Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I think if you walked down the streets of the small towns in North Carolina or Oregon and asked people what the ``secret hold'' is in the Senate, my guess is you would not find one out of a thousand people who would have any idea what this extraordinarily important rule is here in the Senate. As the President knows, it is possible for any Member of this body to put a hold on a bill or nomination, and do it in secret. It is one of the most extraordinary powers a Member of the Senate has. Senator Grassley and I have led, over more than 5 years, a bipartisan effort to try to change it, to have some sunlight over the secret hold. We have been fortunate to have the support of Senator Lott and Senator Dodd. Senator Byrd has been exceptionally helpful on it. I am very hopeful that we will finally get this changed when the Senate resumes in January, after the election. Senator Frist has been very kind meeting with us. He, of course, became the leader and had a lot on his plate besides the question of reform of Senate rules. But we saw again last week why this is so important. Right in front of the desks here in the front of our Chamber, we saw Senators scurrying around, trying to figure out who had a hold on their bill; who, in effect, was using in these last few days of our proceeding with our work before the election, who was holding up legislation they had worked on for months, and in a couple of cases, for years. I think this is fundamentally wrong. The rules of this body and the precedents established, as Senator Byrd has taught us so well, make so much sense. But this is a flagrant example of abuse of the rules, to have in the last few days of a Senate session Senators scurrying about here in the front of the Chamber, trying to figure out who is objecting to something they have worked on. I think we all ought to be held accountable. If you object to a nomination or a piece of legislation, fine. But with that right should come accountability. I am very hopeful we can get those rules changed. And in the spirit of changing those rules, Senator Grassley and I have said we are in effect going to jump-start the process by making it clear that if we have an objection to the consideration of a nomination or a bill, we are going to come to the floor and announce it. For that reason, I want to take a few minutes and outline why I publicly have placed a hold on the nomination of Deborah Majoras to chair the Federal Trade Commission. She now serves in a recess capacity. Of course, the FTC is the agency that is in a very strong position to protect the American consumer from price gouging at the gas pumps. But instead of doing its job, the Federal Trade Commission, in my view, has chosen to waste the taxpayers' money by very recently issuing a self-serving report that they use to justify their lack of enforcement action to block oil companies from merging. In making these comments, I want to make it clear that there are a host of reasons why gasoline prices are going up. Worldwide demand is certainly a big factor. We see that higher demand is contributing to higher prices, particularly in the case of China. Certainly the mischief of OPEC is a very significant factor. Certainly the inability to put in place the kind of conservation practices our country needs in the transportation sector. There are a host of reasons why gasoline prices have soared. But the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), our independent body that audits these kinds of issues, said in an important recent study that the oil industry mergers the Federal Trade Commission keeps approving are a significant factor in why gasoline prices are so high. In fact, the GAO found that the oil industry mergers that went through in the 1990s increased concentration in the oil industry significantly and increased gasoline prices for consumers by as much as 7 cents per gallon on the west coast of the United States. Let us acknowledge there are a variety of reasons that gasoline prices have soared. But the GAO has found in an independent review that the policies of the Federal Trade Commission with respect to mergers have hammered the consumer, especially on the west coast of the United States, and in effect caused a shift of dollars out of the pockets of the consumer and into the pockets of those oil companies that benefit from these mergers. In effect, the Federal Trade Commission again and again has tried to offer excuses for their inaction on this oil company merger issue. In their recent report, the Federal Trade Commission tries to excuse their inaction by claiming that gasoline prices at the pump are determined by world oil prices. Again, no one disputes that can be a factor. But the record shows there is a lot more to this than the Federal Trade Commission's simplistic analysis. Yesterday, for example, the price of a barrel of oil soared to $49 per barrel, just short of the all-time highest price on record. Yesterday's price is 15 percent higher than the price of oil was just before the Memorial Day weekend. In effect, there is a 25-percent difference in recent gasoline prices that cannot be explained by the Federal Trade Commission's simplistic analysis. Clearly, there is a lot more going on in U.S. gasoline markets than can be accounted for by world oil prices alone. In the hearings we held in the Commerce Committee, I have repeatedly cited the need on a bipartisan basis to make the case for why we need the Federal Trade Commission to do a better job of watchdogging these oil company mergers and protecting the consumer against anticompetitive practices. I have asked repeatedly about this new study from the GAO. I have asked about the fact that the FTC issued a report which I think vastly oversimplifies the reasons why gasoline prices are so high and is an excuse to look the other way on this issue of oil company mergers. But the GAO is not alone in documenting how the Federal Trade Commission regulators have been missing in action when it comes to protecting the American consumer at the gas pump. Since 2001, according to Bloomberg News, oil industry mergers totaling $19.5 billion have been unchallenged by the Federal Trade Commission. Bloomberg reports also that these unchecked mergers have played a role in contributing to the highest gasoline prices in the past few decades. According to our review and the Federal Trade Commission's own records, the agency imposed no conditions on 28 of 33 oil mergers since 2001. You can see the result of the Federal Trade Commission's inaction on this issue at gas stations in Oregon and across the country. Nationwide, the GAO found that between 1994 and 2002, gasoline market concentration increased in all but four States. As a result of Federal Trade Commission merger policies, 46 State gasoline markets now face significant concentration which is almost double what we faced in 1994. The Federal Trade Commission, oil industry officials, and consumer groups in effect now agree that in concentrated gasoline markets--and there are 46 gasoline markets, and I represent one of those markets-- the oil companies do not need to go out and directly collude in order to raise prices. They don't need to go off to a steakhouse somewhere and sit down and in effect set the prices. The Federal Trade Commission's own general counsel said recently: It may be possible in selected markets for individual firms to unilaterally increase their prices. So what you have is the Federal Trade Commission's general counsel in effect admitting that the oil companies in these concentrated markets have so much clout that in specific instances, they can price gouge with impunity. Despite all of the evidence that gasoline markets around the country have become concentrated, and in these concentrated markets, individual firms can raise prices and extract monopoly profits, the Federal Trade Commission sits on its hands. The General Accounting Office, in a May 2004 report, identified two major changes that even occurred in the gasoline market as a result of the wave of oil industry mergers and increased concentration during the 1990s. First, the availability of generic gasoline, which is generally lower priced than branded gasoline, had decreased substantially. Second, refiners now preferred to deal with large distributors and retailers which has motivated further consolidation in distributor and retail markets. The net results of these changes are likely to be higher prices and fewer choices for consumers when they purchase gasoline, especially in the concentrated markets. We have seen almost a doubling of the markets that are concentrated in recent years. Despite the troubling findings of the General Accounting Office's report, Deborah Majoras has given no indication that she would in any way change the Federal Trade Commission's review of oil mergers. My sense is that Ms. Majoras hopes the General Accounting Office report disappears, that somehow Members of the Senate, who are busy and have lots of assignments, are going to go on to other things and are going to forget about this report which documents that the policies of the Federal Trade Commission are hammering the people I represent in Oregon and up and down the west coast. As far as I could tell, when she is not trying to ignore the General Accounting Office report, she has taken steps to discredit the work of the General Accounting Office as she did in a letter to me. An additional reason for my concern is that at virtually every opportunity, Deborah Majoras passes on the opportunity to even use her office as a bully pulpit to say that she is concerned about this issue. When she came for her confirmation hearings, she didn't even mention high gasoline prices among the issues she thought warranted consideration in her opening statement. She didn't provide one significant new action she would take to address this urgent consumer issue. On August 16, Ms. Majoras received a recess appointment, and in the weeks since her recess appointment, there is no evidence that anything is going to change. As far as I can tell, the evidence indicates the campaign of inaction on competitive prices in the gasoline markets will continue. For example, Deborah Majoras announced that her priority as Federal Trade Commissioner is going to be involved in the national campaign on obesity. Well, I don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of fighting this problem. In fact, Senator Frist and I have introduced legislation directed at the growing problem of childhood obesity. I hope Deborah Majoras will testify at the hearing to be held the first week in October on the Frist-Wyden legislation to tackle this serious problem of obesity. But I come to the floor to say one reason I will continue the public hold I have on the Majoras appointment is that as she works on the important issue of obesity, she also needs to turn her attention to those oil companies feeding off American consumers' hard-earned money. As far as we know today, on her watch it is going to be business as usual in the gasoline market, with more oil company mergers, more concentration of oil and gas industries and higher gasoline prices for consumers at the pump. In my view, it is hard to find a more important consumer protection issue that the Federal Trade Commission has a responsibility for than overseeing competitive prices in our gasoline markets. High gasoline prices act like a tax on the consumers that reduces their purchasing power. On average, gasoline prices are 20 cents a gallon higher than they were at this time last year. These higher prices mean a typical family is spending $600 more this year to fill the gas tanks in their car than they were a year ago. Despite the urging that I and other colleagues have done, it has been hard to see the administration take any action to give the consumer a break from these record-high gasoline prices they have been paying throughout the year. I think it is interesting that there was a new development with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the last 24 hours. In the last 24 hours, the administration announced it is negotiating to provide loans of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at the request of oil refiners to help keep their refineries supplied because of shortages of crude oil supplies in the Gulf of Mexico following the recent hurricanes. I want to be clear. If there are significant supply shortages that can be relieved by the release of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil, then I am all for making that oil available. That is what the Strategic Reserve was created to address. But I think it needs to be pointed out that this administration has a double standard with respect to using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They are willing to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help big companies when they are in a jam, but they are not willing to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help the little guy when the little guy is getting clobbered. So I very much hope we will see a change in the administration's policies with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let's use it when we need to help companies, which seems to be the case with respect to the situation in the Gulf following the recent hurricanes. But let us not have a double standard that says we will use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to help the big and powerful and sit on our hands when the little guy is getting hammered. Let me close simply with one last point with respect to the role of the Federal Trade Commission. I intend to keep the public hold on the Majoras appointment for as long as it takes, until that time when we see changes at the agency that will promote competition in our gasoline markets. Ms. Majoras has given no indication at her confirmation hearing or since then that she is going to change the Federal Trade Commission's oil companies' merger policies, which the GAO found in an independent review have increased gasoline prices for consumers. Ms. Majoras didn't even believe high gasoline prices were enough of a problem for consumers to mention them in her opening statement at the confirmation hearings. When I and others pressed her at the hearing to say what she would do to protect consumers from higher gasoline prices, we were not given one example of how to address this urgent issue. She subsequently offered the committee a blueprint for inaction. Out of seven so-called commitments she wanted to make, three are a continuation of the status quo, and three essentially are public relations activities. Only one would involve something new--an investigation of a refinery closure using a subpoena, which is sort of like sending a search party after a horse that was turned loose years ago. Since her recess appointment more than 4 weeks ago, Ms. Majoras has made it clear that protecting consumers from getting gouged at the gas pump is simply not a priority. For these reasons, I have placed a public hold on the Majoras nomination. I intend to continue to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to consider this nomination, until we see that there are going to be some changes at the Federal Trade Commission to protect gasoline consumers, particularly the ones I represent on the west coast of the United States, who are now getting mugged at the gas pump. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in beginning my comments, I first want to commend the chairman, Senator Roberts, for the way in which he conducted the hearing. He was eminently fair. I believe I had five rounds of questions myself for the nominee, and I want to express my appreciation to the chairman for the way he conducted the hearings, and also express my thanks to Senator Rockefeller. His leadership on the committee has been invaluable to me. I also want to commend the vice chairman for an excellent statement this afternoon, much of which I agree with, as he knows. Porter Goss is a good man and a good Congressman, but his long record of supporting business-as-usual intelligence policies is not good enough to warrant his appointment as CIA Director at this dangerous hour. Mr. Goss showed that on his watch, as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he passed on virtually every opportunity to move aggressively for reform. His commitment to public service is unquestioned, but his unwillingness to displease the powerful to force change in our intelligence community is unfortunate. In the committee, there were three major areas that came up as we sought to evaluate the nominee. The first, as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has talked about today, has been the issue of partisanship. The second area at which the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, looked at some length, was the question of the nominee's ability to objectively analyze intelligence. The third was the area that I focused on, which was why the nominee has been so slow to push aggressively for intelligence reform. I have come to the conclusion that it is possible--and we have all tried, as the Senator from West Virginia has said, to give one the benefit of the doubt in these various areas. I have come to the conclusion that I can give the nominee the benefit of the doubt on the issue of partisanship. I can give the nominee the benefit of the doubt with respect to his pledge to be objective in analyzing intelligence. But I just cannot get over the answers we were given during almost 9 hours of hearings with respect to why the nominee was so slow to be an agent for change in the intelligence community. It is really that leadership that I find so central. I have tried, as a member of the committee, to be as bipartisan as I possibly can. We understand politics should stop at our borders. We all stand ready to put in place the policies necessary to protect America's security, but to do that we need leadership. I and others try to be bipartisan. Senator Lott, Senator Snowe, Senator Graham, and others sought, for example, to change the way Government documents are classified. I think that is an important issue, to make the right structural changes in intelligence. But if we do not get the right information, information consistent with national security and not classified for political purposes, we are still going to have problems making reforms in the intelligence area. I want to be bipartisan. I listened carefully to the questions that were asked in the committee, good questions by Senator Rockefeller, and I am willing to give the nominee the benefit of the doubt with respect to the partisanship issue. But I will tell you, the answers that we were given with respect to why it took the nominee so long to push for changes in the intelligence community still leave me unconvinced. For example, at one point in our hearings the nominee told me it was difficult to get attention to the issues of intelligence on his watch. He said the reason he had not introduced legislation is that people were not focused on it; it was hard to get people's attention. Let's think about what happened in those years when we evaluate the nominee's response on that question. Porter Goss was chairman of the Intelligence Committee in 1998 when al-Qaida bombed our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He was chairman of the Intelligence Committee in 1999 when the United States was investigating allegations of Chinese theft of our nuclear materials. He was chairman of the Intelligence Committee when the USS Cole was bombed by al-Qaida in October of 2000. And, of course, he was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when we faced 9/11. It took him nearly 3 years to introduce reform legislation after 9/ 11. I believe that is not good enough. I believe a chairman of a key committee can get attention when that chairman wants to use that chairmanship as a bully pulpit to be an agent for change. I believe a chairman who is committed to intelligence reform has the chance, when he bangs his gavel, to speak out for why changes are needed. A leader must lead. We all get election certificates, in the U.S. Congress, to try to tackle problems, important problems, but chairmen have a special opportunity. If you look at the long record--and he said the record is the record--the nominee passed on virtually every opportunity to use his bully pulpit, to use his gavel, and to work for the kind of changes that would make this country as safe as necessary. We, all of us, understand it takes courage to rock the boat. It takes courage to be an agent for bold change. But if you want an example of an individual who did it, an individual who is a prominent Republican, you need look no further than former New Jersey Governor Tom Kean and his performance as the Chair of the 9/11 Commission. This stalwart Republican made truth his only goal. He pressed Republicans and Democrats alike to do the same. He was more successful and has already begun to engineer more change than hardly anybody thought possible in this fractured political climate. What a boon it would have been, had we had the same commitment to change on the issue of intelligence, intelligence reform, by the current nominee to head the CIA. The current nominee had a front row seat during all those years, the years I outlined when those terrible acts of terrorism occurred, when he could have pushed for reform. Yet after weeks of going through the nominee's record and 2 full days of questioning, I am hard pressed to find anywhere--in a bill, a vote, or an inquiry--anything that demonstrates the nominee will hold people accountable, for example, rather than just going along with the status quo. The record shows, to me, again and again, the nominee chose to play it safe rather than take the risks necessary to bring about change in the intelligence community. When I looked at Mr. Goss's record, the first question that occurred to me was could he give us some examples, some concrete examples of when he was willing to stand up, to go against the popular wisdom and even his own party to bring about change; whether he was willing to take the far less dangerous risks that we take as Congressmen and elected officials than lots of other people do, certainly those wearing the uniform. Right now, we need somebody to head the CIA who is willing to stand up, who is willing to help this country come up with policies that leave the Cold War mentality behind--those are fit for a very different kind of threat--and to hold himself and others accountable. Mr. Goss has a long, distinguished career as a Member of Congress. I know him personally. I served with him in the other body. It would be hard to find a more decent individual. I will say there are very few jobs in the Government of our country at which I don't think Porter Goss would do a good job. But being effective here on Capitol Hill and in other parts of the Government is not where I set the bar for this key appointment. The bar ought to be set very high because we know we have great challenges ahead of us. For example, I have come to the conclusion that on the intelligence reform legislation we, hopefully, will be dealing with on the floor of the Senate shortly, it may not be the structural problems that are our greatest challenge in improving intelligence and making our country safer. I think there is more to it than moving the boxes around on an organizational chart with respect to intelligence. I think this is as much a people problem as a structural problem. If you are going to solve those problems, in the area of people, human interaction, you have to have leadership, you have to have somebody who is willing to stick his or her neck out. That is where I set the bar. I think the long record and the questions I asked established beyond a doubt that Porter Goss is a good man. He has been a good legislator. But there simply is no evidence that he is willing to rock the boat in the intelligence community, which I think is necessary to make this country as safe as it needs to be. For that reason I join the distinguished vice chairman of our committee in opposing the nomination. Like the vice chairman, I am very hopeful I will be proved wrong. As I said, on the issue of partisanship, on the issue of objectivity of analysis, I give the nominee the benefit of the doubt. With respect to his willingness to fight aggressively for bold change, I remain unconvinced. For that reason I will oppose the nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, next week, September 12 through 18, is the tenth annual National Assisted Living Week. The theme this year is ``Caring for Our Heritage,'' and encourages residents, families, staff and the community to share their heritage as a means of understanding the diverse backgrounds that form a community and our Nation. Beginning annually on Grandparents' Day, this honorary week spotlights the role played by assisted living professionals in caring for the nearly one million of our Nation's elderly and disabled. Assisted living provides a home-like environment in which individuals who do not need the level of care provided by nursing homes receive help in order to continue to live independently. The need for this approach will only grow as our Nation ages. I am pleased that my State of Oregon has been a leader in developing the assisted living concept. Caregivers in assisted living are central to this evolution in care and are key to assuring its success by providing support to both residents and families. National Assisted Living Week was created in 1995 by the National Center for Assisted Living. This year, for the first time, it is being celebrated in conjunction with the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging and the Assisted Living Federation of America. National Assisted Living Week emphasizes the importance of this service which has grown 50 percent nationally in the last 5 years.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2004 is a momentous year for wilderness in Oregon. It marks the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 20th anniversary of the Oregon Wilderness bill from 1984. But perhaps most importantly, 2004 marks the bicentennial of the single most important exploratory committee ever to be launched by this Federal government: the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I can see no better way to mark this auspicious year than by enacting a new Oregon Wilderness bill, the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2004,'' which includes, in tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of five free- flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. In the last few years, some of Oregon's most important treasures have been Congressionally protected: Steens Mountain is now home to 170,000 acres of Wilderness; the Little Sandy watershed is now part of the Bull Run Management Unit and will help provide drinking water for over 700,000 Oregonians; Soda Mountain has been designated a National Monument; and the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial has been expanded and is the subject of legislation under consideration by this august body, as I speak, to make it Oregon's second National Park. The wilderness bill I introduce today continues to encapsulate, as did the draft wilderness proposal that I floated on this subject in March of this year, the wish of the people in my State to protect but also actively relate to her treasures. Thousands of Oregonians responded to my draft proposal--far more than I ever could have expected. As a result, this is their bill more than it is my bill. Mount Hood and the Columbia Gorge must be protected because the people of Oregon love these areas, they are proud of these areas, and they are demanding that we come together to protect Oregon's treasures for this and future generations. The people of Oregon helped write this bill, and I believe the people of Oregon on a bipartisan basis will be the ones who help get it passed and signed by the President. This bill I introduce today protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests symbolize the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors. But the bill I introduce today differs in many ways from the draft proposal because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing 4 months. I received thousands of comments on the proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon, on April 11 and 14 of this year in Southwest Portland and in Hood River. Each meeting lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge in June hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians. What I overwhelmingly heard was the need to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system is as important today as it was in 1804, 1964 or 1984--and is arguably more so--but it must be accompanied by tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. Mount Hood is clearly going to be at risk otherwise. The Mount Hood National Forest is the eighth most visited National Forest in the United States. It is one of fourteen Forest Service- designated ``urban'' national forests in the entire Nation. In the 20 years that has elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area--wild and scenic rivers were last set aside 16 years ago, the population in local counties has increased significantly--20 