Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I will try to ascertain how many Senators on our side of the proposition would like to speak, but the Senator has always been fair.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. I think we may need to go to 4 rather than 3:45, but I will try to accommodate the distinguished chairman. We will spend some time checking his desire to move the legislation, which has transcended any particular amendment, and we are anxious to accommodate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment is sponsored by three Democrats, three Republicans, and one Independent. I hope this afternoon that it will have the support of Senators with varying degrees of views about the advisability of nuclear power. I am particularly pleased that the lead cosponsor, Senator Sununu, is with us today. I will make a few brief remarks to begin the debate and then I am anxious to have plenty of time for colleagues. The reason three Democrats and three Republicans and one Independent are sponsoring this amendment is that I think many of us in the Senate are neither pronuclear nor antinuclear but we are definitely protaxpayer. That is why we are on the floor this afternoon, because the loan guarantees that are in this legislation to construct nuclear power facilities are unprecedented and represent, in my view, particularly onerous and troublesome risks to the taxpayers of this country. Frankly, people in my part of the country know a bit about this. It is not an abstraction for the people of the Pacific Northwest where we had the WPPSS debacle and 4 out of 5 facilities were never built. It was the biggest municipal bond failure in history, and it has certainly colored my thinking with respect to why we are on the floor today. The loan guarantees--we did some research into this--are unprecedented with respect even to nuclear power. As far as I can tell, in the early days of nuclear power, there were subsidies for nuclear power but never before were the taxpayers on the hook from the get-go. That is what the Senate is confronted with now. When it comes to the question of risk, I hope the Senate will focus on what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said on this topic. I will quote. It is at page 9 of the Congressional Budget Office analysis that we have made available to Senators. The Congressional Budget Office considered: The risks of default on such loan guarantees to be very high, well above 50 percent. Colleagues, first, when we are talking about risk--because nothing in life is foolproof and there are no guarantees of anything--I hope in looking at these guarantees you will first focus on the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has specifically said in their analysis that the risk of default on the guarantees is very high. If those plants default, the exposure to taxpayers is enormous. I will quote from the Congressional Research Service report they did with respect to these subsidies. They said: . . . the potential cost to the federal government of the nuclear power plant subsidies that would be provided by [this title] would be in the range of $14-$16 billion in 2002 dollars. I think it is worth noting that the Senate spent a great deal of time on the child tax credit last week. There we were focusing on something involving $3 billion. If one or two of these plants go down, taxpayers are on the hook for a sum greater than that child tax credit. Now, in the course of today's discussion, we will hear a number of arguments against the Wyden-Sununu amendment. One of the first will be: There are tax credits for a variety of energy sources in this legislation, for wind and solar and a variety of energy alternatives. That is correct. But those tax incentives are fundamentally different than the loan guarantees because in those instances the producer faces substantial risk. With respect to, say, a wind facility, if the producer takes the initial risk and later on produces some wind power, they would get a credit in order to defray some of their costs. With respect to the loan guarantees for nuclear power, the producer faces no such risk. The producer has the Government, in effect, guaranteeing, right at the outset, much of the risk. So with respect to these nuclear loan guarantees, unlike the incentives for wind or solar, what we are talking about is that the Government will socialize the losses but will let private investors pick up the gains. The losses will be socialized; the gains will be privatized. And that is unique in this legislation. I also say to my colleagues in the Senate, the White House has never asked for these loan guarantees. These loan guarantees are not in the House bill. Senators' phones are not ringing off the hook from the Secretary of Energy or others clamoring that this must be done. This is something that, in my view, is far out of the mainstream in terms of energy policy, not because I am antinuclear--and I don't intend to talk about safety issues--but because it is such a large exposure to taxpayers. For example, a number of reports have come out already with respect to how nuclear power stands up with respect to other costs such as natural gas or coal. One of the reasons, in my view, the Congressional Budget Office believes there is such a high risk of default is that the objective analyses show that nuclear has not been competitive with other sources such as coal. I hope Senators will look at those two reports: a report done by the Congressional Budget Office documenting a high likelihood of default, and a report done by the Congressional Research Service talking about exposure to taxpayers. I would finally say to the Senate, it did not have to be this way. I know the distinguished chairman of the Energy Committee feels very strongly about this subject. He is a longtime family friend. I was very willing, and I think other Senators were as well, to have had a modest program. We had been talking, for example, about one experimental initiative to look at advanced technologies of one sort or another. I think that would have been acceptable. But