Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Throughout this afternoon, I have been speaking from a declassified document.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the most caring and thoughtful public officials I have ever known, in offering a bipartisan roadmap to creating a health care system that works for all Americans. Our country has been trying to find such a path since President Harry Truman's proposal to cover all Americans was voted down in 1945. I believe the Wyden-Hatch proposal can succeed after 57 years of failure because our bipartisan plan begins with the public discussing and deciding their health care priorities, followed by a guarantee Congress will actually vote on the recommendations that result from this grassroots debate. This approach has never been tried before. Now, when major health laws are written, politicians sit down and prescribe what benefits will be offered, and then try to come up with the money to pay for them. After the politicians write their plans, the special interest lobbies start attacking one feature or another through shrill television commercials. Pretty soon, the public gets understandably confused, the chance for building consensus is lost, and important health care needs go unmet. The 280 million Americans whose survival depends on quality, affordable health care have never been given the chance to shape their health care future before the special interest lobbyists weigh in. The Wyden-Hatch bill changes that. Under our proposal, the public gets to jump-start health reform by stating their priorities at the outset, rather than being treated as an afterthought. We believe our legislation can serve as an illuminated route to a health care system where each American has the ability to obtain quality, affordable health care coverage. We placed three signposts on our roadmap to provide guidance to the American people and their elected officials as they make the tough choices inherent in tackling health care reform. At the first signpost, the public is given an extensive opportunity, in their home communities and on line, to state their personal health care priorities and how they should be paid for. In addition, the public will be asked to look beyond their personal needs, to those of the community at large, and how those needs should be paid for. Our legislation forthrightly asks the questions that must be answered to have meaningful health reform--questions such as: What kind of health care do you want most? How much are you willing to pay? How should costs be contained without sacrificing the quality of care? Should the Government or private businesses be required to pay a portion of your costs? How about those of your neighbors? Our national Government has never directly asked the public these questions. After asking these questions, the Government ought to keep quiet for a bit and listen to the people because without some sense of the public's view, it is always going to be virtually impossible to create a health care system that works for everyone, with the consensus that is needed to get it done. To ask the key questions and follow up on the suggestions given by the American people, the Wyden-Hatch legislation creates a Citizens' Health Care Working Group. The Working Group is made up of a representative cross-section of our people. It is not just another Washington, DC commission of so-called policy experts. The Working Group directs the public participation portion of this proposal. For example, as a guide to help the public in formulating their views on the tough choices that lie ahead, the Wyden-Hatch legislation directs the Working Group to prepare and make widely available a ``Health Report to the American People.'' The legislation we have authored requires that this report be written in understandable language and describe the cost and availability of the major public and private health choices now available--and also contain enough information so the public can create alternatives. Here are the kinds of issues we want to address: ``If covering liver transplants under government health programs requires cutting other services, what services are you willing to cut, or would you rather not have liver transplants covered? If government coverage of long-term care for the elderly would require workers to begin contributing to the program at age 40, is it still worth it to you?'' These are moral choices about what health care the public has a right to expect. These are economic choices that affect the finances of our families. These are legal and social choices that will be difficult for our people to make. The Wyden-Hatch proposal is built around the proposition that these choices are too important to duck any longer. After establishing a sense of how the public feels about these hard choices, the legislation directs that the Working Group move to the second signpost on our roadmap. There the Working Group is to take the ideas offered by the American people, and translate these views into recommendations for our elected officials to create a health care system that works for all. With the Working Group's involvement in the public participation requirement of this legislation, we believe they are the right people to take this historic step: to synthesize the opinions and information provided by the public and then present a faithful picture to Congress. At the third signpost, the Congress takes the recommendations from the Working Group and utilizes the legislative process to develop one or more plans for the recommendations, with a guarantee to the public that the plans will be voted on