Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do not want to turn this into a bouquet- tossing process, but I also want to commend our friend from Wyoming. I think he is going to do an excellent job in his new position. At the end of last year, we got a little bit more flexibility in terms of the interpretation of Leave No Child Behind Act because of the efforts with respect to hiring of rural teachers, and I thank him for his work on that, and certainly the bipartisan firm of Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Enzi, and Alexander is a force to contend with, and I am looking forward very much to working with them. The confirmation of the Secretary of Education by the Senate, important as it is, is not the only important development in American education this week. I am sure many of our colleagues have heard about the remarks made by Harvard President Larry Summers this week, remarks that in effect said women may be underrepresented in math and sciences because of innate differences between men and women. I spoke with Dr. Summers this morning. He made it clear to me that he is acutely aware that remarks he intended to be thought-provoking crossed the line. He knows that as president of one of America's most distinguished institutions, his views are heard worldwide. I expect he will continue to express his contrition to the Harvard community and educators around the country. I have devoted a lot of time to this issue myself. In 2002, when I became chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, I pursued this issue on a bipartisan basis, particularly with Senator Allen of Virginia. Today I ask my colleagues the question of what ought to be on the table at this point, and that is what is going to be done now, what is going to be done immediately, to create more opportunities for girls and women to advance in science, math, engineering, and related fields? It is very seldom, when a problem such as this comes up, that there is literally a tool right at our fingertips to solve the problem, but in studying this issue, in holding hearings on this issue, I became convinced that title IX of the Education Act can be the key to ensuring gender equity in critical academic fields for women. Here is how title IX reads: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. It means any institution receiving Federal funds must make sure that women are treated equitably. In the Senate, and certainly around the country, there is a common misconception that title IX is about sports. I think very few people are aware that primarily, at its roots, it is an academic statute. Athletics are certainly where we have seen the most progress under title IX. Before title IX, 1 in 17 girls in school played sports. Now it is 1 in 2.5, or 40 percent. So I ask my colleagues, imagine if those same changes could be seen in math, science, and engineering, from the 20 percent of science undergraduates who are women today, to 40 percent or 50 percent; from the 6 percent of engineering professors who are women today to 40 percent. The potential of title IX is enormous. Enforcing it in academic fields could revolutionize the study and application of math and science in our country. Educators of good conscience should not wait for a Federal reprimand to comply with a Federal law that benefits all of us. Title IX ought to be a guiding principle in hiring, tenure, scholarships, and lab space for all scholars on all the academic campuses around our country. Title IX can finally give women studying science a fair shake where they have not gotten one before. It does not sound like a tall order, but it is not happening. Unfortunately, the Federal Government is not taking the lead in terms of tackling the issue. For example, I asked the General Accounting Office to examine whether the Federal Government is following the law and enforcing title IX. What the General Accounting Office found was disappointing at best. They looked at the Department of Education, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, and they found that little or no efforts were being made to ensure compliance with title IX requirements for grantees getting Federal dollars. Of all the agencies reviewed, the Department of Education was the only Federal agency that conducted any title IX compliance reviews. But they have not conducted a single review--not one--since 1995. The Federal Government is not doing its part to ensure that title IX is being enforced for women and girls with the ability and the desire to work in math and science. I have asked Secretary of Education Paige and the President that title IX be enforced as intended. But today, colleagues, I formally call on the individual who will shortly be confirmed as the Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings, to work to ensure that girls and women in our federally funded schools do not suffer discrimination in math and the sciences. I will tell you, it is an issue of economics, and it is also an issue of national security. A report from the Hart-Rudman Commission on National Security to 2025 warned that America's failure to invest in science and to reform math and science education was the second biggest threat to our national security. It warned that only the threat of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city was a greater danger. In fact, the Commission unanimously concluded that the danger from underinvesting in math and science and failing to reform math and science education was greater than the danger from any conceivable conventional war. I do not see how America can meet its national security needs if it is not giving women a fair shake as it relates to opportunity in math and science. So on this Inauguration Day, I call on the new Education Secretary, the individual we will shortly confirm, to take this message of economic fairness and national security to heart. The remarks that Dr. Summers has made, which have triggered such debate, have generated a new and important discussion about this issue. As the Senate confirms a new Education Secretary, I believe there is no better time to return our attention to the issue of how this body can advance opportunities for women in math and science, not by writing any new laws but by enforcing the laws on the books. Colleagues, I would say--our new chair is here--it is one thing if Chairman Enzi has to get together with Senator Kennedy and Senator Alexander and Senator Dodd and write a whole new law. Here we have a law on the books, but the conception is that it is just for sports, and it has been a good sports statute. What I am saying is we can revolutionize opportunities for women in math and science if we use the law as it was originally intended. Go talk to our former colleague, Senator Birch Bayh. Senator Bayh, who testified before my subcommittee, said this was primarily an academic statute, and he would very much like to see it used for opportunities for women. The conversation I had with Dr. Summers this morning certainly was not over when we hung up the phones. What began as a controversy this week I hope is going to end with a bipartisan effort, like the one that Senator Allen and I launched several years ago, to make sure there are more opportunities for women and girls to enter the math and science fields. That is what I intend to pursue. I intend to do it on a bipartisan basis, working with our new chair and colleagues whom I know share this interest. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe it is extraordinarily important for both sides to be gracious when an American election is over. But I also believe it is extraordinarily important not to ignore urgently needed election reform, such as requiring a paper trail for every single ballot that is cast in our country. Such a paper trial is required in my home State. In this last election, record numbers of Oregonians voted. There were no allegations of fraud. The system worked, and it worked well. Unfortunately, that is not the case in too many communities in our country. When the Senate last debated the issue of election reform, this body spent weeks debating whether one dog in the Midwest was an illegal voter. I worked with colleagues on a bipartisan basis. We made sure that dog, Mitzi, would not be allowed to vote again. Now, in the name of justice, when hundreds of thousands of Americans feel they have been disenfranchised, I don't think their concerns ought to be swept under the rug. Credible journalists have now documented voting irregularities across the country, and that ought to trouble every Member of the body. Incredible reports come from the States of North Carolina, Indiana, Washington, Florida, and Ohio. In my view, while not proving to be of a volume that would have changed the outcome of the Presidential election, when you take these findings together, they raise very significant and troubling matters that this body should be tackling on a bipartisan basis. I do believe there is critical work ahead of this body with respect to election reform. So I did write in November to Representative Conyers to ask that he examine these voting irregularities. The problems with provisional ballots in the State of Ohio particularly concerned me because I was one of the principal authors of the section of the Help America Vote Act that involved provisional ballots. The decision of the Ohio Secretary of State to restrict the ability of voters to use provisional ballots, I thought, was troubling. His decisions raised serious questions with respect to whether they were consistent with what the Senate had in mind as we wrote that provision. I was also concerned about the reports from Ohio, where in one county only 800 citizens were registered to vote and more than 4,500 votes were counted. This just defies common sense, and it is one of the reasons why I have come to the floor to make the case for a continued focus on the issue of election reform. The problems of election abuse are not ones that can be given short shrift if we are to keep faith with our citizens and ensure that their fundamental belief that our democratic system is sound is maintained. Otherwise, we will see a growing lack of confidence in the conduct of our elections, and that lack of confidence will come to overshadow some of our elections altogether. We will see many more Members of this body come to the floor demanding to know what has happened. I end my statement with the plea that, on a bipartisan basis, this body return to the issue of election reform, correct the abuses that have been credibly documented over the last few weeks, and that we do it in a bipartisan fashion. