Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Conrad of North Dakota, and also thank Senator Nickles, whose staff has been working with me. Many Senators know last year we put a tremendous amount of effort in trying to get a bipartisan bill passed to get our forests healthy again. We have seen much of our country just devastated by staggering forest fires. A key part of that legislation was to authorize $760 million in hazardous fuels reduction programs. The amendment I have filed--and I will be asking the Senate to vote on it tomorrow--has generated interest among many colleagues of both political parties. It would add $343 million to last year's $417 million for hazardous fuels reductions to reach the $760 million authorization in title I Healthy Forests legislation. It seems to me what we have seen over the years is essentially a shell game, where various Forest Service programs are robbed in order to fund the hazardous fuels reduction programs and we end up without adequate resources across the board in the forestry area. I am hopeful we will be able to agree with our Republican colleagues on this effort. Suffice it to say, it was a Herculean task to get Healthy Forest legislation passed last session. I think many thought it was impossible. It seems to me the Senate owes it to the people who are waiting to see improvements in their communities to fully fund this important legislation. I am going to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this particular piece of legislation. This amendment will ensure we really get some health back into this idea of healthy forests. We are not going to be able to do it if we consistently underfund these programs. In the past, it seems to me, we played sort of a ``rob one fund in order to fund another fund'' kind of program. That is not going to do the job responsibly for the long term. We are talking about millions and millions of acres that we are going to have to thin in the days ahead. After the Senate passes historic legislation, legislation that is going to be good for the environment, good for the economy, promote old growth, involve local communities, protect the rights of citizens--for example, being involved in forestry policy--what we have to do is fund this properly. There will be interest among colleagues on both sides of the aisle on the legislation. I thank Chairman Nickles for being willing to work with me on it, and Senator Conrad as well. On the other side of the aisle, Senators Domenici and Burns are intensely interested in this matter. On our side of the aisle, Senators Daschle, Feinstein, Bingaman--all of us have cooperated with the ranking member, Senator Conrad, and the chairman, Senator Nickles. My amendment has been filed, and I am hopeful we will be able to pass it without controversy tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado was in the Budget Committee and saw our focus on health care issues. He said in particular he was hoping we would have an effort to bring forth ideas that would generate bipartisan support. That is exactly what I hope to do this afternoon. I want to discuss the question of laying the foundation in this budget resolution for containing prescription drug costs. If you think about what happened in the Budget Committee, there was no topic that generated as much interest and as much concern as the question of health care and particularly Medicare and prescription drugs. In fact, at one point the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, said: Well, are we going to relitigate the entire prescription drug bill on the budget? Obviously, the budget resolution does not allow for something like that. I think Chairman Grassley's comments were indicative of the frustration and concern across this country with respect to the inability to hold down the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. I want to discuss an idea about which I and others on the Budget Committee have been talking. It is also in the legislation I have been able to work on with Senator Snowe. What particularly pleased me in the Budget Committee is Senator Gregg, the chairman of the HELP Committee, said he thought this idea had considerable merit. I am hopeful by the time this comes out on the floor, we can do what Senator Allard has been talking about, and that is to have ideas that are bipartisan that deal with these important issues, particularly concerns such as health care where we have this demographic tsunami ahead, that really do address what the American people, and especially seniors, are talking about. What will be offered before too long is an effort to lay the groundwork in the budget resolution for making sure the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the authority to negotiate for our seniors and hold down the costs of prescription drugs. For the first time, the Congressional Budget Office in a letter to me on March 3 said: Giving the Secretary an additional tool--the authority to negotiate prices with manufacturers of such drugs--can put greater pressure on manufacturers and could produce some additional savings. What I say to the Senate and colleagues is for the first time now, we have the Congressional Budget Office on record stating that giving the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate prices could produce additional savings for some pharmaceuticals that are purchased by our seniors. I would hope every Member of the Senate would be sympathetic of this desire to contain costs in prescription drugs at this time. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first, in my view, is the fact we have just seen in recent weeks the prescription drug legislation that passed is going to cost $134 billion more than was estimated. In light of this dramatic increase, which has come up in a matter of weeks, in light of the fact we have this demographic revolution ahead, it seems to me it is critical the Senate act responsibly and search for every way possible to assure access to affordable medicines for seniors and to protect the interests of the taxpayers. I voted for the Medicare legislation. I still have the welts on my back to prove it. I also believe strongly in making sure the private sector has every opportunity to help in lowering costs and delivering needed pharmaceuticals to seniors. I have always felt there is considerable merit in the approach used by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that uses the private sector to make sure you get a fair shake for Federal employees. But I also think it is important there be backup kinds of tools, that there be additional tools to the private sector approach, and that is why it is so important the Senate, before it completes its business, uses the