Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator from Florida is being logical. Heaven forbid that logic break out sometimes in this area that is often called the ``logic-free zone''--this area surrounding the Capitol. It just seems that in so many of these areas, the institution just takes leave of its senses because both of us have described a bipartisan way to deal with the issue of judges--an approach that works in Florida and has worked for Senator Smith and I in Oregon. I do not think the Senate has the time or luxury for a lot of this pettiness. I mentioned the health care issue with Senator Hatch that I have felt strongly about since my days as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers. This demographic revolution is coming on us, and the prescription drug issue we are tackling now is vitally important. But if there is one thing the Senate has learned, health care is like an ecosystem. What you do in one area affects all other areas. Senator Hatch and I have pulled together an approach that has now gotten the support of the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO to get back on track for what, regrettably, was not finished back in the early 1990s. In the health care area, you see an alternative path. I see my good friend from Virginia here, Senator Allen. He and I are working on at least five major technology issues right now on the question of Internet access, and we are working in a bipartisan way with the States and localities to ensure that the Internet medium is allowed to grow and prosper. We have come together on nanotechnology, and we are working together. I want to give some additional time to the Senator from Florida because I know his schedule is short. If you look at the big issues of our day, including the health care question, where I have outlined what Senator Hatch and I are talking about on so many issues that are social and ethical; and the technology question, where it just seems fitting that the Senator from Virginia is here, Senator Allen, my friend and partner on so many of these technology issues, the Senate has a choice either to listen to our constituents and take the bipartisan approach that will lead to real solutions or continue what is seen by most Americans as just small food-fight-like exercises. I want to give additional time to my friend from Florida because of his schedule. I appreciate, particularly, his outlining, as we have tried to do in Oregon--Senator Smith and I working together--the kind of bipartisan approach that the Senator from Florida has described in his State for choosing judges.

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend. I think he has made a number of important points about judges. The fact is, there is an alternative path. I think about how I have had a chance to work with my colleague in the Oregon delegation, Senator Smith. We have gotten judge after judge confirmed because we have felt, while some consider it quaint, that you ought to try to work in a bipartisan way. We have not applied an ideological litmus test. I think what the Senator from Florida is saying is that is the kind of approach we ought to be pursuing, to try to find common ground to get the Senate together. As I begin my comments this morning, I will say that I think a lot of Americans look at what is going on now on the floor of the Senate and say that it is sort of like the great wall of China, an almost impenetrable barrier surrounding a forbidden community where their voices just go unheard. I know what I hear from my constituents--I have open community meetings in all of Oregon's counties--is awfully different than essentially what the Senate has been doing through the night. For example, what I hear about is how medical costs are just gobbling up everything in sight. I hear, for example, about how the crushing small businesses, scores of them dying to cover their people, have been unable to do it. I hear about providers, physicians, and others leaving the system because of inadequate reimbursement. I hear about so many who are not poor enough for Medicaid, they are not old enough for Medicare, and they fall between the cracks. Again, there is an alternative approach to all of the partisanship. The senior Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, has worked with me for a number of years now on the Health Care for All Americans Act. It is absolutely critical that the Senate get moving on this issue because we all understand that there is a demographic tsunami coming. Millions of baby boomers are about to retire in a few years. All of the problems we are seeing today are going to be multiplied three or fourfold. Yet the Senate isn't tackling that kind of issue because, in effect, things have ground to a halt over exactly the kind of polarization the Senator from Florida has talked about. I would hope that as we wrap this up, we understand that nothing important is going to get accomplished in the Senate unless there is an effort to work in a bipartisan kind of fashion.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to amend the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act, enacted three years ago, authorizing the sale of the U.S. Forest Service Bend Pine Nursery to the community of Bend, OR, for use as a public park and recreation facility. In the original bill, Senator Smith, Congressman Walden and I sought to achieve some very basic objectives. We wanted the community of Bend to take title to a property which for many years had been a federally owned plantation for growing pine seedlings, and which will now make a superb park and ball field complex for the use of the community. At the same time, the bill authorized the sale of several other properties in order to raise an account enabling the Forest Service to acquire a new headquarters for the Deschutes National Forest. In 1999, we drafted the original legislation in very close consultation with the U.S. Forest Service based on the assumption that in so doing, the agency would have the necessary tools and direction to move swiftly to implement the legislation. The intent of the legislation was to have the Forest Service sell the property to the Bend Parks District within a year of its enactment at the estimated value of the property at that time, $3 million. Unfortunately, the goodwill built up throughout the drafting process was squandered by the Forest Service. Two years of delays in the implementation of the original legislation resulted in an appraised price of $5.8 million as opposed to the $3 million