idaho, as his principal cosponsor on legislation to reauthorize a law that has spawned a revolution in forest dependent communities in 42 States and in over 700 counties across the country. Our bill will reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000. This bill is short and simple but also extraordinary: it renews the original law and its programs for 8 more years. It also makes some technical and grammatical corrections to the original law and adds an oversight report on some of the projects done under this Act. As we introduce this bill today in the Senate, our friends and colleagues in the House are introducing the exact same bill with the same, bi- partisan spirit. The reason we can pursue reauthorization of such a far reaching law with such little language is because the folks that it affects, the forest dependent communities, as well as the educators, the county leaders and the environmentalists in those communities, have made this law work. The reason we want to reauthorize this legislation is because these same folks want to continue the work this law allows them to do together, on federal and private lands, and in rural communities. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of2000 is sustaining rural communities as well as encouraging industry and creating jobs based on natural resources. If I may paraphrase a famous commercial to describe this legislation, I'd say: Stabilization of payments to counties for roads and schools--millions of dollars; Additional investments and the creation of new jobs through forest related projects--thousands of projects; Improving cooperative relationships among the people that use and care for federal lands: Priceless. Title I of the Act stabilizes funding for public education in rural communities. It also fortifies local government budgets that provide health and safety services in rural America, as well as maintains the transportation corridors that move people and material to and from forest communities. Title II of the Act provides resources for community-based stewardship for local federal lands. By establishing Resource Advisory Committees, RACs, tasked with reviewing and recommending to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management projects to be completed on Federal lands that benefit the community and the federal lands associated with that RAC, this Act has resulted in over a thousand projects making Federal lands more environmentally healthy today than before this Act passed in 2000. RACs enlist community members representing environmental interests, recreations users, farmers, local officials and forest products industry. This collaborative planning of management of local Federal lands has put people to work building fish- friendly culverts; reducing hazardous fuel loads; enhancing picnic, camping and hiking facilities; and removing debris and noxious plant species. The kinds of projects the RACs have supported are varied: watershed restoration and maintenance; wild life habitat restoration; native fisheries habitat enhancement; forest health improvements; wild land fire hazard reduction; control of noxious weeds; removal of trash and illegal dumps; road maintenance and obliteration; trail maintenance and obliteration; and campground maintenance. Title III of the Act supports activities protecting federal infrastructure and the forest ecosystem. Fire Planning, emergency response, law enforcement and search and rescue services make federa1lands safe. They reinforce county government's commitment to the partnership between the Federal Government and local communities. These funds are being used to respond to forest fires conduct search and rescue missions and improve forest health while teaching at-risk children and rehabilitating prisoners in prison-work camp programs. Title III projects, like Title II projects, are also helping to develop cooperative projects between counties, local, State and Federal officials and agencies. The Act's greatest financial footprint is felt in the West, but financial benefits flow to counties nationwide. Significant investment in Federal lands has taken or will take place: $121 million from Title II and $124 million from Title III. At least 1,168 Title II projects were approved during the Act's first two years. Under the reauthorization we are sponsoring the payment amount will continue to be based on the average of timber receipts for the three top federal land timber production years: FY 1985 through FY 2000. Currently, on lands where there is no harvest and no safety net, the communities get no money. For those lands, funds will be provided from the general treasury. For others, there would be funds available, first from receipts but then from the general treasury. Still, for counties where the status quo is their best source of funds, they could stay with the status quo until they feel the need to use the safety net. No longer will there be an absolute a reliance on receipts, thus decreasing pressure on land managers to produce timber harvest for schools and counties. While there is widespread application of the Act, 86 percent of counties nationwide have opted for the ``stable payment;'' under the reauthorization bill, if a county that has been part of this Act would like to opt out it may do so. It is only fair to allow this, given that the county may have opted in by assuming the law would only last through 2006. Very strong support exists across the nation from stakeholders for renewal of the Act past fiscal year 2006. I urge my colleagues to work with me and my colleague across the aisle on this bi-partisan, bi-cameral effort to renew a law that is actually working on the ground.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I are once again teaming up to work on a bipartisan commonsense proposal to help America's seniors receive affordable prescription drugs. Our bill, ``The Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs Act'' or ``MEND Act'' focuses on cost containment. At our request, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reviewed drug cost trends. For 77 prescription drugs frequently used by seniors on Medicare the usual and customary price increased 21.8 percent from January 2000 through June 2004, a 4.6 percent average annual rate of increase. They also found that the process for the brand drugs increased 26.4 percent for that same time period whereas prices for generic drugs increased 8.3 percent. We need to make sure that Medicare has every weapon in its arsenal to assure seniors and Medicare get the best deal possible on prescription drug prices. One of the most important tools for Medicare to use to assure better prescription drug prices for seniors is bargaining power. That tool is missing from the legislation Congress passed in 2003. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today, the MEND Act, would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services that tool. As responsible stewards of the taxpayers' money, Congress must provide Medicare all the tools, including bargaining power, in its cost containment arsenal. This concept was endorsed by the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. The Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me last March stated that striking the so-called ``non interference'' provision in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act could provide opportunities for savings. In addition to providing the Secretary with bargaining power, the MEND Act will require the Secretary to negotiate on behalf of what are known as ``fall back'' plans, those plans that are provided when there is no choice of a drug plan and the company administering the benefit is not at risk. In addition, if any plan asks the Secretary for assistance in negotiations for any covered drug, the Secretary must assist the plan. Lower drug prices should mean lower premiums; lower out of pocket costs and a better benefit. America's seniors are savvy and they will shop around for a plan that is going to provide them the best deal on prescriptions. That is why the MEND Act also requires Medicare to provide a comparison of how much a plan is saving seniors on the cost of the most commonly used drugs. Giving seniors more control over their health care and health care dollars will also help keep costs down.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Snowe and I are once again teaming up to work on a bipartisan commonsense proposal to help America's seniors receive affordable prescription drugs. Our bill, ``The Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs Act'' or ``MEND Act'' focuses on cost containment. At our request, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reviewed drug cost trends. For 77 prescription drugs frequently used by seniors on Medicare the usual and customary price increased 21.8 percent from January 2000 through June 2004, a 4.6 percent average annual rate of increase. They also found that the process for the brand drugs increased 26.4 percent for that same time period whereas prices for generic drugs increased 8.3 percent. We need to make sure that Medicare has every weapon in its arsenal to assure seniors and Medicare get the best deal possible on prescription drug prices. One of the most important tools for Medicare to use to assure better prescription drug prices for seniors is bargaining power. That tool is missing from the legislation Congress passed in 2003. The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing today, the MEND Act, would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services that tool. As responsible stewards of the taxpayers' money, Congress must provide Medicare all the tools, including bargaining power, in its cost containment arsenal. This concept was endorsed by the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson. The Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me last March stated that striking the so-called ``non interference'' provision in the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act could provide opportunities for savings. In addition to providing the Secretary with bargaining power, the MEND Act will require the Secretary to negotiate on behalf of what are known as ``fall back'' plans, those plans that are provided when there is no choice of a drug plan and the company administering the benefit is not at risk. In addition, if any plan asks the Secretary for assistance in negotiations for any covered drug, the Secretary must assist the plan. Lower drug prices should mean lower premiums; lower out of pocket costs and a better benefit. America's seniors are savvy and they will shop around for a plan that is going to provide them the best deal on prescriptions. That is why the MEND Act also requires Medicare to provide a comparison of how much a plan is saving seniors on the cost of the most commonly used drugs. Giving seniors more control over their health care and health care dollars will also help keep costs down.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I note that the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the ranking minority member will be here shortly to speak on the Leavitt nomination. Until they get here, I thought I would summarize my thoughts concerning this nomination. I come to the Chamber to speak in favor of Mike Leavitt to head the Department of Health and Human Services. I want to begin my brief remarks by talking about the importance of bipartisanship in the health care field and to note that at the end of the last session of the Congress, there was a bipartisan failure in the health care area, in my view, of enormous ramifications. At the end of the last session of the Congress, the Congress failed to provide the funding necessary for the office of Dr. David Brailer, who is, in effect, the national health care technology point man, to try to modernize decision making, record keeping, telemedicine, and other crucial matters in the health care field. His office, as a result of this bipartisan failure by the Congress, was essentially defunded. So what you have is a situation where both political parties talk a big game about health information technology, or IT. You hear senators of both political parties saluting the promise of this exciting field and talk about how committed they are, but the response of the Congress was to essentially defund it. So rhetoric has been in abundance; concrete support has been lacking. I come to the Senate floor to say I very much hope--and Mike Leavitt has a great interest in health information technology--that this deficiency is corrected in this upcoming Congress because otherwise