Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator's point and the cooperation of the Chairman and Senator Levin. It is also clear if anyone tries to renew any of the old contracts which we sought to set aside, they would have to meet the new conflict- of-interest standards established in our amendment, is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for a number of months I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Senator Collins from Maine, Senator Stevens, Senator Warner--to try to get more oversight over the billions of dollars worth of contracts that have been and are being let to rebuild Iraq. I come to the floor today to offer an amendment with my colleague and friend, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. We have discussed this amendment with Senator Levin and Senator Warner. What Senator Dorgan and I have found is a shocking system of so- called oversight with respect to the use of taxpayers' dollars. With the nation facing rising deficits and scarce federal dollars for our many problems here at home, it is imperative that there be strong oversight over the use of taxpayers' money. What our amendment deals with is literally the outsourcing of the oversight of the billions of dollars worth of contracts to rebuild Iraq. It sounds incredible, but the heart of the problem is, instead of having Federal employees oversee these billions of dollars worth of contracts to rebuild Iraq, the Department of Defense has outsourced the oversight of these huge contracts to private companies. These companies are ``overseeing'' the work of other private companies. If many of these companies didn't already have joint ventures elsewhere or interlocking financial interests or boards of directors, I guess one could plausibly say this would be acceptable. But that has not been the case. Putting these companies in charge of oversight of one another strikes Senator Dorgan and me as simply an invitation to flagrant fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer money. Senator Dorgan is here as well, and I want to give him ample time to discuss this, but I would like to give a brief example of the kind of problem we seek to address in our legislation. The Parsons Company won two separate Defense Department oversight contracts that totaled nearly $72 million. Under each of those contracts, it overseas the Fluor Company in Iraq. At the same time, Fluor and Parsons have a $2.6 billion joint venture ongoing in Kazakhstan. The question is, with such a significant shared financial interest, how in the world is anybody in a situation like that going to have a real incentive to take out a sharp pencil and protect the taxpayers. We are talking about vast sums of money. $18 billion has been allocated by the Congress for reconstruction, and thus far 17 contracts have been let: 10 for reconstruction and 7 for overseeing the reconstruction. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his cooperation on this amendment. As I discussed with him, this amendment builds on the work that I was able to do in cooperation with Senator Dorgan and Senator Collins on the issue of no-bid contracts in Iraq. This amendment establishes that oversight and the protection of the taxpayers' interests in these billions of dollars of contracts, is a Government function. It is not something that can be outsourced. This amendment will prohibit companies with interlocking financial interests from ``overseeing'' one another. We talk often about giving the fox the opportunity to oversee the henhouse. This is a textbook case of just such a situation. I mentioned to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Virginia, and the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Michigan, that this boils down to a simple issue of commonsense. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Senator Dorgan and I are pursuing this as a commonsense issue--oversight should not be outsourced, particularly when the projects to be reviewed involve billions of taxpayer dollars. What's worse--these are cost-plus-plus contracts. The contractors here get any unforeseen costs, plus they are eligible for a bonus. Essentially, these contractors are rewarded if the folks they oversee perform well. But who evaluates how well those folks perform? The oversight contractors. Clearly, there are some perverse incentives at work in these oversight contracts. We are talking about cost-plus-plus contracts that involve billions of taxpayers' dollars. It seems to me we have to get the oversight back where it belongs, and that is in the hands of the Department of Defense and not in the hands of the private contractors. Oversight is inherently a governmental function because accountability must be first and foremost to taxpayers. I see my friend and colleague from North Dakota here. I want to yield time to him. But in wrapping up this portion of my remarks, I would like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and to the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner. This amendment, in fact, builds on some of the earlier work we have tried to do in a bipartisan fashion. It essentially comes about because, as Senator Dorgan and I have gone forward to try to make sure taxpayers' interests are protected, we found a massive loophole, a loophole that we think nobody in the Senate confronted in the past, that allows for private companies to oversee other private companies, even when they have what strikes us as very serious potential conflicts of interest. So we are looking forward, with Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin's cooperation, to have this amendment accepted. I believe it warrants bipartisan support. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled to uphold the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. This ruling is the latest rebuff to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's efforts to overturn Oregon law. The ruling makes clear that contrary to Attorney General Ashcroft's viewpoint, the Controlled Substance Act does not override the constitutional right of a state to regulate medical practice, including the choice of the citizenry to determine whether they want to allow physicians to aid terminally ill patients. Oregon voters first approved a physician-assisted suicide ballot measure in 1994, but the Oregon legislature did not agree with their decision and put the matter on the ballot a second time. In 1997, Oregon voters overwhelmingly voted once more to allow physician- assisted suicide. Almost immediately, however, federal politicians 3,000 miles away began efforts to deny Oregon citizens their long recognized right to choose their own course. Over the course of several Congresses, the attempts to overturn Oregon law and the wishes of Oregon voters through general legislation also failed. Having failed in Congress, I predicted in December 2000, that President Bush would instruct his Attorney General to reinterpret federal law in an effort to invalidate the will of Oregon's voters. The recent ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to preserve the Oregon vote is the second setback to the Attorney General's attempts to reinterpret federal law. Since I was first elected to the United State Senate, I have not wavered in my defense of the choice of the citizens of Oregon. If others see this ruling as an invitation once again to attempt to overturn Oregon law through federal legislation, I will be there again to stand up for my state. Therefore, I want to notify my colleagues that I will be reviewing every piece of legislation that may come before the Senate and will not grant my consent to consider any measure or matter that contains provisions that would overturn the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Hiester, a legislative fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the purpose of morning business.