Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate knows, 5 years ago I was the sponsor in the Senate of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. This is law that was designed to ensure that the Internet be free of discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce and a variety of Internet activities. And it was designed to encourage the growth of the Internet. The law has unquestionably worked. There is absolutely no evidence of anyone who has been harmed by the inability to discriminate against electronic commerce. For many months now, Senators of both political parties have been working together to try to ensure the law that expires shortly would be reauthorized, and Senators have been working on a cooperative and bipartisan basis to go forward and reauthorize this law that has worked. I had been under the impression that we were just about ready to bring this bill to the floor, but in the last few days a proposal that I find truly alarming has been brought forward by some of the State and local officials. I come to the floor this morning to make sure the Senate is actually familiar with the language that is being brought forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this legislation I am going to discuss be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon because I am troubled by what appears to be a request by the Bush administration in the Iraq supplemental that would have our citizens use their hard-earned tax dollars to subsidize the cost of gasoline in Iraq so Iraqi citizens would only have to pay 10 cents a gallon. The questions I am going to raise this afternoon with respect to this proposal can all be found essentially on page 29 of the report with respect to the request for the supplemental funds for rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq. For those who are following this discussion, this is under the question of the purchase of oil products at page 29 of the request for the supplemental. I want to begin asking some questions about the fairness of this Bush proposal and about how this subsidy program that is in this report would work if it was actually to be funded by the Senate. Today I also intend to send a letter to the President trying to get answers to some of these questions. But I would tell the Senate that here is what we know at present. The Bush administration has included in its Iraq supplemental funding request an estimated cost of $900 million to cover the difference between ``Iraqi demand and refinery production to establish and maintain a 30-day reserve in all major petroleum products to ensure no interruption in basic services due to terrorist activity.'' The administration's funding request specifies: $600 million will be needed in the first quarter of 2004 to compensate for the large difference between demand and production and to build this 30-day reserve. The first question is, How much is going to be spent on creating this reserve, and how much is going to be spent on purchasing gasoline for Iraqis? Using demand data from the Energy Information Agency's latest report on Iraq and current market conditions, it is estimated the establishment of a 30-day fuel product reserve would cost approximately $200 million. If that amount is correct, that would mean roughly $400 million would be spent to purchase gasoline and other petroleum products for Iraqis in the first 90 days of next year. Iraq is importing about 750,000 gallons of gasoline a day, according to recent statements by senior oil ministry officials. Based on those statements, Iraq would need about 67.5 million gallons during the first quarter of 2004. If that estimate is correct, U.S. taxpayers would be paying almost $6 per gallon for the gasoline that is provided to Iraqis by the United States in the first quarter of 2004. The question I ask today and in the days ahead will be: Why does it cost $6 per gallon to provide gasoline to Iraqis when the cost in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is less than $1 per gallon and below the $2 per gallon cost almost everywhere in our country? According to an article in the Houston Chronicle on September 28, the United States has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars to provide gasoline to Iraq under the contract previously issued with Halliburton. My question here would be: What is the cost of gasoline that has been sent to Iraq by the United States? What was the wholesale price involved here that Halliburton paid for the gas sent to Iraq at taxpayer expense? Of course, I think our citizens would want to know what profit was made on these deliveries. The Houston Chronicle also reported that in Iraq the low-octane government-subsidized gasoline sells for less than a dime a gallon. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Houston Chronicle entitled ``U.S. Taxpayer Footing Bill for Cheap Iraqi Gasoline'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my question flowing from what we have learned and the various issues we have been exploring throughout the days since we learned about this is, Were U.S. taxpayer funds spent to keep the cost of gasoline in Iraq at this heavily subsidized low price? I am of the view that our taxpayers deserve to get answers to these questions. I think we deserve to get them before Congress votes on the Bush administration's funding request. I can tell my colleagues in the Senate that when I read page 29 of this particular report with respect to oil products purchased, I was very concerned. My citizens and the folks I represent in the Pacific Northwest consistently pay some of the highest gasoline prices in our country. Oregon, Washington, and California have been very hard hit with respect to gas prices. It amounts to a quasi-monopoly in 27 States in our country. We have red lining. We have zone pricing, and a whole host of anticompetitive practices. Now we have outlined on page 29 of this request for supplemental funds what appears to be a request from the administration to have the hard-earned tax dollars of our citizens go to subsidize the cost of gasoline in Iraq so Iraqi citizens will only have to pay 10 cents a gallon. I can tell my colleagues there are people we represent here in the Senate who are not paying that kind of money. That is why I want to get the details on this proposal. I am amplifying on the questions I am asking today in a letter to the President of the United States. We also come away with a concern that the administration seems to be willing to support creating a reserve in Iraq to protect Iraqi citizens against interruptions in gasoline and diesel fuel supplies when there is no gas and diesel reserve in the United States to protect our citizens in the event of terrorist activity or other disruptions. This proposal in the report which I have outlined and referred to specifically so that colleagues can see it raises some very troubling questions. Given what we already know now that the administration has included in its Iraq supplemental funding request an estimated cost of $900 million to cover the difference between Iraqi demand in refinery production to establish and maintain this reserve due to possible terrorist activities, I think it is time for the Senate to take out a sharp pencil and review this proposal very carefully. I think it raises fundamental questions with respect to fairness and with respect to how the hard-earned tax dollars of our citizens are being used at a time when in my State, with the highest unemployment rate in the country, there is a world of hurt. I urge my colleagues to take a good look at this proposal because I intend to focus more on it when the Senate comes back after having the opportunity to be home and gather with the people we represent. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Before he leaves the floor, I say to the distinguished majority leader how much I have enjoyed working with him over the years on this issue of health care. As he knows, Senator Hatch and I have worked for many months on a bipartisan proposal that we would like to be part of the discussion he is going to launch. I have come to the conclusion that, as pressing as the financial issues are with respect to health care, the social and ethical issues are going to be even more important as we face this demographic tsunami of millions of baby boomers who are retiring in 2010 and 2011. So I am grateful the majority leader continues his interest in health care. I continue to have a bipartisan interest in working with the majority leader, who has spent so much time on those issues over the years. I know I speak for Senator Hatch in this regard as well. We have to break the gridlock on this issue. Literally for 60 years, if you look at the parallel between what Harry Truman tried in the 81st Congress in 1945 and what was tried in 1993 and up to this day, we see, unless we find a way to take a fresh approach, as the distinguished majority leader said today, we are not going to break this gridlock. So I welcome your statement today. I am anxious to work with you and the chairman of the committee, Senator Gregg, to pursue these proposals.