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 41 percent in Clackamas County. The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation sometimes it seems--I heard this repeatedly--we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.'' A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. As the Forest Service is well-aware, Mt. Hood's non-mechanized use will increase dramatically over time, but the Forest Service's own documents acknowledge that we are not today even close to ready for that eventuality. The Forest Service's current Land and Resource Management Plan for Mount Hood, page III-36, which notes the following: the present capability to supply recreational opportunities such as hiking on trails in primitive and semi-primitive non- motorized areas is predicted to fall short of satisfying demand. According to that Forest Service management plan, the Mount Hood National Forest already provides resources for nearly twice the current demand for developed recreation like skiing, power boating and sightseeing by car, but meets less than two-thirds of the demand for backcountry recreation. The future is even grimmer. The Management Plan goes on to project that by 2040, the Mount Hood National Forest will only meet 16 percent of the demand for wilderness recreation, while still meeting over 100 percent of the demand for mechanized recreation. This Forest Service-projected shortfall means an ever-increasing number of Oregonians will be forced onto inadequate, existing wilderness, drastically impacting the mountain, its visitors, and its well-deserved reputation as one of this country's greatest natural wonders. Of the more than 600 people who attended the two meetings I held in April in Oregon, 128 spoke--110 in favor of more wilderness and 18 spoke in opposition. Additionally, I received more than 1,100 written comments about the proposal and over 1,000 of those expressed support for additional wilderness. I know my colleague wishes to speak. I want to wrap up by highlighting the key areas I had Oregonians focus on in these meetings and how we responded. First, we heard that Oregonians felt there was not enough wilderness. Second, we heard concern from some who enjoy mountain biking that their recreational opportunity would be unfairly curtailed. Third, we heard from people in the towns, mountains, and gorges about fire protection for their communities. Fourth, we heard about forest health and timber--again, a very important set of concerns for our region. Finally, we were told about developed recreation with many being worried about maintaining a role for skiing and other recreational pleasures on Mount Hood. In each of these five areas we took steps to address these concerns. First, the legislation I introduce today to respond to the call of the people of my State for more wilderness would increase the amount we had originally proposed by designating approximately 177,000 new acres of wilderness. These include very important areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness areas--spectacular ridges that frame the Columbia River Gorge that all will marvel at and essential other areas of beautiful fall colors and the best deer and elk hunting existing in the entire forest. Second, and especially important, I thought the mountain bikers raised valid concerns. So we took two steps. I proposed and I am very interested in talking to my friend from Tennessee who has such an interest in the environment and recreation, generally, about an idea we proposed in this legislation to create a Mount Hood Pedaler's Demonstration Experiment. We call it Hood-PDX, which would in effect be the Nation's first mountain bike area that would join such a treasure as Mount Hood. In this demonstration project, Hood-PDX would be managed as wilderness though it wouldn't be wilderness. It would be a pilot project encompassing over 13,000 acres and over 50 miles of trail. The mountain bikers would have 10 years to establish that bikers can coexist peacefully with wild natural areas. We also made boundary adjustments to keep them on over 120 miles of trail which they were concerned about losing. Third, we took steps to protect our communities--particularly Cascade Locks, Government Camp, and Rowena--and so this bill creates fire safety zones for communities in this area. This legislation also reiterates the Forest Service's mandate for thinning for forest health on the Mount Hood National Resources, and especially the resources to get the job done in the area. Finally, we add a proposal for developed recreation that would reestablish a southside winter recreation area that encompasses those areas on the southside of Mount Hood that have exceptional potential for commercial recreation. The protection of these important areas will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I want to particularly thank my friend and colleague Senator Smith who meets with me every Thursday over lunch. We talk repeatedly about this issue and he has been very gracious. We are going to work together to address the various issues raised by our constituents and raised by our colleagues in the other body, particularly Congressmen Walden, Blumenauer, and Hooley. This is a special day for Oregon. This is the formal beginning of an important debate about how to protect special Oregon treasure.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 2004 is a momentous year for wilderness in Oregon. It marks the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 20th anniversary of the Oregon Wilderness bill from 1984. But perhaps most importantly, 2004 marks the bicentennial of the single most important exploratory committee ever to be launched by this Federal government: the Lewis and Clark Expedition. I can see no better way to mark this auspicious year than by enacting a new Oregon Wilderness bill, the ``Lewis and Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 2004,'' which includes, in tribute to the great river-dependent journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of five free- flowing stretches of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System. In the last few years, some of Oregon's most important treasures have been Congressionally protected: Steens Mountain is now home to 170,000 acres of Wilderness; the Little Sandy watershed is now part of the Bull Run Management Unit and will help provide drinking water for over 700,000 Oregonians; Soda Mountain has been designated a National Monument; and the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial has been expanded and is the subject of legislation under consideration by this august body, as I speak, to make it Oregon's second National Park. The wilderness bill I introduce today continues to encapsulate, as did the draft wilderness proposal that I floated on this subject in March of this year, the wish of the people in my State to protect but also actively relate to her treasures. Thousands of Oregonians responded to my draft proposal--far more than I ever could have expected. As a result, this is their bill more than it is my bill. Mount Hood and the Columbia Gorge must be protected because the people of Oregon love these areas, they are proud of these areas, and they are demanding that we come together to protect Oregon's treasures for this and future generations. The people of Oregon helped write this bill, and I believe the people of Oregon on a bipartisan basis will be the ones who help get it passed and signed by the President. This bill I introduce today protects the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and the Columbia River Gorge as Lewis and Clark saw them. These forests symbolize the natural beauty of Oregon. They provide the clean water necessary for the survival of threatened steelhead, Coho and Chinook salmon. These forests provide critical habitat and diverse ecosystems for elk, deer, lynx and the majestic bald eagle. And these are the forests that provide unparalleled recreational opportunities for Oregonians and our visitors. But the bill I introduce today differs in many ways from the draft proposal because it responds to the many comments I heard in the ensuing 4 months. I received thousands of comments on the proposed legislation. Some comments came as a result of the general public meetings I held in Oregon, on April 11 and 14 of this year in Southwest Portland and in Hood River. Each meeting lasted over 3 hours, and everyone who wanted to speak was given an opportunity to do so. Other comments came from the second Mount Hood Summit held at Timberline Lodge in June hosted by Representatives Walden and Blumenauer. I and my staff met with over 100 community groups and local governments, the members of the Oregon congressional delegation, the Governor, and the Bush administration. And still more comments came from letters and phone calls from Oregonians. What I overwhelmingly heard was the need to protect and build on Oregon's Wilderness system is as important today as it was in 1804, 1964 or 1984--and is arguably more so--but it must be accompanied by tools that help us create a planned future on Mount Hood. Mount Hood is clearly going to be at risk otherwise. The Mount Hood National Forest is the eighth most visited National Forest in the United States. It is one of fourteen Forest Service- designated ``urban'' national forests in the entire Nation. In the 20 years that has elapsed since any new wilderness has been designated in the Mount Hood area--wild and scenic rivers were last set aside 16 years ago, the population in local counties has increased significantly--20 percent in Multnomah County, 24 percent in Hood River County, and 41 percent in Clackamas County. The predominant public use of this urban forest is non-mechanized activity like hiking, camping, and fishing. With increasing emphasis on wild scenery, unspoiled wildlife habitats, free flowing rivers, wilderness and the need for opportunities for diverse outdoor recreation sometimes it seems--I heard this repeatedly--we are in jeopardy of ``loving our wild places to death.'' A few years ago, the Forest Service made a proposal to limit the number of people that could hike the south side of Mount Hood and the public outcry was enormous. Seems to me, rather than tell people that they are going to be restricted from using our public lands, part of the solution for the future of the Mountain lies in providing more opportunities for them to enjoy the Mountain's great places. As the Forest Service is well-aware, Mt. Hood's non-mechanized use will increase dramatically over time, but the Forest Service's own documents acknowledge that we are not today even close to ready for that eventuality. The Forest Service's current Land and Resource Management Plan for Mount Hood, page III-36, which notes the following: the present capability to supply recreational opportunities such as hiking on trails in primitive and semi-primitive non- motorized areas is predicted to fall short of satisfying demand. According to that Forest Service management plan, the Mount Hood National Forest already provides resources for nearly twice the current demand for developed recreation like skiing, power boating and sightseeing by car, but meets less than two-thirds of the demand for backcountry recreation. The future is even grimmer. The Management Plan goes on to project that by 2040, the Mount Hood National Forest will only meet 16 percent of the demand for wilderness recreation, while still meeting over 100 percent of the demand for mechanized recreation. This Forest Service-projected shortfall means an ever-increasing number of Oregonians will be forced onto inadequate, existing wilderness, drastically impacting the mountain, its visitors, and its well-deserved reputation as one of this country's greatest natural wonders. Of the more than 600 people who attended the two meetings I held in April in Oregon, 128 spoke--110 in favor of more wilderness and 18 spoke in opposition. Additionally, I received more than 1,100 written comments about the proposal and over 1,000 of those expressed support for additional wilderness. I know my colleague wishes to speak. I want to wrap up by highlighting the key areas I had Oregonians focus on in these meetings and how we responded. First, we heard that Oregonians felt there was not enough wilderness. Second, we heard concern from some who enjoy mountain biking that their recreational opportunity would be unfairly curtailed. Third, we heard from people in the towns, mountains, and gorges about fire protection for their communities. Fourth, we heard about forest health and timber--again, a very important set of concerns for our region. Finally, we were told about developed recreation with many being worried about maintaining a role for skiing and other recreational pleasures on Mount Hood. In each of these five areas we took steps to address these concerns. First, the legislation I introduce today to respond to the call of the people of my State for more wilderness would increase the amount we had originally proposed by designating approximately 177,000 new acres of wilderness. These include very important areas surrounding the oldest Mount Hood wilderness areas--spectacular ridges that frame the Columbia River Gorge that all will marvel at and essential other areas of beautiful fall colors and the best deer and elk hunting existing in the entire forest. Second, and especially important, I thought the mountain bikers raised valid concerns. So we took two steps. I proposed and I am very interested in talking to my friend from Tennessee who has such an interest in the environment and recreation, generally, about an idea we proposed in this legislation to create a Mount Hood Pedaler's Demonstration Experiment. We call it Hood-PDX, which would in effect be the Nation's first mountain bike area that would join such a treasure as Mount Hood. In this demonstration project, Hood-PDX would be managed as wilderness though it wouldn't be wilderness. It would be a pilot project encompassing over 13,000 acres and over 50 miles of trail. The mountain bikers would have 10 years to establish that bikers can coexist peacefully with wild natural areas. We also made boundary adjustments to keep them on over 120 miles of trail which they were concerned about losing. Third, we took steps to protect our communities--particularly Cascade Locks, Government Camp, and Rowena--and so this bill creates fire safety zones for communities in this area. This legislation also reiterates the Forest Service's mandate for thinning for forest health on the Mount Hood National Resources, and especially the resources to get the job done in the area. Finally, we add a proposal for developed recreation that would reestablish a southside winter recreation area that encompasses those areas on the southside of Mount Hood that have exceptional potential for commercial recreation. The protection of these important areas will depend on the hard work and dedication of all Oregonians. I want to particularly thank my friend and colleague Senator Smith who meets with me every Thursday over lunch. We talk repeatedly about this issue and he has been very gracious. We are going to work together to address the various issues raised by our constituents and raised by our colleagues in the other body, particularly Congressmen Walden, Blumenauer, and Hooley. This is a special day for Oregon. This is the formal beginning of an important debate about how to protect special Oregon treasure.