this property was assumed to be worth when the original Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance was enacted in 2000. This delay has been inconsistent with the intent of the original legislation and runs entirely contrary to the interest of Bend taxpayers. The community has always been more than willing to pay fair value for this property, and their goodwill and their tax dollars should not be wasted any longer. The bill I introduce today resolves the issues that stand in the way of implementation of this simple land sale in a fair manner, directing the sale to move forward expeditiously for $3.5 million. That figure is arrived at by assuming the $3 million value of the property on the day the original Act was passed, allowing for inflation per the Forest Service's calculations, and then deducting the value of acreage that the Forest Service has decided not to sell and 15 acres the Forest Service has the ability to transfer to the local school district at no cost. I look forward to the expeditious resolution to this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to amend the Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance Act, enacted three years ago, authorizing the sale of the U.S. Forest Service Bend Pine Nursery to the community of Bend, OR, for use as a public park and recreation facility. In the original bill, Senator Smith, Congressman Walden and I sought to achieve some very basic objectives. We wanted the community of Bend to take title to a property which for many years had been a federally owned plantation for growing pine seedlings, and which will now make a superb park and ball field complex for the use of the community. At the same time, the bill authorized the sale of several other properties in order to raise an account enabling the Forest Service to acquire a new headquarters for the Deschutes National Forest. In 1999, we drafted the original legislation in very close consultation with the U.S. Forest Service based on the assumption that in so doing, the agency would have the necessary tools and direction to move swiftly to implement the legislation. The intent of the legislation was to have the Forest Service sell the property to the Bend Parks District within a year of its enactment at the estimated value of the property at that time, $3 million. Unfortunately, the goodwill built up throughout the drafting process was squandered by the Forest Service. Two years of delays in the implementation of the original legislation resulted in an appraised price of $5.8 million as opposed to the $3 million this property was assumed to be worth when the original Bend Pine Nursery Land Conveyance was enacted in 2000. This delay has been inconsistent with the intent of the original legislation and runs entirely contrary to the interest of Bend taxpayers. The community has always been more than willing to pay fair value for this property, and their goodwill and their tax dollars should not be wasted any longer. The bill I introduce today resolves the issues that stand in the way of implementation of this simple land sale in a fair manner, directing the sale to move forward expeditiously for $3.5 million. That figure is arrived at by assuming the $3 million value of the property on the day the original Act was passed, allowing for inflation per the Forest Service's calculations, and then deducting the value of acreage that the Forest Service has decided not to sell and 15 acres the Forest Service has the ability to transfer to the local school district at no cost. I look forward to the expeditious resolution to this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, maintaining and improving this country's airports and aviation infrastructure is crucial to economic growth and opportunity at both the local and national levels. That is why it is so unfortunate that Congress has not yet been able to pass the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation. The fact is, this legislation need not have been controversial. But it was made controversial, because conferees went behind closed doors and made changes that contravene the clearly expressed will of both houses of Congress. My point today is not to rehash the substantive arguments on the points under dispute. I simply want to stress that in no event should this dispute be allowed to bring important airport and aviation projects screeching to a halt. Instead, the responsible path is to recognize that the controversial elements of the legislation may take some time to resolve. In the meantime, both sides should agree to a short-term extension of FAA funding programs, so that no aviation project is held hostage to politics. Senator Rockefeller has introduced a bill to provide for a 6-month extension of FAA funding programs, and I am signing on as a cosponsor. I hope that our colleagues will join in supporting this legislation, to ensure that funding for local airports projects will not become a victim of political brinksmanship.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in June of this year, the Federal Communications Commission issued a decision relaxing a number of important rules that limit consolidation in the media industry. In the months leading up to that decision, and ever since, a bipartisan group of Senators has sought to sound the alarm about the dangers of unbridled media concentration. Those efforts eventually led to Senate passage of a resolution to reverse the commission's decision. But the battle continues, and the outcome is uncertain, Most of the debate on this subject has focused on the details of rules limiting the national reach of broadcasters and the local cross- ownership of television, newspaper, and radio stations. But I would like to call attention to another important dimension of media concentration: the demise of independent producers, who are being bought up or driven out of business by the big networks and big studios. More and more, the television programming delivered to the homes of American families is controlled by a handful of executives in a handful of corporate boardrooms. Independent writers and producers are growing scarce. Indeed, there soon may be only two remaining independent Hollywood studies that produce scripted television programming. The others have either disappeared or linked up with one of the major networks. I think that having all programming produced by a few large media conglomerates could pose some real risks for creativity and diversity. That is why I would like to commend my colleague from Arizona, Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain, for his leadership in agreeing to cohost a dialogue with Chairman Billy Tauzin of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and representatives of studios, networks, writers, and producers. I am confident that under the direction of Chairman McCain, this dialogue can produce positive discussion and concrete results, such as voluntary guidelines to help ensure diversity, competition, and opportunity in the market for television programming. I look forward to participating.