opportunity to lay the groundwork in this budget resolution to make sure the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in a position to try to wring out the best possible bargain for seniors and for taxpayers on these medicine costs. Given the fact the Congressional Budget Office has now told us additional savings are possible when we provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to negotiate, it seems to me to be derelict to not have the Senate on a bipartisan basis lay the groundwork for giving the Secretary that authority to negotiate. I was very much encouraged when the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, said there was considerable merit to this idea. I see the Senator from Colorado on the floor. He has talked repeatedly about his desire to have bipartisan efforts in the health care area. In the past, every time in the budget resolution when Senator Snowe was on the committee, Senator Smith, and others, we have been able to do it. This year it was not possible, and that is tragic, particularly in light of the increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals and the increase in the prescription drug costs over a matter of a few weeks. I am very hopeful now we will have a chance to move ahead on this issue. The approach that will be offered is one I think is consistent with the votes of those who supported the legislation and many who were against it. Many who were against the legislation said they had reservations because it did not do enough to contain costs. Now we have the opportunity, because of what the Congressional Budget Office has told us, to actually rein in the costs of this program. We have seen we can do it in some areas that are very significant. Take single-source medicine. The American Academy of Actuaries has found in many instances these drugs comprise a significant portion of the entire expenditure of the program. I think we can do this in a fashion that ensures access for those who need this medicine. I have worked so closely with those programs--the National Alliance for Mentally Ill and others--that are concerned about those drugs. We can get these cost savings, ensure access for those individuals, and save taxpayers money. It seems to me if the Congress simply lets pass this opportunity to rein in the costs--and we see the costs of the program have skyrocketed more than $100 billion in a matter of months-- one has to ask oneself, What is ahead? How much more of this program, a program so desperately needed by the elderly, is going to be eaten up as a result of the Senate not taking the steps to rein in the costs? The Congressional Budget Office has told us now what is possible, so it really becomes a question of political will. I am very hopeful as the Senate goes about its work over the next few days, we understand here is a chance to build on the legislation that passed. It is not putting in place price controls and some kind of arbitrary ``set the prices from Washington, DC'' kind of regime. I believe private marketplace forces can work. I have seen that in my hometown where we have many older people in managed care programs. But I also want us to make sure the Secretary of Health and Human Services has every appropriate additional tool to try to wring out price savings for both seniors and taxpayers. With the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office now telling us for the first time, reversing the position they outlined back in January of this year, I think we ought to make sure we pass legislation that lays the groundwork for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to have the tool, the authority to negotiate prices, that can produce the additional savings for some pharmaceuticals the Congressional Budget Office has outlined. I want to emphasize to my colleagues this is not price controls. This would not set aside the private sector and the authority of the private sector to negotiate. I happen to think that is constructive. I think we will get some savings. Certainly, the fact some seniors will get their health care medicines and pharmaceuticals through managed care plans and have the kind of buying power that produces will be very useful, and I support that. But I also think on top of that private sector leverage, we ought to give the Secretary the authority to negotiate. It is, in effect, a fallback tool that can ensure you wring out savings for taxpayers and for older people. I offer in the spirit the Senator from Colorado talked about in the committee--he wanted to see people come forward with ideas, and I say to the Senator from Colorado, I have come forth with an idea. I have come forth with an idea that the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Gregg, says has considerable merit. When there is that kind of opportunity and one faces these escalating costs we have seen just in a matter of weeks, $134 billion more than was originally envisioned, the Congress ought to act. A number of colleagues have worked very hard on this issue over the years--Senator Kennedy, Senator Feingold, Senator Stabenow on this side. I have been so pleased to be able to work with Senator Snowe and Senator Smith on many of these issues over the years. I ask my colleagues to reflect on what the Congressional Budget Office has said on this topic. When there are these kinds of increases in prescription drug costs both for older people who walk into a pharmacy and for the entire Medicare Program, $134 billion increase in a matter of months, let's heed the objective analysis of the Congressional Budget Office and make sure we wring out every possible savings for the taxpayers and seniors of this country. There was a reason why in the Budget Committee no subject was discussed at such length as health care costs. The reason is medical costs are gobbling up everything in sight. There are no costs going up like medical bills. We see that for every possible group. I am one who believes the private sector can help contain costs. That is why I have been a supporter of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. I also believe when the Congressional Budget Office tells us there are ways to make additional savings by giving Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate a good deal for senior citizens under the Medicare Program, it would be derelict for the Senate not to make sure that opportunity was not picked up on. We will have a good debate on this issue. I am very hopeful that the words we heard from the distinguished chairman of the HELP Committee, the idea of giving the Secretary the authority to negotiate prices for seniors has considerable merit and that we can have bipartisan support for the efforts in this budget resolution to lay the groundwork for an approach on prescription drug cost containment. This is about cost containment. It is not about throwing the whole law in the trash can. It is not about starting over. It is about containing costs. It is about the principal concern older people and taxpayers have all across this country. The Congressional Budget Office has told us we have a chance to contain costs. We ought to lay the groundwork to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee, I yield myself up to 20 minutes off the resolution.