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I also thank my friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander. I know he wants to speak as well. I will not be long.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the United States Senate has now confirmed more than 170 of President Bush's judicial nominees. The nomination the Senate is considering today--that of William G. Myers III for a lifetime seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--is different from many because of both the background and experience of the nominee and the direct and lasting influence the nominee's decisions will have on Oregon and her citizens. This nominee's rulings will affect the fate of environmental and other safeguards in nine western States, including Oregon. After a career as a grazing and mining industry lobbyist, Mr. Myers worked as Solicitor General for the Department of Interior, responsible for Indian Affairs and most Federal lands. In his position at the Department of Interior, Mr. Myers continued to advocate for his former clients, overturning precedent to allow mining on sacred Indian grounds and rendering a decision in direct response to a case he participated in as a lobbyist. Not only has Mr. Myers refused to recuse himself from cases where there may be a conflict of interest, he has limited judicial experience. He received a partial Not Qualified rating from the American Bar Association and has minimal courtroom experience. He has never tried a jury case and never been involved as counsel in any criminal ligation. Unfortunately, Mr. Myers has demonstrated neither the experience nor judicial temperament to qualify him for this position. As a result of his performance as Solicitor General, at least 180 groups have come out in opposition to his nomination. Among those opposing his nomination are every major tribe in this Nation--including the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, the Cow Creek, Warm Springs, and Umatilla tribes all from Oregon, and the National Congress of American Indians, which represents over 250 tribes nationwide, as well as Oregon groups such as the Oregon Natural Resources Council. The Oregonian just published an editorial today, which may have said it best: ``Myers' anti-environmental activism by itself shouldn't disqualify him. The problem--and this gets back to his lack of judicial experience--is that he has no track record whatsoever to show how he would separate his ideology from his interpretation of the law on the Nation's second-highest court.'' Mr. President, I take very seriously the Senate's role to advise and consent to the President's nominations, and in this instance, the facts require that I withhold my consent on this nominee.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Lott, Graham of Florida, and Snowe in introducing legislation to create an independent National Security Classification Board. We believe it is time to clear the fog of secrecy by creating an independent board to review current and make recommendations for new standards and procedures for the classification of information for national security purposes. Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea that democracy works best with the full disclosure of accurate information. Today, some might find that notion quaint. But it is one that bears consideration-- because the principle of open government so dear to America's founders is being tested today as never before. The culture of secrecy that grew out of the Cold War has now become woven into the very fabric of our daily lives. Information that the American people have a right to know--indeed, information that the American people need to know to make informed decisions about the kind of government they want and the kind of country this should be--is being withheld by the Federal government. It is being buried in a virtual bunker marked ``do not enter,'' sealed off from public view with a big red stamp--marked ``Classified.'' And too often that big red stamp is used not to hide state secrets, but to protect political backsides at great cost to our open and democratic society. A very revealing speech was delivered three weeks ago by the head of the Information Security Office, which oversees classification and declassification policies, Mr. William Leonard. Known sometimes as the ``secrecy czar,'' he complained that the classification system for national security has lost touch with the basics; that some agencies don't know how much information they classify, or whether they are classifying more or less than they once did; whether they are classifying too much or too little. He called today's classification system ``a patchwork quilt'' that is the result of a hodgepodge of laws, regulations and directives. ``In reality,'' he said ``the Federal Government has so many varieties of classification that it can make Heinz look modest . . .'' Two important reports confirm Mr. Leonard's argument that the classification system is out of control. The reports, the forthcoming 9-11 Commission report and last week's Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq, show the Administration's determination to blanket the Federal government in secrecy. Even more important than the information that is published in these reports is the information withheld from the public and redacted from the reports. These reports demonstrate a serious imbalance of power between the public and the officials who wield the ``top secret'' stamp. They raise troubling questions about whether those who control the classification of information for national security purposes have misused this authority to shield officials from the glare of public accountability and to stifle public debate about politically sensitive parts of the war on terrorism. This is not the first time our country has grappled with the trade- offs between the need to protect the public and the public's need to know. But the automatic default to secrecy rather than public accountability is not part of our history. Scholarly studies about which material should be classified and at what level fill libraries. According to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an expert on secrecy in government, the first real Congressional debate about protecting national secrets occurred during consideration of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed to silence opposition to war with France. ``It was,'' as Senator Moynihan wrote in Secrecy, ``our nation's first experience with how war or the threat of war changed the balance between private liberty versus public order, an instability that was eerily reenacted 119 years later.'' ``Indeed, much of the structure of secrecy now in place in the U.S. government took shape in just under eleven 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 million secrets were created in one year alone. In fact, only a small portion, or 1.4 percent, were 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. One of the ``creatures'' in the classification menagerie was set free to roam through the work of the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. The American people should not be fooled--pure bureaucracy refused to allow full public disclosure of the decisions and materials used by the 9-11 Commission to prepare its report. Pure bureaucracy also redacted nearly half of the Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Intelligence on Iraq. The ``creature'' has overreached. Since President Roosevelt issued the first national security classification directive in 1940, the American people have often demonstrated a high tolerance for secrecy in military and foreign affairs, even in some cases where it has been abused. However, the rising tide of secrecy has reached the point where it threatens to drown our system of checks and balances, and calls out for a complete rethinking of the system used to classify information for national security purposes. Today the Executive Branch exerts almost total control over what should or should not be classified. Congress has no ability to declassify material. There is no self-correcting mechanism in the system. Even if Members of Congress wanted to share information with their constituents, it's so complicated for Congress to release information to the public that nobody's ever tried to use the convoluted processes. 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, not to Members of Congress or the public. What does all of this mean in practice? It means that with the thump of a stamp marked ``secret,'' some bureaucrat in the belly of a federal building has prevented the families of the victims of 9-11 from knowing exactly what happened to their loved ones. It means the American people may never know who gave the orders dictating how prisoners at Abu Ghraib could be treated. It means these decisions cannot be appealed, even by Congress. It means there is no independent review of the 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 of both parties wishing to make political points can abuse the existing classification guidelines to their advantage. I want to change that. President Kennedy said the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. In the realm of secrecy, storm clouds are approaching. The bureaucracies in our government that deal with secrets are by nature cautious when it comes to protecting information pertinent to our nation's security. They err on the side of caution and they are very territorial about it, treating secrets as if they are assets to be traded. This is an understandable impulse. But erring too far and too often on the side of caution keeps a lot of information hidden that could safely enlighten public debate. Even worse, overclassification of information is dangerous. If agencies and bureaucracies aren't sharing information among themselves, important clues can be missed. Their mission to keep citizens safe can be jeopardized by classification itself. The tragedy of 9-11, the war on terrorism and the United States' invasion of Iraq have offered ample opportunity to argue for classification of just about any document on the grounds of national security. Additionally, there are those who feel that the current Administration took office with an unhealthy penchant for secrecy already firmly in place. In its first two years, Bush Administration officials made 44.5 million decisions to classify records and related documents, according to the Information Security Oversight office, part of the National Archives and Records Administration. This is about the same number of classification decisions made during the last four years of the Clinton Administration. The Atlanta Journal reported recently that ``federal, state and local governments are shutting down access to public records in what some experts say is the most expansive assault on open government in the nation's history.'' The Bush Administration has even expanded the number of officials with the power to classify documents for purposes of national security beyond the 13 agencies that operated under the national security classification system to include the secretaries of agriculture, health and human services and the EPA Administrator. 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 a balance can and must be struck between the public's need for sound, cleareyed analysis and the Executive's desire to protect the nation's legitimate security interests. I believe we can fight terrorism ferociously without sacrificing personal privacy. There is no room in this equation 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 about how to achieve such a balance. In my view this balance can be achieved only through a broad overhaul of the national security classification system. Legislation that I will be introducing shortly will accomplish this through the establishment of an Independent National Security Classification Board. The Board would be made up of three individuals, knowledgeable in national security classification, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The task of the Independent Board would be to review and make recommendations on overhauling the standards and process used in the classification system for national security information. The Board would submit proposed new standards and processes to both Congress and the Executive Branch for comment and revision, and then implement the new standards and process once they have had the opportunity to comment. The Board would then begin to implement the new system, reviewing and making 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 proposal assures that the public and Congress have access to an independent Board for national security classification matters while leaving undisturbed the Commander in Chief's constitutional prerogative in military and foreign policy matters through the power to appoint the Board and to veto the Board's classification decisions. The Founding Fathers conceived of the Federal government to serve the American people. Sometimes that is done by keeping secrets, by securing information that could put Americans in harm's way if it became public. Information should be classified to protect the homeland. But when information is withheld to protect political careers and entrenched bureaucracies, that's not a service to the American people. It's a perversion of a policy intended to save lives, a perversion that weakens our democracy and could even endanger our people. It's time to throw open the curtains and let the sun shine in on American democracy and on the governmental process much brighter than it does today. That's what I intend to do with my legislation. The American people deserve no less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Lott, Graham of Florida, and Snowe in introducing legislation to create an independent National Security Classification Board. We believe it is time to clear the fog of secrecy by creating an independent