there will be great consequences. First, I am concerned that as we see the move towards electronic medical records, these records and the placement of them is not being done in a fashion that will promote interoperability so that they are best in a position to be coordinated and maximize their value. They simply are not interoperable. It is a very significant concern. If we are going to see this trend toward electronic medical records and not take the steps to promote interoperability, that will be a very serious deficiency as we set up the new system and will cause a great deal of confusion. Second, I am very concerned that in the information technology area, the big and powerful figures, be they high-tech companies or medical clinics, will be able to do this work, but it is not going to be done by the small physician offices and clinics. Dr. Brailer's office was the office that was in a position to give incentives to help those small offices go forward. That work is not being done. Third, the very promising aspect of health technology has been in the area of regional offices, and now we are not seeing the funds that are necessary for those regional offices as well. The Congress essentially zeroed out the money that Dr. Brailer needed. It was a modest amount, $50 million. My sense is to really promote health information technology, it is going to take much more significant sums, but to have this body on a bipartisan basis constantly talking about the value of health information technology and then taking the one program that would make a difference and zeroing it out is just unconscionable. Both political parties have let down what needs to be done in this critical area. I see the chairman of the committee. I know he is very interested in health information technology, as is Senator Baucus. I hope to lead a bipartisan effort in this session of the Congress to ensure that Dr. Brailer's office gets the funds that are necessary. The last couple of points I would make in support of the Leavitt nomination: First, on the question of Medicaid, Mike Leavitt told me, in response to a question I asked, that there was no plan to send a block grant proposal to the Congress. That was welcome news. But he left an awful lot of wiggle room in terms of the details, and so bipartisan concerns remain, concerns by the governors as well, about what is to come. As one Senator who specializes in this field, I send a message that I am very supportive of the concept of health care waivers. I think that kind of flexibility is certainly a plus. We in Oregon have used them in a humanitarian way, to get better quality care to people for services that are medically effective. But there is a big difference between waivers that are borne out of a desire to use flexibility to serve people and a block grant proposal which just sets an arbitrary cap and cuts people off. Finally, I want to talk about the importance of working in a bipartisan way to contain costs for prescription drugs under the new Medicare law. As one who voted for that law, believing it was important to get started, I said then that the next step has to be to put in place a real cost containment effort that looks particularly to the private sector. Senator Olympia Snowe, who serves with great distinction on the Finance Committee, will be introducing legislation with me next week that will say we are going to use private sector forces, marketplace forces, to hold down the costs of prescription drugs in our country. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why Weyerhauser, a big timber company, or an auto company, or a steel company, or any other big concern, has marketplace power to hold down the cost of medicine but the Medicare Program does not. In fact, I don't know of a single buyer in the private sector who, after they purchased a certain volume of a particular commodity, looks to buying another commodity and then doesn't ask for a discount, doesn't ask for some kind of benefit as a result of using their marketplace power. So I am very hopeful. Mike Leavitt indicated last week he was open to discussions in this area. Certainly, again, there were no details discussed, but he showed a flexibility that I found welcome. I see the chair and the ranking minority member here. I don't want to detain them. I urge the Senate to approve the nomination of Mike Leavitt when he comes up for a vote. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Grassley, and the ranking minority member for their indulgence so I could make these comments. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I note that we are in a quorum call. As a member of the Finance Committee, I am going to speak in favor of the Leavitt nomination to outline some of my concerns.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I want to say first of all, I am talking about enforcing a law that is on the books. All I am talking about is the original intent of a law that is on the books, which is applied primarily to the academic field--not sports. I want it understood that I am not talking about anything new. I am talking about enforcing the law that is on the books. Second, making sure that I am specific with respect to what the Senator from Tennessee has said, all I am talking about is that women would get an equal shot at all of the slots in math and science. We know there can be different results based upon the qualifications of an individual. And universities don't need to have the exact same number of men and women for every position on their faculties. But what I want us to do--and what title IX is all about--is make sure that women have an equal shot at all of the slots that are available. It seems to me, if we don't do that, we are not complying with the law that is on the books. I will tell you that we are not going to be able to meet the economic and national security needs of our country. The Senator from Tennessee is always very gracious. I am anxious to work with him in these areas. I want to make sure and emphasize that I am talking about equal opportunity--an equal shot. That is the call that I am making today on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will not belabor this. I do believe I have to make a couple of responses with respect to the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.