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 2160 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my good friend Senator Burns and I have pioneered a number of legislative efforts aimed at protecting ordinary computer users from the tricks and schemes of those who would abuse the open and interconnected nature of the Internet. From online privacy to spam, we have sought to establish some basic, commonsense rules to address sleazy, intrusive, and anti-consumer practices that have arisen in the new world of the Internet. In each case, our goal has not been to stifle or restrict legitimate and innovative modes of e-commerce, but rather to promote them by reining in unfair and annoying behavior that undermines consumer confidence and use of the Internet. Today, we continue on that path by introducing the ``SPY BLOCK'' Act, together with our colleague Senator Boxer. This legislation will put the brakes on the growing problem of software being installed secretly on people's computers, for purposes they might object to if given the chance. Sometimes, the problem is a ``drive-by download,'' where the consumer's mere visit to a website or decision to click on an advertisement secretly triggers the downloading of software onto the consumer's machine. Or, it can be a ``double whammy download,'' where the consumer's voluntary download of one software program also triggers the inadvertent download of a second software program which, although it may serve a very different purpose, has been bundled together with the first one. Once installed, the unwanted software operates in the background, performing functions that ordinary computer users cannot detect. As a result, the computer user may never even know the software is there, let alone what it is doing. And to add insult to injury, software that spreads in this fashion often is designed to be nearly impossible to uninstall. What might such software do, once it is installed? The legislation we are introducing today identifies several possible functions that pose concerns. First, some software, often referred to as ``spyware,'' collects information about the computer user and transmits that information over the Internet to the spyware's author. Second, software sometimes referred to as ``adware'' causes pop-up ads to appear on the user's computer, perhaps based on the user's apparent interests or on the websites he or she visits. Third, some software essentially hijacks the computer's processing and communications capability to forward spam, viruses, or other messages, all without the user's knowledge. Finally, some software changes user settings--for example, overriding the user's intended choice of homepage. If a computer user truly understands what the software is going to do and knowingly consents to it, that's fine. The issue really comes down to user knowledge and control. Too often, software like this allows a third party to wrest control of some of the computer's functions and commandeer them for the third party's own purposes. The software is essentially a parasite--it attaches itself without consent to the host computer and taps into the host's resources, making use of them for its own selfish purposes. Our bill would make such unauthorized practices clearly unlawful. How common is all this? There is little hard data, but one report last year estimated that 20 million people have downloaded software that serves them targeted advertising. I have to suspect that many of these downloads did not involve informed consent. It has also been widely reported that many of the most popular peer-to-peer file sharing software programs come packaged with other software that is not clearly disclosed to the user. So the number of affected users is likely very high. The bill we are introducing today would, for the first time, establish a clear legal principle that you cannot cause software to be installed on somebody else's computer without that person's knowledge and consent. This general notice and consent requirement could be satisfied by something as simple as an on-screen dialogue box telling the user that clicking ``ok'' will trigger the download of, say, a particular game program. In addition, the bill says that software must be capable of being uninstalled without resorting to extraordinary and highly technical procedures. Beyond these general requirements, the legislation calls for certain types of software features--those performing the four functions I discussed a moment ago--to be specifically and separately brought to the user's attention prior to installation. For example, if a software program has a spyware feature designed to collect and transmit information about the user, the user would need to be provided with sufficient notice based on criteria set forth in the bill. That notice would need to explain the types of information that would be collected and the purposes for which the information would be used. Following this notice, the user would have the option of granting or withholding consent. In the absence of such notice and consent, it would be unlawful to download the software onto the user's computer, or subsequently to use the software to gather information about that user. The bill contains some exceptions, for example, for pre-installed software and software features that are necessary to make basic features like e-mail or Internet browsing function properly. Enforcement under the bill would be by the Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General. I recognize that the bill we introduce today may benefit from further attention and input on the particular wording of the definitions, on the types of software or software features that should be listed in the exceptions, and so forth. Senator Burns, Senator Boxer, and I are open to further discussion about fine tuning the scope of the bill, so that we don't create a regime that ends up being impractical or imposing undue burdens on legitimate and useful software. This is the starting point, not the end point. It is important, however, to get this process moving. I believe it's time to send a clear message that unauthorized and privacy-compromising spyware, adware, and other software are unlawful and punishable. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Burns, Boxer, and myself in supporting this bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2629