board to review current and make recommendations for new standards and procedures for the classification of information for national security purposes. Our Founding Fathers believed in the idea that democracy works best with the full disclosure of accurate information. Today, some might find that notion quaint. But it is one that bears consideration-- because the principle of open government so dear to America's founders is being tested today as never before. The culture of secrecy that grew out of the Cold War has now become woven into the very fabric of our daily lives. Information that the American people have a right to know--indeed, information that the American people need to know to make informed decisions about the kind of government they want and the kind of country this should be--is being withheld by the Federal government. It is being buried in a virtual bunker marked ``do not enter,'' sealed off from public view with a big red stamp--marked ``Classified.'' And too often that big red stamp is used not to hide state secrets, but to protect political backsides at great cost to our open and democratic society. A very revealing speech was delivered three weeks ago by the head of the Information Security Office, which oversees classification and declassification policies, Mr. William Leonard. Known sometimes as the ``secrecy czar,'' he complained that the classification system for national security has lost touch with the basics; that some agencies don't know how much information they classify, or whether they are classifying more or less than they once did; whether they are classifying too much or too little. He called today's classification system ``a patchwork quilt'' that is the result of a hodgepodge of laws, regulations and directives. ``In reality,'' he said ``the Federal Government has so many varieties of classification that it can make Heinz look modest . . .'' Two important reports confirm Mr. Leonard's argument that the classification system is out of control. The reports, the forthcoming 9-11 Commission report and last week's Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq, show the Administration's determination to blanket the Federal government in secrecy. Even more important than the information that is published in these reports is the information withheld from the public and redacted from the reports. These reports demonstrate a serious imbalance of power between the public and the officials who wield the ``top secret'' stamp. They raise troubling questions about whether those who control the classification of information for national security purposes have misused this authority to shield officials from the glare of public accountability and to stifle public debate about politically sensitive parts of the war on terrorism. This is not the first time our country has grappled with the trade- offs between the need to protect the public and the public's need to know. But the automatic default to secrecy rather than public accountability is not part of our history. Scholarly studies about which material should be classified and at what level fill libraries. According to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an expert on secrecy in government, the first real Congressional debate about protecting national secrets occurred during consideration of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed to silence opposition to war with France. ``It was,'' as Senator Moynihan wrote in Secrecy, ``our nation's first experience with how war or the threat of war changed the balance between private liberty versus public order, an instability that was eerily reenacted 119 years later.'' ``Indeed, much of the structure of secrecy now in place in the U.S. government took shape in just under eleven 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 million secrets were created in one year alone. In fact, only a small portion, or 1.4 percent, were 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. One of the ``creatures'' in the classification menagerie was set free to roam through the work of the 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. The American people should not be fooled--pure bureaucracy refused to allow full public disclosure of the decisions and materials used by the 9-11 Commission to prepare its report. Pure bureaucracy also redacted nearly half of the Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Intelligence on Iraq. The ``creature'' has overreached. Since President Roosevelt issued the first national security classification directive in 1940, the American people have often demonstrated a high tolerance for secrecy in military and foreign affairs, even in some cases where it has been abused. However, the rising tide of secrecy has reached the point where it threatens to drown our system of checks and balances, and calls out for a complete rethinking of the system used to classify information for national security purposes. Today the Executive Branch exerts almost total control over what should or should not be classified. Congress has no ability to declassify material. There is no self-correcting mechanism in the system. Even if Members of Congress wanted to share information with their constituents, it's so complicated for Congress to release information to the public that nobody's ever tried to use the convoluted processes. 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, not to Members of Congress or the public. What does all of this mean in practice? It means that with the thump of a stamp marked ``secret,'' some bureaucrat in the belly of a federal building has prevented the families of the victims of 9-11 from knowing exactly what happened to their loved ones. It means the American people may never know who gave the orders dictating how prisoners at Abu Ghraib could be treated. It means these decisions cannot be appealed, even by Congress. It means there is no independent review of the 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 of both parties wishing to make political points can abuse the existing classification guidelines to their advantage. I want to change that. President Kennedy said the time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining. In the realm of secrecy, storm clouds are approaching. The bureaucracies in our government that deal with secrets are by nature cautious when it comes to protecting information pertinent to our nation's security. They err on the side of caution and they are very territorial about it, treating secrets as if they are assets to be traded. This is an understandable impulse. But erring too far and too often on the side of caution keeps a lot of information hidden that could safely enlighten public debate. Even worse, overclassification of information is dangerous. If agencies and bureaucracies aren't sharing information among themselves, important clues can be missed. Their mission to keep citizens safe can be jeopardized by classification itself. The tragedy of 9-11, the war on terrorism and the United States' invasion of Iraq have offered ample opportunity to argue for classification of just about any document on the grounds of national security. Additionally, there are those who feel that the current Administration took office with an unhealthy penchant for secrecy already firmly in place. In its first two years, Bush Administration officials made 44.5 million decisions to classify records and related documents, according to the Information Security Oversight office, part of the National Archives and Records Administration. This is about the same number of classification decisions made during the last four years of the Clinton Administration. The Atlanta Journal reported recently that ``federal, state and local governments are shutting down access to public records in what some experts say is the most expansive assault on open government in the nation's history.'' The Bush Administration has even expanded the number of officials with the power to classify documents for purposes of national security beyond the 13 agencies that operated under the national security classification system to include the secretaries of agriculture, health and human services and the EPA Administrator. 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 a balance can and must be struck between the public's need for sound, cleareyed analysis and the Executive's desire to protect the nation's legitimate security interests. I believe we can fight terrorism ferociously without sacrificing personal privacy. There is no room in this equation 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 about how to achieve such a balance. In my view this balance can be achieved only through a broad overhaul of the national security classification system. Legislation that I will be introducing shortly will accomplish this through the establishment of an Independent National Security Classification Board. The Board would be made up of three individuals, knowledgeable in national security classification, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The task of the Independent Board would be to review and make recommendations on overhauling the standards and process used in the classification system for national security information. The Board would submit proposed new standards and processes to both Congress and the Executive Branch for comment and revision, and then implement the new standards and process once they have had the opportunity to comment. The Board would then begin to implement the new system, reviewing and making 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 proposal assures that the public and Congress have access to an independent Board for national security classification matters while leaving undisturbed the Commander in Chief's constitutional prerogative in military and foreign policy matters through the power to appoint the Board and to veto the Board's classification decisions. The Founding Fathers conceived of the Federal government to serve the American people. Sometimes that is done by keeping secrets, by securing information that could put Americans in harm's way if it became public. Information should be classified to protect the homeland. But when information is withheld to protect political careers and entrenched bureaucracies, that's not a service to the American people. It's a perversion of a policy intended to save lives, a perversion that weakens our democracy and could even endanger our people. It's time to throw open the curtains and let the sun shine in on American democracy and on the governmental process much brighter than it does today. That's what I intend to do with my legislation. The American people deserve no less. 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 the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2004, and Representative Doggett of Texas is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. As many of my colleagues know, I have long believed that we must do everything we can to help protect our children from becoming addicted to tobacco. Whether a child is in Bend, OR or in Bangladesh, that child should be able to grow up tobacco-free. Cigarettes are the world's most smuggled legal consumer product. Tobacco smuggling contributes to the availability of cheap cigarettes and not only deprives governments of needed revenue, but harms the health of our citizens and of people around the world. Last month the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported that they have more than 300 open cases of illicit cigarette trafficking, up from only a handful five years ago. Some of those cases have been linked to the funding of terrorism. In our country traffickers buy a large volume of cigarettes in States where the cigarette tax is low, and take them to States with higher taxes and sell them at a discount without paying the higher cigarette tax in those States. That illegal activity deprives States and localities of funds needed for schools, policing, and roads. With better labeling, tracing, and record-keeping we believe we can end this illegal activity. Our legislation takes those common sense steps and requires that individual product packages be marked with the destination and that bonds be posted until we are assured that the tobacco product has reached its destination. The legislation would require record keeping and making those records available for inspection. The Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act also provides whistle- blower protection for those who help authorities in locating smuggling activity. I urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening our laws against cigarette smuggling because it is good health policy, and it is sound fiscal policy and good leadership to do so.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act of 2004, and Representative Doggett of Texas is introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives. As many of my colleagues know, I have long believed that we must do everything we can to help protect our children from becoming addicted to tobacco. Whether a child is in Bend, OR or in Bangladesh, that child should be able to grow up tobacco-free. Cigarettes are the world's most smuggled legal consumer product. Tobacco smuggling contributes to the availability of cheap cigarettes and not only deprives governments of needed revenue, but harms the health of our citizens and of people around the world. Last month the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported that they have more than 300 open cases of illicit cigarette trafficking, up from only a handful five years ago. Some of those cases have been linked to the funding of terrorism. In our country traffickers buy a large volume of cigarettes in States where the cigarette tax is low, and take them to States with higher taxes and sell them at a discount without paying the higher cigarette tax in those States. That illegal activity deprives States and localities of funds needed for schools, policing, and roads. With better labeling, tracing, and record-keeping we believe we can end this illegal activity. Our legislation takes those common sense steps and requires that individual product packages be marked with the destination and that bonds be posted until we are assured that the tobacco product has reached its destination. The legislation would require record keeping and making those records available for inspection. The Smuggled Tobacco Prevention Act also provides whistle- blower protection for those who help authorities in locating smuggling activity. I urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening our laws against cigarette smuggling because it is good health policy, and it is sound fiscal policy and good leadership to do so.