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have enjoy working with my colleague from Maine over the last 5 or 6 months. This amendment is especially important because it would mean for the first time the Congress is going to restrict the funds under this effort for reconstruction to only those contracts let in an open and competitive bid, except in very narrow circumstances. In my view, much of the work to rebuild Iraq has been outsourced to private companies and it is now time, with this legislation, to end the outsourcing of accountability. What our constituents have said is: How much is this whole effort going to cost? How long is it going to take? And how is this money going to be spent? As I have said, my view is that right now the contracting process looks a little like Dodge City before the marshall showed up. It seems very influential companies and others seem to write the rules that the United States is essentially in the dark. Then the news media comes out and highlights various concerns, most of which the Senate does not know much about, and there is a flurry of activity and people discuss whether or not the contract is going to be rebid. What Senator Collins and I would like to do is establish some bipartisan order and go back, as the Senator from Maine has said, to the principles that the Competition and Contracting Act have been all about. Yes, $87 billion is a jaw-dropping sum of money. The Coalition Provisional Authority, the World Bank, and the U.N. have estimated--it was in the Wall Street Journal today--that it will take $56 billion over just the next 5 years for rebuilding in Iraq. It seems to me it does not pass the smell test to allow this process where the Congress is in the dark, the American people are in the dark, and every Member of the Senate goes home and faces constituents who say, We want this process to work a little bit like our family finances do. Right now, a family makes purchases, they get a bank statement. For example, they spend X amount of dollars at Sears, they spend more at the grocery store, they pay for essentials, and get a bank statement showing what they spent. That is a process that is straightforward, that can be monitored. We look at the bank statement for Iraq; it is essentially devoid of specifics. Senator Collins and I have tried to approach this on a bipartisan basis. People may think it is a quaint idea, but we believe in competition. We believe that transparency and disclosure works and it gets taxpayers the most for their money. This amendment for the first time actually puts in place a funding restriction. In the past, Senator Collins and I have said we are willing to look at various approaches that involve reports after the fact. Now we are waiting for all of these investigations and inquiries to move at glacial speed. What Senator Collins has said is--and I agree with her point completely--what we need now is some legislation with teeth in it. This funding restriction for the first time provides that. We are very pleased to be able to come to the Senate, given the fact there have been a number of instances already where contracts were let without competitive bid or with only limited bidding. We have had a number of colleagues involved, colleagues from both parties. I particularly commend Senator Clinton, who has been my partner on the Democratic side. I also note that Senator Enzi has been very supportive of this effort. He joins this cause as well. Our thanks to Senator Clinton, Senator Enzi, and many other Senators who have been involved in this effort. Tonight, it seems to me, the Senate is saying: We will do it differently. We will draw a line in the sand. The Senate is no longer going to be in the dark with respect to this issue. I am very pleased we will be able to go home for this recess and say that at a time when the American people are looking for some concrete specifics with respect to the pricetag on this legislation and where the money exactly is going to go, we can say that because of this bipartisan amendment, for the first time the Senate is going to restrict these funds so as to promote open and competitive bidding and the kind of transparency that best makes free markets work. I reserve the remainder of any time I have remaining. I also thank the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee who has had strong views on this issue and has worked closely with Senator Collins and me over almost 6 months. We appreciate the fact that now we have legislation with some real teeth in it to make sure the taxpayers get value for their money in the contracting process.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. My understanding is we will have the Dodd amendment, a vote on that, and right after that vote we have a vote on the Collins- Wyden amendment, which we hope will go on voice.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, earlier this year, I announced my intention to object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the nomination of Joseph Kelliher to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I did this because at the time, Mr. Kelliher had not convinced me that he fully understood the impact of west coast market manipulation on northwest ratepayers or the problems that the Commission's standard market design proposal could create for the northwest electric power grid. Today I received a letter from Mr. Kelliher expressing his views on these subjects. It is clear from his letter that Mr. Kelliher has done his homework about energy issues critical to the west in general and the northwest in particular. From opposing a final standard market design rule to supporting voluntary regional transmission organizations and making market manipulation illegal, Mr. Kelliher's letter reflects he now has a better understanding and appreciation of the northwest energy markets and transmission systems and the particular challenges northwest ratepayers face. Based on his letter, I will no longer object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up Mr. Kelliher's nomination. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Kelliher's letter to me be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. SkyTaxi intends to operate through a franchise system, in which individual small businesses would purchase small aircraft and operate local SkyTaxi franchises. But purchasing an aircraft takes a substantial amount of capital, and many potential franchise owners-- such as laid-off commercial pilots who now wish to start their own businesses--find that financing for aviation-related businesses is currently very difficult to obtain. SkyTaxi therefore expects and hopes that potential franchise owners would be able to turn to the SBA and its lending partners for small business loans, in order to get up and running. The problem now arises because, in order to satisfy FAA safety requirements and obtain FAA certification, SkyTaxi needs to retain certain authority over safety matters, including ensuring the competence of flight crew and the quality of aircraft maintenance. It has set up its franchise agreement accordingly. Unfortunately, the SBA has so far taken the position that, due to the authority vested in SkyTaxi in the franchise agreement, the SBA would view each of the individual franchise owners as ``affiliated'' with Sky-Tax and each other--and thus ineligible to apply for individual SBA guarantee loans. My staff has been in contact with the SBA about this, and I am hopeful that this eligibility problem can be solved. For example, it may be possible to work with FAA to clarify the limits of SkyTaxi's safety-related authority over franchisees, and to rework the franchise agreement to preserve SBA loan eligibility. But for that to happen, it's going to take a commitment from the SBA to work on a cooperative basis to try to find a solution. If the SBA will roll up its sleeves and work creatively with my office and with SkyTaxi, then I think the problem can be solved to everyone's satisfaction. And in the end, the real beneficiaries could be rural communities.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator may recall, then, that the GAO report briefly discusses SkyTaxi as a potential alternative way to provide air service to small communities. The report observes that SkyTaxi offers a business model that is still relatively new, but that could help meet some of the needs of small communities.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to highlight a particular issue that my staff has been talking to the Small Business Administration, SBA about. This relates to an Oregon company named SkyTaxi, which has an innovative and ambitious business plan for providing on-demand air service to small communities. As my colleague from Maine knows better than most, small and rural communities are often gravely underserved by commercial airlines. These are places where transportation links are a make-or-break issue for local economic opportunity. But, as a recent General Accounting Office report concluded last January, the trend is not positive. The current turmoil in the airline industry hits small communities hard, because those are the first places airlines trim or eliminate service when they are looking to cut costs. And most efforts to promote air service to small communities have met with limited long-term success.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator for her assistance with this issue, and for her consistent and careful attention to small business issues and rural transportation issues alike.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator DeWine and I are submitting a concurrent resolution to support the consumer education efforts of the National Funeral Directors Association during National Funeral Services Education Week, September 21 through 27, 2003. When we are called upon to make funeral arrangements it is often at an emotional time when making important funeral-related decisions are confusing and difficult. In order to help remove confusion and concerns about funeral service planning, the National Funeral Directors Association is beginning a nationwide consumer education effort the week of September 21. The theme of the educational effort is ``For a Life Worth Celebrating'' which reflects funeral directors efforts to meet the needs of families who want a meaningful service that celebrates their loved one's life. This important week will provide consumers an opportunity to ask questions, obtain information about how to make informed funeral- related decisions. Funeral directors across the country will hold special community events including ``open houses'' and events in local malls, schools or community centers. I would encourage the public to participate in these activities so they can become informed consumers and I urge the Congress to support this educational effort.