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for her leadership. I wish to make a couple of points. First, there is a staggering amount of economic hurt in virtually every nook and cranny of my State. Our unemployment rate is over 7 percent. The Economic Development Administration recently announced that for key projects to create jobs in rural areas, small communities are going to have to come up with $22 to get $1 of help for infrastructure, something that can create good-paying jobs. We are trying to get the transportation bill passed, but with those kinds of measures, we desperately need to extend this lifeline legislation to the thousands and thousands of Oregonians and other Americans who are out of work. These are folks who simply have nowhere to turn to pay the bills. They are walking an economic tightrope, balancing fuel costs against food costs and fuel costs against medical costs. Without this extension and without the look-back rule that this legislation would provide, these are folks who are going to fall into the economic abyss. They deserve better. The fact is, the stock market is doing well. We are glad to see it. We are glad to see profits up at so many of our companies. All of these are pluses for our country. But the fact is, middle-class folks, and particularly the middle class that is unemployed, are feeling pinched like never before. I am very hopeful my colleagues will support this legislation. It is essential to provide a measure of relief to these folks who are enduring so much economic hurt. I have just gone through a series of community meetings at home, and it came up again and again. So I hope, in the name of compassion, but also in the name of helping these middle-class folks get back on their feet as they look for alternatives, as they look for other positions that pay them enough to support their families, that my colleagues would support this important Cantwell amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my good friend Senator Burns and I have pioneered a number of legislative efforts aimed at protecting ordinary computer users from the tricks and schemes of those who would abuse the open and interconnected nature of the Internet. From online privacy to spam, we have sought to establish some basic, commonsense rules to address sleazy, intrusive, and anti-consumer practices that have arisen in the new world of the Internet. In each case, our goal has not been to stifle or restrict legitimate and innovative modes of e-commerce, but rather to promote them by reining in unfair and annoying behavior that undermines consumer confidence and use of the Internet. Today, we continue on that path by introducing the ``SPY BLOCK'' Act, together with our colleague Senator Boxer. This legislation will put the brakes on the growing problem of software being installed secretly on people's computers, for purposes they might object to if given the chance. Sometimes, the problem is a ``drive-by download,'' where the consumer's mere visit to a website or decision to click on an advertisement secretly triggers the downloading of software onto the consumer's machine. Or, it can be a ``double whammy download,'' where the consumer's voluntary download of one software program also triggers the inadvertent download of a second software program which, although it may serve a very different purpose, has been bundled together with the first one. Once installed, the unwanted software operates in the background, performing functions that ordinary computer users cannot detect. As a result, the computer user may never even know the software is there, let alone what it is doing. And to add insult to injury, software that spreads in this fashion often is designed to be nearly impossible to uninstall. What might such software do, once it is installed? The legislation we are introducing today identifies several possible functions that pose concerns. First, some software, often referred to as ``spyware,'' collects information about the computer user and transmits that information over the Internet to the spyware's author. Second, software sometimes referred to as ``adware'' causes pop-up ads to appear on the user's computer, perhaps based on the user's apparent interests or on the websites he or she visits. Third, some software essentially hijacks the computer's processing and communications capability to forward spam, viruses, or other messages, all without the user's knowledge. Finally, some software changes user settings--for example, overriding the user's intended choice of homepage. If a computer user truly understands what the software is going to do and knowingly consents to it, that's fine. The issue really comes down to user knowledge and control. Too often, software like this allows a third party to wrest control of some of the computer's functions and commandeer them for the third party's own purposes. The software is essentially a parasite--it attaches itself without consent to the host computer and taps into the host's resources, making use of them for its own selfish purposes. Our bill would make such unauthorized practices clearly unlawful. How common is all this? There is little hard data, but one report last year estimated that 20 million people have downloaded software that serves them targeted advertising. I have to suspect that many of these downloads did not involve informed consent. It has also been widely reported that many of the most popular peer-to-peer file sharing software programs come packaged with other software that is not clearly disclosed to the user. So the number of affected users is likely very high. The bill we are introducing today would, for the first time, establish a clear legal principle that you cannot cause software to be installed on somebody else's computer without that person's knowledge and consent. This general notice and consent requirement could be satisfied by something as simple as an on-screen dialogue box telling the user that clicking ``ok'' will trigger the download of, say, a particular game program. In addition, the bill says that software must be capable of being uninstalled without resorting to extraordinary and highly technical procedures. Beyond these general requirements, the legislation calls for certain types of software features--those performing the four functions I discussed a moment ago--to be specifically and separately brought to the user's attention prior to installation. For example, if a software program has a spyware feature designed to collect and transmit information about the user, the user