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor a very important constituent, as well as a very important program in my State and across the Nation--CASA for Children. ``CASA'' is short for Court Appointed Special Advocate, and it is a program that is made up of extraordinary men and women who find it in their hearts to devote their time and energy to help some of the neediest of their community's children. CASAs come from all walks of life, all professions, and all educational and ethnic backgrounds, and their mission is to advocate for the best interests of children who find themselves, through no fault of their own, under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system. As we see all too often in public service, far too many children find themselves enmeshed in the juvenile court system due to abuse, neglect or abandonment. Once in the court system, these kids can find themselves cruelly buffeted by legal battles and their parents' continuing poor choices. Some find themselves in multiple foster care situations at a very young age, and many are eventually permanently removed from the care of their birth parents. CASAs serve their communities by becoming an independent advocate for a child as a sworn officer of the court. They spend time with health professionals, teachers, parents, prospective parents, and the children themselves to help the court reach the best possible conclusion for the interests of the child. CASA came to Oregon in 1985 under the leadership of Judge Stephen Herrell and citizen advocate, Susan Holloway. For Almost 20 years, CASA has trained Oregon volunteers to be the eyes and ears of the court, making independent objective recommendations regarding the best interests of children. In Oregon, we have a CASA leader who personally exemplifies the very best of my State in his legacy of commitment to the future of Oregon's children. Mike Elwood, who has been both a CASA volunteer and a CASA supervisor in Portland, has served variously as a counselor, advisor, and friend to many of my State. Mike once served as a caseworker in the child welfare system, but later came to CASA because he believed it would be the place where he could make the biggest difference. Today, Mike suffers from a terminal illness. The CASA organization and all of Oregon has been extraordinary fortunate to have him in their ranks. Mike's co-workers describe him as compassionate, funny, possessing a quiet wisdom, able to interject just the right solution when it appears to elude everyone else, and an inherently decent guy. One CASA represented the feelings of a great many in the organization, saying, ``I for one feel blessed to have him in my life. He is the best.'' I want to take this opportunity to honor Mike's contributions to my State, to the Nation, and to humanity, and to wish Mike, his wife Natalie, and his two children, Ryan and Andrea, peace and joy in the days ahead. I have witnessed first-hand the ripples that emanate from simply human acts, good and bad. These ripples can reach across families, across borders, and across generations. Mike's ripples have made this world a far better place. I honor his dedicated service and his life, as well as the service rendered by CASA workers and volunteers all across our Nation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, with the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and my friend from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, who has worked with me on this now for 7 years, we have made some significant headway in the last half hour, 45 minutes. To get this done, there are some difficult choices that have to be made. One that would be very painful for me, given my involvement in the original law, would be to accept some sort of time limit rather than make it permanent. I say to the Senate, I am willing to look at that in the name of trying to find common ground. What we can't have as we go through this is to have DSLs, this tremendously exciting service which in so many instances is going to be the key for folks getting Internet access in a wireless fashion, hammered again and again in the future. We are going to see if we can find common ground. The point of this law more than 5 years ago was to ensure technological neutrality so the Internet and the various ways it is delivered would not, in some way, advance some at the expense of others. We still have to find a way for that technological neutrality. We may be able, given the fact that the staffs are working now to have a breakthrough on this in the next half an hour, but as the author of the original law in the Senate, I want to make it clear that I am open to trying to find some common ground and make some significant concessions to do it. That is what we are considering now. I thank the Senator from Illinois for yielding.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am going to be brief. I have appreciated the distinguished Senator from South Carolina working with me on this over the years. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina is absolutely right. The committee bill did the job right. The committee bill kept in place the technological neutrality that we have established over the years-- the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Stevens, who has now left the floor, Chairman McCain, and others. The reason we did that years ago is that we did not have technological neutrality. The Internet was subject to taxes that were not subject to other areas, such as the snail mail delivery of papers. What has happened, however, is under the substitute that is being offered by the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, we get away from the competitive neutrality that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has been advocating. I want to be very specific about how that is being done, because I think a lot of Members believe that if they vote for the proposal by the Senator from Tennessee that it is somehow a safe vote, that all they are doing is