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with my colleague, Senator Smith, the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' to authorize funding for Friends of the Children. The companion of this bill is being introduced in the House today by Congressman Earl Blumenauer. This innovative program is truly a best practice in the field of youth development. Friends of the Children was started in Portland, OR, and was modeled on extensive research indicating that the strongest protective factor for highly disadvantaged children is an on-going relationship with a supportive, caring adult. Today, Friends of the Children is the only program in the Nation that provides carefully screened full-time professional mentors to disadvantaged youth for 12 years starting in kindergarten or first grade. Friends of the Children's first class of students is now graduating. These young people have outperformed their peer group of disadvantaged youth in every respect. They are in school, have passing grades, have not been incarcerated, do not abuse drugs or alcohol, and have not become involved in gang violence. Let me share the story of one of these friends. In 1993, a first grader named Demarcus joined the Friends of the Children-Portland program in an attempt to overcome a family history of substance abuse and violence. His mother was raising three children as a single parent and she was overwhelmed. As a participant in the Friends of the Children program, Demarcus was matched with a ``Friend,'' Ruben, who has been his mentor for the past eight years. Ruben and Demarcus have developed a strong relationship through activities ranging from playing basketball to having serious conversations about life and preparing for the future. Ruben has helped Demarcus develop anger management skills and maturity. While many of Demarcus's friends and family have been incarcerated or have been victims of gun violence, Demarcus is a success story. Now 17 years old, he is a responsible young man who makes good choices and knows that actions have consequences. When he graduates from high school, he hopes to work toward becoming a pilot, either by joining the military or attending college. Friends of the Children mentors have been major supporters of Demarcus and his goal to attain higher education. The mentors have helped him grow into the focused young adult he is today. Last week in Portland, the first class of Friends of the Children, including Demarcus, graduated from the program. By all accounts these children have beaten the odds and are success stories. Twelve years ago these young people were identified by their elementary schools as most likely to fail. Today, they are soon-to-be high school graduates. Currently, Friends of the Children serves over 600 children in 11 communities across the United States. ``The Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' will establish a national demonstration project to promote learning about successful early and sustained childhood interventions. This bill would authorize funding for Friends of the Children activities and local program operations at existing sites, ongoing evaluation, and dissemination of findings for the benefit of policy makers and other youth-serving programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and youth.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with my colleague, Senator Smith, the ``Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' to authorize funding for Friends of the Children. The companion of this bill is being introduced in the House today by Congressman Earl Blumenauer. This innovative program is truly a best practice in the field of youth development. Friends of the Children was started in Portland, OR, and was modeled on extensive research indicating that the strongest protective factor for highly disadvantaged children is an on-going relationship with a supportive, caring adult. Today, Friends of the Children is the only program in the Nation that provides carefully screened full-time professional mentors to disadvantaged youth for 12 years starting in kindergarten or first grade. Friends of the Children's first class of students is now graduating. These young people have outperformed their peer group of disadvantaged youth in every respect. They are in school, have passing grades, have not been incarcerated, do not abuse drugs or alcohol, and have not become involved in gang violence. Let me share the story of one of these friends. In 1993, a first grader named Demarcus joined the Friends of the Children-Portland program in an attempt to overcome a family history of substance abuse and violence. His mother was raising three children as a single parent and she was overwhelmed. As a participant in the Friends of the Children program, Demarcus was matched with a ``Friend,'' Ruben, who has been his mentor for the past eight years. Ruben and Demarcus have developed a strong relationship through activities ranging from playing basketball to having serious conversations about life and preparing for the future. Ruben has helped Demarcus develop anger management skills and maturity. While many of Demarcus's friends and family have been incarcerated or have been victims of gun violence, Demarcus is a success story. Now 17 years old, he is a responsible young man who makes good choices and knows that actions have consequences. When he graduates from high school, he hopes to work toward becoming a pilot, either by joining the military or attending college. Friends of the Children mentors have been major supporters of Demarcus and his goal to attain higher education. The mentors have helped him grow into the focused young adult he is today. Last week in Portland, the first class of Friends of the Children, including Demarcus, graduated from the program. By all accounts these children have beaten the odds and are success stories. Twelve years ago these young people were identified by their elementary schools as most likely to fail. Today, they are soon-to-be high school graduates. Currently, Friends of the Children serves over 600 children in 11 communities across the United States. ``The Friends of the Children National Demonstration Act'' will establish a national demonstration project to promote learning about successful early and sustained childhood interventions. This bill would authorize funding for Friends of the Children activities and local program operations at existing sites, ongoing evaluation, and dissemination of findings for the benefit of policy makers and other youth-serving programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and make a commitment to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and youth.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the majority leader has given an excellent statement with respect to this issue, and I want to express my appreciation to him for the chance to make this yet another bipartisan kind of effort. If ever there were a cause that ought to bring the Senate together, fighting childhood obesity is exactly the kind of thing where we ought to be teaming up. I thank my colleague for his excellent statement and for the chance to work with him. The majority leader and I believe our legislation will help launch a national mobilization to reduce and prevent the epidemic of childhood obesity and help our kids grow up healthy in America. Today, kids are eating greater quantities of less healthy foods. They are exercising less and less. Childhood obesity has doubled during the past 30 years. In my home State, it is far and away one of our most serious emerging health problems. Ten percent of the 8th graders and 7 percent of the 11th graders in my State are overweight. So, in my view, what we have is nothing short of an epidemic of kids who are not as healthy as they could be and they need to be and not as healthy as children were in previous generations. These kids today have a host of health problems that promise to worsen if nothing is done to change them. I was particularly pleased that the majority leader highlighted some of the concerns we want to tackle. The situation with respect to type II diabetes is completely unacceptable. This is an illness that used to be virtually unheard of in children. Yet the increase in this disease is literally on a parallel with the documented track of an increase in childhood obesity. One-quarter of children 5 to 10 years of age show early warning signs for health problems such as elevated cholesterol and high blood pressure. Doctors at the Oregon Health Sciences University Obesity Clinic say that referrals of youngsters as young as 6 are becoming virtually routine. We are not going to see this change happen by osmosis. It is going to come about because adults working with parents, schools, and communities provide some real leadership, and that is what this bipartisan legislation seeks to do. We recognize in this bill that there is a fair amount of good work going on in our communities already, and we recognize this is an issue that needs to be addressed not from Washington, DC, with a one-size-fits-all approach, but it needs to be addressed in our schools and in our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. What we seek to do is to encourage this kind of bottom-up approach, where schools and communities across the country, relying on leaders in their own hometowns, consulting with experts here from the Congress, will get out state-of-the-art information with respect to making sure we are using all the tools that are out there to fight obesity. We are going to be consulting and coordinating this effort with the President's Council on Physical Fitness so that both sides of the equation, nutrition and exercise, are addressed in the fight against childhood obesity. We have also concluded it is absolutely critical to use state-of-the- art technology to get out this information. We have proposed a Web site be created to link schools to community groups and leaders who are already working to help kids stay healthy. With a few clicks of the ``enter'' button, it will be possible for kids in Des Moines to find out what the best approaches are for kids, say, in the rural West. We believe using this kind of technology is going to allow us to use scarce resources, at a time when we are all concerned about the deficit, to better meet the health needs of children in our communities. Whether it is enlisting local organic farmers to make their produce available to schools or helping our kids become more physically active, what we propose in this bipartisan legislation is a wide variety of options for schools and communities to work together. I am very pleased that an important feature of the legislation, as noted by the majority leader, is the foundation that would allow us to continue the work of our Congressional Council, which would end once the foundation is established. Finally, it seems to me the point of this legislation is to target the area where we can make the most difference and that is our schools. Schools, of course, are where the children are. It is where they spend a lot of time. It is a place where they eat, and very often several meals a day. If children can learn in school how to balance their choices, wherever they go and whenever they are confronted with a variety of food options, they can make better choices for themselves. I see the distinguished chair of the Armed Services Committee is back on the floor. He has an extensive schedule, I know. I don't want to hold this up. I want to wrap this up by saying to the majority leader how much I have enjoyed working with him. We have long felt that health care is one of the issues that can bring the Senate together. If ever there was a health cause that requires what I think is appropriately called a national mobilization in our schools and our communities, fighting childhood obesity is it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the majority leader has given an excellent statement with respect to this issue, and I want to express my appreciation to him for the chance to make this yet another bipartisan kind of effort. If ever there were a cause that ought to bring the Senate together, fighting childhood obesity is exactly the kind of thing where we ought to be teaming up. I thank my colleague for his excellent statement and for the chance to work with him. The majority leader and I believe our legislation will help launch a national mobilization to reduce and prevent the epidemic of childhood obesity and help our kids grow up healthy in America. Today, kids are eating greater quantities of less healthy foods. They are exercising less and less. Childhood obesity has doubled during the past 30 years. In my home State, it is far and away one of our most serious emerging health problems. Ten percent of the 8th graders and 7 percent of the 11th graders in my State are overweight. So, in my view, what we have is nothing short of an epidemic of kids who are not as healthy as they could be and they need to be and not as healthy as children were in previous generations. These kids today have a host of health problems that promise to worsen if nothing is done to change them. I was particularly pleased that the majority leader highlighted some of the concerns we want to tackle. The situation with respect to type II diabetes is completely unacceptable. This is an illness that used to be virtually unheard of in children. Yet the increase in this disease is literally on a parallel with the documented track of an increase in childhood obesity. One-quarter of children 5 to 10 years of age show early warning signs for health problems such as elevated cholesterol and high blood pressure. Doctors at the Oregon Health Sciences University Obesity Clinic say that referrals of youngsters as young as 6 are becoming virtually routine. We are not going to see this change happen by osmosis. It is going to come about because adults working with parents, schools, and communities provide some real leadership, and that is what this bipartisan legislation seeks to do. We recognize in this bill that there is a fair amount of good work going on in our communities already, and we recognize this is an issue that needs to be addressed not from Washington, DC, with a one-size-fits-all approach, but it needs to be addressed in our schools and in our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. What we seek to do is to encourage this kind of bottom-up approach, where schools and communities across the country, relying on leaders in their own hometowns, consulting with experts here from the Congress, will get out state-of-the-art information with respect to