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am very pleased I have had a chance over the last few years to team up with Senator Snowe of Maine on a bipartisan effort to contain those prescription drug costs, using essentially the model of more bargaining power the way private sector firms have. Part of the Medicare prescription drug bill that I think is very unfortunate is a statutory ban on Medicare using its bargaining power to hold down the cost of medicine the way big private-sector buyers would use their bargaining power. So Senator Snowe and I would like to change that. We would like to lift that bargaining power restriction so Medicare would be in a position to use marketplace forces to hold down the cost of prescription drugs. A few weeks ago, we got a big boost for our bipartisan legislation when the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Tommy Thompson, said he wished he had had the power the bipartisan Snowe-Wyden legislation would provide. Secretary Thompson gave a press conference, I believe on the day he announced his resignation, and specifically said he wished he had had the tools that the bipartisan legislation the Senator from Maine and I have authored would provide at the time of his service because he could have made those scarce Medicare dollars stretch further. So I think Secretary Thompson gave a pretty ringing bipartisan endorsement for the legislation Senator Snowe and I will be reintroducing very shortly. It seems to me to make sure that seniors get the best value in the marketplace, that taxpayers get their money's worth under the Medicare program, a program that is, of course, soaring in costs, we ought to make sure we use the kinds of tools the private sector uses. In the bipartisan legislation I have written with Senator Snowe--it is called the MEND bill, the Medicare Enhancement for Needed Drugs legislation--we would have a chance, in my view, to significantly rein in these costs using the power of the marketplace. But I bring this up first by way of saying this is just the beginning of what I think we could do in this session of Congress. I want to move now to the issue of catastrophic illness. The Senator from Missouri and I represent a lot of small businesses. We enjoyed our service on the Small Business Committee when we were in the House. I think we and our colleagues all understand if you have a small business, say a hardware store with six people, and one or two of them get particularly sick, that essentially blows the whole health care system for that small hardware store or furniture shop or what have you. In effect, if one or two of the people get sick at the small business, the premiums go through the roof for everybody, and they essentially can go so high that it is not possible for the firm to offer coverage at all. I was struck in the campaign by Senator Kerry's proposal because I thought it was a very innovative way to help those small businesses rein in their costs. In effect, he was going to use the concept of reinsurance for very large bills that would be faced by a small business. If you have the Government picking up the very large bills for the one or two people at the hardware store in Missouri who have these illnesses, that can stabilize the rate system for everybody. I thought the Kerry proposal was a good idea. I come to the floor to bring it up because I think if you compare the Kerry proposal to some of the ideas offered by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Frist, who was just on the floor, his Healthy Mae proposal, while different than the Kerry proposal, certainly in a number of respects both of them are looking at the same core concept, which is to use this idea of reinsurance to pick up the very large bills that would be faced by some of our small businesses. I think when you look at the Kerry proposal, when you look at the Frist proposal, there is a lot of common ground there to tackle a health care issue of enormous concern to millions of families. All across this country we have citizens who face the prospect of going to bed at night knowing that if the medical bills soar through the roof, they could lose everything. They could lose their home, the capacity to educate their kids. They could lose virtually everything. So I think it is important we enact a catastrophic illness program. This idea, by the way, has percolated around for decades. Democratic Presidents have talked about it. Republican Presidents have talked about it. Senator Kerry has authored an innovative proposal. Senator Frist has come up with ideas that I happen to think are attractive. What we ought to be doing as a body is looking for common ground and the opportunity to work together. As Senator Snowe and I have done with prescription drug cost containment, I would hope the Senate could come together for a bipartisan catastrophic illness proposal that I think would make a very meaningful dent in these huge expenses we so often face for catastrophic illness. There are other areas that lend themselves to immediate action as well. In this regard, I particularly commend the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for their outstanding work on mental health. We have been working for some time to try to ensure that there would be mental health parity. Having had my late brother, Jeff, suffer from schizophrenia, I have watched these families jostled around in the health care system for years. I know colleagues of both political parties have as well. There is no reason why we cannot get a bipartisan mental health parity effort, a Domenici-Kennedy bill, working with the other body, get that enacted into law, and get it sent to the President--again, a chance for immediate action. Finally, I mentioned briefly the issue of childhood obesity. It is obvious that we now have literally an epidemic of childhood obesity problems occurring early on in life that produce other deadly and costly illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. Senator Frist and I, working with a group of health advocates for children and independent scientists, have put together a bipartisan bill. I hope we can use that legislation as an opportunity for the Senate to come together. Our proposal essentially involves a modest Government role, particularly at the outset of the program. Then we use a foundation approach to generate additional funds in the private sector. But at the end of the day, under that legislation, we would have a grassroots juggernaut all across the country focused on our schools, on our families, tackling this issue of childhood obesity. Again, there is no reason why we could not act immediately. On these kinds of issues--and I have outlined four of them now--I believe Congress is on the cusp of success. Bipartisan efforts are underway. Certainly they need some tweaking and some changes, going through the committee process and the negotiations that are essential to pass legislation, but for all practical purposes, in each of these areas--prescription drug cost containment, a program to deal with catastrophic illness, mental health parity, and fighting childhood obesity--we have legislation that is camera-ready to tackle these very serious health care concerns. We ought to have it. As the Congress moves on these initiatives, we have to also move to address the health care system of tomorrow. In this regard, Senator Hatch and I have worked for several years on the Health Care That Works for All Americans Act. We got it funded finally last year as part of the appropriations legislation. Now the Government Accountability Office is moving to set in place the first stage of the legislation, which would involve naming the 14 individuals who would be part of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group. The bipartisan effort Senator Hatch and I have pursued for several years is built on the proposition that it is time for the country and the Congress to try something different and to look at this in a dramatically altered way. This may be of some interest to the Presiding Officer because essentially Harry Truman, in the 81st Congress in 1945, tried on the health care issue what Bill Clinton tried back in 1993 and 1994, and essentially all Presidents have tried in between the 1940s and the 1990s. That was to write legislation in Washington, DC. The American people would find these big Federal health reform bills incomprehensible. The various powerful interest groups would attack each other. And essentially nothing would happen. It was essentially driven in the confines of the beltway in Washington. Literally for more than five decades in the debate about creating a health care system that works for everybody, we would essentially have paralysis. What Senator Hatch and I have sought to do is to try something different; that is, to essentially start this debate outside the beltway, to try to involve the American people in the most important questions, not the various arcane issues about what every single payroll tax level ought to be, but the big kinds of questions--I will outline a couple of those in a moment--and then use that kind of effort, where citizens could be involved in community meetings, citizens could weigh in online, citizens could participate in a variety of ways, to try to build a consensus for the kinds of reforms that would be needed to create a health care system that works for everyone. Under our legislation, after the Citizens' Working Group is named by Mr. Walker, the head of the Government Accountability Office, what happens next is the working group essentially would put out for the American people, in simple, straightforward English, information--it could be available online, in booklets, senior centers, other places where folks gather--about where the health care dollar goes today. This year we are going to spend in the vicinity of about $1.8 trillion on health care. That is what we are spending on health care, yet it is clear that as far as the country is concerned, there really is no sense where that $1.8 trillion goes now and what the alternatives are for perhaps spending it in a different fashion. That would be the first task of the Citizens' Working Group, to put out online, in booklets available throughout our communities, information about where the health care dollar goes today and what the various options are for where it might be targeted as an alternative so Americans would have a chance to say: Look, what I am interested in is this kind of approach. Let's say a health savings account or the Associated Health Plan concept, the health plan concept the Senator from Missouri has advocated. Other citizens might say: I am interested in a single payer kind of system, perhaps in a small community. They think that is the approach that makes sense for them. The point is, until you tell the American people where the health care dollar is going now, it is hard to have a debate with respect to changes that might be necessary so the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, could in effect move forward with legislation that would create a system that works for everybody. When Senator Hatch and I began this effort, we made a systematic effort to make it as inclusive as we possibly could. The legislation early on won the support of the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the American Association of Retired Persons--certainly a coalition that doesn't agree all the time on health care or other kinds of issues. We have had many groups endorse the effort since. The reason they have is they believe it is critical that something new be tried. What happens under our legislation, after the Citizens' Working Group has made it possible for folks to see where the $1.8 trillion we are spending on health care goes now, is that our citizens will have a chance to participate in open community meetings, online, and other kinds of sessions so that they would have a chance to be heard on the second stage of this very different approach with respect to health care reform. After our citizens have had a chance to be heard, then the Citizens' Working Group in effect takes that kind of sentiment they have heard from all corners of the Nation and tries to synthesize it into a set of recommendations to the Congress. And under our legislation, within 60 days after the Citizens' Working Group has provided the recommendations to the Congress with respect to what the American people have said, each committee of jurisdiction has to begin hearings on what has come from the Citizens' Working Group in terms of the recommendations of the American people. I want to close by giving a few examples of the kind of areas where I think we have to have the input of the American people where they have never been asked. For example, the issue of end-of-life care is absolutely essential in terms of a new focus for health care reform. We know that many of our health care dollars are spent in the last few months of an individual's life. We are told by many medical experts-- doctors, hospitals, and others--that in many of those instances there is nothing they can do that is medically effective, and there is nothing they can do to enhance the quality of life for the individual. So the question for the country and for courageous political leadership is: What should we do with respect to end-of-life care? If we are being told by our best doctors and hospitals that they cannot do anything that is medically effective, cannot