here we are talking about guarantees for up to seven plants. I will make reference to the legislation. The bill authorizes DOE to provide loan guarantees for up to 50 percent of the construction costs of new nuclear plants and, on top of that, would authorize the Department of Energy to enter into long-term contracts for the purchase of power from those plants. The Secretary could provide loan guarantees for up to seven plants. That is not a modest experiment that would have been acceptable to this Member of the Senate, but it is a very significant exposure to the taxpayers of this country at a time when every Senator is concerned about deficits. Mr. President, I intend to allow time for my colleagues. I see Senator Sununu is on the floor. Senator Reid has strong views on this. I also express my appreciation to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Energy Committee. He has worked very closely with me. He embodies the philosophy of a lot of our colleagues in that he has been supportive of nuclear power in the past but believes these subsidies are too rich. I am hopeful that today Senators with varying degrees of views on the nuclear power issue will agree with the Congressional Budget Office, will agree with the Congressional Research Service on these issues with respect to the taxpayers, and support the Wyden-Sununu amendment. Mr. President, I yield at this time so other colleagues who have time constraints may speak. I will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Then I will take 5 minutes of our time at this point.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I could engage the distinguished chairman of the committee, I would like to close the debate. At this point, I believe the Presiding Officer said I have in the vicinity of 14 minutes. I say to the Senator, you have in the vicinity of 2 minutes. Would you like to speak now?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time remains for each side?

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at that point we have 9 minutes remaining?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, a couple of arguments need to be addressed at this point. The Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, just recently said the Wyden-Sununu provision would, in some way, jeopardize the reliability of power and cost jobs today. That is simply not correct. No plant that is operating today--not one--would be affected by this amendment, and not a single job in America would be lost. Now, with respect to jobs of the future--and I think this is important to note--if you look at the official figures of the Federal Government--these are supplied by the Energy Information Agency--the fact is, you can build four or five gas- fired plants for the cost of one nuclear facility. That is, again, not something just made up. Those are the official figures of the Federal Government with respect to the comparative costs of this amendment. I think we ought to note, for example, just how unprecedented this is. When people began to debate nuclear power decades ago--50 years ago--when the commercial nuclear industry was first getting started, there were not any loan guarantees. In fact, even during the early days, there was no subsidy along these lines. People would say, let's support research, let's support various opportunities to assist with the nuclear reactors but not even in the early days was there a construction subsidy. In fact, in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 there was an explicit prohibition on subsidizing any of these facilities. So what we are talking about is something where a nonpartisan analysis from the Congressional Budget Office has made it clear it is risky. They said there is upwards of a 50-percent likelihood of default. The Congressional Research Service has said it is going to be costly. Mr. President, $14 to $16 billion is the appraisal of the Congressional Research Service. I have made it clear it is unprecedented both with respect to this bill and the history. Finally, it is simply unfair when you compare it to other sources of power. I wrap up this part of the discussion by making sure Senators are clear on the distinction between nuclear power and various other sources of power under this proposal. Under the way the Domenici legislation is written, if you do not produce any wind, you get no direct subsidy. But under the legislation as it stands today, if you do not produce any nuclear power, you get a subsidy. That is as clear a distinction as we could possibly make. For all the other sources of power, if you produce nothing, no subsidy; for nuclear, if you produce nothing, you get a big subsidy. The difference--what it all comes down to--is whether Senators believe that one particular source of power deserves cash up front and, in effect, putting taxpayers on the hook at the outset before anything is produced. On a bipartisan basis--three Democratic Senators, three Republican Senators, and an Independent--we think that is unwise. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if we could just take a second to make sure we are fair, I note that the Senator from Nevada would like to have several minutes, and we would like the opportunity to close. So if we can work out the opportunity----