in both Houses of Congress. We believe that the assurance that Congress will vote after the public's will is expressed provides an added measure of credibility for this legislation. Simply put, people will be able to see their voices, their participation, lead to actual votes on the floors of both Houses of Congress to create a health care system that works for all. With these steps I have described, our country can as never before discuss, decide and deliver on health care reforms. I know there will be many questions about this proposal, and I'll try to answer them in the coming days. I'd like to briefly answer just one question I've already been asked: ``Why now? This is the end of the Congressional session; we are all concerned about the possibility of war with Iraq. Why are you putting this before Congress today?'' My answer is that the lack of decent health care for so many Americans, and the skyrocketing costs of coverage for insured Americans, threaten countless lives and our economic security just as tenaciously as any foreign enemy our Nation has ever faced. Just as we are beginning a debate about how best to address the Nation's security interests, it is high time Congress resumed the debate about how to address the inequities and failures of the American health care system. On health care, our families can't afford to wait any longer. Congress is completing another session without significant progress on major health care issues. A demographic tsunami of baby boomer retirees is coming soon. It is increasingly evident that piecemeal health reform--considering prescription drugs one day, patients' rights legislation the next, something else after that--isn't working. I have no intention on giving up on any one of those important issues when it's possible to get Congress to consider them separately. I still believe the bipartisan prescription drug bill I authored with Olympia Snowe could bring the Senate together and help seniors get and afford prescription medicine now. Yet is clear that because health care is like an ecosystem, with one part affecting all others, it is extremely difficult to make real progress on a single important issue without factoring in the way it will ripple through our entire health care system. So as the Congress pushes ahead on prescriptions and other urgent needs, let us simultaneously reopen the debate about creating a health care system that works for all. That debate stopped in 1994, and needs to begin again. The Wyden-Hatch bill provides an opportunity to reopen this debate, and by introducing our bill now we believe it will be ready for full Congressional deliberation when the next Congress begins in January. One way or another, it is urgent that Congress find a way to do better by the people's health care needs. My constituents at home in Oregon make this case constantly. At town meetings, Chamber of Commerce lunches, labor halls, non-profit board meetings, after church coffee hours, and especially at my ``sidewalk office hours'' where I just set up a card table to listen, they ask, ``Ron, when's Congress going to get going on health care and help us out?'' One Oregon business after another has been telling me their health premiums are going up by as much as 20 percent a year. The number of uninsured is going up, with many of these individuals working at small businesses whose owners desperately want to offer health coverage and can't figure out how to do it and keep their doors open. Many physicians have been leaving government health programs because of inadequate reimbursements. Thousands and thousands of pages of health care regulations now exist and the system is almost choking on all the bureaucracy. We know that America's health care system is scientifically prodigious. Every day our dedicated and caring health care providers are performing miracles. Last year more than $1.4 trillion was spent on health care in America. Divide that sum by the number of Americans, and there would be enough for every family of four to receive more than $18,000 for health care. With all this money, and so much talent and creativity in America, shouldn't it be possible to create a health system that works for everyone? Senator Hatch and I believe it is. We know it will be hard, but we believe it can be done if our roadmap is used. For example, to achieve real reform our elected officials are going to have to reject the blame game. Republicans can no longer say the problem in health care is primarily the trial lawyers. Democrats can no longer say the problem in health care is primarily the insurance companies. All--let me repeat, all--of the powerful lobbies are going to have to accept some changes they have rejected in the past if America is to have a health care system that works for everyone. I believe that's what we'll hear from the public if they're given the chance to discuss and decide their health care priorities as the Wyden- Hatch legislation envisions. Before I wrap up, I wish to offer a few thank yous. The first thank you is to the people of Oregon. They have honored me with a chance to serve, and I get up every morning feeling like the luckiest guy around. It was not very long ago, as codirector of the Oregonian Gray Panthers, I was driving to senior citizens meetings in a beat-up station wagon, and I never thought I would have the privilege of being able to serve in this capacity. Oregonians can see I have modeled much of this legislation after the debate that Oregon has had on health care. And we are proud that we are the first of the initiatives to ask the tough questions. Oregonians began asking those difficult