would need to be provided with sufficient notice based on criteria set forth in the bill. That notice would need to explain the types of information that would be collected and the purposes for which the information would be used. Following this notice, the user would have the option of granting or withholding consent. In the absence of such notice and consent, it would be unlawful to download the software onto the user's computer, or subsequently to use the software to gather information about that user. The bill contains some exceptions, for example, for pre-installed software and software features that are necessary to make basic features like e-mail or Internet browsing function properly. Enforcement under the bill would be by the Federal Trade Commission and state Attorneys General. I recognize that the bill we introduce today may benefit from further attention and input on the particular wording of the definitions, on the types of software or software features that should be listed in the exceptions, and so forth. Senator Burns, Senator Boxer, and I are open to further discussion about fine tuning the scope of the bill, so that we don't create a regime that ends up being impractical or imposing undue burdens on legitimate and useful software. This is the starting point, not the end point. It is important, however, to get this process moving. I believe it's time to send a clear message that unauthorized and privacy-compromising spyware, adware, and other software are unlawful and punishable. I urge my colleagues to join Senators Burns, Boxer, and myself in supporting this bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Missouri yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I so appreciate the Senator's leadership on this issue and opportunity to be a bipartisan partner in this effort. Isn't it fair to say the Federal Government is now essentially the only entity on the planet that isn't going with the kind of approach that the Senator from Missouri has been advocating? It is being done at the State level, it is being done at the local level, and it is being done through various private initiatives. It seems to me what the Senator has identified is essentially a case for saying the Federal Government ought to join the rest of the world in its approach to this logical way. Would the distinguished sponsor of this amendment, my partner, address that briefly?

Mr. WYDEN. Before my friend from Missouri leaves, I again say how much I have enjoyed working with him on this legislation. I think it is fair to say that nothing important in the Senate gets done unless it is bipartisan. What the Senator from Missouri has done is lead the Senate in an area that I think is bold and innovative. In my view, it is an opportunity to provide a real turboboost to our economy. I represent a State that consistently is suffering high unemployment, loads of working-class families facing extraordinary economic hurt, and as we have talked about now for a good part of the day, there is no initiative before the Senate that will do more to create good-paying jobs than this particular legislation. I think it is important for the Senate to say on this bill, at this critical time, that we are not going to stand pat, that the status quo is not good enough. Let's not have a business-as-usual transportation bill. I like the idea of getting our citizens excited, for example, about buying a child or a grandchild a Build America bond, something where kids can save and families can engage in an effort to strengthen our country's infrastructure, rebuild our critically neglected transportation systems, as the Senator from Missouri has noted, and particularly get the American people involved in the exercise. I have just come from a round of town meetings at home across Oregon and talked about Build America bonds. As we have said, this is to supplement the good work that has been done by the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Oklahoma and all of the Senators who have been part of our leadership. This is not to supplant existing funds; it is to supplement them, and to supplement the transportation sector at a very critical time. I have long believed we cannot have big league economic progress with little league transportation systems. The pictures that have been shown today by the Senator from Missouri could essentially be pictures that could come from any of our communities, the communities of Vermont or New Hampshire or any of our individual States. In my State, there are traffic jams and backlogs in communities where no one could have even dreamed there would be a traffic jam even a few years ago. So it is for that reason that the Senator from Missouri and I come to offer a bipartisan and fresh approach involving a tax credit and an opportunity to address our country's transportation needs. I will say to my colleagues that we are very much aware of the situation on the Senate floor with respect to this topic and the administration's views on it. My own belief is that at the end of the day, when the Senate and the House get together, led by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, when they are in that room at the end of the day negotiating between the Senate and the House, I think they are going to be looking for opportunities to do a lot of good in the transportation area where the pricetag is pretty modest. When you use that as a definition in a conference committee, where you are trying to wring out the maximum in terms of value for job creation in meeting our country's infrastructure needs, if that is your measure, I think the legislation that Senator Talent has authored, with the help of myself and Senator Corzine and Senator Coleman of Minnesota--we have been very pleased on our side to be joined by Senator Durbin and Senator Dayton and others--I think when the Senator from Vermont and the distinguished whip, Senator Reid of Nevada, and others are in that final set of discussions with the House, this proposal is going to look pretty darned good. It is going to look very attractive compared to a tax increase, which certainly some have debated. It is always a noncontroversial topic to discuss tax increases in the Senate. But I think to go with an approach like this, the Build America Bonds Initiative, where, as I learned in the course of the discussion, and the Senator from Missouri has just confirmed, the Federal Government is the only entity now that has not figured out how to do this, it seems to me we have an opportunity to address that deficiency and to do it in a responsible way. The administration has indicated they want to cut the Senate bill. That has certainly generated concern in many quarters. It seems to me, when we can find