continuing the status quo and it is really kind of an innocuous approach. It is not a safe vote. It is a vote to increase taxes. I want to be very specific in explaining how that is the case. What has happened as a result of changes in technology over the last few years is you now have, in a number of jurisdictions, DSL--Internet access through DSL being taxed but Internet access through cable modems not being taxed. That is what has happened as a result of the changes in technology and the various changes in government policy. So you already have been moving away from the competitive neutrality we have sought with respect to this issue. Let me repeat that. Today, Internet access through DSL is being taxed in a number of jurisdictions and Internet access through cable modem can't be taxed anywhere. Unfortunately, what would happen under the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee is that you would make it easier to continue that competitive disadvantage and, particularly under the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee, it would be easier to tax wireless Blackberry services. I am of the view that with 391 separate taxes on telecommunications administered in 10,000 different jurisdictions, people across America who have these Blackberrys, which have wireless Internet access, would be subject to scores of new taxes. So I say to colleagues who are looking at this issue and thinking that somehow the idea of a 2-year proposal is kind of an innocuous safe haven and really not a tax increase--I ask them to think about what it is going to mean for Blackberry users across the country. These are wireless devices. In a number of jurisdictions where Internet access is obtained through DSL, those services are already being taxed. That would be expanded under the 2-year alternative. What I would like us to do is what I believe we sought to do 5 years ago when Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and others got together, and that is to ensure strict neutrality with respect to technology. The Internet wouldn't get a preference; the Internet wouldn't be hurt. The problem now that wireless users are facing with respect to DSL will be compounded if this 2-year alternative goes forward. I hope my colleagues will reject it for the reasons I outlined this morning.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, because Senator Lautenberg has not had a chance to speak and he has been gracious enough to just give me a couple of minutes to respond to our friend from Tennessee, I think he knows we have a difference of opinion on this issue, but I want him to know how much I appreciate the way he has worked with this Senator. I think he is going to be a great addition to the Senate. I look forward to the many issues where we are going to find common ground, even though this is not one of them. Just briefly on this unfunded mandate question, I think it is clear that, with the more than 7,000 taxing jurisdictions in our country, if ever there was something that was inherently interstate in nature, it is the Internet. I think we can just imagine the kind of chaos if even a small fraction of these 7,600 taxing jurisdictions took a bite out of the Internet. We would have a crazy quilt of laws with respect to the Internet. There are a whole host of activities where the Federal Government has essentially made it clear they were inherently interstate in nature and you do not hear the States expressing any grievances. You don't hear States complaining that they can't tax airline tickets or mail or a variety of other things because we are talking about something that is so crystal clear in terms of its very nature--in effect, the essence of article I, section 8, of the Constitution--that this has been an area where the Federal Government has said it is not appropriate to let thousands of local and State jurisdictions simply make a mishmash out of a regulatory regime that needs to be uniform in nature. I know we are going to talk more about that tomorrow. I am going to go through, tomorrow, the history of the Unfunded Mandates Act that supports the position Senator Allen and I have taken. Two other points very quickly and then I do want to let our friend from New Jersey have some time for which he has been patiently waiting. With respect to the telecommunications services issue which the Senator from Tennessee has discussed, I want to make it clear that Senator Allen and I have done everything but hire a sky writer to fly over the Capitol, to make it clear that telecommunications services, which can be taxed today, would and should be taxed in the future. It is absolutely clear with respect to all the work we have tried to do, both in the committee and working with various State and local officials, we feel very strongly about it. It is what the bundling issue has been all about in terms of separating out Internet access, which should not be taxed, and telecommunications services, which ought to be taxed. Senator Allen and I continue to be interested in working with colleagues to try to find common ground in this area, but the two of us have done everything except march down the street with a sandwich board, trying to argue that telecommunications services must be taxed and that it is Internet access about which we are concerned. Finally, the last point I would make is we need to have a discussion in the Senate with respect to what the competitive playing field will look like under the amendment at least as outlined tonight by the Senator from Tennessee. We have already seen a competitive disadvantage established, given the developments in the last few years between cable and telecommunications. It is the view of the Senator from Virginia and I, as two Members of the Commerce Committee who have focused on this issue for many months, that we think the competitive disadvantage, which has been established in the last few years between cable and telecommunications, will widen under the proposal the Senate is going to be asked to look at tomorrow as an alternative. We are going to have a chance to discuss it. Again, I express my appreciation to the Senator from Tennessee with respect to how he has handled this issue. We have a difference of opinion on it, but I admire the Senator from Tennessee very much and I look forward to working closely with him. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, for beginning the discussion in the kind of tone I think we want to have for this debate. We have on the floor a number of Senators who have been the most interested in this issue. I tell them I think they represent the most thoughtful people not just in the Senate but in public life. We obviously have differences of opinion, but I think we are going to have an important debate, in a thoughtful fashion. The decibel level has certainly gotten pretty high in recent days on this issue. I am very appreciative to the Senate Democrats who are supportive of the position Senator Allen and I have put together, particularly Senators Leahy, Boxer, Lincoln, and Baucus, all of whom joined as original sponsors of the managers' effort. I wish to spend a few minutes tonight--I know other colleagues are anxious to talk--to describe how we got to this point and why I believe the approach Senator Allen and I are taking is a wise one. About 7 years ago, after I came to the Senate, I began to think about how the Senate could write the rules of electronic commerce so as to be fair to all sides while at the same time allowing this tremendously exciting medium, the Internet, to flourish. We were seeing early on problems with respect to how the Internet was regulated around the country. We saw discrimination. We saw in some jurisdictions, for example, if you bought the newspaper the traditional way, the snail-mail route, you would end up not paying a tax, but if you bought the online edition of that paper, you would pay a tax. That, it seemed to us, was a discrimination against technology. So about 7 years ago, I said the bedrock of our effort ought to be technological neutrality. The Internet should not get a preference, nor should the Internet be discriminated against. I went to Senator McCain and Senator Leahy of Vermont, really known as the Senate's Mr. Internet. He was up on these issues when I think a lot of people thought a monitor was a television set. The two of them joined me in a bipartisan effort to pass this law that has now been on the books for more than 5 years. When Senator Allen came to the Senate, he and I teamed up for a number of years on this issue, and, of course, other Senators who have come to this body. I say in beginning the debate, many of those who now oppose the extension of the law we are proposing are using the very same arguments they made 5 years ago that have not been borne out. For example, we were told years ago that the States would not be able to collect various taxes--property taxes, corporate taxes, and other kinds of taxes. We were told that all across America, Main Streets would shrivel up and die because of Internet sales. We were told that States would lose an enormous amount of revenue. I want to respond to each one of those arguments tonight. First, with respect to loss of revenue, not one jurisdiction has come forward and given an example of how they are hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce. All the bill says is you cannot discriminate against electronic commerce, and not one State has come forward and given an example of how they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce. Not one independent study has been done in the last 5 years indicating that the States would lose revenue as a result of this bill. Finally, with respect to this question of Main Street and the retail stores, what we have seen is during the period this law has been in effect, Internet sales have gone from 1 percent to 2 percent. I think it is fair to say our legislation has not exactly emptied the malls of America. In fact, in most of our malls, it is still pretty hard to find a parking spot. As we go at this issue, it is important to look at the record, and particularly it is interesting to note it in the context of what was discussed tonight. I have noted that a number of our colleagues, particularly from the rural areas--the Dakotas and other areas--have talked about the importance--and I share their view--of building the network out; of using funds, whether it be tax credits or Government moneys, to facilitate broadband to rural areas. Their effort is one that I support. But think about the consequences of our saying tonight on the floor of the Senate: Let's use Government dollars to help companies build out the network, promote broadband in rural areas. We will say that tonight, but tomorrow we will end up sticking it to consumers with new taxes with respect to Internet access. In effect, the policies we are talking about promoting tonight with Government dollars--and many Senators are on legislation to offer tax credits to promote broadband to rural areas which would, in effect, be negated by the effort some are offering to allow for these taxes on Internet access. Senator Allen and I have spent many months trying to work with the State and local governments to address their concerns. We have had months of negotiations, and those negotiations all went on before our distinguished colleagues--the Senators from Tennessee, Ohio, and Delaware--came into the debate. I note that in the effort to try to find common ground, Senator Allen and I agreed to a number of requests that were made by State and local officials. We agreed, for example, to the request from State and local officials for new statutory language further tightening the definition of ``Internet access.'' We agreed to the request for new statutory language on what is called bundling, which is, in effect, where you have Internet access bundled with information technology services other than Internet access, and it is important to separate the two for taxable purposes. In addition, we agreed to the requests from State and local officials for new statutory language protecting a variety of other taxes, such as property and income taxes, that were never affected by the original legislation we authored, but we thought in the name of trying to find common ground, we would add that as well. We have agreed to a request for a savings clause on universal service and a variety of regulatory proceedings. Finally, we have agreed to allow States grandfathered so as to protect existing treatment under their State laws of these services 3 more years of Internet access taxes. I say as we begin tonight, Senator Allen and I in 2 months of negotiations agreed to five requests from State and local officials to try to find common ground on this matter, and I ask tonight, what has been offered in return? What have been offered in return are essentially these projections that say vast sums are going to be lost to the States if this legislation that Senator Allen and I have proposed is extended. I just ask Senators to note the language associated with these