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor this morning to state, in accord with my policy of publicly announcing any hold that I place on a nominee or a piece of legislation, that I will object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the President's nominee, Deborah Majoras, to head the Federal Trade Commission. Gasoline pricing is, of course, one of the most important consumer protection issues that the Federal Trade Commission is responsible for overseeing. The prices for gasoline, of course, are soaring. For years now, the Federal Trade Commission has been waging a campaign of inaction. In three specific areas--increased oil company mergers, refinery shutdowns, and anti-competitive practices--the Federal Trade Commission has simply been AWOL. Yesterday, after writing to Ms. Majoras, to make sure she knew specifically of my concerns, I met with the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission. I asked repeatedly if there was even one area--even one area--where she would change existing Federal Trade Commission policy with respect to these practices that are sucking the competitive juices out of gasoline markets across the country. During that conversation not even one example was given of an area that the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission would change in the gasoline pricing area. It is for that reason that I publicly state today that I am placing a hold on this nominee. To me, it is absolutely unacceptable for a nominee to chair the Federal Trade Commission to not want to make one specific change in gasoline pricing policy. It is certainly unacceptable to me as a Senator from a State where the average price of gas is now $2.25 a gallon, but it ought to be unacceptable to Senators from every area of the country. Here are three examples of the record at the Federal Trade Commission that I wish to change: First, since taking office, the Bush administration has allowed 33 oil industry mergers, totaling $19.5 billion to go through. Not only has the administration not tried to block any of these mergers, they simply have taken a pass in every respect. To be fair, the Clinton Administration also sat on its hands allowing 21 oil mergers to go through while challenging only one. The Bloomberg News service recently reported on this issue. It is my own view that unchecked oil company mergers are a significant factor in the rising price of gasoline in the country. But the Federal Trade Commission, in the face of this huge wave of mergers, has simply been sitting on their hands, and yesterday, the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission gave me no indication there would be a change in the policy of the Federal Trade Commission on the merger issue. Second, a handful of refiners now control most of the gasoline in our markets. The concentration is especially serious on the west and east coasts. Mr. President, 67 percent of the west coast market and 77 percent of the east coast market is controlled by a handful of refiners--just four companies. Along with this increased concentration of refiners, we have seen a drop in the number of refineries at a critical time when clearly we need more refinery capacity, not less. Now, I have documented evidence--it is up on my Web site--that refinery shutdowns have been implemented not because of competition but to boost profit. Certainly, in my view, the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission ought to be looking at this issue of refinery capacity. But yet again, the nominee that I met with yesterday was unwilling to state what, if anything, would change with respect to refinery practices. Third, the Federal Trade Commission has been unwilling to move against anti-competitive practices that the agency has even documented. Here I am talking about redlining, a tool that is used to wall off a community from competition. So, again, as we have seen in the case of oil company mergers, as we have seen in the case of refinery shutdowns, in this third area, anti-competitive practices such as redlining, the Federal Trade Commission is going to stay on the sidelines, apparently, with a new chair. Most recently, the Federal Trade Commission, through their general counsel, has essentially said that oil companies can price gouge with impunity. It is an extraordinary statement. It was made in the Bloomberg News service, again. But the general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission has basically said oil companies can do whatever they want. They can move unilaterally, raise prices to essentially any level they would want in certain markets. So this is what I am concerned about: these questions that are specifically under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission with respect to mergers, with respect to refinery shutdowns, with respect to anti-competitive practices, such as redlining. I had hoped that the nominee to chair the agency would be willing to make changes. I provided the nominee in advance--in advance of our meeting--the key questions that I went through with her. Yet, despite that, and despite the fact that I asked for even one example of a policy she would change at the Federal Trade Commission, I was given nothing to indicate that the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission would buck the pernicious trend across this country that is draining the competition out of gasoline markets across America. For example, I asked Ms. Majoras about the Federal Trade Commission's lack of response to letters I have sent to the Chair requesting the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Shell Oil's plan to close a 70,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Bakersfield, CA. The Federal Trade Commission sent me a two-paragraph response saying they would seriously consider it. This is an enormously important issue for those of us on the west coast. I see my friend from Nevada on the Senate floor, who has been eloquent with respect to trying to stand up for the consumer on the gasoline issue. The Presiding Officer, who I have the privilege of serving with, has