do anything to promote a better quality of life for individuals, do we want to refocus the health care dollars to make sure, for example, that there are better hospice programs and better end-of-life care programs for individuals facing those kinds of health challenges? I personally think that is where the American people are going to end up. Let's ask them, for the first time, how they want to deal with these very difficult social and ethical issues with respect to American health care. I submit that financial issues with respect to health care are very difficult, no question about that. I think the social and ethical issues, with respect to end-of-life care, where much of the health care dollar gets spent today, are even more challenging, but we have to act. That is the kind of question that would be posed by the Citizens' Working Group. I think other issues are important. I am particularly interested in the issue of personal responsibility. I think that has been part of what has been driving the debate with respect to health savings accounts and other such approaches. I have been discussing with my constituents in town hall meetings the idea that if we are to have a system that works for everybody in terms of affordable quality health care, I am prepared to say that an individual should, every time they use a medical service, if they are not destitute, have to make a payment on the spot so as to ensure that there is a clear requirement of personal responsibility. Certainly, that will be controversial, but that is the kind of issue that has to be discussed with respect to health reform. Finally, I think the question of addressing health care--and particularly Senator Hatch and I have tried to do it in a bipartisan way--means you have to get beyond the blame game. Sometimes when you have a discussion about health care, the topic comes up that Republicans say it is the trial lawyers' fault; nail the trial lawyers and everything is going to be fine. Then you go meet with Democrats and Democrats say, yes, we have to have health reform. Go nail the insurance companies; do that and everything will be fine. I think--and Senator Hatch and I have talked about this--if we are going to have a health care program that works for all Americans, we are going to have to get beyond the blame game. You bet changes need to be made in the insurance sector, because they do skim the cream and take the healthy people, and they do send sick people to Government programs that are sicker than they are. There do need to be changes in those insurance practices. I think we also understand that there are frivolous cases and abuses in the legal sector, and changes would be necessary there if we are to have meaningful reform and a health care program that works for all Americans. It seems to me this is an issue that we cannot duck because come 2010, 2011, 2012, medical costs will clearly consume just about everything in sight. I submit that the problems we are seeing today in terms of small business premium hikes, folks falling between the cracks--they are not old enough for Medicare or not poor enough for Medicaid; our Medicare providers are understandably frustrated by the reimbursement system--if we keep nibbling at the Medicare health care system, the problems we are seeing today are going to seem like small potatoes compared to what happens in 2010, 2011, and 2012. On New Year's Day in 2008, this demographic influx, in effect, of 7 million- plus retirees we will see over the next few years is going to start to retire. That happens New Year's Day 2008. So the reason I have come to the floor this afternoon is I wanted to outline a number of steps-- four, specifically--that I thought Congress could tackle in a bipartisan way that would make a meaningful difference right now: the legislation Senator Snowe and I have authored in terms of prescription drug cost containment, using marketplace forces to hold down prescription drug costs; catastrophic illness, and looking particularly at ideas that Senators Kerry and Frist have talked about; the question of mental health parity; childhood obesity. Again, we can build where there is a bipartisan foundation for congressional action. These are steps we ought to take now. Then we ought to use the next couple of years--as Senator Hatch and I have tried to do in a bipartisan kind of way--to build a health care system that works for all Americans. Our legislation is moving ahead. The Government Accountability Office is appointing the Citizens' Health Care Working Group right now. The $3 million appropriated for the legislation--and I am grateful to Senators Specter and Harkin for that particular work--is going to allow us, in our Health Care That Works For All Americans Act, to take a very different approach to break this spiral which dates back to 1945, tried by Harry Truman in the 81st Congress, and continued literally up through the time of President Clinton. Making sure the public has the facts is the first task of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group established in the legislation I have authored with Senator Hatch. Second is to make sure the public gets a chance to weigh in. Finally, to ensure public accountability, the Congress is under a requirement to move forward with hearings after the Citizens' Working Group has reported. So I think it is appropriate on this first day of the new session to zero in on the health care issue. I have been very closely following the discussions colleagues on both sides of the aisle have made with respect to the tragedy that has taken place overseas. I am very pleased to hear that Majority Leader Frist is leading a trip to the area and will come back with ideas for bipartisan action on that terrible tragedy. I wanted to talk about what I think is the most pressing issue at home, the health care challenge, and particularly to outline bipartisan steps that could be taken now. I also look forward to working with my colleagues as the legislation I have authored with Senator Hatch is implemented in the weeks ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the Chamber, I commend the majority leader for his interest in health care, in particular. I have always thought it is far away the most important issue at home. I have come to the Senate to talk about some of the opportunities in this session to work in a bipartisan way on these critical issues. In fact, I was going to mention that the Senator and I have pursued legislation to tackle the problem of child obesity. I appreciate the majority leader's interest in health care and look forward to working with him in this session. Mr. President, colleagues, I have believed health care is the most important issue at home since my days as director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I have thought health care was the most important issue because, in a sense, if our folks do not have their health, it is not possible to work, to learn, to raise children, or do much of anything the American people value. For me, this is the big priority at home. When we look at what is happening today with medical costs gobbling up everything in sight, the demographic revolution with so many more older people, the tremendous lifesaving technologies we have today which, of course, carry a big price tag, all of these forces come together to present an issue that just cannot be ducked any longer. To put it in perspective, David Walker, the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, put it pretty well, saying that 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 more immediate. It is going to be much more difficult to effectively address. That is the view of the Comptroller General. He is talking about Medicare. But in my view, the concerns that David Walker talks about with respect to Medicare extend to the health care system as a whole. This afternoon for a few minutes I will chart a course as it relates to health care: first, a number of steps that could be taken right now that would significantly help the American people as we deal with this health care challenge. Then I will discuss, for the longer term, another bipartisan effort I have had a chance to team up with Senator Hatch on that will be implemented over the next few weeks. But if I might, I would like to start with Medicare. I think Senator Frist is right; these Medicare costs are soaring. For the prescription drug legislation alone, it is clear now the price tag will be in the vicinity of $100 billion more than Congress originally calculated. That is the current estimate. Many have said it will be much greater. I think it is critically important that steps be taken to contain costs, particularly as relates to this fast-growing area that we will be faced with, that is prescription drugs. We all hear about it from our constituents. Every time we are home, folks tell us about how skyrocketing prescription drug costs are such a hardship on them. They want to know what Congress is going to do to respond to it. One of the things I think has been so exacerbating about this issue of cost containment as it relates to prescription drugs is that the Medicare program is not even employing the kind of cost containment tools you see in the private sector. If you are talking, for example, about a big timber company, the Presiding Officer (the Senator from Idaho) and I know big timber firms and other natural resources firms use their bargaining power in order to try to hold down the cost of medicine and other essentials. The Medicare program is not doing that. The Medicare program is not using the kind of bargaining power that exists in the private sector today. In fact, if you are an older person, and you go off and purchase your medicine, either now or even in the future, under many of the plans that will be offered under the new program, you have no bargaining power, and in effect you are subsidizing those big private-sector buyers, whether they are steel firms, timber firms, auto companies, or various other kinds of concerns. I do not think that is right. (Mr. TALENT assumed the chair.)

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to commend Senators Collins and Lieberman for their leadership in working round the clock for months to translate the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission into reality. Thanks to their tireless and bipartisan effort, I and my colleagues today can point to a provision in the intelligence reform bill that will clear the fog of unnecessary secrecy that has for too long clouded our national intelligence picture. As the principal sponsor of this bipartisan provision, which will establish for the first time an appeals procedure that members of Congress may use regarding the classification of materials for national security purposes, I wish to explain how I envision this new process working. The power to classify documents as secret is one of the most powerful tools in American Government, and it seems to be very much in vogue. Over-classification of documents is now the rule rather than the exception. Documents are sometimes classified for political reasons rather than to protect national security interests. Last year alone, the Federal Government spent $6.5 billion creating 14.3 million new classified documents. That is double the number of documents 10 years ago. This awesome power should be used judiciously, and it surely should not be the subject of old fashioned horse trading, as it was last summer during the preparation of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq war intelligence. Last summer the Senate Intelligence Committee, on which I serve with my co-authors, spent more than 6 weeks arm-wrestling with the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, over how much of the report on pre-Iraq war intelligence would be made public. Originally, the agency wanted to black out more than half of the report. In the end, ``only 20 percent'' of the report was blacked out. At that time, there was no independent body to which the committee members could turn