projections. The language is always, this bill could cost such-and- such; and the sum is, of course, a very large number. Never is it presented in terms of any kind of independent study that this law has, in fact, cost revenue or would cause revenue to be lost in the future. After Senator Allen and I made these five separate concessions in an effort to find common ground, we now have these various projections that, for all practical purposes, we are trying to convince the Senate that Western civilization is going to end if we urge that this law be updated. I know colleagues are anxious to talk, and I certainly want to give them that opportunity. I close with one last point as we begin this discussion. I think colleagues know the technology sector has taken a real pounding in the last couple of years, but what we have seen in the last few months is that the technology sector is beginning to have a resurgence. We have begun to see, both with respect to the stock market and capital investment in the sector, the technology area is really beginning to come back. I say to my colleagues in the Senate, I think that if, in fact, the Senate unravels the law of the last 5 years, fails to allow us to update this law, the progress that has been seen in the technology sector in the last few months could well unravel. If, in fact, the more than 7,000 taxing jurisdictions in this country are allowed to take a bite out of the Internet, and we have the Internet access area broken down into its subparts and all of them are taxed, I think that could derail the very impressive progress we have seen in the technology sector in the last few months. Let us not put in place a regime of multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, if for no other reason than it would send a horrendous message to this sector where finally in the last few months we are beginning to see some resurgence. I see my good friend from Virginia on his feet. I want to tell him how much I appreciate his cooperation. When I began this effort, he was a Governor and was supportive of our efforts then. I am pleased to have had a chance to team up with him as a member of the Commerce Committee. I also say, because we have Senators who do not share the view of Senator Allen and myself--Senator Voinovich, Senator Alexander, and Senator Carper--that my door continues to be open to all Senators, including Senators who do not share our view, in an effort to try to find common ground. Senator Allen and I thought the five concessions we made during 8 weeks of negotiations were part of an effort to be sensitive to the concerns of State and local bodies. Obviously, we have not done that to the satisfaction of all and our door remains open to all Senators. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I very much share the view of the Senator from Indiana. I simply say that a lot of paper floats around Capitol Hill that never sees the light of day. The document that has to guide the members of the Intelligence Committee--both Democrats and Republicans--is the Constitution of the United States. That is the tone that our vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller, has consistently set throughout this effort to get at the facts with respect to Iraq. That is the path I think every Member of the Senate ought to continue to follow. It ought to be a bipartisan goal. The American people deserve no less. There are legitimate and very troubling questions that need to be answered about the intelligence used to bring this Nation to war in Iraq. In fact, serious issues have come up just in the last week. I will say that I found it exceptionally troubling--really chilling-- that just last week, Paul Bremer, who is the point man with respect to the efforts on the ground in Iraq, was asked about the nature of the Iraqi resistance and in fact was told there really wasn't a capability in the intelligence community to give our country the information that is so necessary to protect our courageous men and women who are in harm's way. That is the kind of issue about which I think every Member of the Senate ought to be concerned. That is what the Intelligence Committee ought to be tackling in a bipartisan way. That is what Senator Rockefeller has consistently been trying to do. We can go through a lot of the past history. Certainly, in discussions about weapons of mass destruction, we were told right here in the U.S. Capitol on a number of occasions that those weapons have not materialized. There are issues with respect to the past that need to be examined. There are issues such as the point Mr. Bremer made just in the last week that I think are very troubling. I just urge that every Member of the Senate--and certainly those on the Intelligence Committee--recognize it is not the paper that floats around here that may or may not see the light of day and various kinds of draft documents that are important; what is important is that we do the work of oversight. That is what is in line with the document that ought to guide us--the Constitution of the United States. And that is what Senator Rockefeller has set out for us in his work. I commend him for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the American Cancer Society estimates that in 2003, there will be 2,600 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed among women in Oregon and that 500 women will die of breast cancer in Oregon. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so it is important that we take stock of where we are in preventing, detecting and treating this disease. All women are at risk of breast cancer, but when this cancer is found in its early stages, the 5-year survival rate approaches 100 percent. Screening exams are especially important because through early detection, women, in partnership with their health care providers, can significantly reduce deaths due to breast cancer. A recent study published in the Archives of Surgery found that more cases of breast cancer were detected in women taking part in an Oregon breast cancer screening program than in women who were not part of the program. The Oregon Breast Cancer and Cervical Cancer Program began in 1996 and is a statewide screening program for low-income women with little access to medical services. In this study, Oregon Health Sciences University researchers evaluated 15,730 women who had a total of 23,149 mammograms and 20,396 breast exams between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2001. The study found the screening program had a detection rate of 12.3 breast