Mr. WYDEN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has said it very well. I will offer just a couple of additional remarks. It is clear there is going to be an effort, as this is discussed in the Senate, to simply make this an ``Are you for nuclear power or are you against nuclear power?'' issue. I think that would be very unfortunate. I said earlier when we began to discuss this, I have inimitable abilities that over the years have managed to make both sides of the nuclear power debate unhappy with me. In a sense, I hope we can do as Senator Sununu has done, which is to keep the focus on the taxpayer question. I urge Senators, in particular, as they make up their minds on this issue to look at two important reports. The Congressional Budget Office report and the report done by the Congressional Research Service are particularly illuminating in that the Congressional Budget Office report talks about how, in their judgment, there is a more than 50-percent probability that these plants will not be successful, that they will fail. And the Congressional Research Service, in their analysis, indicates if that is the case, taxpayers would be on the hook for in the vicinity of $16 billion. In my part of the world, this is not exactly an abstract issue. In fact, with the WPPSS debacle, which was the largest municipal bond failure in the country's history, four out of the five facilities were not, in fact, even built, and the people in my region and many investors, of course, were on the hook. If the scenario of the Congressional Budget Office were to come to pass, all of our constituents--all of them--would, in effect, be exposed to these very significant costs. That is why Senator Sununu and I are going to try our best, between now and the Tuesday vote, to make sure that for us this is first and foremost a taxpayers' issue. To try to drive that point home, we had a discussion about how this affects other aspects of energy development. If this provision stays in the bill, in other words the amendment that the Senator from New Hampshire and I are offering is unsuccessful, nuclear energy would be the only part of this field that would get a direct subsidy for constructing a facility. For example, the distinguished chairman of the committee, who has been very gracious to the two of us in terms of working on process and all of the issues towards getting this offered, talked at some length about wind and talked about subsidies for wind. Well, in fact, when wind is produced, there are various credits and incentives, which I guess are very appropriate, but there is no subsidy for constructing any other facility under this legislation other than in the nuclear area. In fact, right now there is nothing preventing any utility from going forward with a nuclear project simply by going to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and getting a license to build the plant. Let me repeat that. Anybody who wants to build a nuclear powerplant in this country simply has to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and get the license. They can do that if they satisfy the safety standards. The issue, as propounded by Senator Sununu and myself, is whether or not there should be these very large subsidies; whether or not the taxpayer should be exposed, in the vicinity of $16 billion, with respect to building these plants. I do not think this is an issue about whether one is for or against nuclear power, and that is why the National Taxpayers Union and a host of other organizations that have been watchdogs for taxpayers have made this a priority item. In their letter to me, they took the position that they are neither for nor against nuclear power. They say that explicitly in the letter. What they and a number of other taxpayer watchdogs are concerned about is the $16 billion exposure for taxpayers that is contained in this provision. So I am very pleased that before long we will be able to enter into a consent agreement for an up-or-down vote on Tuesday on the Wyden-Sununu legislation. I think the chairman of the Energy Committee will be leading us in that discussion with respect to a UC before too long. The Senator from New Hampshire is still in the Chamber, and I thank him for all of his involvement in this. He has a long record of being a taxpayer watchdog, and that was, in fact, the special reason why I thought it was so important for the two of us to try to do this together. I am sure between now and Tuesday, as this is discussed, to some extent some will try to make this into a referendum on whether one is for or against nuclear power. I will be doing my best to try to make sure that it is a taxpayers' issue. That is central and critical to me, and I look forward to the discussion that we will have on Tuesday. We should have a UC ready to go before long. I thank Chairman Domenici for his willingness to work out the procedure on it, and I am particularly grateful to my cosponsor, Senator Sununu. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for yet another question?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Again, the Senator from Idaho has been critical of the Congressional Budget Office report, saying that perhaps they did not look forward; they just looked backward. I would urge my colleagues to look at the report because the report does, in fact, look to 2011 and the future, and that is what the Congressional Budget Office did make their judgment on, where they said there was a risk of default that was well over 50 percent. But my question to my colleague is whether my colleague thinks it is relevant about who assumes risk with respect to energy production. Because he is absolutely right, there are no foolproof guarantees in life. There is no question there is risk. Here, however, I see the taxpayer being at risk. The taxpayer is on the hook for $16 billion. I thought it was interesting that the distinguished chairman of the committee talked about the credits for production. Well, the fact is, when you get a credit for production, the producer is largely at risk because in order to get the break, you have to produce something. There is no tax credit, I say to my colleagues, for failing to produce a successful wind venture. You get the credit if your wind venture is successful. My understanding is that here, with the subsidy, the person who assumes the risk is the taxpayer, not the producer. I was wondering if the distinguished Senator from Idaho thinks it is relevant with respect to who takes the risk. This Senator does because the taxpayer is on the hook rather than those who produce. I am curious of the reaction of the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. WYDEN. We were both young; in 1980.