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I take a few minutes tonight to talk about the issue of gasoline prices. I serve on the House-Senate conference committee which is now negotiating over how to pass a good and hopefully bipartisan Energy bill. I will talk about an issue that is clobbering consumers all across this country. It has been devastating across the West--in Oregon, in Washington, Idaho, and California. The fact is, this is true all over America. In Los Angeles, the average price for regular unleaded gas is $2.10 a gallon. In New York City, the average price is $1.95 for a gallon of gas. In Phoenix, it is $2. At present, gasoline costs 30 cents more than it did at this very time last year, and 15 cents of that increase has happened in the last few months. In my home State, Oregon drivers are paying a whooping 56 cents more per gallon than they paid for the same gas in September of last year. I don't think anyone is confused about the implications of these skyrocketing increases. When Americans have to spend this additional money on gasoline, they do not have money for other essentials at a time when millions of our families are hurting. They cannot buy those back-to-school clothes and groceries and consumer items when they are paying an extra 50 cents for gas all across the West and in numerous communities across the country. It seems to me with so many people hurting, with so many folks out of work, the efforts of the conferees with respect to protecting the American people from escalating gasoline prices seems to be especially important. Artificially inflated gasoline prices shellac our families three ways: It takes dollars from their pocketbooks; it slows job creation; and it often raises the prices of the goods families need to buy due to increased transportation costs. When I was home this summer and I held town meetings across Oregon, from Elgin in the rural part of our State to the metropolitan areas of Portland, I heard again and again: What steps is the Congress going to take to promote competition, use free-market principles to help put in place policies that will promote competition in the gasoline markets and provide relief for our consumers? These gasoline price spikes and the escalating cost of gas cannot be explained just by the market. Steps ought to be taken to put in place real procompetitive market-oriented policies to provide relief for our consumers. The Secretary of Energy said recently that he is conducting what amounts to an informal investigation into this issue. But we have examined the law and the Department of Energy does not have any power to do anything about gasoline prices. The Federal Trade Commission, which we thought could play the role of being on the side of the consumer, says they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out, blatant collusion, setting out a standard that is virtually impossible to prove in the real world. Moreover, the Federal Trade Commission does not seem to think that tightly documented cases of anticompetitive practices such as redlining and zone pricing is a particularly big deal. I come to the Senate tonight because the American people deserve better and the American people have a right to insist in this House- Senate energy conference going forward now, that steps are taken to actually put in place new policies to put the Government on the side of marketplace-oriented procompetitive policies that will provide relief for the American consumer who fills the tank at pumps across the country and is just getting shellacked right now when they try to afford those bills. Even the oil companies admit that the market is not going to solve the problem by itself. Last month, a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even industry officials are predicting a great deal of price volatility in the future. If you look at what the industry is saying--and that is the assessment of people within the energy industry, not critics--even people within the energy industry are saying, for all practical purposes, consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years. I am proposing, and I have shared it with members of the conference, both Democrats and Republicans, and I intend to do so in the days ahead, a proposal so the energy conference does not wrap up without a concrete package of procompetitive initiatives to help consumers at the Nation's gas pumps. It seems to me the focus of such a procompetitive package should be for the energy conferees to direct Government regulators to act to eliminate anticompetitive practices that right now are siphoning the competition out of our gasoline markets. Specifically, what we have found is that in my home State, and at least 27 other States, there are essentially oligopolies, mini kinds of monopolies, where just a handful of companies--maybe three or so, maybe four, but a tiny number of companies--are controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supply. That is the case in my home State. It is all over the West, where four of the top six States for high gas prices are located. So, in effect, what you have is more than half of our States very highly concentrated as gasoline markets, where, in effect, you have seen the competitive juices drained out of the gasoline business. It is those competitive juices that I want to restore. What happens in these tightly concentrated markets--there have been numerous studies to this effect--is that you end up losing a lot of the big sources of competition and price restraint. I am talking specifically about the independent wholesalers and dealers, and we are losing them from these concentrated markets. One way that has taken a huge toll on the consumer is that these markets often get redlined. In effect, when a market is redlined, you have the independent distributor restricted in terms of where they can sell their gas. As a result, the independent stations have to buy their gasoline directly from those large companies, usually at a higher price than the company's own brandname stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent stations cannot compete. In my home State, we have lost hundreds of gasoline stations in the last few years. We know many of them are the independent stations that are the biggest source of competition that is so beneficial to the consumer. So it seems to me, at a minimum, the Federal Trade Commission should act to promote competition in these areas, these 27 States, for example, that have these quasi-monopolies. I believe these highly concentrated markets ought to be designated ``consumer watch zones,'' where there would be greater monitoring by the Federal Trade Commission, and where the Federal Trade Commission would be empowered to issue cease and desist orders to prevent companies from gouging consumers. I also think that in these particular areas, where you have quasi- monopolies, the Congress ought to stipulate that redlining and zone pricing are anticompetitive practices by their very nature, and that companies that engage in redlining and zone pricing in these tightly concentrated markets should have to carry the burden of proof that what they are doing in those concentrated markets doesn't hurt the consumer. In the past--and, as I say, I have shared these proposals with Senators of both parties; I have offered ideas to promote competition in the gasoline industry--there have been some who have said, and vociferously, that these kinds of proposals are unacceptable; somehow they would create disincentives to production--this sort of thing. Well, I see absolutely nothing here that creates a disincentive to production. What I want to do is promote competition and freer markets for consumers at the gas pump. What I would say to those in the Congress who disagree with the procompetitive proposals I am making today is that I want to issue you a challenge. To those who think the approach I am offering up today is unwise, I would say: Bring your own proposal, give your own proposal to the conferees on the House-Senate committee that is meeting now with your ideas on how to promote competition in the gasoline market. I want people to know I have offered a proposal to colleagues to both parties in the conference, but I would like to hear from others who have ideas if they happen to agree that my approach is not the way to go--unless someone is prepared to say there is no problem for the consumer. I defy somebody to say that to people I am hearing from in the West and all over the country, who are paying $2 a gallon for gas. Unless you are prepared to tell those people there is no problem out there, I believe those who disagree with the proposals I am discussing today to promote competition ought to come forward and put their own ideas on the table. There are a couple of other points I want to make with respect to this proposal to promote competition in gasoline markets. I see my good friend from Virginia here, who wants to address the Senate. I will just wrap up with a couple of additional points. I also believe, Mr. President, and colleagues, that as part of the energy conference, the Congress needs to address the growing gap between consumer demand for gasoline and what the oil companies can produce. When supplies are tight, and there is no spare gasoline in inventories, consumers are especially vulnerable to supply shortages and price spikes when refineries