hundreds of billions of dollars for various kinds of international challenges and concerns around the world, we can do some rebuilding here at home. I think this bonding proposal is a very innovative approach to, in effect, think outside the trust funds, think outside the box, and because of the various opportunities for transportation services to be addressed, this legislation lets the country think outside the gas tank. As we have indicated, we call on this legislation for issuing federally backed bonds to pay for new transportation construction projects. A very broad coalition of groups has come together, groups representing business organizations, labor organizations, and all of them are united around the proposition that at a time when workers and communities are reeling from layoffs and getting pounded economically, we ought to look for opportunities to responsibly get the dollars that are needed for the transportation sector. The Build America Bonds Program is a stimulus that will generate funding for our economy today. It is a chance for the Federal Government to hold up its end of the bargain with our States. I am hopeful Congress will finish the critical work on this legislation quickly, but more than anything, let us pass a transportation bill that is not business as usual. These are not standpat times. This is not a time, based on the meetings I just had in Oregon, where folks will say let's just keep doing what we have been doing and we can stand pat because everything is hunky-dory. I think they are looking for bolder and more creative ways to get our citizens and our economy going where we need to go. The legislation Senator Talent and I have sponsored will help America get going in the right direction by providing additional funding to meet our country's transportation and economic needs. I understand the situation with respect to the floor and the Senate today. I hope our colleagues will continue to work with Senator Talent and me as we go forward in the Senate, as it is debated with the House, because I am absolutely convinced that in the last hours of this discussion, when the Senate and the House are looking for a way to meet this country's transportation needs and looking for a way to do it in a cost-effective fashion, they will say the legislation that Senator Talent and I have put together is an opportunity to do a lot of good in a fashion that is fiscally responsible. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last November, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up S. 1896, the Tax Relief Extension Act, and H.R. 1664, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. I did so because these bills were the only relevant amendable legislation expected to be taken up in the Senate before the need of the last session and, therefore, they provided the only opportunity to extend unemployment benefits before Federal unemployment benefits expired at the end of the year. Oregon currently has the second highest unemployment rate in the Nation with an unemployment rate of 7.3 percent. Extension of unemployment benefits is critical for many Oregonians who have or will soon run out of unemployment. In order to restore or continue benefits to unemployed workers in Oregon and many other States, I will be pushing for passage of S. 2006, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. S. 2006 restores Federal unemployment benefits and reforms a ``look back'' rule that affects Oregon and other high unemployment States as part of the legislation. Because there is now legislation before the Senate to restore Federal benefits for unemployed workers in Oregon and other States, I will no longer object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up S. 1896 or H.R. 1664.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, skyrocketing prescription drug bills are hitting senior citizens in this country like a wrecking ball. It seems to me it is critically important that the Congress move on a bipartisan basis to put in place aggressive cost containment measures that can best be achieved by making sure that the Medicare Program has real bargaining power, that the barriers are eliminated to bringing in drugs that are safe from other countries, and that seniors are in a position to compare prices, with real price disclosure in markets across the country. Today I have introduced, along with the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, legislation that would do just that. I believe it is critically important for Congress to move on this legislation in the days ahead. If for no other reason, the legislation I introduced with Senator Snowe should be priority business because of the developments in the last week. In the last week, it has become clear that the prescription drug measure passed last year--a measure I voted for--will cost over $130 billion more than was originally anticipated. So I think there was a strong case for the cost containment measures that Senator Snowe and I are advocating today even before the developments of the last week. But on the basis of what we have learned in the last week, I don't see how you can logically argue that Medicare should not have the same authority to bargain for seniors who need those prescription drugs that Members of Congress benefit from because of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that goes to bat for us. So I am hopeful that this bipartisan legislation--which I believe is the first significant bipartisan health reform bill this Congress--will be considered quickly. Certainly the developments of the last week have given, in my view, new impetus for this legislation. Our legislation is called the MEND Act, the Medicare Enhancements for Needed Drugs Act. It attacks the high prices seniors are facing in four major ways: First, it leverages the market share of tens of millions of seniors into real bargaining power. Second, it breaks down the barriers to reimportation of lower cost drugs. Third, it makes Congress a watchdog against unfair price spikes. Fourth, it creates real incentives for seniors to get the best prices for their medicine. I think colleagues understand, having been home over the last few weeks, that there is tremendous concern with respect to this legislation. There is confusion about what it stands for. I think we have all heard that. But at the top of the list of concerns seniors are bringing to us is the question of what is being done to rein in these costs. It seems to me that with an opportunity to address this in a bipartisan way, which is what I have done with Senator Snowe--we have been at this now for 5 years--the Congress could come together. Now, if that is not done, it seems to me that given the developments of the