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to be very brief. In fact, we are going to get an agreement with the Senator from New Mexico to work out the process for considering nuclear subsidies. I just want to make sure Senators are clear with respect to what the subsidy is all about. The Senator from New Mexico, the distinguished chairman of the committee, said wind is going to get vast amounts of subsidies. I wanted to point out to the chairman that if wind farms produce power, they get a tax credit for the energy they produce. But wind farms do not get any subsidy to build a facility. What is unique about the $16 billion exposure for taxpayers is only one energy source, under this legislation, gets a subsidy to build a facility. That has troubled the National Taxpayers Union. That is why they have been a strong supporter of the Wyden-Sununu amendment. This is not going to be about whether you are pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. This is about whether Senators want to put at risk the taxpayers of the country for the prospect that the Congressional Budget Office has said has a 50-percent or higher failure with respect to constructing these facilities. We will have more to say about the bipartisan Wyden-Sununu amendment before long, but I wrap up this part of the discussion by simply saying, again, I hope Senators will look at what the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service have had to say about that. Those are reports that lay out, in a frank and objective way, what the risk is for taxpayers. I hope Senators will review it carefully. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my good friend for yielding. I listened patiently to him and to the chairman of the committee raising the concern that in some way the opponents of the subsidies are engaging in scare tactics, red herrings, and the like. This is not a red herring. This is a dollar and cents issue. I was curious whether the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho was aware that the Congressional Budget Office ``considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high, well over 50 percent.'' Is the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho aware of that? I would be curious about his reaction because to me--and as the Senator from New Mexico said--this is about risk. The Congressional Budget Office has given us an objective, nonpartisan assessment of risk here. They consider ``the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high, well over 50 percent''--coupled with the Congressional Research Service memo indicating the exposure is $16 billion. Is the distinguished Senator from Idaho aware of that? I would be curious what the distinguished Senator's reaction to that is.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I could just respond, Senator Sununu and I will be in the Chamber talking in a bit more detail. I always appreciate the graciousness of the chairman of the committee in working with me. I think we are going to get an agreement. There are probably a lot more Senators who will want to speak on this than first estimated. So the Senate knows, originally Senator Sununu and I were prepared to offer an amendment to strike the $16 billion for nuclear subsidies. The amendment is supported strongly by the Taxpayers Union, but at the request of the chairman of the committee, that vote will be put over until next week. I am very hopeful that we will be able to get a consent agreement before long to have this debate. This is a significant exposure for taxpayers. It is not a question of whether someone is pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. The Congressional Budget Office has said that there is at least a 50-percent risk of failure with respect to these facilities. The Congressional Research Service has indicated the taxpayers will be on the hook for in the vicinity of $16 billion. What I worry about is what happened in our part of the country. Four out of five facilities were never built. In this case, if the Congressional Budget Office is right and you have over a 50-percent risk of failure at these facilities, this will be a huge exposure for taxpayers. I tell Senators there is no other source of energy in this legislation which gets a direct subsidy for building a facility. I am going to try to find a way to reach a procedural accommodation with the chairman of the committee. I am a personal friend, and I want to accommodate him. I hope we will be able do that. This is a very significant taxpayer issue for the Senate. It is not a question of whether someone is pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear. In my own inimitable way, I have managed to make both sides mad over my career in public service. But it is a taxpayer issue of enormous importance. I hope Senators will read what the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service have had to say about this. The Congressional Budget Office reports that there is more than a 50- percent risk of failure with respect to these facilities, if subsidized. The Congressional Research Service has talked about a $16 billion subsidy. I would point out that this is even too rich for the blood of the other body. The other body has not talked about anything like this. We will work with the chairman of the committee. Senator Sununu and I will be coming to the floor before long as well so that we can begin to lay out the bipartisan support we have with Senator Bingaman, the ranking minority member, Senator Ensign, and others. I would just tell the chairman of the committee that I think there are probably more Senators who want to discuss this than we thought. We already have some indication that 90 minutes equally divided with an up-or-down vote may not be enough. It is my intention to work with the chairman of the committee, the ranking minority member, and others to try to work out this unanimous consent so we can have that done expeditiously. I point out that this Senator and the Senator from New Hampshire were asked to come today to have our amendment brought up. We felt pretty good about it. We know there is going to be an awful lot of back and forth with Senators between now and the time we vote Tuesday. I ask that Senators look at the Congressional Budget Office report and the Congressional Research Service report over the next few days as the discussions go on and off the floor. I look forward to working this out in terms of procedure with the chairman of the committee probably over the next hour or so. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2003. My friends and colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Murray, join me in introducing this important bill. In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster. Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face bankruptcy. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has called for a 50 percent reduction in fishing capacity as part of their strategic plan for the recovery of the fishery. This legislation supports this effort by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the groundfish fishers' transition away from fishing. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936, amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. It was conceived at a time when the federal government wanted to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The program was a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However, fish populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now over- capitalized. The CCF's usefulness has not kept up with the times, and now it exacerbates problems facing U.S. fisheries, including the West Coast groundfish fishery. Now is the time to help fishers, who wish to do so, to leave the fleet. In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so. This bill takes a significant step towards helping fishermen and making the West Coast groundfish fishery and the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other types of retirement accounts, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and conservation by allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to develop or purchase new gear that reduces bycatch. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2003. My friends and colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Murray, join me in introducing this important bill. In January of 2000, a fishery disaster was declared by the Secretary of Commerce for the West Coast groundfish fishery. Due to major declines in fish population, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council decreased groundfish catch quotas by 90 percent. Today, the groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest continues to face daunting challenges as a result of this disaster. Fishery income has dropped 55 percent and over a thousand fishers face bankruptcy. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has called for a 50 percent reduction in fishing capacity as part of their strategic plan for the recovery of the fishery. This legislation supports this effort by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the groundfish fishers' transition away from fishing. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, Merchant Marine Act of 1936, amended 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177, has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. It was conceived at a time when the federal government wanted to help capitalize and expand American fishing fleets. The program was a success: it led to a larger U.S. fishing fleet. However, fish populations declined and the U.S. commercial fishing fleet is now over- capitalized. The CCF's usefulness has not kept up with the times, and now it exacerbates problems facing U.S. fisheries, including the West Coast groundfish fishery. Now is the time to help fishers, who wish to do so, to leave the fleet. In Oregon, the amounts in CCF accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. This legislation changes current law to allow fishers to remove money from their CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels, without losing up to 70 percent of their CCF funds in taxes and penalties. This legislation changes the CCF so fishers who want to opt out of fishing are not penalized for doing so. This bill takes a significant step towards helping fishermen and making the West Coast groundfish fishery and the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other types of retirement accounts, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. This bill will also encourage innovation and conservation by allowing fishers to use funds deposited in a CCF to develop or purchase new gear that reduces bycatch. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Ann Reiner from Portland, OR, a former member of the Oncology Nursing Society's Board of Directors. Ann has been helping individuals with cancer and their families for 20 years. Currently, Ann is the Program Director for Cancer Services and the Director of Outreach and Education for the Cancer Institute at the Oregon Health and Science University, OHSU. Ann is also an Instructor at the School of Nursing at OHSU. Since 1983, Ann has been a member of the Oncology Nursing Society and most recently stepped down from serving on its Board of Directors. The Oncology Nursing Society, the largest professional oncology group in the United States composed of more than 30,000 nurses and other health professionals, exists to promote excellence in oncology nursing and the provision of quality care to those individuals affected by cancer. As part of its mission, the Society honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocacy for the public good. Ann Reiner has received numerous awards for her work on behalf of individuals with cancer, including a Doctoral Degree in Cancer Nursing Scholarship from the American Cancer Society and a Fellow at the Oncology Nursing Society's Inaugural Leadership Development Institute. In addition, Ann is a member of the Institutional Review Board at OSHU, a member of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Program Medical Advisory Committee with the Oregon Department of Health, and a member and coordinator for the Portland area Citywide Annual Skin Cancer Screening. A number of studies and articles that Ann has written on quality cancer care and the nursing shortage have