shut down unexpectedly or a pipeline breaks, as happened this summer. Congress ought to take steps to ensure that the consumer is not left stalled by the side of the road or fuming at the pump, by taking steps to keep supplies available in emergencies. It seems to me that here, at a very minimum, steps ought to be taken to ensure there are inventories on hand to address unexpected supply crunches. That has been done in other areas. Certainly we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve for petroleum and heating oil supplies. I think, given the shellacking consumers are taking with respect to gasoline prices, steps ought to be taken by the Congress conferees to ensure that adequate inventories are on hand to address unexpected supply crunches and the hikes that so often accompany them. Finally, I hope, as the conferees move to complete their business, they look at what is on the record today with respect to anticompetitive practices in our gasoline markets. These are practices that have driven prices up and have driven consumers crazy at the pump. The evidence is very real. The fact is, the investigation, as the Department of Energy describes it, is toothless. They do not have the authority under current law to stand up for the consumer at the pump. The Federal Trade Commission, for reasons that are beyond my comprehension, refuses to deal with the documented cases of redlining and zone pricing and anticompetitive practices. So I have come to the floor today, Mr. President, and colleagues, to outline specific steps, specific actions that could to be taken on a bipartisan basis by the energy conferees to provide real and concrete relief to energy consumers at the pump. In this conference, the Congress has the opportunity to say that when our consumers are facing, as I described, price hikes of 50 cents--50 cents--for gas, the Government is going to be on their side with policies that promote competition in gasoline markets, in particularly those 27 States which are, in effect, mini monopolies, where there are just a handful of choices for consumers and prices go up as a result. I call on the Congress to take up this cause in this House-Senate energy conference. This is a chance to go to bat for consumers on the issue that is frustrating our consumers and our small businesses every single day. They are looking for the Congress to step up and act to provide some real relief. The people of this country are asking for that kind of advocacy. I believe it is time for the Congress to provide that kind of approach. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the resolution. I particularly want to commend my colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, and our friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott, as well, for their bipartisan efforts. I believe I have sat through every minute of these hearings because I believe what the Commerce Committee has been looking at is extraordinarily important. I want to take a few minutes today to outline for the Senate and others who are just beginning to get involved in this issue what I think is at stake. First, I think it is important to be clear about what is ahead. In my view, the big media conglomerates want to make a meal out of the Nation's small media outlets, and I believe the Senate needs to step in and cancel this feast. That is what this resolution would do and why it is so important. I would like to begin, in discussing this issue, by talking about the fact that the Senate has been down this road before. In the discussion with respect to radio, there was considerable debate about the deregulation of radio at the time. Extensive testimony was taken. Arguments were made that this was an experiment that should be allowed to go forward. In 1996, the Congress relaxed the limits on radio station ownership. What we heard during our hearings, and I asked Chairman Powell about this specifically with respect to radio, was truly alarming. Chairman Powell, under questioning that I engaged him in in committee, admitted now there was a problem with respect to concentration of radio. Chairman McCain attested to it as well this afternoon. So the challenge now for the Senate is to make sure the Senate does not allow a repeat of the failed media experiment. What went on in radio is something that has not worked. It is an experiment, where the drawbacks outweigh the advantages. The Senate has an opportunity to make sure that the failed experiment that has taken a toll on localism, choice, and diversity across this country is not to be repeated. In my view, it is the centerpiece of the argument as to why this resolution is so important. There are not a lot of rallies outside the offices of Senators for big media kind of feeding frenzies. All of the input has essentially been the other way. The public has been concerned that as the conglomerates get bigger, the diet of news in particular is going to get blander and certainly less diverse and less locally oriented and more mass produced. We have been very troubled about what we have seen in our home State of Oregon. In Eugene, OR, for example, a network affiliate wanted to shift around program time slots so it could offer the city's first 10 p.m. newscast. It was not going to cut programming. It was going to shift some of the schedules. The network said no, because they wanted to maintain what they described as a consistent nationwide distribution pattern. As a result, Eugene residents still have no 10 p.m. news program even though the local station, a family-owned business, wanted to offer it. The lesson has been clear. For the network, nationwide business judgments trump local interests. That is the story of what has happened in Eugene. The big networks may claim they are fully committed to localism, but in practice they behave differently than a truly local owner would. When they came before the committee, I asked about this issue and they said, it is a free country. That local network affiliate does not have to take network programming 7 to 8, or 8 to 9, or 9 to 10. It is a free country. They can make their own choices. Essentially, the freedom they have described for a local affiliate is the freedom to go broke. A local affiliate cannot, in effect, write off network programming for most of the evening because they are committed to public service news and the opportunity for citizens to be heard. There has to be a balance. There has to be a balance between national judgments and local judgments, and I believe the Federal Communications Commission would skew that balance. They would skew it towards a media that was less sensitive to local concerns and local interests, and would be less diverse and offer fewer choices. I believe that is why these rules need to be maintained so as to have a proper balance rather than a skewed approach to media regulation in our country as the Federal Communications Commission's approach would do. If we look at the media landscape today, it is pretty hard to argue that the Federal Communications Commission is holding the reins too tightly at present. Concentration is already on the rise in television, radio, cable, and newspapers. Viacom, News Corporation, AOL/Time Warner, Walt Disney, and others have amassed a very broad and extensive array of media properties, and it would seem to me that given the trend towards concentration at present, the current FCC's rules are even more important than before. I think what it comes down to is that the Federal Communications Commission's approach is going to take a toll on several vital areas of the public's interest. I believe, for example, that the diversity of viewpoints in medium-size towns across the country will be reduced if the same company owns the local newspaper, the most watched television stations, local radio stations, and perhaps the cable system, too. We heard testimony to that effect in the Senate Commerce Committee. If each of these media outlets at the local level are part of a big nationwide chain that is making programming decisions at corporate headquarters thousands of miles away, what is going to be the bottom line emphasis? Are those people at distant conference tables thousands of miles from our local communities going to put the kind of focus on local news and local programming that my constituents want? The evidence suggests otherwise. With respect to creativity and independent content, if the local cable system, the local broadcaster, and the main satellite providers in effect are able to control substantial programming interests, we do have a way to preserve the kind of local orientation that our citizens feel so strongly about. If that changes, and I believe it would change under the Federal Communications Commission approach, I think what is going to happen in the future is everywhere independent programmers turn, they are going to be told by the national interests, by these national economic powers: Sorry, but we have to give preference to the programs that we produce in-house, rather than the local cable system, the local broadcaster, the main satellite providers who, today, offer so much creativity and diverse programming for local communities. Finally, it seems to me that the Federal Communications Commission approach is going to take a toll on objective news coverage. With respect to news outlets reporting independently on issues that affect the parent companies, you ought to begin the discussion just by noting that ABC--and it has already been reported with respect to this matter--that ABC News, owned by Disney, quashed an investigative story on Disney theme parks. It seems to me that more cross-ownership is going to create more opportunities for conflicts of interest in news coverage and that will reduce the kind of independent reporting that has