making sure we are using all the tools that are out there to fight obesity. We are going to be consulting and coordinating this effort with the President's Council on Physical Fitness so that both sides of the equation, nutrition and exercise, are addressed in the fight against childhood obesity. We have also concluded it is absolutely critical to use state-of-the- art technology to get out this information. We have proposed a Web site be created to link schools to community groups and leaders who are already working to help kids stay healthy. With a few clicks of the ``enter'' button, it will be possible for kids in Des Moines to find out what the best approaches are for kids, say, in the rural West. We believe using this kind of technology is going to allow us to use scarce resources, at a time when we are all concerned about the deficit, to better meet the health needs of children in our communities. Whether it is enlisting local organic farmers to make their produce available to schools or helping our kids become more physically active, what we propose in this bipartisan legislation is a wide variety of options for schools and communities to work together. I am very pleased that an important feature of the legislation, as noted by the majority leader, is the foundation that would allow us to continue the work of our Congressional Council, which would end once the foundation is established. Finally, it seems to me the point of this legislation is to target the area where we can make the most difference and that is our schools. Schools, of course, are where the children are. It is where they spend a lot of time. It is a place where they eat, and very often several meals a day. If children can learn in school how to balance their choices, wherever they go and whenever they are confronted with a variety of food options, they can make better choices for themselves. I see the distinguished chair of the Armed Services Committee is back on the floor. He has an extensive schedule, I know. I don't want to hold this up. I want to wrap this up by saying to the majority leader how much I have enjoyed working with him. We have long felt that health care is one of the issues that can bring the Senate together. If ever there was a health cause that requires what I think is appropriately called a national mobilization in our schools and our communities, fighting childhood obesity is it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the threat of terrorism is an unfortunate fact of life today, and it is not going to go away any time soon. Protecting American citizens against this threat will continue to be an essential and urgent task for the foreseeable future. However, I do not believe that fighting terrorism aggressively requires tossing civil liberties protections into the scrap heap. This is not an ``either or'' choice. This country's tradition of high standards of civil rights and civil liberties should not and need not become the first casualty of the war on terrorism. I have made this point repeatedly in the time since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Still, all too often, we have seen well-meaning government agencies take the approach of designing a security system or program first, and worrying about the civil liberties and privacy implications later. I am convinced that the approach of making civil liberties an afterthought doesn't work and isn't acceptable. Civil liberties and privacy considerations need to be built into the DNA of the Homeland Security Department and its various programs. The legislation that created the Homeland Security Department included some very positive steps in that regard, by creating an Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and a Privacy Officer. Today, I am joining Senator Collins in introducing new legislation to flesh out the role and stature of these key offices within the Department. Specifically, the legislation would add a reference to civil liberties to the statutory mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security. It would provide further detail as to the duties of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. It would specify that both the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Officer shall report directly to the Secretary. And it would direct the DHS Inspector General to designate a point person within the I.G. office to focus expressly on civil liberties matters. None of these items represents a radical departure from the original Homeland Security legislation or the current practice of the department. Rather, this new bill codifies much of what is already going on, giving it a firm statutory basis. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation, and in delivering a strong message that civil liberties matters remain a core factor in this country's homeland security efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the threat of terrorism is an unfortunate fact of life today, and it is not going to go away any time soon. Protecting American citizens against this threat will continue to be an essential and urgent task for the foreseeable future. However, I do not believe that fighting terrorism aggressively requires tossing civil liberties protections into the scrap heap. This is not an ``either or'' choice. This country's tradition of high standards of civil rights and civil liberties should not and need not become the first casualty of the war on terrorism. I have made this point repeatedly in the time since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Still, all too often, we have seen well-meaning government agencies take the approach of designing a security system or program first, and worrying about the civil liberties and privacy implications later. I am convinced that the approach of making civil liberties an afterthought doesn't work and isn't acceptable. Civil liberties and privacy considerations need to be built into the DNA of the Homeland Security Department and its various programs. The legislation that created the Homeland Security Department included some very positive steps in that regard, by creating an Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and a Privacy Officer. Today, I am joining Senator Collins in introducing new legislation to flesh out the role and stature of these key offices within the Department. Specifically, the legislation would add a reference to civil liberties to the statutory mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security. It would provide further detail as to the duties of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. It would specify that both the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Officer shall report directly to the Secretary. And it would direct the DHS Inspector General to designate a point person within the I.G. office to focus expressly on civil liberties matters. None of these items represents a radical departure from the original Homeland Security legislation or the current practice of the department. Rather, this new bill codifies much of what is already going on, giving it a firm statutory basis. I hope my colleagues will join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation, and in delivering a strong message that civil liberties matters remain a core factor in this country's homeland security efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as many as half a million Americans in the services sector have lost their jobs in the past three years; off- shoring threatens to wipe out 3.3 million more jobs in the coming decade. An off-shoring tsunami is bearing down on workers in the information technology and services sector. The most vulnerable jobs are those considered the cream of the new economy: highly paid database managers, software coders, financial analysts and accountants. In places like my own State of Oregon, the prolonged jobless recovery is causing many people real pain. Highly educated and experienced workers are being forced to walk an economic tightrope. Displaced software workers with advanced degrees are forced to search for entry- level positions, but employers won't hire them because they're overqualified. In Oregon and elsewhere, the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce altogether is unprecedented. If these folks were counted the national unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent rather than the current 5.6 percent. Something in the country's tax and trade policy is seriously awry when productivity is generating wealth for a few, but not employment for the many who want to work. Something just isn't right when people can't find jobs but productivity is growing faster now than in the late 1990's, corporate profits as a share of national income are at an all- time high and all of the extra $220 billion in GDP has gone into corporate profits. In my view part of problem can be traced to U.S. tax and trade policies that actually encourage U.S. corporations to move jobs overseas rather than encourage American business to invest in American workers. These policies need to be changed. The legislation that I am introducing today, the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, takes a first step toward eliminating tax and trade policies that favor off-shoring and overseas outsourcing at the expense of American workers. It will eliminate tax breaks for off-shoring and extend wage and training and health care premium assistance to serviceworkers who lose their jobs because of trade. The first key feature of the bill will eliminate tax breaks for U.S. corporate off-shoring so that corporations cannot ship millions of jobs overseas courtesy of the American taxpayer. The average American probably does not know that his or her taxes are used to offset the off-shoring of their own jobs. That's right: current law allows the taxes of hard-working Americans to go right into the pockets of corporations to help them offshore and outsource American jobs. No corporation should get such a tax break, and no American taxpayer should be asked to foot the bill for their own pink slip. Today, when a corporation sends executives and staff overseas to scope out a new facility, to buy an existing firm, or to hire foreign workers to replace employees in the United States the corporation can deduct the costs from its gross income. This means that the corporation gets a tax break on the compensation of the executives, the salaries and wages of workers, travel, lodging, meals, the cost of Internet access, computer time, copies, faxes and anything else that falls into the broad category of deductions from gross income for trade and business expenses. This means a corporation get a business expense write-off for just about any item imaginable related to off-shoring. The bill says the costs of off-shoring and outsourcing will no longer be ``ordinary and necessary expenses.'' When is it ever necessary that a taxpayer foot the bill for her own pink slip? When is it ever necessary that taxpayer dollars subsidize the traveling expenses of a group of executives looking to relocate a manufacturing facility in a foreign country? A respected industry research group predicts that by the end of this year, one of out every ten jobs in the U.S. IT provider industry will move to emerging markets and one out of every 20 IT jobs within user enterprises. And these figures cover jobs only in the IT sector. Under current law, all of the ``ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred'' in moving these millions of jobs overseas would be deductible from corporate gross income. If a corporation opts to fire U.S. workers here at home and instead hire workers overseas, then the company should make that business decision based on the full cost of the transaction, not the cost subsidized by tax deductions courtesy of the American taxpayer. Another important part of the bill will put in place a safety net for displaced IT and other service workers. Such a safety net, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, has been in place since l962 for displaced manufacturing workers. This provision will make service sector workers displaced by trade eligible for TAA, giving them retraining, income support and a health insurance tax credit. I was disappointed when this part of the legislation won a majority vote in the United States Senate recently, but failed to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to overcome a point of order raised by opponents. I believe it is more necessary than ever to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of policies the Federal Government has adopted. Globalization of technology is globalizing the technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. The transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one built on packets of light has come at a heavy price. Today, a software programmer in Beijing or Bangalore can perform the same tasks as a programmer in Beaverton, OR, but the programmer in Beijing or Bangalore will cost the company as little as one-fifth to one-tenth what the American programmer will be paid. The irony is that some of the very same workers who launched the technology revolution have now become its victims. Hardly a day goes by without a front page story about an American programmer on his way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace him. The average American may think the Federal Government is helping those tech workers displaced by trade. But it is not. That's because U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era. Since 1962, when a worker lost his job in a manufacturing plant as a result of trade, he could get help through the TAA. TAA has helped hundreds of thousands of displaced workers. But workers in the services sector--which now accounts for four- fifths of the U.S. workforce--are not eligible for TAA. Time after time, when a displaced software developer, accountant, or telemedicine support staff has gone knocking on TAA's door for help, they have been turned away. Our bill will open TAA's door to these and other displaced service sector workers. All of these workers who have been displaced by trade deserve the same benefits. This part of the bill will establish equity in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program between manufacturing and service workers. It will cover three categories of trade-impacted service workers: 1. those who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of import competition; 2. public and private sector service workers who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and 3. secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for TAA and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm. Why is