been long concerned about gasoline prices. This Bakersfield shutdown will have enormous and negative ramifications for the people on the west coast. But while I have heard repeatedly from the agency--and I heard yesterday from the nominee that this ``sounds like a serious issue''-- there was no commitment, none, just like the current FTC Chair, to take any specific action. In addition, the nominee pointed out there may even be a potential conflict of interest with respect to the Bakersfield shutdown because of her current law firm responsibilities and the fact that her current firm represents Chevron. So, Mr. President, I will say, as I have done in the past, that I am going to keep my door open. I am hopeful, in the course of hearings and debates about the future direction of the Federal Trade Commission, that the nominee will shift course from what I heard yesterday. But I will tell you, it is not enough for the agency to continue to say they are ``seriously concerned'' or they are ``monitoring the situation'' or ``they are troubled by the high prices our constituents are paying.'' That is not enough. When people up and down the west coast of the United States and across the country are getting shellacked by these gasoline prices, in effect, we are seeing consumers clobbered at the pump with dollars from their own pockets, and then taxpayer dollars are used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at record prices when it is essentially filled. We need some changes, and we need changes at the top with respect to gasoline pricing policy in this country. That means the Federal Trade Commission has to get off the sidelines. They have to zero in on the three specific areas I mentioned this morning: oil company mergers; refinery shutdowns; and anti-competitive practices, such as redlining. For far too many years, Federal Trade Commission political appointees have sat on their hands while the anti-competitive practices of the oil industry gouge American consumers at the gas pump. I have given Ms. Majoras a number of opportunities to explain to me what she plans to do differently as a Commissioner, and she has made it abundantly clear that she has no specific plan to energize the FTC to begin fighting for consumers. I don't intend to allow yet another FTC Commissioner collect a $145,00 salary to do nothing while unnaturally high gas prices jeopardize American jobs and American families. It is my intention to continue to object to Senate consideration of the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission until that agency is willing to tell the people of our State and the people of this country that there are going to be some changes and there is going to be some competition again in the gasoline markets of our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have always believed health care policy needs to be bipartisan, and needs to be ideas driven. So as we talk about health care, I come to the floor to mention an idea our colleague Senator Kerry has talked about which I think is especially promising for small business. The reality is, a very high percentage of the uninsured work in small businesses. These small businesses are dying to cover their people. The owners of those small businesses do not get up in the morning and say: We want to be rotten to our workers in not giving coverage. They are dying to figure out ways to help their small businesses. Senator Kerry has come up with an idea that I think is really innovative. He has said, given the fact resources are scarce, that dollars for trying to address the uninsured, the needs of our small businesses, are restricted, we ought to target those dollars where they are needed the most. He has proposed the Federal Government, with respect to small business, concentrate on instances where there are very large bills, bills above $50,000. He would have the Federal Government step in and pick up about 75 percent of those costs. The premiums that would be charged employers and their workers could be trimmed about 10 percent in this fashion. We know it has been documented that those who are particularly in need of assistance when they face these very high bills are a very large proportion of the health care costs in America. These health care costs are particularly punitive for the small businesses. Small businesses are always walking on economic tightropes. If one employee at a small business gets sick, this can devastate the entire budget of the company for not just health care coverage but the entire coverage of the business. I am very pleased Senator Kerry has brought forward this idea. I think it is one that can be supported in a bipartisan way. The Congress, over the years, has tried to look at ways to strengthen the employer-based system of coverage. I think we all understand if you are talking about starting scores of new programs, that would be very difficult at this time. I also do not think it is warranted at a time when we are spending $1.7 trillion on health care. If you divide that up by 270 million Americans, it comes to more than $17,000 for a family of 4. So we are spending a lot of money. The challenge now is to really zero in on areas where the Government can be best utilized. I think Senator Kerry's proposal with respect to trying to deal with the costs of individuals who work at small businesses with very high bills is particularly appropriate at this time. It is something I think could be built in a bipartisan way. I will have more to say about this and other proposals in the days ahead. But as we come to the floor and talk--Democrats and Republicans--about health care, I think we ought to make our policies bipartisan. We ought to make them ideas driven. The kind of idea that has been outlined by Senator Kerry with respect to the needs of individuals who work at small businesses with very large bills is the kind of thinking that would make a difference now. It is cost effective. I think it warrants support on a bipartisan basis. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue that has enormous importance for the West and other parts of the country, and that is the funding, critically needed funding, to protect our forests. I believe we are going to have an extraordinarily difficult time in the next few months coping with these forest fires that are causing such devastation in the West. I was part of a coalition, a member of the Budget Committee which saw the Senate accept unanimously by voice vote a measure that would fully fund essentially what we were trying to do, again on a bipartisan basis, in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. I come today because I have heard unofficially that possibly the amendment I authored and which was accepted unanimously in this Chamber is not going to make it out of the budget conference. I think this would be a grievous mistake given the reports we are getting now about the prospect of an extraordinarily difficult fire season. The amendment I authored would increase the budget authority to boost investments in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to benefit our national forests, the environment, local communities, and local economies. My amendment would add $343 million to last year's $417 million for hazardous fuel reduction so as to be able to reach the $716 million authorization in title I of the Healthy Forests legislation. Now, we have talked a lot during this session about the importance of hazardous fire reduction projects. We have talked about it in the Budget and Appropriations Committees, in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and my colleagues have heard me repeatedly talk about how important this funding would be. But every year these hazardous fuels projects go underfunded or unfunded, and that means another year with little or no warning thousands of people in fire-prone communities end up tossing everything they can into their cars and fleeing their homes without knowing if anything is going to remain when they return. The Forest Service's inability to do all of the hazardous fuels reduction projects that needs to get done leads to real-life danger on the ground in these small western communities. It leads to danger in the backyards of our citizens, in their recreation areas, and the places they gather in their communities. Two years ago, in July of 2002, the Associated Press reported that 17,000 people faced evacuation in Oregon. Here is just a bit of this report: Firefighters went door-to-door deciding which homes they could save (in Cave Junction, Oregon) as an explosive 68,000- acre wildfire nearby fed off heat, wind and timber. These folks were evacuated, and a month later they were still evacuated. Another article from one of our publications, the Medford Mail Tribune, noted the very personal nature of the disruption. It said the Josephine County Sheriff's Office was beginning to reunite an estimated 400 evacuated animals, including livestock and even family pets, with evacuated owners. The Associated Press, that same news outlet, reported just yesterday that an early fire season is expected in eastern Oregon. We are hearing about this all over the West. There are going to be lots of fires. They are going to be very early. They, in my view, are going to cause enormous pain and hardship for our communities. I implore my colleagues, both in the Senate and in the other body, to protect what we have been able to do in a bipartisan kind of fashion, and that is to properly and fully fund this critical aspect of the Healthy Forests legislation. For years there has been this budgetary sleight of hand with respect to forest fires, where the Forest Service takes from one account and goes to another. When it is all done, it is clear there are not enough resources, and that is what I tried to change in the Healthy Forests legislation. We had bipartisan support. Senator Domenici, for example, has done yeoman's work on this for years and years. Senator Crapo, another colleague in this body, has been so supportive of this effort. I will take a few minutes to talk about what I think is ahead and why I hope that if the conference has not fully acted that we can protect that amendment to fully fund the effort to deal with this huge fire risk that we are facing. Just yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported: California's fire season, off to an ominously early start, could be exacerbated by increasing numbers of dead trees, frozen funding for fuel-reduction projects and the implacable expansion of the suburbs into wildlands. Federal officials moved Wednesday to address one of those concerns, freeing $240 million for removal of dead trees in San Diego, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, after Senator Feinstein complained about restrictions on the funds. Still, State and national officials say the trend in recent years of extremely destructive wildfires in California and throughout the West is likely to continue this season. From the CBS Associated Press story entitled ``Early Start For California Fires,'' which came from Corona, CA, on May 5, just days ago: As acrid smoke for more than 18,000 acres of charred brush curled skyward, California officials feared the earlier-than- usual start of the summer wildfires season could make it the most dangerous ever. Just months after the most devastating wildfires in State history . . . thousands of acres from San Diego to Santa Barbara are ablaze. Thousands of firefighters are on the line, and once again residents are fleeing advancing flames. The same day, the Associated Press said: It's like gasoline. More than 1,000 people were evacuated in the northeastern Lake Elsinore area as the Cerrito Fire was whipped up by winds. Tuesday, the Los Angeles Daily News: It was the explosive end to the State's worst fire season, from which the region still hasn't recovered. And this year, authorities say, could be worse. Much, much worse. To those thousands of folks across the country, particularly those whom I represent in Oregon who have been pounded by these devastating fires year after year, the bickering and the back and forth in Congress on fully funding forest health, this is not a theoretical thing to those Oregonians. It is not some kind of policy discussion. It is a danger to their families, a danger to their communities, every single day. By working in a bipartisan fashion, after more than 25 years the Congress came together, passed a landmark piece of wildfire legislation, which was signed into law by the President on December 3 of last year. It is going to protect communities from catastrophic forest fires, preserve old-growth trees, restore unhealthy forests, and protect the involvement of our communities in discussing these issues. I was very pleased that because of the bipartisan cooperation, we were able to get the Senate to pass a balanced practical approach to Healthy Forests legislation, and it authorized the $760 million that is essential for hazardous fuels reduction projects, and it made possible my budget amendment that would have provided the funding room necessary for the landmark legislation. Without the help of the budget amendment that was adopted earlier, the issue that is now being debated in Congress, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is not going to be able to live up to the full promise that folks in Cave Junction, OR, or Corona, CA, are counting on. The amendment in the budget resolution will take us a step closer to fulfilling the vision that people have in the rural West of this law. They deserve an approach and critical response from the Federal Government, starting now with the prospect of a devastating fire season. This body agreed that hazardous fuels reduction projects, the National Fire Plan, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act should be given complete and bipartisan support. I am hopeful that the budget conferees will see the importance of keeping intact the unanimously accepted Senate position to fight these fires with the resources necessary. It is critical that we not disappoint people in these small rural communities across the West. They are counting on the Congress to ensure that they have the resources that are going to be essential to save their homes and safeguard their lives. I do not want to see these families evacuated again this year and next year because the Congress did not do its job. I urge our colleagues, at a time when we are about to go to the budget conference, to support the effort to fully fund forest fires, to promote the healthy forest effort that we enacted on a bipartisan basis. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. I know the majority leader wants to come as well. I certainly want to be courteous to him. I will try to finish in less than 15 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent to speak at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act,'' together with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. This bill would extend the successful model of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provision--which requires candidates for Federal office to take explicit personal responsibility for TV and radio ads--to additional types of media, including the Internet, that today aren't covered. Although the elections of 2004 are still months away, the onslaught of political advertising has already begun. As the election nears, with each passing day, political ads become more and more prevalent. But something is different this year. Two things, actually. First, as anyone who watches television has probably noticed, this year political ads feature a personal statement by the candidate saying ``I'm so-and-so and I approved this message.'' The candidates are taking full personal responsibility, clearly and publicly, for the advertisements put out by their campaigns. This is the direct result of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions included in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. As the author of the original ``Stand By Your Ad'' amendment, together with my good friend Senator Collins, I'm proud of the effect our new requirement is having on the tone of radio and TV campaign ads. Already, in the first election cycle where it applies, it's making a real difference. The reason is simple. The public is turned off by aggressively negative attack ads--and candidates know it. So when candidates have to associate themselves in a personal manner with their ads, they are going to be extra careful about the tone. A nasty or controversial attack can backfire, leading to negative perceptions of the candidate who approved it. In short, candidates are thinking twice about the tone of the ads they put on the air. Representatives of national, non-partisan campaign reform groups such as Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics have all been quoted in the press as saying that there has been a noticeable shift away from the overly negative attack ads of the past. The second change this year is that Internet communications are coming into their own as a vehicle for political advertising. Americans are spending more time online--plus many now have Internet connections and computing power that enables them to view video that matches the quality of television. Political campaigns have taken note, and have made major strides in tapping into the tremendous potential of the Internet for reaching large numbers of people at low cost. According to press reports, the Presidential campaigns already have e-mailed links to campaign videos to literally millions of people. These Internet-based communications can spread like wildfire, because each recipient can easily forward them to others. Moreoever, Web videos often attract attention from the news media, so the message sometimes ends up getting carried on television as well. Political messages are also starting to appear on websites that carry banner or pop-up ads. It has been estimated that politicians will spend an estimated $25 million this year on online ads. The rise of Internet-based ads is not just a flash in the pan--it's a trend that is sure to continue. I have a long history of supporting the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet-based innovation. In politics as in so many other areas, the Internet brings exciting opportunities--in this case, to create new avenues for democratic dialogue and engagement in the political process. But I don't believe that the Internet should be allowed to become a vehicle for political candidates to sidestep existing campaign rules and engage in mudslinging without accountability. The problem is, the scope of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions is limited. They only apply to television and radio ads. Internet communications are not covered. Nor are communications such as newspaper ads or mass mailings. Already, there are clear signs that highly negative ads are migrating to the Internet--in part because the ``Stand By Your Ad'' requirements don't apply there. Here are a few recent press headlines: ``Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web.'' ``Presidential Ad War Hits the Web--Harsh Attacks Leveled Online, Where TV Rules Don't Apply.'' ``Political Smears Thrive Online.'' The ads these articles talk about aren't just ordinary text messages sent through e-mail or posted on a website. Often, they are full, professionally produced videos, equal in quality to anything you might see on TV--and therefore packing the same emotional impact as a well crafted TV ad. But instead of using broadcast, satellite, or cable, they are e-mailed to thousands or even millions of Internet users. So today, I am introducing the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act.'' You could also call it ``Stand By Your Ad II.'' The basic idea is that what works for TV and radio should work for other types of communications as well. Candidates wishing to distribute negative campaign materials via the Internet or the mail should be held just as accountable as they are now for ads they put on the air. Specifically, the bill would require that campaign communications such as audio or video ads transmitted over the Internet, newspaper ads, brochures, bulk mailings, bulk e-mail, and prerecorded telephone calls--if they mention another candidate for the same office--must carry a ``Stand By Your Ad'' disclaimer stating that the candidate personally approved the message. For Internet audio or video and prerecorded phone calls, the requirements would be identical to those that now apply to radio or television. For printed materials, whether paper or electronic, a picture of the candidate would be required to accompany the statement. I believe that forcing candidates to take personal responsibility also forces them to think long and hard about releasing the types of aggressive negative attacks that have been growing all too common during election seasons. This is important, because when people get turned off by the electoral process, voting and public involvement suffer. Decreasing the amount of negativity in our political campaigns may help reduce some of the cynicism about politics, and bring more people back into the process. I say to my colleagues, Stand By Your Ad is working. So let's take the next step and extend this success to campaign communications generally. Let's build on the good work we've already done in getting candidates to take responsibility for what they say. And yes, I'm Ron Wyden, and I stand by this statement. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act,'' together with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. This bill would extend the successful model of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provision--which requires candidates for Federal office to take explicit personal responsibility for TV and radio ads--to additional types of media, including the Internet, that today aren't covered. Although the elections of 2004 are still months away, the onslaught of political advertising has already begun. As the election nears, with each passing day, political ads become more and more prevalent. But something is different this year. Two things, actually. First, as anyone who watches television has probably noticed, this year political ads feature a personal statement by the candidate saying ``I'm so-and-so and I approved this message.'' The candidates are taking full personal responsibility, clearly and publicly, for the advertisements put out by their campaigns. This is the direct result of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions included in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. As the author of the original ``Stand By Your Ad'' amendment, together with my good friend Senator Collins, I'm proud of the effect our new requirement is having on the tone of radio and TV campaign ads. Already, in the first election cycle where it applies, it's making a real difference. The reason is simple. The public is turned off by aggressively negative attack ads--and candidates know it. So when candidates have to associate themselves in a personal manner with their ads, they are going to be extra careful about the tone. A nasty or controversial attack can backfire, leading to negative perceptions of the candidate who approved it. In short, candidates are thinking twice about the tone of the ads they put on the air. Representatives of national, non-partisan campaign reform groups such as Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics have all been quoted in the press as saying that there has been a noticeable shift away from the overly negative attack ads of the past. The second change this year is that Internet communications are coming into their own as a vehicle for political advertising. Americans are spending more time online--plus many now have Internet connections and computing power that enables them to view video that matches the quality of television. Political campaigns have taken note, and have made major strides in tapping into the tremendous potential of the Internet for reaching large numbers of people at low cost. According to press reports, the Presidential campaigns already have e-mailed links to campaign videos to literally millions of people. These Internet-based communications can spread like wildfire, because each recipient can easily forward them to others. Moreoever, Web videos often attract attention from the news media, so the message sometimes ends up getting carried on television as well. Political messages are also starting to appear on websites that carry banner or pop-up ads. It has been estimated that politicians will spend an estimated $25 million this year on online ads. The rise of Internet-based ads is not just a flash in the pan--it's a trend that is sure to continue. I have a long history of supporting the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet-based innovation. In politics as in so many other areas, the Internet brings exciting opportunities--in this case, to create new avenues for democratic dialogue and engagement in the political process. But I don't believe that the Internet should be allowed to become a vehicle for political candidates to sidestep existing campaign rules and engage in mudslinging without accountability. The problem is, the scope of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions is limited. They only apply to television and radio ads. Internet communications are not covered. Nor are communications such as newspaper ads or mass mailings. Already, there are clear signs that highly negative ads are migrating to the Internet--in part because the ``Stand By Your Ad'' requirements don't apply there. Here are a few recent press headlines: ``Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web.'' ``Presidential Ad War Hits the Web--Harsh Attacks Leveled Online, Where TV Rules Don't Apply.'' ``Political Smears Thrive Online.'' The ads these articles talk about aren't just ordinary text messages sent through e-mail or posted on a website. Often, they are full, professionally produced videos, equal in quality to anything you might see on TV--and therefore packing the same emotional impact as a well crafted TV ad. But instead of using broadcast, satellite, or cable, they are e-mailed to thousands or even millions of Internet users. So today, I am introducing the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act.'' You could also call it ``Stand By Your Ad II.'' The basic idea is that what works for TV and radio should work for other types of communications as well. Candidates wishing to distribute negative campaign materials via the Internet or the mail should be held just as accountable as they are now for ads they put on the air. Specifically, the bill would require that campaign communications such as audio or video ads transmitted over the Internet, newspaper ads, brochures, bulk mailings, bulk e-mail, and prerecorded telephone calls--if they mention another candidate for the same office--must carry a ``Stand By Your Ad'' disclaimer stating that the candidate personally approved the message. For Internet audio or video and prerecorded phone calls, the requirements would be identical to those that now apply to radio or television. For printed materials, whether paper or electronic, a picture of the candidate would be required to accompany the statement. I believe that forcing candidates to take personal responsibility also forces them to think long and hard about releasing the types of aggressive negative attacks that have been growing all too common during election seasons. This is important, because when people get turned off by the electoral process, voting and public involvement suffer. Decreasing the amount of negativity in our political campaigns may help reduce some of the cynicism about politics, and bring more people back into the process. I say to my colleagues, Stand By Your Ad is working. So let's take the next step and extend this success to campaign communications generally. Let's build on the good work we've already done in getting candidates to take responsibility for what they say. And yes, I'm Ron Wyden, and I stand by this statement. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at a time when there are record gasoline prices for the American consumer and record oil company profits, the Bush administration is filling our Strategic Petroleum Reserve at 2\1/ 2\ times the average fill rate. Over the last 2 years, the average fill rate has been about 120,000 barrels a day. Recently, it has been hovering around 300,000 barrels a day. Using the figures provided by the administration's Energy Information Administration Office, these policies would raise the price of oil per barrel about $1.50. I come to the Senate today to say I believe the Bush administration's policies with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are hitting the American people with a double whammy. For the American people, more of their tax dollars are now being spent for filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and more of their take-home dollars are being spent on gasoline at the pump. I come today to say if the Bush administration is not willing to at least reduce the fill rate of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I ask the Bush administration to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with a firehose. It is that simple. Over the course of the year, the administration may say, we reach an average fill rate of 120,000 barrels a day. There is a great amount of oil in some months and no oil in other months. To that, I say the months before the peak driving season, when gasoline is already at record prices, are not the months to go whole hog in filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is not the time to pour in the maximum amount of oil. One reason is because oil prices are already so high that American taxpayers are spending top dollar for the oil being put into the reserve. Anyone who has ever had to run their own family finances knows when prices are high, sometimes you wait until the price comes down to buy what you want. There is another, more compelling reason to slow the rate of fill in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is because this administration's policy is actually contributing to the high gas prices shellacking working Americans' pocketbooks every day from coast to coast. I am of the view the American consumer is about to get hit by a perfect storm with respect to these gasoline prices. The combination of OPEC cutbacks, the fact the Federal Trade Commission--the agency that is supposed to protect our consumers--is sitting on its hands, the fact you actually get a tax break for closing a profitable oil refinery, these Strategic Petroleum Reserve policies, is going to create a perfect storm that is going to be devastating for American consumers across our country. I know my colleagues are here and want to talk about this issue, as well, so I will abbreviate my statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 505(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, I move to waive section 505 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to respond very briefly, we pay for it as essentially outlined in the President's budget. According to OMB and the Treasury Department, we would close the loophole that would save taxpayers approximately $5.7 trillion over 10 years. That is the way we pay for the program. The people who are going to be eligible for the program are going to get the same opportunities as those in the manufacturing sector, the same number of weeks. The Senator from Oklahoma has talked about unemployment compensation. This is about retraining people. This is about health care benefits. If you think we are doing enough today when 5 percent of the people get access to the health care program, then I guess that is a rationale for voting against this amendment. I would hope the bipartisan work that has been done on this legislation by myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Brownback, Senator Snowe, and Senator Baucus would warrant the support of our colleagues.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. That is current law.

Mr. WYDEN. Same as current law.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will let the Senator from Montana ask a question, and then I have a minute.

Mr. WYDEN. I have enormous respect for the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I will take a minute or two to touch on the issue being raised. The distinguished chairman of the committee has repeatedly said: The program would be stretched too far; the program is already at its limits; when would enough be enough? I say to my distinguished friend, when we are only covering 5 percent of the people eligible for the health care benefit, we have to do better. By any calculation, that is not something that reflects well on our bipartisan desires. The chairman of the committee knows I have been supportive of these trade agreements the Senator from Iowa and the distinguished Senator from Montana have championed. They have opened up the opportunity for U.S. companies to set up shops overseas and generate jobs and investment. Senator Coleman and I want to open up the trade adjustment program so when our U.S. workers are hurt, they are not left behind. Senator Coleman and I have said this is a question of bringing the law in line with the times. It made sense more than three decades ago when it focused on manufacturing. The chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, has hit the key question: When is enough enough? We believe, on a bipartisan basis, it is not enough when you are covering only 5 percent of the workers for health care and you are leaving four-fifths of the economy, people in the service sector and the high-technology sector, behind. There is a reason why business and labor have come together to support our amendment. This amendment is supported by the Business Roundtable. It is supported by the Technology Industry Association. The two key business groups, the Business Roundtable, the Technology Industry Association, and the labor sector, have come together because they have seen a bipartisan effort that has gone on for months, led by the distinguished Senator from Montana and the Senator from Minnesota, to bring the Senate together. If Members vote against this amendment, I believe it is a vote that will continue discrimination under law against those who work in the high-technology and service sector. It will keep the door closed to millions of our workers in the technology and service sector. I know no Senator intends that, but that will be the practical effect. We will have only one vote in this session of the Senate as to whether we will have a chance to stand up for these workers who have been hammered as a result of unfair trading practices or simply competition, when we pay $40 or $50 an hour and competitors overseas pay vastly less. I