consistently been in the public interest. A lot of the advocates for these changes, these powerful conglomerates, point to the idea that these are tough economic times; that some media outlets may be hurting. Their argument has been that it may be efficient, as they describe it, from a pure dollars and cents perspective, to allow different media businesses to combine their operations. I would only say to those who make that argument that efficiency is not the only thing at stake in this debate. Sure, if all anybody cares about in the United States is efficiency, why not just have one single nationwide news bureau? They could run everything and people could say we sure have efficiency now. We wouldn't have all these reporters and commentators running around trying to beat each other and scoop each other and the like. But I think it is pretty obvious to Senators that would not be in the public interest because it would reduce diversity and reduce choice and reduce the kind of robust public debate that America wants. So there are other values besides efficiency. That is the point of the current rules, that they help to balance these competing interests. I will wrap up because I see other colleagues waiting to make their remarks. I think what has happened in this country, and with the FCC's set of initiatives in this area, is that the Federal Communications Commission has rung the dinner bell--they have rung the dinner bell for these powerful conglomerates who are out there licking their chops at the prospect of making a meal out of these small outlets. As I said earlier, I hope the Senate, when it looks at the facts, when it looks at what has gone on in the failed experiment of radio-- and I want to emphasize that--I think the Federal Communications Commission will say: All right, these big media companies are at the dinner table. They want to gobble up these small outlets. I hope the Senate votes in favor of this resolution and cancels the Federal Communications Commission's feeding frenzy. I hope the Senate will do that when we vote next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee contains $10 million to fund a small, but important, provision passed in 1996 which would extend the Federal Tort Claims Act coverage to medical volunteers in free clinics in order to expand access to health care services for those who are low income and have few avenues to receive health care. This long overlooked provision is Section 194 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and is similar to the coverage already offered community health centers. Congress never appropriated funds for section 194. No administration requested funding and no regulations to implement this section of the law were ever published. Yet, one of the key reasons retired health professionals often do not volunteer is the cost of malpractice insurance. Free clinics simply cannot afford to purchase insurance for them. HIPAA provided a mechanism to solve the problem, yet 7 years after the law's passage, failure to fund this section of law has prevented it from becoming a reality. Year after year, I, and several colleagues, have urged this and previous administrations to implement this provision. The current administration has been concerned that they would not be able to implement the provision without funding. I thank my colleagues on the committee who have helped make this funding a reality, and I will continue to work with them to assure that the provision stays in through the conference.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before they leave, I commend my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, and my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, for the tremendous work they are doing on behalf of that critically important population of kids. As the Senator from Connecticut noted, my home State would receive substantial sums under their important amendment. I support it and urge all my colleagues in the Senate to support the amendment. Iraq Reconstruction

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, news reports last week revealed that the Bechtel Corporation would be receiving an extra $350 million in Iraq reconstruction work over and above the $680 million contract they were awarded by the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier this year. Meanwhile, it was also reported that the Halliburton company has been awarded contracts totaling $1.7 billion in connection with the war in Iraq. Despite repeated promises by the administration to recompete Halliburton's contract, most recently in July, this has still not occurred. This is especially relevant today because the papers today reveal that the administration intends to seek more than $60 billion in additional taxpayer funding to cover the mounting costs in Iraq, and that is, of course, on top of the $79 billion wartime supplemental funding the President signed into law last April. I come to the floor this afternoon because as this new debate begins, it should be noted that not once have U.S. taxpayers been given a true accounting of expenditures in Iraq. This summer, I held, like so many colleagues, town meetings at home. I had 10 town meetings all across Oregon, and repeatedly at these sessions citizens would come up and say: Where are these vast sums going? What is being done to prevent waste in these expenditures? And isn't something being done to make sure that at a time when we are having so much difficulty in Oregon funding schools, health care, and essential services, steps are being taken at the national level to make sure these huge sums being spent for Iraqi reconstruction are being spent wisely? But the fact is that the public and the Congress are in the dark with respect to a true accounting for these expenditures for Iraq reconstruction. I think the American people and the Congress deserve better. The budget presented earlier this summer by the Administrator for Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, in effect, used accounting that resembled the approach about which Enron was talking. It had over $1 billion in capital expenditures off budget, and if these costs had been included, the budget simply would not have been in balance. Certainly, no private company could operate this way. Its accounting would never pass muster with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Corporate Accountability Act. My concern is the American taxpayers do not want to find themselves, with respect to these Iraqi reconstruction expenditures, in a situation like so many Enron employees faced--I had constituents involved in this--that hits them when the house of cards begins to crumble. With enormous sums at stake, American taxpayers deserve a full accounting of what they are getting for their hard-earned tax dollars. The question now for the Senate is: How much longer is the Congress going to continue to shovel money out the door for Iraqi reconstruction without insisting on the truth for those at home whom we represent? Americans have been kept in the dark about how these handpicked contractors go about doing their business. Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, myself, and a group of Senators on a bipartisan basis, have been concerned about the substantial evidence that indicates that these contractors were not picked because they were the most cost competitive. In a rare moment of candor, one of the officials in the administration actually admitted that they were using companies to perform work that could be done at a lower cost. Yet there has been no justification for that, no explanation as to why time and again Federal agencies have let contracts for Iraqi reconstruction without asking for competitive bids at all or by confining the bidding process to a select group of U.S. companies that seem to have very good connections. Earlier this year in the Defense appropriations bill, I was able to write into the legislation a measure that would require the administration to explain why it chose to let billions of dollars in private contracts for reconstruction go forward without open and competitive bidding. That measure is now in conference. I urge my colleagues to accept that provision, make sure that it gets to the President's desk, and that there is some accountability with respect to these dollars. If billions of dollars are going to go out in private contracts, the rule ought to be open competitive bidding. Colleagues such as Senator Collins, who chairs the Committee on Governmental Affairs, have great expertise in this area. There have been various reports in recent years that have documented how it is fraught with problems for taxpayers if we get away from the principle of open and competitive bids. Yet it seems that the closed-bid process, closed and secret bids, are more the rule rather than the exception with respect to Iraqi reconstruction contracts. I believe if Federal agencies had to justify their spending decisions in Iraq, there would be egregious cases of waste that would be stopped. We would not see money funneled to a handpicked group of companies, and we would see more of the contracts awarded to lower bidders who actually had to compete, and the public would see the fruits of full and open competition. Clearly, as this rebuilding effort goes forward, the American people are saying, at a time when our schools are closing early, at a time when we have bridges, roads, and critical infrastructure crumbling from neglect, they want to know what is being done to ensure that their tax dollars are spent in a judicious fashion. This is not the first time this request has been made on the Senate floor, and I am certainly not the only Senator who has been issuing this call. As I said, on various legislation, the Defense authorization, the Defense appropriations