to find out what should and should not be classified for national security purposes. That is precisely the problem addressed by the provision crafted by Senators Lott, Bob Graham, Snowe, and myself. Our provision will give Congress for the first time a means of appealing classification decisions. The provision gives Congress the authority to appeal classification decisions to an independent standing body, the Public Interest Declassification Board. This Board is made up of nine members with expertise in national security and related areas; five are appointed by the President and four by the bipartisan leadership of the Senate and House. Under the amendments made by section 1102, when any Member of Congress asks the Board to declassify a document or materials, the Board ``shall advise the originators of the request in a timely manner whether the Board intends to conduct such review.'' This means that if I or another Member of the Senate were to ask the Board to determine whether a document is properly classified for national security purposes, the Board must respond in a timely manner. ``Timely'' is defined as ``early'' or ``soon.'' It is my expectation that whether it is a member of Congress or a committee seeking the Board's decision on the proper classification of information, the Board will get back to the requester expeditiously. I am of the view that the problems in our intelligence community will not be addressed until the problems in the national security classification system are addressed. Thomas Kean, who chaired the 9/11 Commission, said that three-quarters of the classified material he reviewed for the Commission should not have been classified in the first place. Now, as the Senate acts on the conference report that strongly reflects the 9/11 Commission recommendations, it only makes sense to include this provision. I have no illusions that this classification appeals mechanism will abolish the strongly rooted institutional bias in favor of overclassification, but taken in conjunction with the overall review of the standards used to classify information contained in other sections of the conference report, it is a very sound first step. I am grateful to Senator Lott, my principal cosponsor, for championing this matter in conference. He and his staff worked nonstop to preserve this provision. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Bob Graham, another conferee, and his staff to defend our work.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to express my concern regarding a provision included in the Intelligence authorization conference report, which has been included in the intelligence reform legislation before us. I commend the efforts of both Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman Rockefeller for their hard work during the negotiations over this legislation. But I, like the vice chairman, do not support the continued funding of a major acquisition program which is unnecessary, ineffective, over budget, and too expensive. The easier path would be to step aside and let this program continue without dissent. In this case, however, I do not believe the continued funding of this program is the best way to secure our Nation and the safety of our troops and citizens. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has raised concerns about the need and costs of this program for the past 4 years and sought to cancel this program in each of the past 2 years. This has not been a political issue, a Democratic or Republican issue, nor should it be. The members of the Senate committee have supported these efforts in a nonpartisan way with unanimous votes each time. The Senate Intelligence Committee has determined that this program should not be funded based on firm policy judgments. Numerous independent reviews have concluded that the program does not fulfill a major intelligence gap or shortfall, and the original justification for developing this technology has eroded in importance due to the changed practices and capabilities of our adversaries. There are a number of other programs in existence and in development whose capabilities can match those envisioned for this program at far less cost and technological risk. Like almost all other acquisition programs of its size, initial budget estimates have drastically underestimated the true costs of this acquisition and independent cost estimates have shown that this program will exceed its proposed budgets by enormous amounts of money. The Senate Intelligence Committee has also in the past expressed its concern about how this program was to be awarded to the prime contractor. I understand why funding for this program was included in the conference report. The administration requested it, the appropriators have already funded it, and the House wanted to maintain the funding. Nevertheless, I believe this issue must be highlighted because it is not going away. I wish more of my colleagues knew of the details of this program and understood why we are so convinced that it should be canceled. I encourage you to request a briefing, to come to the Intelligence Committee and let our staff explain why we believe we are right about this program. If you do, I believe my colleagues would agree with the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and vote to stop this program next year. I am pleased that the so-called ``lone wolf'' terrorist provision, which had passed the Senate twice since the attacks of 9/11, has been included in the intelligence reform legislation. As all my colleagues who have read the 9/11 Commission Report know, the case of Zacarias Moussauoui--the ``twentieth hijacker''--showed that current law was insufficient to address cases in which a foreign person is suspected of terrorist involvement but had no known connection to a terrorist organization. Current law under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, required that the FBI show that any suspected terrorist must have links to a known foreign terrorist group before the special FISA court would issue an intelligence warrant to surveil or search the suspect. The Senate passed bill made this needed change and included reporting requirements necessary to ensure proper congressional oversight of how this provision was implemented. The bipartisan effort to enact this provision was led by Senators Kyl and Schumer who proved that we can fight terrorism more effectively without giving up our privacy and cherished civil rights. The 9/11 Commission identified the Moussaoui case as one instance where, if things had gone right and with a lucky break here or there, the disastrous attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon may have been delayed, disrupted, or even stopped. I acknowledge the concerns some have expressed regarding the possibility this provision may be misused or unnecessarily extends the reach of the FISA statute. I believe that we can address these concerns with proper congressional oversight of how this authority is used and review of this provision prior to its 2005 sunset.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last May, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Deborah Majoras to be the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. I did so because despite several requests, I had received no assurance from Ms. Majoras that under her leadership, the FTC would take any steps to address anticompetitive practices that drive up gasoline prices nationwide and particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon consumers typically pay some of the highest gasoline prices in the Nation. Today, I received a letter from Ms. Majoras describing how she is moving forward on certain commitments she made to me concerning the FTC's policies for the oil and gasoline industry. In particular, she committed to consult with outside experts to get to the bottom of the differences between the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the FTC on the impacts of the FTC oil merger policies on gasoline prices. Ms. Majoras' letter states that she is working to do this by conducting a public review of the GAO report on the Effects of Mergers and Market Concentration in the U.S. Petroleum Industry. Following that review, Ms. Majoras also promises to share her views with me on the GAO report. Ms. Majoras' letter indicates she is making a good-faith effort to take a fresh look at the issues raised by the GAO report. In light of this and the other actions Ms. Majoras has initiated to get to the bottom of the reasons why consumers in my part of the country are paying such high gasoline prices, I will no longer object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up Ms. Majoras' nomination. I will, however, continue to closely monitor the FTC actions under Ms. Majoras' leadership to ensure gasoline consumers are not overpaying at the pump. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this statement along with Ms. Majoras' letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing today, the Long Term Care Quality and Consumer Information Act. I hope that this bill will spark a serious debate about how we pay for quality care. This proposal establishes a voluntary system under which nursing homes providing better quality of care would receive higher payment and in turn would provide more information about the quality of care provided. Information would include nurse staffing ratios and would be made public to consumers and their families. Historically, Americans have been paying the same for quality health care as for mediocre care. Efforts have been made by some in the private sector to better recognize and incentivize those providers who consistently provide higher level of care. The Institute of Medicine (IOM), in its report ``Leading by Example,'' declared the government should take the lead in improving health care by giving financial rewards to hospitals and doctors who improve care for beneficiaries in six Federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration. The IOM report also said the government should collect and make available to the public data comparing the quality of care among providers. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has begun pilot programs. I think nursing homes should also be an area in which we explore payment policies that regard those providing a higher quality of care. I look forward to continuing the discussion with all stakeholders about these concepts so we can assure a high level of care and find ways to help providers improve the level of care they provide.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing today, the Long Term Care Quality and Consumer Information Act. I hope that this bill will spark a serious debate about how we pay for quality care. This proposal establishes a voluntary system under which nursing homes providing better quality of care would receive higher payment and in turn would provide more information about the quality of care provided. Information would include nurse staffing ratios and would be made public to consumers and their families. Historically, Americans have been paying the same for quality health care as for mediocre care. Efforts have been made by some in the private sector to better recognize and incentivize those providers who consistently provide higher level of care. The Institute of Medicine (IOM), in its report ``Leading by Example,'' declared the government should take the lead in improving health care by giving financial rewards to hospitals and doctors who improve care for beneficiaries in six Federal programs, including Medicare and Medicaid and the Veterans Health Administration. The IOM report also said the government should collect and make available to the public data comparing the quality of care among providers. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has begun pilot programs. I think nursing homes should also be an area in which we explore payment policies that regard those providing a higher quality of care. I look forward to continuing the discussion with all stakeholders about these concepts so we can assure a high level of care and find ways to help providers improve the level of care they provide.