am very hopeful the bipartisan efforts that have been made will not be in vain. The distinguished Senator from Iowa has put his hand on the key question: When is enough enough? We respectfully say, if we are only covering 5 percent of the workers and leaving four-fifths of the economy behind and the support of the Business Roundtable and the Technology Industry Association, it is not enough. We can do better. The distinguished Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, know I have been very supportive of their policies in the past and expect to be in the future, particularly with respect to these trade agreements. When the trade agreements open up the opportunities for our companies, we have to open up the opportunity for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to help our workers when they have been left behind. This will be the one chance to stand up for millions of workers in the high-tech and service sector. I hope our colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield 2 minutes at this time to Senator Coleman.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much additional time do I have remaining?

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent for up to 5 additional minutes. I ask that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, would also have that additional time if my unanimous consent request was agreed to. We have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. I ask that I have up to 5 additional minutes and that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee would also have up to 5 additional minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield time to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to briefly outline this bipartisan amendment. This is cosponsored by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman. We are joined by Senator Snowe and Senator Brownback, and on our side by the distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Senator Rockefeller. There is a strong bipartisan coalition for this amendment because the fact is under our trade adjustment laws, millions of our workers have been left behind. This law has been of great benefit to those in the manufacturing sector for more than three decades, but for millions of our workers who work in the service sector, who work, for example, in the high- technology sector, the safety net the Trade Adjustment Act provides has not been there. So all of the benefits offered by the trade adjustment legislation in terms of help with retraining, assistance with health care, a bit of income to get by--all of the services that make it possible for one to use this critical law as a trampoline to get back into the private sector economy have not been available in the service sector and in the high-technology sector, and that is what our bipartisan amendment would change. In the last few hours apparently there has been one letter from an insurance company that has been offered up as an argument against this. It states that in some way our legislation would damage the opportunity for private insurance companies to deliver health benefits under this legislation. Senator Coleman and I would never support something like that, and I wish to outline exactly why our amendment does not damage the opportunity for private insurance companies to deliver health care under our proposal. Our amendment states that all current private sector health care delivery systems would be continued in every State in America. So let me start with that. Under our bipartisan amendment, in every State in America the private sector options that are offered now could be continued. We do state in our proposal that if there is discrimination, say, on the basis of genetic history or disability or other concrete examples of discrimination, then the Office of Personnel Management would be given the discretion--not required but they would be given the discretion--to step in and ensure that there is an affordable alternative. Second, we protect the option of private health insurers participating in the system by stipulating that our amendment will not override State decisionmaking. This is very important because, again, in every State in our country, State insurance law allows for private insurers to be involved in the health care delivery system. Third, apparently there was a concern raised that in some way this amendment would encourage adverse selection and then there would be a disproportionate number of those who are needy and ailing going to private insurers. The fact is that the bipartisan amendment will reduce adverse selection. It will reduce adverse selection by increasing the subsidy that is available for health care in America. It will expand outreach, which will be beneficial, and make it easier for people to sign up. So the prospect that this will encourage adverse selection and damage private insurers is also incorrect. So I want to be clear because there was one letter that was brought up recently in the last few hours opposing all of the good bipartisan work that has been done on this for months and months, and I wanted to set the record clear that for the three reasons I have outlined our bipartisan legislation will do no damage to the important private sector health delivery options that are available now in every State in America and will be continued under our legislation. I believe I will have a bit more time later. I think Senator Coleman did an incredibly good job yesterday of outlining the case for why it is so important to help these workers. I know in my home State, folks do not understand why if one is hurting in Beaverton, OR, or they have lost their job as a result of trade they cannot be in a position to compete against somebody in Bangalore. That is what this issue is all about. I see our friend, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, is in the Chamber. He has done such good work over the years with respect to the training and other programs that are essential. With this legislation that has been produced by a bipartisan group, including Senators Coleman, Brownback, Snowe, Rockefeller, and Baucus, we are giving a chance to that great bulk of workers in the service sector and in the high-technology sector to have a chance to use this program as a trampoline to get back into the economy. They are not going to get that chance under other programs. There is no other program that gives that same kind of opportunity to folks who are hurting in this way. We have done it in a bipartisan way. We have done it in a cost-effective way. We have done it in a fashion so as to not damage the right of private health insurers in every State in the country to deliver the benefit. I will have a bit more to say as we get into the debate, but I also conclude this portion by thanking my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He has been a great champion of a bipartisan effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much additional time, if any, do I have?