bill, a bipartisan group of us, particularly the chair of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Senators Collins, Clinton, Byrd, Lieberman, and myself, all of us have said it is time for some sunshine. It is time for some sunshine at a period when vast sums of the people's money are being used for Iraqi reconstruction, and yet little is known about how this money is being spent and whether it is being spent in a prudent fashion. At a time when Oregon families are hurting, when we are having difficulty getting funds for education at home in Oregon--and I know this is true elsewhere--I want the full truth about how these tax dollars are being spent in Iraq and why the administration is refusing to use the most cost-effective method again and again for doling these dollars out. Most of all, it is time for the administration to level with the public. At this point, virtually the only information Congress and the citizens of this country have with respect to these billions of dollars worth of contracts are the news reports. Certainly, what I am reading makes the Iraqi contracting process look more like a cash grab for a few companies than a fair process to get the taxpayer the best deal. Instead of awarding the contracts to the lowest bidders, too often the administration has funneled ever larger sums to a select group of companies that seem awfully well connected. Now, more than ever, taxpayers deserve to know the terms of the contracts that have been awarded and how these contractors were selected. My amendment to the Defense appropriations bill would require the disclosure of that critical information. It would create not just openness in the contracting process but would help ensure that the careful spending of tax dollars in Iraq gets the value that America's working families deserve. I think virtually every Member of the Senate would agree that the American people should not be asked to write blank check after blank check for the cost of rebuilding Iraq. They certainly should not be asked to do it when they have gotten absolutely no answers with respect to how their money is being spent and why. The American people have not received any assurance that their tax dollars are not being wasted in Iraq while so many of them are hurting at home. So I intend to keep this fight visible on the Senate floor. I think all of us ought to be taking every step possible. We have two pieces of legislation to do it, to ensure that there is accountability for these expenditures, and to ensure that actual steps are taken to cut the waste. The families I represent in Oregon deserve careful, not wasteful, spending of tax dollars that are used to reconstruct Iraq. Right now, those citizens and the Congress are in the dark and the American people deserve better. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the submission of this resolution marks a very important milestone in the seven-year effort I have pursued with Senator Grassley to bring the Senate practice of holds out of the shadows and into the sunshine. Throughout this time we have labored as a bipartisan team to champion the cause of the ``sunshine'' hold. I especially want to thank Rules Chairman Lott and the Senate's foremost authority on the Rules, Senator Byrd, for their commitment to working with us on this resolution. They know all too well the havoc ``secret'' holds can wreak on the Senate agenda. Whether public or secret, the hold in the Senate is a lot like the seventh inning stretch in baseball: there is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition. Its capacity to tie the Senate and Senators in knots is notorious, and it has even given birth to several intriguing offspring: the hostage hold, the rolling hold and the Mae West hold. The secret hold is a practice of Senatorial courtesy extended by the respective Leaders. Even though it is one of the Senate's most popular procedures, it cannot be found anywhere in the United States Constitution or in the Senate Rules. It is one of the most powerful weapons any Senator can wield in this body, and in its stealth version, known as the secret hold, it is even more potent. The target of this resolution is specifically ``holds,'' which we define as a Senator's intent to object to proceeding to a motion or matter. The resolution does not deal with so-called ``consults,'' which are confidential communications between a Senator and the respective Leader informing the Leader of a Senator's interest in a bill or nomination. This resolution would say to those who want to kill or stop a bill or nomination that they must come forward and notify their respective party leaders. It would not affect the process known as the ``consult'' insofar as it is used to alert a Senator when a bill or nomination is moving toward the floor so that the Senator may prepare for floor consideration. The resolution would establish a Senate Temporary Standing Order for the duration of the 108th Congress allowing ``sunshine'' holds. The resolution would require a Senator who wishes to object to a motion or matter to publish notice of the intent in the Congressional Record within 3 session days of notifying the respective Leader. The resolution would in no way limit the privilege of any Senator to place a ``hold'' on a measure or matter, it would simply say that the notice of intent to object to a measure or matter be published. Throughout the Senate's history some of the most potent weapons-- procedural and otherwise--often have not been rules but rather the absence of them. Beginning in 1997 and again in 1998, the United States Senate voted unanimously in favor of amendments Senator Grassley and I sponsored to require that a notice of intent to object be published in the Congressional Record within 48 hours. The amendments, however, never survived conference. So, Senator Grassley and I took our case to the leadership, and to their credit, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott agreed it was time to make a change. They recognized the need for more openness in the way the Senate conducts its business. The leaders sent a joint letter in February 1999, to all Senators setting forth a policy requiring ``all Senators wishing to place a hold on any legislation or executive calendar business [to] notify the sponsor or the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns.'' Their letter said: ``written notification should be provided to the respective Leader stating their intentions regarding the bill or nomination,'' and that ``holds placed on items by a member of a personal or committee staff will not be honored unless accompanied by a written notification from the objecting Senator by the end of the following business day.'' At first, this action seemed to make a real difference: many Senators were more open about their holds, and staff could no longer slap a hold on a bill with a quick phone call. But after some time, the clouds moved in on the sunshine hold, obscuring the progress that had been achieved. Legislative gridlock resumed, and the Senate seemed to have forgotten the Lott/Daschle letter. The problem the Senate faces today is not that a significant number of our colleagues make their holds public, but that a small number of Senators do not. It is their abuse of secret holds that contributes to legislative gridlock. By calling for publication of the intent to object in the Congressional Record, I believe the resolution puts the burden where it ought to be: not on the leadership, where it is today, but squarely on the shoulders of the objector. An objector who seeks to kill a bill by hiding behind a curtain of secrecy is hurting the leaders' ability to run the body and is obstructing rather than facilitating the Senate's business. Public notice of holds may be an inconvenience for a few, but not a hardship. In any given week, Senators insert more than two dozen statements in the Record on subjects such as sports teams winning championships and charitable fundraisers. These important events should be recognized, and I would hope that the intent of a Senator to block action on a bill or nomination would be considered of equal importance. The sponsors of the resolution have discussed at great length, most recently at the Rules Committee hearing on the subject, the matter of enforcement. My sense is that no Senator will ever go to jail for failing to give public notice of a hold, just as no Senator has gone to jail for violating the Standing Order adopted in the 98th Congress requiring Senators to vote from their assigned desks during the ``yeas'' and ``nays.'' There are any number of provisions even in the Senate. Rules that are not enforced at all or rarely today. Senate Rule XXVI requires the inclusion of various items of information in written committee reports, but Senate Rules do not require committees to file written reports on bills. Senate Rule VII, para. 5, provides committees shall make every reasonable effort to have printed hearings available for Senators before a measure comes to the floor for debate, although the Senate has debated any number of measures without the benefit of a printed report. This resolution signals to all members the Senate's preferred manner of doing business. I think most Senators believe the Senate's business should be conducted in public, and I think the American people would agree. Sunshine holds would strengthen the Leaders' hands as well as their options. A Leader may opt to continue to honor a secret hold, but a Leader wishing to move a measure or matter would be under no obligation to honor a hold unless the objecting Senator had complied with the Rule and published notice in the Record. The resolution is constructed so as to become a part of the Temporary Standing Orders, or the series of unanimous consent agreements