last week, and the legislation costing $100 billion-plus more than anybody anticipated, we are going to see the frustration mount not just with seniors but with taxpayers across the country. I am going to be talking about this legislation more in the days ahead. I am very pleased that the Senator from Colorado was kind enough to give me the opportunity to speak for a few minutes in the Chamber today. I am very pleased that, with Senator Snowe, we have a bipartisan, commonsense proposal that can help America's seniors receive the prescription drugs they need. Our legislation will give seniors a powerful one-two punch to fight back against high prescription drug prices. It will help seniors save money on every prescription and give the new Medicare benefit even more buying power. Under our bipartisan bill, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could fight on behalf of seniors for lower drug prices and individual Medicare plans would actually have incentives for negotiating prices comparable to the VA. Seniors should not have to underwrite tax breaks for companies that try to keep affordable, reimported drugs out of their hands. Today, drug companies get a dollar-for-dollar tax writeoff on their advertising, advertising that is helping, in my view, to drive up the cost of prescription medicine. In the last year for which we have figures, direct-to-consumer advertising cost $2.5 billion. What we say in our bipartisan legislation is if the drug companies say no to affordable reimported drugs for seniors, then they are going to have to say no to the tax breaks that are paid for with seniors' tax dollars. I hope in this session of Congress we will see an effort on a bipartisan basis to improve on the legislation that was passed last year. I voted for that bill last year. I still have the welts on my back to show for it. But I also came to the floor at that time and said I think the Congress can do better in terms of cost containment, not by setting price controls, not by some big Government regime that has the Government interfering in various kinds of areas where there is no appropriate role. But I said there is no logical reason why Medicare shouldn't have the same bargaining power to get a good price for seniors the Federal employee plan has for Members of Congress. Now there is a bipartisan proposal before the Senate that will get seniors a fair shake using marketplace forces. I hope in the remaining days of this session, legislation can be acted on favorably. Senator Snowe and I have worked as a bipartisan team for 5 years now in an effort to try to get this prescription drug issue right. At the top of our seniors' concerns today is the need for better cost containment. We can do it with marketplace forces. The Senate now has bipartisan legislation that will do just that. I hope my colleagues will support it. Again, I express my thanks to Senator Allard and look forward to working with him on the transportation bill as well.

Mr. WYDEN. First, I express my appreciation to the chairman on the committee on which I sit. He has worked very closely with Senator Smith and me, and we appreciate that. If it doesn't cause any great travail, I was interested in speaking for maybe 10 minutes on a health care issue. I see our friend from Colorado. Maybe something could be worked out among the three of us whenever the chairman has completed his remarks. I think at 1:30 the rule kicks in where you can address other issues. If something could be worked out, it would be helpful.

Mr. WYDEN. For a question?

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Smith in introducing a bill to waive all statutory time limitations so that Colonel Rex T. Barber, of Terrebonne, OR may be posthumously awarded a Medal of Honor. Colonel Rex T. Barber was a World War II fighter pilot who risked his life to shoot down Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the Commander in Chief of the Combined Japanese Fleet and architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Our bill not only waives the statutory time limitations applying to the Medal of Honor, but also requests that the President posthumously award the medal to this deserving man. On April 18, 1943, Barber, then a first lieutenant in the 399th Fighter Squadron of the South Pacific Air Forces, Army Air Corps, undertook a top secret mission to shoot down Yamamoto. Barber successfully attacked a bomber transporting Yamamoto despite heavy counterattacks by Japanese fighters escorting the admiral. Upon return to base, Barber found more than 100 holes in his aircraft. Admiral Yamamoto's plane crashed in flames, killing Yamamoto and his crew. This brave exploit of Colonel Barber is well-documented, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Oregon delegation, the Congress, and ultimately the President, to see that his bravery is formally recognized. I ask unanimous consent that the text to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Smith in introducing a bill to waive all statutory time limitations so that Colonel Rex T. Barber, of Terrebonne, OR may be posthumously awarded a Medal of Honor. Colonel Rex T. Barber was a World War II fighter pilot who risked his life to shoot down Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the Commander in Chief of the Combined Japanese Fleet and architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Our bill not only waives the statutory time limitations applying to the Medal of Honor, but also requests that the President posthumously award the medal to this deserving man. On April 18, 1943, Barber, then a first lieutenant in the 399th Fighter Squadron of the South Pacific Air Forces, Army Air Corps, undertook a top secret mission to shoot down Yamamoto. Barber successfully attacked a bomber transporting Yamamoto despite heavy counterattacks by Japanese fighters escorting the admiral. Upon return to base, Barber found more than 100 holes in his aircraft. Admiral Yamamoto's plane crashed in flames, killing Yamamoto and his crew. This brave exploit of Colonel Barber is well-documented, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Oregon delegation, the Congress, and ultimately the President, to see that his bravery is formally recognized. I ask unanimous consent that the text to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Absolutely. The bill's definition of ``initiate'' makes that clear, because it applies not only to the spammer that originates the actual e-mail, but also to a party who has hired or otherwise induced the spammer to send the e-mail on its behalf. If the e-mail message violates the bill, both parties would be on the hook under section 5, and enforcement would be possible against both or either parties.