cancers per 1,000 women, which is greater than rates of other screening programs. The women in this study diagnosed with breast cancer also had a 97-percent rate of compliance with suggested therapies for their cancer. Working together, many groups have found that they can maximize their resources and develop more effective partnerships to reach health care consumers and providers in Oregon. Despite the excellent job that is being done, we need to continue to foster this activism and continue to find new ways to fund innovations in detection and treatment and to make them accessible to all women. In Oregon, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the Y.W.C.A, and the National Black Leadership Initiative on Cancer, are just a few of the leaders in the community who have worked together and with other organizations to reach out to women in Oregon and their families to improve the health status of women in my home State. I want to thank them for their efforts in helping Oregon families have better information and awareness about this disease as well as helping women as they go through treatment. I have always been a staunch supporter of Federal funds for breast cancer research, and I will continue to do so. It is gratifying to know we have come so far and to see how we can make progress in fighting this form of cancer.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Could the Senator from Mississippi confirm that with respect to section 105(c)(3), it would be the Agriculture Committee's intent that if the agency fails or is unable to make information timely available during the administrative review process, the court should evaluate whether the administrative review process was inadequate for claims or issues to which the information is material?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. The hour is late. I am going to be very brief. I am opposed to this amendment. This is not an unlimited bill. It has a 20-million-acre cap. Suffice it to say, we are going to have a lot of oversight in both the Agriculture Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But I also thank the Senator from Iowa with respect to how he has handled this legislation. He has been exceptionally kind and helpful to me. He has had differences of opinion with me on this issue. I thank him for all of his cooperation. Suffice it to say, Mr. President and colleagues, the West has been watching the last few days, and in a particularly contentious area, the Senate has been able to find an awful lot of common ground. Even on some of the amendments that we have had--the question of the urban interface funding initiative, whether it should be 50 percent or 70 percent--these are areas where reasonable people can differ. It is awfully easy to polarize on this issue, to drive people into rival camps, and to a great extent the Senate has avoided this. So what is important tonight as we deal with this last substantive amendment--and then we have a couple of procedural matters, colloquies, and that sort of thing to finish--is that we recognize how important it is to get this bipartisan compromise to the President's desk. The bill that the Senate will pass tonight is the one that I believe ought to become law, and it is absolutely critical that it be the one to get to the President so it can become law. So I hope Senators will continue to work together on a bipartisan basis and make sure the Senate compromise does not unravel. In addition to the Senator from Iowa, who has been so helpful throughout this process so we could expedite it, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, since the days that we spent those long hours in his office, Senator Craig, Senator Domenici, Senator Crapo, and others, a lot of people thought we would never get to this night. One person who did was the senior Senator from California who I have been so honored to have had on my subcommittee over the years. We wouldn't be on the floor tonight without the senior Senator from California who consistently, when we bumped up against an issue where we couldn't bring people together, it was the Senator from California who broke the gridlock. I want the Senate to know how much this body should appreciate the contribution of Senator Feinstein. This Senator does in particular. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington has made a number of extremely important points, points with which I certainly agree. Having served as chair of the forestry subcommittee and now ranking minority member, I can tell my colleagues the Senator from Washington is absolutely right with respect to her concern about adequate funding. For example, the bill from the other body provided no funding for the thinning projects. This legislation increases funding 80 percent. So her point with respect to making sure there is funding is dead on correct, and I think not only that point but other points she has made are correct. In spite of that, I do have to oppose the amendment tonight, and I want to take a couple of moments to say why. First, let me stress how important public participation was to me and to the other Senators who are involved in putting together this bipartisan compromise. If there is one thing, just one, that I want to stand for in my career in public service, it is the right of citizens to participate. That is why I have open community meetings in all my counties. It is why I have sidewalk office hours. It is why, as so many Senators, I try to make myself available as widely and extensively as I can. So I come tonight to say with respect to this key issue, this key question of public participation, not one current opportunity for public involvement would be lost under this compromise. I say that again. Not one current opportunity for public comment would be lost under this proposal. There are three alternatives that people would be part of examining and, in fact, the public would have a right to come forward and offer their own. It seems to me that that gives us a chance to keep the greatness of the National Environmental Policy Act, a statute more than 30 years old, while at the same time allowing us to deal with some of the concerns such as the unnecessary redtape and paperwork. This proposal in the legislation we are considering cuts the alternatives from five, to nine, essentially to three. I am of the view that, while it is appropriate to have a host of these alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act, when, say, the Federal Government is building a road, which is a broad purpose concern, I think when you are talking about this area and projects that are narrowly drawn, limited in where they can occur and how, it is appropriate to try to boil down the NEPA alternatives to the three that we have offered in this legislation. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington makes the argument that, in effect, the Senate will be starting down a slippery slope. I would just say to the Senator from Washington, I am convinced that because there are good people in the Senate, such as the Senator from Washington, that will not be the case. If someone comes forward and tries, for example, to unravel the National Environmental Policy Act, or even apply what we are doing in this area to every area, there will be opposition from a whole host of Senators, including this one. Nobody is talking about doing this in a host of other areas. We are talking about saying in this one area where we have been told by, for example, the Governors, it is not just a question of spending more money, it is a question of how you spend the money, I think this compromise strikes a reasonable balance. I urge my colleagues to support this compromise. The compromise is dramatically different than the approach the other body takes with respect to the National Environmental Policy Act. The other body basically kicks the public out by predetermining the National Environmental Policy Act alternatives. What is offered in the compromise preserves all opportunities for public input and appeal, while making sure that we deal with the paperwork and some of the unnecessary redtape. I urge my colleagues to support what is in the compromise because not one current opportunity for public comment would be lost, and all of us want to make sure that on an issue that citizens care so strongly about their right to be heard is preserved. This compromise does that. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have already indicated I want to make sure the compromise we voted on yesterday does not unravel. I will support the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico because I believe it will allow us to go forward and make sure the work that the bipartisan group did is not in vain. The bottom line is very simple: To get the money to put the fires out, fire suppression, you have to go out and steal from every single Forest Service program around and then hope that at some point down the road you are going to get repaid. It makes a mockery out of any effort to responsibly budget in this area. In our part of the world, we see, in effect, funds robbed from nonprofit organizations such as Wallowa Resources, a small nonprofit in eastern Oregon. My only concern about putting this off is that if we don't deal with this issue now, the question is, When will we deal with it? This is an extraordinarily important question. It will not, in my view, unravel the compromise which I will fight like crazy to protect, despite the fact that I think what the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Idaho have said has considerable validity as well. I hope we will support this amendment and then figure out in the course of the afternoon some way in which we can find some common ground on this issue. Today the process of just stealing from every program around to fight fires really becomes almost farcical. The Bingaman amendment responds to that. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to recognize my friend from New Mexico who has spent a lot of time on this bill and has an important amendment. As we go to the amendments this afternoon--particularly those from my side--I think it is critically important that the bipartisan compromise which was consummated yesterday in a 97-to-1 vote on the floor of the Senate not become unraveled today. This is, in my view, the only bill that can make it to the President's desk. It is a balanced approach on management. It ensures that the public has every single opportunity to participate in the debate about forestry but, at the same time, it does not establish a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on every conceivable matter that may relate to the forestry sector. In particular, it provides for potentially lifesaving hazardous fuel reduction projects in our national forests. We have to respond to what we have seen in California. It is a heartfelt need in that State. If this legislation as set out in the compromise doesn't become law, what we have seen in California in the last few days, and as we saw in Oregon last year, is going to be what the country faces year after year. I am very interested in working with our colleagues in an expeditious manner. I thank Senator Cochran again for all of his cooperation. Senator Bingaman has been waiting for a long time. I intend to work with all of our colleagues on this amendments today. What I especially look forward to is completing the work on this legislation. It was a very exciting development to have yesterday's vote by such a large plurality. It shows what you can do if you stay at it and try to find common ground in an area that is about as contentious as you can find. As Senator Cochran noted, we hope colleagues will bring amendments to the floor and move expeditiously. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just very briefly, Chairman Cochran has it exactly right. If there is one thing we want to accomplish in the natural resources area, it is to try to move this bill away from confrontation to collaboration. That is what we tried to do in the bipartisan compromise. I think we can reconcile that with the Bingaman amendment. I urge its support.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized very briefly after Senator Craig before we go to a vote.

Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, very briefly, I support Chairman Cochran in his request. We have been working on this legislation, in effect, for more than 4 years. It is now particularly timely, obviously, because of the events in California. Many of the amendments, at least those we have been told about, are coming from my side of the aisle. I ask colleagues--I know Senators have strong feelings on this--if they could present them to the staffs tonight--Senator Cochran's staff, Senator Harkin's staff. Myself and others are available to work through the evening with Senators who have amendments because we very much would like to finish it tonight. I urge my colleagues on both sides to heed what the chairman has said: If possible, get it to us tonight. I thank you and yield the floor.