that are renewed at the outset of each new Congress. Because there may be unintended consequences and because I have no desire to inflict irreparable harm on the Senate Rules, I deferred to the experience and wisdom of Senator Byrd whose wise counsel urged that the terms of the resolution be limited to the 108th Congress. My intent is to revisit the matter with Senators Grassley, Lott, and Byrd at the end of the 108th Congress to determine the benefits of making the resolution part of the Senate Rules at that time. As United States Senators we occupy a position of public trust, and I believe the exercise of the power that has been vested in us should always be accompanied by public accountability. I would argue that it is not the hold, but the anonymity of the hold that is so odious to the basic premise of our democratic system. The Lott-Byrd-Grassley-Wyden resolution would bring the anonymous hold out of the shadows of the Senate. It would assure that the awesome power possessed by an individual Senator to stop legislation or a nomination would be accompanied by the sunshine of public accountability. At its hearing in June, the Rules Committee weighed the merits of the Grassley-Wyden Resolution, and considered several fundamental questions: Whether the practice of secret holds is consistent with a democratic system; whether the elimination of the secrecy would disrupt the Constitutional balance of power between the various branches of government; and whether the removal of the secrecy would tip the balance between the rights of the majority and the minority in the Senate. My response is that removing secrecy from the hold will not alter the practice, merely its form. Removing secrecy from the hold will not tip the balance in Senate Rules and procedures between majority and minority rights. And removing the secrecy will not alter the balance of powers created under the Constitution. On the contrary, surrendering secrecy will strengthen public accountability and lessen the gridlock that has increasingly come to plague the world's greatest deliberative body. I would like to close by quoting the foremost authority on Senate Rules, who served as Majority Leader in the 95th, 96th and 100th Congresses. In Chapter 28, ``Reflections of a Party Leader,'' of Volume II of The Senate, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd wrote: ``To me, the Senate rules were to be used, when necessary, to advance and expedite the Senate's business.'' Giving the sunshine hold a place in the Senate's Rules would surely serve this worthy goal.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington, and I also thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy. I rise in strong support of the Cantwell amendment. What we have seen in the Pacific Northwest with respect to the manipulation of our energy markets is that the position of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has simply been see no evil, hear no evil, and ignore evil. The reason I have come to that conclusion is that when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioners came to the Energy Committee in March to discuss with us the question of manipulation of the Pacific Northwest market, I read excerpts point by point from the Reliant Energy trading transcript to the Commissioners. I read to them pretty much like a bedtime story. Here is the portion of the transcript that I read to the Commissioners. It involves the Reliant manager. He says: How did it work today? Reliant Trader: 129. We're talking about the power exchange. Reliant Manager: Yeah. I saw that. Reliant Trader: Then we trade up to 1.31 for the third quarter next year. Reliant Manager: Sweet. Reliant Trader. We even had a senior manager down here. Listen, if you would, Mr. President, and colleagues to this. The reliant trader said: He just wanted us to know that everybody thought it was really exciting that we're gonna play some market power. After reading this transcript, I asked the Commissioners, How can you reach the conclusion after what I have read to you that overpriced contracts based on manipulation toward market prices should not be avoided or at least reformed? I pointed out it was clear just on the basis of that short excerpt that the traders were manipulating long- term prices when they were talking about the third quarter next year. What is more, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's investigative report issued earlier this year found that there was a particularly significant correlation between spot prices and shorter 1- to 2-year contracts. Despite being caught in the act with a smoking transcript, despite having it read to them like a bedtime story, despite the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's staff findings, the majority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--specifically Commissioners Wood and Brownell--still cannot see the connection between these caught-in-the-act, smoking gun memos and transcripts and the higher energy prices my constituents are now paying because of the market manipulation detailed in these transcripts. I am pleased to be able to have just a couple of moments here. But it seems to me if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is unwilling or unable to police long-term energy markets in cases like this where people in the Pacific Northwest are being ripped off in broad daylight, it is time for the Congress to step in. That is why the Cantwell amendment is so important. I urge my colleagues to back the Cantwell amendment and outlaw the kind of manipulation that I have read to the Senate today and that I read to the Energy Committee. Unfortunately, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is unwilling or unable to address it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the United States can fight terrorism ferociously without gutting civil liberties. The point of the legislation I am introducing today is to address concerns that have arisen about the second part of this equation: an area of privacy that has gotten short shrift. That is the personal financial, medical and other data on millions of Americans that today is less than a mouseclick away from the computers of thousands of Federal bureaucrats. Access to and the use of that personal information by Federal bureaucrats is not protected by any comprehensive law. The power of technology that allows the Federal Government to pry into the personal lives of millions of Americans is only beginning to be understood. It is a breath-taking power, and it has come partly to light through the Defense Department's Terrorism Information Awareness Program (TIA), and through the Transportation Security Administration's Computer Assisted Passenger Profiling System II or CAPPSII Program. These and more than two dozen other agencies wield that power with little or no restraint. The legislation I am introducing with the support of a bipartisan group of privacy watchdog organizations, the Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act, will put the breaks on unchecked Federal data sweeps. It requires the Federal agencies with law enforcement or intelligence authority to share with Congress exactly what they are doing with private or public databases, why they are doing it, and most importantly, what, if any, privacy protections the agencies are affording the individuals' whose sensitive information is caught up in those databases. The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act also prohibits searches based on hypothetical scenarios. Apparently, some government agencies are using valuable Federal resources chasing hypothetical situations dreamed up without regard to actual intelligence or law enforcement information. The TIA Report to Congress in May of this year explained at length the program's intent to construct possible terrorist ``scenarios'' based on ``historical examples, estimated capabilities, and imagination.'' These scenarios would then be fed into database searches in an effort to substantiate the hypotheticals. This Act bans such searches. This prohibition will promote the efficient use of Federal law enforcement time and money and help protect Americans from being subject to ``virtual goose chases.'' Since 9/11, there has been an abundance of stories regarding Americans being stopped, searched, or detained due to some mistaken information. For example, after 9/11, the FBI decided to share with companies across the country a list with names of people wanted for possible association with terrorism. This list, as part of ``Project Lookout,'' was sent to thousands of corporations, some of whom now use the list in lieu of background checks. Here's the problem--this list is not necessarily accurate. First of all, the list quickly became obsolete as the FBI checked people off. That means even if people were cleared by the FBI of suspicion, their names were still on this list. Secondly, the list has been shared so many times, and passed from person to person, group to group--many names have become misspelled and now folks, due to one or two typos, are being stopped as suspected terrorists. That story is just one example of what can happen when information is mishandled. It is Congress's job to make sure mistakes like these do not happen. The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act is not the end of this issue. After shedding some light on what exactly is happening with personal information--the Congress must then address how to protect Americans from the misuse of this information. I am happy to be working with a strong group of privacy advocates. The group includes the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, People for the American Way, the Free Congress Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union, and they have been instrumental in getting strong safeguards enacted against abuses in the TIA and other programs. I look forward to working with these groups, and my Senate colleagues, to see that this bill is enacted into law. When tens of thousands of bureaucrats have at their fingertips all- too-easy access to such personal information from private and public databases as the use of passports, driver's licenses, credit cards, ATMs, airline tickets, and rental cars, the American people want to know what is happening to their information. They want to know who wants access to it and why. Their personal information deserves strong privacy protection, and that is what this legislation is all about. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe the United States can fight terrorism ferociously without gutting civil liberties. The point of the legislation I am introducing today is to address concerns that have arisen about the second part of this equation: an area of privacy that has gotten short shrift. That is the personal financial, medical and other data on millions of Americans that today is less than a mouseclick away from the computers of thousands of Federal bureaucrats. Access to and the use of that personal information by Federal bureaucrats is not protected by any comprehensive law. The power of technology that allows the Federal Government to pry into the personal lives of millions of Americans is only beginning to be understood. It is a breath-taking power, and it has come partly to light through the Defense Department's Terrorism Information Awareness Program (TIA), and through the Transportation Security Administration's Computer Assisted Passenger Profiling System II or CAPPSII Program. These and more than two dozen other agencies wield that power with little or no restraint. The legislation I am introducing with the support of a bipartisan group of privacy watchdog organizations, the Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act, will put the breaks on unchecked Federal data sweeps. It requires the Federal agencies with law enforcement or intelligence authority to share with Congress exactly what they are doing with private or public databases, why they are doing it, and most importantly, what, if any, privacy protections the agencies are affording the individuals' whose sensitive information is caught up in those databases. The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act also prohibits searches based on hypothetical scenarios. Apparently, some government agencies are using valuable Federal resources chasing hypothetical situations dreamed up without regard to actual intelligence or law enforcement information. The TIA Report to Congress in May of this year explained at length the program's intent to construct possible terrorist ``scenarios'' based on ``historical examples, estimated capabilities, and imagination.'' These scenarios would then be fed into database searches in an effort to substantiate the hypotheticals. This Act bans such searches. This prohibition will promote the efficient use of Federal law enforcement time and money and help protect Americans from being subject to ``virtual goose chases.'' Since 9/11, there has been an abundance of stories regarding Americans being stopped, searched, or detained due to some mistaken information. For example, after 9/11, the FBI decided to share with companies across the country a list with names of people wanted for possible association with terrorism. This list, as part of ``Project Lookout,'' was sent to thousands of corporations, some of whom now use the list in lieu of background checks. Here's the problem--this list is not necessarily accurate. First of all, the list quickly became obsolete as the FBI checked people off. That means even if people were cleared by the FBI of suspicion, their names were still on this list. Secondly, the list has been shared so many times, and passed from person to person, group to group--many names have become misspelled and now folks, due to one or two typos, are being stopped as suspected terrorists. That story is just one example of what can happen when information is mishandled. It is Congress's job to make sure mistakes like these do not happen. The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act is not the end of this issue. After shedding some light on what exactly is happening with personal information--the Congress must then address how to protect Americans from the misuse of this information. I am happy to be working with a strong group of privacy advocates. The group includes the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, People for the American Way, the Free Congress Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union, and they have been instrumental in getting strong safeguards enacted against abuses in the TIA and other programs. I look forward to working with these groups, and my Senate colleagues, to see that this bill is enacted into law. When tens of thousands of bureaucrats have at their fingertips all- too-easy access to such personal information from private and public databases as the use of passports, driver's licenses, credit cards, ATMs, airline tickets, and rental cars, the American people want to know what is happening to their information. They want to know who wants access to it and why. Their personal information deserves strong privacy protection, and that is what this legislation is all about. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I want to bring to the Senate's attention a national program operating in my home State of Oregon that promises to provide important training for our Nation's State and local civilian officials who oversee first responders. The National Center for Disaster Decision Making, or NCDDM, is a strong partnership of public and private entities seeking to provide leaders with the skills necessary to combat terrorism. Although Congress and the administration have provided significant funds for first responder training, we have not emphasized the importance of preparing our State and local leaders who oversee and coordinate first responders. When a crisis occurs, the people who command first responders will be required to make critical decisions that we hope will mitigate loss of life and property. These leaders need to have comprehensive training and education that best prepares them to respond to any crisis or disaster that may occur in their local communities. I want to confirm that it is the committee's intent that entities, such as the NCDDM, are eligible for funding from the Department of Homeland Security now, and that under the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, the NCDDM will also be eligible to apply for competitive grant funding for ``emerging'' training available from the Office for Domestic Preparedness.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the American Political Science Association on five decades of tremendous success in its Congressional Fellowship Program. Since 1953, the A.P.S.A. has trained and supported over 1800 Fellows, bringing top academic scholars, political journalists, experienced public servants, and others to the Hill. For 9 months, they learn from and contribute to the political process. These Fellows include political scientists, sociologists, journalists, domestic and foreign policy specialists, physicians, Native American Hatfield Fellows, staff from other legislative bodies, and international scholars. All of them have benefited greatly from the opportunity to take part in the legislative process, and Congress as an institution has been improved by their participation. Throughout my careers in both the House and in the Senate, I have had the pleasure of hosting A.P.S.A. Congressional Fellows in my office. Beginning in 1985, I have hosted eight Fellows, two of whom are with my office now. Joe Bowersox, an associate professor of political science at Willamette University in Salem, OR, works on forestry issues, wildfire prevention, and a host of other environmental issues. Thad Kousser, an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego has assisted with the budget, health care, and preventing government waste. Like all of the Fellows I host, they are treated as professional staff. They have prepared me for hearings, met with constituents and policy experts, drafted statements, worked out of my State offices in Oregon, and helped me to craft legislation. I am able to give so much responsibility to A.P.S.A. Fellows because they have gone through such extensive training in their program. In the fall before they begin work, the Fellows attend 3 weeks of intensive instruction in a broad range of domestic and foreign policy issues as well as practical politics. The training is hosted by the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and taught by a collection of Washington's top experts. After this orientation, the Fellows attend a 4-day Advanced Legislative Institute Seminar run by the Congressional Research Service. Even after they have joined an office, the Fellows continue their education by attending the Wilson Seminar Series on Friday afternoons. This comprehensive preparation is a large part of what has made the program so successful. The program has also benefited from the enduring commitment of the American Political Science Association to keep the connections between academia and Congress strong. It is administered out of the Association's national headquarters and has in recent years been expertly led by Jeff Biggs, a former A.P.S.A. Fellow himself. Other distinguished alumni of the program include Thomas Mann, Norman Ornstein, Rep. Bob Filner, former Rep. Steve Horn, and Vice President Dick Cheney. I hope that the next 50 years of the Fellowship will be as successful as its first five decades.