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our health care system is structured to cure but often neglects how we die and how to make dying patients and their families more comfortable. Today, I am introducing two bills which I believe will provide better care options for dying patients in our country. The Medicare Hospice Demonstration Act seeks to test ways in which to improve the Medicare hospice benefit, and the Palliative Care Training Act recognizes that we need a larger cadre of health care professionals who know how to help those with terminal illnesses have a better quality of life. Although this Congress made improvements in the Medicare Hospice benefit last year, I believe we need to continue to test new modes of providing hospice care so that more seniors are not only aware of the benefit, but access it when needed. Medicare introduced the hospice program in 1983 as an optional benefit for achieving a ``good death''. This benefit is widely recognized as effective in improving quality of life for terminally ill patients. Hospice programs provide a range of services to control pain and provide comfort care, primarily to individuals in their own homes. In the past decade, the number of Medicare patients receiving hospice care has more than doubled. Today, about 20 percent of patients who die in the United States receive hospice care. However, average lengths of stay in hospice have been dropping. According to the GAO, twenty-eight percent of Medicare patients in the hospice program receive hospice care for one week or less. One reason for this shift in hospice use is patient unwillingness to forego curative care--or to abandon hope despite a terminal diagnosis. The Medicare hospice program pays for medical procedures necessary for pain control and other symptom management, but not those aimed at curing the patient. As a result, many seriously ill patients resist the program because it forces them to make a choice between the hope that there might be a cure and the acceptance that one's life is coming to an end. The Medicare Hospice Demonstration Act would remove this obstacle by permitting patients to seek hospice care as they continue curative treatment. I believe more people would use the hospice benefit and use it in a timely manner so they could get the full benefit of the range of services hospice offers if they did not have to give up hope. I also believe that this concept along with counseling assistance provided by this demonstration project would help the medical community be better able to help patients accept hospice care. The second bill I am introducing, ``The Palliative Care Training Act'', uses the model already in law for other specialities to create a Hospice and Palliative Care Academic Career Award. This award would foster the creation of faculty at our Nation's medical schools to teach palliative care, once the specialty is recognized as a board certified specialty. For some the term ``palliative care'' may be new. Palliative care improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification, assessment, and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual. It neither hastens nor postpones death. This type of care offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible until death and to help the family cope during their loved one's illness and in their own bereavement. In addition, palliative care is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy. No one likes to think about what it will be like at the end of our lives. We rarely have the discussions we need to have with our medical providers about how to help us have a ``good'' death. Much of the fault lies in the way we have structured our health care system. With all that the American health system has to offer, we need to make sure resources are put in place to assure patients and their families better care in their last days. I believe these two bills provide important components to do that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our health care system is structured to cure but often neglects how we die and how to make dying patients and their families more comfortable. Today, I am introducing two bills which I believe will provide better care options for dying patients in our country. The Medicare Hospice Demonstration Act seeks to test ways in which to improve the Medicare hospice benefit, and the Palliative Care Training Act recognizes that we need a larger cadre of health care professionals who know how to help those with terminal illnesses have a better quality of life. Although this Congress made improvements in the Medicare Hospice benefit last year, I believe we need to continue to test new modes of providing hospice care so that more seniors are not only aware of the benefit, but access it when needed. Medicare introduced the hospice program in 1983 as an optional benefit for achieving a ``good death''. This benefit is widely recognized as effective in improving quality of life for terminally ill patients. Hospice programs provide a range of services to control pain and provide comfort care, primarily to individuals in their own homes. In the past decade, the number of Medicare patients receiving hospice care has more than doubled. Today, about 20 percent of patients who die in the United States receive hospice care. However, average lengths of stay in hospice have been dropping. According to the GAO, twenty-eight percent of Medicare patients in the hospice program receive hospice care for one week or less. One reason for this shift in hospice use is patient unwillingness to forego curative care--or to abandon hope despite a terminal diagnosis. The Medicare hospice program pays for medical procedures necessary for pain control and other symptom management, but not those aimed at curing the patient. As a result, many seriously ill patients resist the program because it forces them to make a choice between the hope that there might be a cure and the acceptance that one's life is coming to an end. The Medicare Hospice Demonstration Act would remove this obstacle by permitting patients to seek hospice care as they continue curative treatment. I believe more people would use the hospice benefit and use it in a timely manner so they could get the full benefit of the range of services hospice offers if they did not have to give up hope. I also believe that this concept along with counseling assistance provided by this demonstration project would help the medical community be better able to help patients accept hospice care. The second bill I am introducing, ``The Palliative Care Training Act'', uses the model already in law for other specialities to create a Hospice and Palliative Care Academic Career Award. This award would foster the creation of faculty at our Nation's medical schools to teach palliative care, once the specialty is recognized as a board certified specialty. For some the term ``palliative care'' may be new. Palliative care improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification, assessment, and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual. It neither hastens nor postpones death. This type of care offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible until death and to help the family cope during their loved one's illness and in their own bereavement. In addition, palliative care is applicable early in the course of illness, in conjunction with other therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy. No one likes to think about what it will be like at the end of our lives. We rarely have the discussions we need to have with our medical providers about how to help us have a ``good'' death. Much of the fault lies in the way we have structured our health care system. With all that the American health system has to offer, we need to make sure resources are put in place to assure patients and their families better care in their last days. I believe these two bills provide important components to do that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation regarding the way the trade policies of the United States affect the ability of developing countries to access to generic drugs. The bill addresses concerns that this Administration, through the United States Trade Representative, is pursuing policies that will make it even more difficult for developing countries to gain access to the drugs they need, particularly generics, to treat their public health problems like TB, HIV/AIDS and malaria. This is just wrong. The policies the Administration seeks to put in place are data exclusivity provisions. Such provisions tend to benefit drug manufacturers. As reported in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, when these provisions are included trade agreements they essentially bar countries from being able to get more affordable generic drugs for a period of time, usually five years. Trade agreements should be about promoting trade. People in developing nations who are suffering from such epidemic diseases should not be denied access to affordable medicines because of trade agreements. The purpose of what is known as the Doha Declaration was to clarify that trade rules on intellectual property would not interfere with the ability of developing countries to take measures to protect public health. The legislation I am introducing today would prohibit USTR from spending any funds in order to impose data exclusivity for drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or other epidemics, or needed in circumstances of extreme urgency, or national emergency. I am not one to trample on the need to protect trade secrets, but I cannot condone policies that inhibit developing countries from being able to address their own public health needs. In today's world, it is shortsighted to think that infectious diseases cannot cross borders. By allowing developing countries access to generic drugs, we not only help improve health in those nations, we also help ourselves control these debilitating and often deadly diseases. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation regarding the way the trade policies of the United States affect the ability of developing countries to access to generic drugs. The bill addresses concerns that this Administration, through the United States Trade Representative, is pursuing policies that will make it even more difficult for developing countries to gain access to the drugs they need, particularly generics, to treat their public health problems like TB, HIV/AIDS and malaria. This is just wrong. The policies the Administration seeks to put in place are data exclusivity provisions. Such provisions tend to benefit drug manufacturers. As reported in The Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, when these provisions are included trade agreements they essentially bar countries from being able to get more affordable generic drugs for a period of time, usually five years. Trade agreements should be about promoting trade. People in developing nations who are suffering from such epidemic diseases should not be denied access to affordable medicines because of trade agreements. The purpose of what is known as the Doha Declaration was to clarify that trade rules on intellectual property would not interfere with the ability of developing countries to take measures to protect public health. The legislation I am introducing today would prohibit USTR from spending any funds in order to impose data exclusivity for drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or other epidemics, or needed in circumstances of extreme urgency, or national emergency. I am not one to trample on the need to protect trade secrets, but I cannot condone policies that inhibit developing countries from being able to address their own public health needs. In today's world, it is shortsighted to think that infectious diseases cannot cross borders. By allowing developing countries access to generic drugs, we not only help improve health in those nations, we also help ourselves control these debilitating and often deadly diseases. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in just a couple of weeks, on October 23, a memorial will be erected by villagers and family member at Suhozem, Bulgaria to honor one of our Nation's brave soldiers and one of Oregon's native sons, Lt. Kingsley. Today, I wish to take a few minutes to remember Lt. Kingsley and share his story of great courage and sacrifice. The story of Lt. David Kingsley is emblematic of the strength and pioneering spirit of the earliest Oregonians. Lt. Kingsley was born and raised in Portland, OR and graduated from Benson High School. Prior to enlisting in the Air Force, he worked in the disaster unit of the Portland Fire Bureau--always committed to the service of his community and country. During the Second World War, he went to pilot training, and then served as a bombardier in a B-17F. He was assigned to the 341st Bomb Squadron, 97th Bombardment Group, 15th Air Force. On June 23, 1944, he was on Mission No. 295, flying out of Amendola airfield in Foggia, Italy against the Dacia Oil Refinery in Ploesti, Romania. While on the bombing run, the right wing of his aircraft was hit by enemy fire. His aircraft took 15 strikes, crippling it as it flew over Bulgaria. The attack injured several members of the aircrew, including the tail-gunner. Lt. Kingsley had to remove the tail-gunner's damaged parachute to provide first-aid. An order to bailout was given; the Lieutenant gave his parachute to the injured tail-gunner and reminded him to pull the ripcord. The last airman exiting the crippled aircraft remembers seeing Lt. Kingsley standing in the bomb bay of the plane, making sure all of his fellow crew were out of the plane first. Because of Lt. Kingsley's previous flying experience, he jumped into the pilot's seat and tried to regain control of the aircraft, which descended and circled the field in an attempt to land. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft dive steeply and crash in a field just north of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Lt. Kingsley never got out alive. For his extreme bravery he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. Today, one of the Oregon Air Guard's F-15 units is based in southern Oregon at Kingsley Field, named in Lt. Kingsley's honor. This year marked the 60th anniversary of that fateful day and of Kingsley's heroism. At a time when so many young men and women from Oregon and all across the Nation are fighting overseas, we honor their service. And we must also remember to honor the service of these veterans--some of whom, like Lt. Kingsley, have made the ultimate sacrifice--so that we can live in freedom and continue to pursue our dreams. We do not forget and will not forget them, and we are forever grateful for their honorable service to and sacrifices for our Nation. Sergeant Joshua J. Skvor

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Johnson in introducing the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2004. This legislation is an important milestone for patients and doctors around this country because it would create a centralized clinical trials registry by expanding the current clinical trials.gov website to provide not only information about clinical trials they might want to be part of, but also the results of those trials. If information is not provided so it can be posted on the website, serious penalties could be imposed, including a researcher losing their ability to get future Federal grants. It is vitally important that patients and their doctors have the information they need to decide upon the best treatment for them. As we all know, drugs are often the key treatment for many health problems. Good results about the safety and effectiveness of treatments are often trumpeted by drug companies and the media, but Americans are less likely to hear about clinical trial results that are not so good or truly negative. This legislation will ensure that everyone can get a fair picture of all results of clinical trials. I believe that this legislation strikes the delicate balance needed so that companies which create breakthrough drugs can keep their trade secrets, the important process of assuring peer review in medical literature can continue, and consumers, doctors and researchers can have access to the information they need to make sound decisions about their health care. Research is key in assuring health care improvements. Knowing the results of research is key in assuring better health care quality and improving decision-making by doctors and their patients. I believe that the expanded website created by this legislation will be an important tool in improving doctors' and patients' knowledge and decision-making that might well mean life or death for some patients.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Johnson in introducing the Fair Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2004. This legislation is an important milestone for patients and doctors around this country because it would create a centralized clinical trials registry by expanding the current clinical trials.gov website to provide not only information about clinical trials they might want to be part of, but also the results of those trials. If information is not provided so it can be posted on the website, serious penalties could be imposed, including a researcher losing their ability to get future Federal grants. It is vitally important that patients and their doctors have the information they need to decide upon the best treatment for them. As we all know, drugs are often the key treatment for many health problems. Good results about the safety and effectiveness of treatments are often trumpeted by drug companies and the media, but Americans are less likely to hear about clinical trial results that are not so good or truly negative. This legislation will ensure that everyone can get a fair picture of all results of clinical trials. I believe that this legislation strikes the delicate balance needed so that companies which create breakthrough drugs can keep their trade secrets, the important process of assuring peer review in medical literature can continue, and consumers, doctors and researchers can have access to the information they need to make sound decisions about their health care. Research is key in assuring health care improvements. Knowing the results of research is key in assuring better health care quality and improving decision-making by doctors and their patients. I believe that the expanded website created by this legislation will be an important tool in improving doctors' and patients' knowledge and decision-making that might well mean life or death for some patients.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I, too, rise today to share concerns about the recent NAFTA panel decision. Today, the Canadian share of lumber in the U.S. market is reaching record highs. Canada's practice of dumping subsidized timber in our domestic market continues to wreak havoc on U.S. mills and jobs. My own State of Oregon has been hit especially hard, losing over 3000 jobs in the timber industry since 2002. For years now, my colleagues and I have worked with the International Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Trade Representative to help maintain mill operations and keep jobs in our country. As my colleagues have made clear today, I believe the blatant disregard for U.S. law by the panel will further damage already suffering U.S. timber workers. Moreover, I cannot refrain from adding, as I watch jobs in the timber industry continue to disappear at an alarming rate, I find recent decisions by the administration to lower the duties, as a result of administrative reviews, to be particularly egregious and out of line. These decisions have exacerbated an already terrible crisis, and weakened my confidence in the administration's willingness to help our timber workers. Simply put, I believe it is time to move toward a fix for a system that currently appears to be broken.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Again, I express my appreciation to the chair and ranking minority member. The chair made an important point with respect to the executive branch. Clearly, no President, no executive branch is going to ever hold a rally in favor of this kind of idea. I think the Senator mentioned Senator Lott. Senator Lott has been invaluable from the very beginning. He said we just have to build in-- whether it is Democrats or Republicans--a new sense of independence. I have tried to say that there is no question in my mind, whether it was a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, what you are talking about are human beings who I think inherently are going to be concerned about something coming out. So out comes the stamp and something is marked ``classified,'' and by the time the rubberstamp program is done, you have millions of documents classified in our country for reasons that have nothing to do with national security. The Senator from Maine has summed it up very well. I am sure we are going to continue to hear from the administration as this is debated in the Senate and in the House. I do think we have struck a balance that ensures that by giving the President, in effect, the first word on a classification decision, through their appointees having the ability to classify a Government document and, in effect, the last word on a subject, because the independent board makes the recommendation to the President, if the President decides he doesn't want to go along with the independent board, they get the last word by stating in writing why they think the independent board is off base. I think that is the kind of balance between the executive branch and the legislative branch that we ought to have. What pleases me is tonight this is the end of the line for a classification system that, in effect, encourages secrecy, discourages openness, and I am glad a bipartisan effort could have put all this time into it. I think we will have the amendment over here quickly. With the concurrence of the chair and the ranking minority member, it is not my intent to ask for a recorded vote. I think we can do it on a voice vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to both the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and the chairman of the committee, Senator Collins. As I said on Monday, the Senate is well served by having this bipartisan duo that has long practiced good government steering us on this important piece of legislation. The Senator from Connecticut is absolutely right; the three of us have worked very cooperatively over the last few days. Senator Lott also has made a valuable contribution, as well as Senator Cornyn, Senator Dayton, and Senator Snowe. A bipartisan group of Senators has been concerned about this issue. I believe the legislative counsel's office will have the actual language to bring to the Senate very shortly, probably in 10 or 15 minutes. With the agreement of the Senator from Connecticut, I will take a few minutes to outline what the distinguished Senator from Maine, the Senator from Connecticut, myself, Senator Lott, and our group have agreed to. The ability to stamp a Government document secret is one of the most powerful tools in our Government. The backdrop for this whole debate was best summed up by Governor Kean, who did such a good job in chairing the 9/11 Commission, who said three-quarters of all the documents he saw associated with his work on the 9/11 Commission that were classified should not have been classified. The power to stamp, in effect, Government documents secret is now a power wielded by people in the belly of 18 Federal agencies where they now classify more than 14 million new documents each year. This is a power that costs taxpayers about $6.5 billion a year, and it is a power that is simply out of control. Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize that the system used to classify information for national security purposes is broken. It has been the premise of our bipartisan group that it is possible to fight terrorism ferociously, aggressively, and at the same time make sure that the public's right to know information the public is entitled to is addressed. When we look, for example, at the Senate Intelligence Committee-- Senator Lott, Senator Snowe, Senator Bayh and I serve on that committee--had it not been for the exceptional work of Chairman Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, much of what we tried to do with respect to our bipartisan report on prewar intelligence would have simply been censored. It would have all been drowned in a sea of black ink. So what we need to do is bring some common sense to this area which is now a hodgepodge of laws and regulations and directives. We are now in a position to outline the changes we have agreed to in our legislation. First--most importantly--this legislation establishes an independent body known as the independent national security classification board which would review existing or proposed classification of any document or material. They would, in effect, be part of an effort for the first time to ensure that there would be an independent board to which there can be an appeal of classification decisions. Although right now an executive agency has had an appeals body, it has been off limits to congressional requests. For the first time, there will be an independent board that will look at these classification issues and there will be a right of the Congress to appeal a decision. The distinguished chair of the committee was not on the floor, but I want to express while she is here my appreciation to her. What this has been all about from the very beginning is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This has been about righting the imbalance between the executive branch and the legislative branch with respect to classification decisions. That is what we have been able to do. It ensures that any President's prerogatives as Commander in Chief are maintained. That is essential with respect to national security issues. We will also have a chance to bring some real independence to the process of how Government documents are classified by ensuring that for the first time there is an independent route to have a classification decision reviewed. That process will come after we have had a top-to-bottom review of the standards and processes used to classify information. The chair of the committee and I have talked about this in the past. What has been striking is we have never even done a review of the processes that are now used to classify documents. People such as those who run the National Archives have said that has been a factor in our having such a chaotic system. So for the first time, again, Congress would have input into the scope of the review that would take place with respect to how Government documents are classified as well as the guidelines or standards that would be issued as a result of the review. The independent national security classification board the amendment establishes would assume the duties of a group now known as the public interest declassification board. The new board would be made up of nine individuals, five of whom are appointed by the President and four of whom are appointed by the Senate and the House leadership. This is an effort to try to maintain a new kind of balance between the legislative branch and the executive branch. In order to make sure that balance is maintained over time, the new board may recommend changes in the classification of all or portions of documents, but the President does not have to accept them. However, the key feature here is, if the President chooses not to accept a recommendation of the independent national security classification board, the President would have to submit to Congress in writing the justification for a decision not to implement the recommendation. To reiterate, there would be an independent body to which Congress can appeal national security classification decisions, but at the same time, if the President doesn't see it in the same way the independent board does, the President, as Commander in Chief, still has the power to exercise the constitutional prerogative as the President determines, but for the first time it would have to be done in writing. I do not subscribe to the view that there is an inherent conflict between the executive branch's accountability to Congress and the American people on one hand and the constitutional role of the President as Commander in Chief. We have long needed a balance in this area, a balance between the public's need for sound, clear-eyed analysis, and the executive's desire to protect the Nation's legitimate security interests. In my view, there is no room in this equation for the use of classification to insulate officials and agencies from politics. That was essentially the motivation that got Senator Lott and Senator Snowe and a bipartisan group of us in the first place. We have seen this abused again and again. Senator Moynihan did exceptional work years ago, documenting how so many documents have been classified largely because they were trying to provide political cover rather than protection for this country's national security. Senator Moynihan was a mentor to me because when I came to the Senate, I said I was interested in making changes. Senator Collins has been very helpful. She has also been helpful on some of the other issues we will take up in the course of this legislation, particularly the data mining area, where she and Senator Lieberman have a great interest as well. But Senator Lott, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Cornyn, Senator Snowe-- the group who worked on this issue--are very appreciative of the help we received from the chair and the ranking minority member. This amendment involves millions of Government documents. It involves more than $6 billion that is spent on the classification system each year. I think we are starting now to lift this kind of fog of secrecy-- changing a classification system that rewards secrecy and discourages openness. We will have the amendment actually before the Senate probably in a few minutes. In the interest of time--I know the hour is late and Senators have amendments--I wanted to speak about this, and I wanted to describe what it was that we have agreed to. Senator Collins's staff and Senator Lieberman's staff have put in a lot of hours with us over the last few days. I am very appreciative and particularly pleased that it would be possible to make these kinds of changes. Senator Moynihan was right years ago when he advocated a process that brought some real independence and a right of appeal to a classification decision. The amendment we will offer tonight does just that. I see the distinguished chairman of the committee in the Chamber. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, first I express my thanks to Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman for their help. They always go out of their way to help me and I am very appreciative of it. My only substantive point, because we are going to work very closely, touches on the matter that our distinguished Chair made with respect to the executive branch having concerns about this issue. Every executive branch, whether it be controlled by Democrats or Republicans, will be concerned about this issue. What troubles the four of us is, whether a Democrat is President or a Republican is President, is that there are employees who can take a big old stamp, mark something ``secret,'' and then there is no independent review at all. That has been abused, in our view, on a bipartisan basis. It has been abused by administrations when they were run by Democrats. It has been abused when there have been administrations run by Republicans. What the four Senators seek to do--now five, with the gracious help of the distinguished Senator from Texas--we seek to strike a balance between the President and the Congress. What I say to the distinguished chairman of the committee, who makes a good point as to the executive branch, as the four of us talked about this issue--Senator Lott, Senator Snowe, Senator Graham, and myself--we felt we would give the President, the executive branch, the first word and the last word on an issue with respect to classification. It is possible under our bipartisan proposal for a President to have the last word with respect to whether a document is classified. What we do, consistent with that principle, is allow for a broad swath of congressional involvement in between the President having the first word and the last word. I only say to the distinguished chair of the committee, I will work very closely with you and Senator Lieberman. My guess is we can never make the executive branch completely happy on this issue, whether it is controlled by a Democrat or controlled by a Republican. It is in the public interest now to strike a better balance with respect to how Government documents are classified with respect to the Congress and the President. We do that by giving the President the first word and the last word. But without any opportunity for congressional appeal, what we will have is what Senator Moynihan started talking about years ago, which is that in every executive branch, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, people in these agencies in the belly of some building somewhere will keep stamping stuff secret because there is no independent review. It is just in the political interests of those people to do it. I look forward to working with my colleagues. They have been very kind. I see the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee. My involvement in this issue really stems from the superb work Senator Graham has done. I hope everyone buys his book in hardback. It is a wonderful piece of scholarship with respect to intelligence. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. And then one of our cosponsors, the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, wants to speak on behalf of the bill, as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Cornyn of Texas be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I could take perhaps an additional 2 minutes to make a quick comment.