TAA so important? Because it provides retraining, income support, health insurance tax credit and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help ``secondary workers''-- those supplying parts or services and who may lose their jobs when the facility they service shuts down due to import competition or moves overseas. Another innovative way to encourage the unemployed to reenter the workforce is to provide wage insurance for qualifying displaced workers upon reemployment. Eligible workers receive up to $10,000 over two years to cover up to 50 percent of the difference in salary between a new, lower paying job and their former position. The bill also would lower the qualifying age from 50 to 40. Wage insurance helps ease the burden of reentry for eligible workers who cannot find new employment at wages comparable to their previous positions. Workers reeling from the off-shoring of service sector jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher-skilled jobs economists promise are around the corner. Higher-value, higher-paid systems integration jobs may come along, but in this jobless recovery unemployed IT professionals are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help wanted ads for new, highly-skilled IT jobs. The wage insurance and TAA pieces of this legislation address what American workers really need: a fighting chance to survive in a relentlessly global economy. This provision offers corporate boards of directors and officers a safe harbor against shareholder lawsuits involving a business decision not to outsource or off-shore American jobs. A corporation that chooses to keep its workers out of breadlines over the numbers on its bottom line should not run the risk that it could be sued for potentially lower profits or return to shareholders. In 2002, Congress offered TAA workers help in paying for health insurance while they pursue TAA training or retraining. The vast majority of unemployed workers just don't have the money to afford health care for themselves and their families. The Health Care Tax Credit program was intended to help workers keep coverage until they are reemployed. Unfortunately, the level of premium assistance and bureaucratic obstacles led to fewer than five percent of eligible workers taking advantage of the health care tax credit. The provisions in Title II of the bill seek to remove these barriers to participation. The bill would boost the premium coverage from 65 percent to 75 percent, clarify that any TAA worker who had three months coverage prior to losing his job is eligible for the HCTC, allow workers to get less expensive group coverage, give coverage to spouses of Medicare-eligible TAA recipients workers, and require the IRS to expedite refunds of the first month's tax credit. In closing, I recall that the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors just a few months ago called off-shoring ``just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing. When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically.'' If this is the ``new way of doing international trade,'' the United States needs a new policy to help the nearly 4 million Americans whose information technology and related jobs have been or are expected to be moved overseas. The country needs a tax and trade policy that promotes rather than discourages investment in American workers. The country needs a tax and trade policy that eases rather than increases the pain of worker dislocation and that eliminates the tax breaks that entice U.S. businesses to move overseas. These are the goals of the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as many as half a million Americans in the services sector have lost their jobs in the past three years; off- shoring threatens to wipe out 3.3 million more jobs in the coming decade. An off-shoring tsunami is bearing down on workers in the information technology and services sector. The most vulnerable jobs are those considered the cream of the new economy: highly paid database managers, software coders, financial analysts and accountants. In places like my own State of Oregon, the prolonged jobless recovery is causing many people real pain. Highly educated and experienced workers are being forced to walk an economic tightrope. Displaced software workers with advanced degrees are forced to search for entry- level positions, but employers won't hire them because they're overqualified. In Oregon and elsewhere, the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce altogether is unprecedented. If these folks were counted the national unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent rather than the current 5.6 percent. Something in the country's tax and trade policy is seriously awry when productivity is generating wealth for a few, but not employment for the many who want to work. Something just isn't right when people can't find jobs but productivity is growing faster now than in the late 1990's, corporate profits as a share of national income are at an all- time high and all of the extra $220 billion in GDP has gone into corporate profits. In my view part of problem can be traced to U.S. tax and trade policies that actually encourage U.S. corporations to move jobs overseas rather than encourage American business to invest in American workers. These policies need to be changed. The legislation that I am introducing today, the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, takes a first step toward eliminating tax and trade policies that favor off-shoring and overseas outsourcing at the expense of American workers. It will eliminate tax breaks for off-shoring and extend wage and training and health care premium assistance to serviceworkers who lose their jobs because of trade. The first key feature of the bill will eliminate tax breaks for U.S. corporate off-shoring so that corporations cannot ship millions of jobs overseas courtesy of the American taxpayer. The average American probably does not know that his or her taxes are used to offset the off-shoring of their own jobs. That's right: current law allows the taxes of hard-working Americans to go right into the pockets of corporations to help them offshore and outsource American jobs. No corporation should get such a tax break, and no American taxpayer should be asked to foot the bill for their own pink slip. Today, when a corporation sends executives and staff overseas to scope out a new facility, to buy an existing firm, or to hire foreign workers to replace employees in the United States the corporation can deduct the costs from its gross income. This means that the corporation gets a tax break on the compensation of the executives, the salaries and wages of workers, travel, lodging, meals, the cost of Internet access, computer time, copies, faxes and anything else that falls into the broad category of deductions from gross income for trade and business expenses. This means a corporation get a business expense write-off for just about any item imaginable related to off-shoring. The bill says the costs of off-shoring and outsourcing will no longer be ``ordinary and necessary expenses.'' When is it ever necessary that a taxpayer foot the bill for her own pink slip? When is it ever necessary that taxpayer dollars subsidize the traveling expenses of a group of executives looking to relocate a manufacturing facility in a foreign country? A respected industry research group predicts that by the end of this year, one of out every ten jobs in the U.S. IT provider industry will move to emerging markets and one out of every 20 IT jobs within user enterprises. And these figures cover jobs only in the IT sector. Under current law, all of the ``ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred'' in moving these millions of jobs overseas would be deductible from corporate gross income. If a corporation opts to fire U.S. workers here at home and instead hire workers overseas, then the company should make that business decision based on the full cost of the transaction, not the cost subsidized by tax deductions courtesy of the American taxpayer. Another important part of the bill will put in place a safety net for displaced IT and other service workers. Such a safety net, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, has been in place since l962 for displaced manufacturing workers. This provision will make service sector workers displaced by trade eligible for TAA, giving them retraining, income support and a health insurance tax credit. I was disappointed when this part of the legislation won a majority vote in the United States Senate recently, but failed to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to overcome a point of order raised by opponents. I believe it is more necessary than ever to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of policies the Federal Government has adopted. Globalization of technology is globalizing the technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. The transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one built on packets of light has come at a heavy price. Today, a software programmer in Beijing or Bangalore can perform the same tasks as a programmer in Beaverton, OR, but the programmer in Beijing or Bangalore will cost the company as little as one-fifth to one-tenth what the American programmer will be paid. The irony is that some of the very same workers who launched the technology revolution have now become its victims. Hardly a day goes by without a front page story about an American programmer on his way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace him. The average American may think the Federal Government is helping those tech workers displaced by trade. But it is not. That's because U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era. Since 1962, when a worker lost his job in a manufacturing plant as a result of trade, he could get help through the TAA. TAA has helped hundreds of thousands of displaced workers. But workers in the services sector--which now accounts for four- fifths of the U.S. workforce--are not eligible for TAA. Time after time, when a displaced software developer, accountant, or telemedicine support staff has gone knocking on TAA's door for help, they have been turned away. Our bill will open TAA's door to these and other displaced service sector workers. All of these workers who have been displaced by trade deserve the same benefits. This part of the bill will establish equity in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program between manufacturing and service workers. It will cover three categories of trade-impacted service workers: 1. those who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of import competition; 2. public and private sector service workers who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and 3. secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for TAA and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm. Why is TAA so important? Because it provides retraining, income support, health insurance tax credit and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help ``secondary workers''-- those supplying parts or services and who may lose their jobs when the facility they service shuts down due to import competition or moves overseas. Another innovative way to encourage the unemployed to reenter the workforce is to provide wage insurance for qualifying displaced workers upon reemployment. Eligible workers receive up to $10,000 over two years to cover up to 50 percent of the difference in salary between a new, lower paying job and their former position. The bill also would lower the qualifying age from 50 to 40. Wage insurance helps ease the burden of reentry for eligible workers who cannot find new employment at wages comparable to their previous positions. Workers reeling from the off-shoring of service sector jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher-skilled jobs economists promise are around the corner. Higher-value, higher-paid systems integration jobs may come along, but in this jobless recovery unemployed IT professionals are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help wanted ads for new, highly-skilled IT jobs. The wage insurance and TAA pieces of this legislation address what American workers really need: a fighting chance to survive in a relentlessly global economy. This provision offers corporate boards of directors and officers a safe harbor against shareholder lawsuits involving a business decision not to outsource or off-shore American jobs. A corporation that chooses to keep its workers out of breadlines over the numbers on its bottom line should not run the risk that it could be sued for potentially lower profits or return to shareholders. In 2002, Congress offered TAA workers help in paying for health insurance while they pursue TAA training or retraining. The vast majority of unemployed workers just don't have the money to afford health care for themselves and their families. The Health Care Tax Credit program was intended to help workers keep coverage until they are reemployed. Unfortunately, the level of premium assistance and bureaucratic obstacles led to fewer than five percent of eligible workers taking advantage of the health care tax credit. The provisions in Title II of the bill seek to remove these barriers to participation. The bill would boost the premium coverage from 65 percent to 75 percent, clarify that any TAA worker who had three months coverage prior to losing his job is eligible for the HCTC, allow workers to get less expensive group coverage, give coverage to spouses of Medicare-eligible TAA recipients workers, and require the IRS to expedite refunds of the first month's tax credit. In closing, I recall that the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors just a few months ago called off-shoring ``just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing. When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically.'' If this is the ``new way of doing international trade,'' the United States needs a new policy to help the nearly 4 million Americans whose information technology and related jobs have been or are expected to be moved overseas. The country needs a tax and trade policy that promotes rather than discourages investment in American workers. The country needs a tax and trade policy that eases rather than increases the pain of worker dislocation and that eliminates the tax breaks that entice U.S. businesses to move overseas. These are the goals of the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3305, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield the floor and thank the distinguished chairman and Senator Levin.