been published in distinguished publications such as the Cancer Prevention, Detection and Control: A Nursing Perspective, Puget Sound Chapter Oncology Nursing Society Quarterly, Manual of Patient Care Standards, Blood, The Cancer Experience: Nursing Diagnosis and Management, Journal of Nursing Quality Assurance, and the Regional Oncology Nurses' Quarterly. Since the 1980s, Ann has given over seventy presentations and has presented thirty papers to national audiences on a host of cancer care, health, and nursing shortage issues. Over the last 10 years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all Americans receive cancer care in community settings, including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses, like Ann, are on the front lines of the provision of quality cancer care for individuals with cancer each and everyday. Nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment. Oncology nurses are the front-line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, and provide counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients. With an increasing number of people with cancer needing high quality health care coupled with an inadequate nursing workforce, our Nation could quickly face a cancer care crises of serious proportion, limiting access to quality cancer care, particularly in traditionally underserved areas. Without an adequate supply of nurses there will not be enough qualified oncology nurses to provide quality cancer care to a growing population of people in need. I was proud to support the passage of the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress. This important legislation expanded and implemented programs to address the multiple problems contributing to the nationwide nursing shortage, including the decline in nursing student enrollments, shortage of faculty, and dissatisfaction with nurse workplace environments. I commend Ann Reiner and the Oncology Nursing Society for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from cancer and to improve the lives of those 1.3 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer in 2003. I wish Ann and the Oncology Nursing Society the best of luck in all of their endeavors.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, summer is upon us. For many college athletes, that means leaving campus and heading back to a home in a different state. Some may take the opportunity to do some traveling, or even to attend sports camps in various parts of the country. Unfortunately, this well-earned break can carry real risks for the athletes and their schools. Why? Because traveling student athletes may be big targets for opportunistic sports agents--and due to highly inconsistent state laws on the subject, the legal protections that an athlete might enjoy in the state where the college is located don't necessarily apply elsewhere. Today I am reintroducing a bill to address this issue, the Sports Agent Responsibility and Trust Act. The purpose of the bill is simple: to set some basic, uniform nationwide rules to prevent unscrupulous behavior by sports agents who court student athletes. The universities in Oregon with top athletic programs--the University of Oregon, Oregon State University, and Portland State University--have all provided letters of endorsement for this legislation. So has the NCAA. Too often, unscrupulous sports agents prey upon young student athletes who are inexperienced, naive, or simply don't know all of the collegiate athletic eligibility rules. The agent sees the student athlete as a potentially lucrative future client, and wants to get the biggest headstart possible on other agents. So the agent tries to contact and sign up the student athlete as early as possible, and does whatever takes to get the inside track. In some cases, the agent may attempt to lure the student athlete with grand promises. In some cases, the agent may offer flashy gifts. To make the offer more enticing, the agent may withhold crucial information about the impact on the student's eligibility to compete in college sports. A majority of States have enacted statutes to address unprincipled behavior by sports agents, but the standards vary from State to State and some states don't have any at all. The universities in my State of Oregon tell me that this creates a significant loophole. Specifically, Oregon has a State law, but it doesn't apply when, for example, a University of Oregon athlete goes home to another State for the summer and is contacted by an agent there. Every time that athlete crosses into another State a different set of rules apply. And if one State's laws on the subject are particularly weak, that is where shady sports agents will try to contact their targets. That is why there ought to be a single, nationwide standard. The bill I am introducing today would establish a uniform baseline, enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission, that would supplement but not replace existing state laws. Specifically, the bill would make it an unfair and deceptive trade practice for a sports agent to entice a student athlete with false or misleading information or promises or with gifts to the student athlete or the athlete's friends or family. It would require a sports agent to provide the student athlete with a clear, standardized warning, in writing, that signing an agency contract could jeopardize the athlete's eligibility to participate in college sports. It would make it unlawful to pre-date or post-date agency contracts, and require both the agent and student athlete to promptly inform the athlete's university if they do enter into a contract. Representative Bart Gordon of Tennessee has spearheaded this legislation in the House, where the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee have both considered and approved the bill this year. I'm told that consideration on the House floor could occur this week. I applaud Congressman Gordon for his leadership on this issue, and I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in addressing this matter in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.