Mr. WYDEN. Without turning this into a bouquet-tossing contest, I will say how lucky I think we are to have Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, who have long practiced good government, handling this legislation. This is going to be a long and arduous task and to have this bipartisan duet at the helm is what is going to make this possible. I have enjoyed working with them on this and so many other issues in the past. We are going to get this done. The country is going to be safer and stronger for it, and I am very grateful for the work of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Connecticut. Governor Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said three- quarters of the classified material he reviewed for the Commission should not have been classified in the first place. I think Governor Kean's comments reflect the state of where we are with respect to how Government documents are classified today, and it is for that reason that a bipartisan coalition has spent a considerable amount of time on the Intelligence Committee. Senator Lott and Senator Snowe and I serve there now. Senator Bob Graham, of course, chaired the committee, and the four of us, two Democrats, two Republicans, have teamed up so as to try to make sure that in this important reform legislation some common sense is brought to the way that information is classified for national security purposes. The ability to make documents secret is one of the most powerful tools in our Government. It is a power wielded generously by those in 18 agencies that deal with intelligence. My concern is that the Senate could spend weeks debating flowcharts and organizational changes and moving the boxes around with respect to where people in the intelligence community sit, but if the underlying way in which information is classified is not reformed, it is going to be very hard to make information sharing throughout the intelligence community effective. Very little will have been accomplished if information continues to be classified for purposes of protecting somebody's political career rather than our national security or if classification decisions continue to deprive the American people of their ability to judge the effectiveness of their Government on national security matters. The 9/11 Commission report says the need to restructure the intelligence community grows out of six problems. One of them, the Commission says at page 410, is that, in their words, ``The intelligence community is too complex and secret.'' The Commission states: Over the decades, the agencies and the rules surrounding the intelligence community have accumulated to a depth that practically defies public comprehension. . . . Even the most basic information about how much money is actually allocated to or within the intelligence community and most of its key components is shrouded from public view. The bipartisan amendment Senator Lott, Senator Bob Graham, Senator Snowe, and I offer today is premised on the belief that it is time to clear the fog of secrecy and that it is possible to do that so as to protect this country's national security. Our legislation establishes a three-person board with the President and the bipartisan leadership in the House and Senate each recommending one member, subject to Senate confirmation. Our board would have two tasks: first, to review and make recommendations on the standards and processes used to classify information for national security purposes, and, second, to serve as a standing body to act on congressional and certain executive branch requests to reexamine how a Government document has been classified. As entities, from the traditional intelligence community to the Environmental Protection Agency, now have the power to classify documents, the board would look at national security classification across our Government. Its creation would give the Congress, for the first time, an independent body to which it can appeal a national security classification decision. President Truman noted that the Nation's primary intelligence agency, the CIA, was created, ``for the benefit and convenience of the President.'' But the United States cannot preserve an open and democratic society when one branch of Government has a totally free hand to shut down access to information. The lack of an independent appeals process for Congress, in terms of the view of the four of us, two Democrats and two Republicans, tips the scale too far toward secrecy for any administration, and our bipartisan group of four Senators seeks to correct that imbalance. The 1946 Atomic Energy Act established the principle that some information is born classified. There are certainly important sources and pieces of information that must never be compromised. But over the years, millions and millions of documents that weren't born classified have inherited or adopted or married into a classification. Keeping information secret for political purposes or horse trading intelligence data, especially during this critical time, a time of heightened security, is unacceptable. Our Government must begin to be more accountable to its citizens. Having all appropriate information about national security is essential to Congress's congressionally prescribed oversight role. Access to information about their own security is the people's right. It is time to stop hiding the facts they deserve to know. Our bipartisan proposal does just that in a fashion that protects America's national security. According to the late Senator Moynihan, who was an expert on secrecy in Government: . . . much of the structure of secrecy now in place in the U.S. Government took shape in just 11 weeks, in the spring of 1917, while the Espionage Act was debated and signed into law. Eighty years later, Senator Moynihan would note that 6,610,154 secrets were created in just 1 year alone. In fact, only a small portion, or 1.4 percent, was created pursuant to statutory authority, the Atomic Energy Act. Senator Moynihan labeled the other 98.6 percent ``pure creatures of bureaucracy,'' created via Executive orders. The Secrecy Report Card issued in August by a coalition of groups including the American Society of Newspaper Editors found the American Government spent $6.5 billion last year creating 14 million new classified documents. This is a 60-percent increase in secrets since 2001. These numbers do not even include CIA documents. The Secrecy Report Card also points out that agencies are becoming more creative in their classification systems. In addition to the traditional ``Limited Official Use,'' ``Secret'' and ``Top Secret,'' some agencies now have something called ``Sensitive Security Information,'' ``Sensitive Homeland Security Information,'' ``Sensitive But Unclassified,'' or ``For Official Use Only.'' It has gotten to the point where Mr. William Leonard of the National Archives Information Security Office--the gentleman who oversees classification and declassification policies; he is known to some as the secrecy czar--believes that the system defies logic in many respects. He has called today's classification system ``a patchwork quilt'' that is a result of ``a hodgepodge of laws, regulations and directives.'' In reality, the Federal Government has so many varieties of classification that it can make Heinz look modest. In Mr. Leonard's view, the classification system for national system has lost touch with the basics to the point that some agencies don't know how much information they classify or whether they are classifying more or less than they once did or whether they are classifying too much or too little. The executive branch exerts almost total control over what should or should not be classified. The Congress has no ability to declassify material. So there is no self-correcting mechanism in the system. Even if Members of Congress wish to share information with constituents, it is so complicated for the Congress to release information to the public that no one has ever tried to use this convoluted process. The executive branch has a little-known group that can review classification issues, but it is seldom used and open only to executive branch employees and not to Members of Congress. What all this means in practice is that with the thump of a stamp marked ``Secret'' some unelected person in the belly of a Federal building has prevented Americans from gaining access to information. That decision cannot be appealed, even by the Congress. There is no independent review of classification decisions by the executive branch. With no chance of unbiased review, classification decisions are ready and ripe for abuse. Agencies wishing to hide their flaws and politicians--and I emphasize this, Mr. President--of both political parties who wish to make political points can abuse the classification guidelines to their advantage. And four Senators, two Democrats and two Republicans, wish to change that. I, for one, do not subscribe to the view that there is an inherent conflict between the executive branch's accountability to Congress and the American people on the one hand and the constitutional role of the President as Commander in Chief on the other. I believe that a balance can and must be struck between the public's need for sound, clear-eyed analysis and executive desire to protect the Nation's legitimate security interests. I believe we can fight terrorism ferociously without limiting the rights of our citizens to information. That is what the sponsors of this legislation seek to do. There should be no room in this equation I have described for the use of classification to insulate officials and agencies from political pressure. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have had lengthy discussions with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis about how to strike such a balance. It is the view of Senator Lott, Senator Graham, Senator Snowe, and I that in proposing this amendment we have an opportunity to make the broad overhaul of the national security classification system and to do it in a way that will strengthen the overall reform effort that the Senate is working on. Finally, the independent board would review and make recommendations on overhauling the standards and process used in the classification system for national security information. The board then submits proposed new standards and processes to both Congress and the executive branch for comment and review. It would then implement the new standards and processes once there has been full opportunity by the executive branch to comment. The board would then begin on an ongoing basis to implement a system, continue to review and make recommendations on current and new national security classifications subject to executive branch veto that must be accompanied by a public, written explanation. The balance in this legislation ensures that the public and the Congress have access to an independent board for national security matters while ensuring that the Commander in Chief maintain the constitutional prerogative that the Commander in Chief must have with respect to military and foreign policy matters. For far too long, the executive branch has adhered to the motto, ``When in doubt classify.'' Withholding information to protect political careers and entrenched bureaucracies is a disservice to the American people. It is a perversion of a policy intended to save lives, a perversion that weakens our democracy, and one that could even endanger our people. It is time to throw open the curtains and let the sun shine on American democracy and on the governmental processes we utilize today. That is what this amendment does. I see both the chairman and ranking member in the Chamber. Both of them have had an opportunity to see this amendment. I know both of them have a lot on their plates as we try to deal with this important legislation. I think I can speak for Senator Lott, Senator Bob Graham, and Senator Snowe in saying we are anxious to work with the two of them. I know staff has some ideas, some of which strike me as very good, for ways in which we can improve this legislation. I wrap up only by way of saying that I think, with the excellent work they have already done as relates to the organizational structure and the flowcharts and all of the things that we are going to be debating over the next, I hope, few weeks rather than months--but I only say that to maximize the changes which will be made organizationally--we need to find a new way to strike a balance between protecting the country's national security and the people's right to know. I think that balance is out of whack today. If you look, for example, even at the exceptional work done by Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller with our committee's report on the Iraq situation with respect to intelligence, had Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller not dug in as aggressively as they have, my sense is that well over 50 percent of that report would have been classified. In fact, the most important sections would literally receive black ink. We have to do better. I think we can do it on a bipartisan basis. I think doing it will ensure that the important work Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman are steering the Senate to will be better. I am anxious to work with both of them and staff. They have both been very gracious as always. I know my cosponsors join me in saying that as we look at various ways to refine this, we are anxious to continue to work in a bipartisan way. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Lott, Senator Bob Graham, and Senator Snowe.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending McCain amendment.