Mr. WYDEN. I agree with the Senator.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the gentleman from Montana for raising this important issue. Yes, the intent of S. 877 is to capture all e-mail messages as that term is commonly understood. This includes e-mail messages where the domain part of the address may not be displayed. That is why the bill's definition of e-mail address, in referring to the domain part, contains the phrase ``whether or not displayed.'' We certainly do not want to create any loopholes that spammers could potentially exploit and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know my colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, has a plane to catch. Senator Burns and I have worked for more than 4 years on this legislation, and it is particularly important that it pass today. Every single day, the flood of pornographic and sleazy spam grows. With this legislation, Congress is beginning to stem the tide. We understand that this is going to be a difficult battle because the kingpin spammers are not technological simpletons. No matter what law Congress passes, they are going to be very aggressive about trying to find evasive strategies to get around that. But I am of the view that with the passage of this legislation, if our prosecutors, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Attorney General come down on the kingpin spammers with hobnail boots, we can put in place a strategy that can stem this tide. Suffice it to say, the spammers are going to go to great lengths to try to get around this law. We know, for example, that many of them are going to try to move offshore. It is going to be important to have international agreements that will also bring together U.S. authorities and international authorities against those who would try to get around this legislation. It is important to remember what Congress is doing now; that is, Congress is saying spamming is an outlaw business. It is an outlaw business that is going to be treated as an area of priorities for prosecutors and law enforcement officials. That has not been the case in the past. Essentially, when Senator Burns and I pursued this problem of spamming a number of years ago, a lot of people asked: Why in the world would a couple of U.S. Senators be tackling this issue? They intimated that it really wasn't worthy of the Senate's time. Spam has grown so extraordinarily in the last few years, and now people have been clammering about why the Senate isn't moving ahead with this legislation that they think is important because spam is such an intrusion into their lives every single day. We have continued work to do. Senator Schumer will speak next. He has a very important idea with respect to trying to put in place a Do Not Spam list. It is a promising one. I think all of us would acknowledge there are some details to be worked out with the Federal Trade Commission. Senator Corzine has done some very good work in looking at some creative ideas for the future. I intend to work closely with him because he has been a leader in the technology area. But I think we ought to understand that this effort today is the culmination of more than 4 years of hard work. It is not just needed, it is overdue. We are not going to pretend this legislation is a silver bullet because we know that no piece of legislation is. But when this bill takes effect, the big-time spammers who up to this point faced no consequences, for all practical purposes, will suddenly be at risk for criminal prosecution, Federal Trade Commission enforcement, and million-dollar lawsuits by State attorneys general and Internet service providers. I believe a number of these key enforcement actions will be taken immediately after this legislation is passed. This will set in place the kind of deterrent that is going to allow us to say it is a different day. The big-time spammers will face consequences when they flood our citizens and our families with the trash and the pornography. That is why this is an important step forward. He is going to speak next, but I commend my colleague, the Senator from New York, for his usual persistence. He stayed at it by saying this was an important issue. We have wrestled with this question with respect to the Do Not Call list as well. I happen to think that the Senator from New York is certainly talking about a principle we need to address in the communications area. I happen to think the first amendment is special. People ought to have the right to communicate. But citizens also ought to have the right to say: We have had enough. We don't want to have people flooded with this kind of information. That is the principle that is at stake here. I commend the Senator from New York. My partner, the chairman of the telecommunications subcommittee, is not in the Chamber. But I am proud to serve with him. He has been an exceptionally gracious ally on this for many years. I am glad that this proconsumer measure, a measure that I think makes a beginning in efforts against big-time spammers, is passing. It will be of great benefit to consumers. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, no one deserves that holiday more than Senator Byrd who constantly reminds us of what this wonderful, interesting discussion is all about; that is, stand up for the Constitution, and stand up for the people we represent. To Senator Byrd and his wonderful wife, we wish an especially warm and cheerful holiday.