questions more than a decade ago in community meetings, for one reason: Gov. John Kitzhaber, an emergency room physician, insisted that we do it. He deserves great credit for his efforts, his courage, and his tenacity. When I told him I was going to push Congress to build on Oregon's public process, the Governor said: Go for it. Senator Hatch--and I note that Senator Hatch is in the Chamber this morning--could easily have said he wanted no part of this whole discussion. Senator Hatch has written several vital health care laws, from his S-CHIP legislation, to his community health centers bill, to the Hatch-Waxman legislation, to make sure there are pharmaceuticals available for the public, and that they are affordable. All of those pieces of legislation have made a huge contribution. Senator Hatch has about the fullest plate in the Senate, with his Judiciary and Intelligence responsibilities, but he and Patricia Knight and Patricia DeLoatche have been thoughtful and patient as we went through draft after draft of this proposal in an effort to start the discussion now. I want Senator Hatch to know how grateful I am to him. Dr. Paul Ellwood, who founded the Jackson Hole Health Group, has been working for more than three decades to create a health system that works for everybody. Now, when he could be enjoying retirement, riding horses in beautiful Wyoming, he is still bringing together health care policymakers, at 7 o'clock on a Sunday morning, in an effort to try to find a consensus on the kinds of common ground that Senator Hatch and I are pursuing. Dr. Ellwood has been so helpful in the development of this proposal and his own new plan called Heroic Pathways, which encourages the use of information technologies and evidence-based medicine, which is a fancy way of saying health care that actually works. I am of the view that Dr. Ellwood's ideas have great potential. To Paul and Barbara Ellwood, I say this morning, we would not be here today without you. In my office, Stephanie Kennan and Carole Grunberg kept us tethered to reality, and Ms. Daphne Edwards, a young lawyer in the legislative counsel's office, produced eight separate drafts of this legislation alone. Finally, I went into public life because I have always believed if people could not get affordable, quality health care, they were not in a position to be able to do much of anything else. Since those Gray Panther days, I have believed that it is wrong for people in this country to die because they could not get health care or because it came too late. America is now hemorrhaging dollars into a health care system that simply does not work at all for too many people. The longer people go on dying needlessly, and the longer prosperity and security allude our families, the less America looks like the America of our dreams. No one I know thinks it should be so easy to slip through the cracks in our health care system. No one I know believes America is supposed to be a place where people forfeit their well-being for doing honest work that just does not pay enough for good medical care. The Wyden-Hatch legislation is a chance to move toward America as it is meant to be. People can voice their vision for health care in America. Their voices can count. Their vision can come to pass. So today I ask the Senate to give our people this opportunity. The Wyden-Hatch bill provides a roadmap. The great people of this country, working with their public servants, can use it as a guide to a health care system that works for everyone. Mr. President, I see that my colleague is on the floor this morning. I wrap up by again expressing my appreciation to Senator Hatch. I have come to the conclusion that if you want to get anything important done, particularly in health care, it has to be bipartisan. Senator Hatch and I have been talking about this health care reform for an awfully long time. He has been extraordinarily patient--he and his staff--in working with me. I think we bring to the Senate today a chance, as we end this session--a session where there has not been the progress the people deserve on health care--a chance to move forward in a bipartisan way. I am just especially grateful to my colleague from the State of Utah, who is one of the most caring people I have known in public life, for all his help. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the most caring and thoughtful public officials I have ever known, in offering a bipartisan roadmap to creating a health care system that works for all Americans. Our country has been trying to find such a path since President Harry Truman's proposal to cover all Americans was voted down in 1945. I believe the Wyden-Hatch proposal can succeed after 57 years of failure because our bipartisan plan begins with the public discussing and deciding their health care priorities, followed by a guarantee Congress will actually vote on the recommendations that result from this grassroots debate. This approach has never been tried before. Now, when major health laws are written, politicians sit down and prescribe what benefits will be offered, and then try to come up with the money to pay for them. After the politicians write their plans, the special interest lobbies start attacking one feature or another through shrill television commercials. Pretty soon, the public gets understandably confused, the chance for building consensus is lost, and important health care needs go unmet. The 280 million Americans whose survival depends on quality, affordable health care have never been given the chance to shape their health care future before the special interest lobbyists weigh in. The Wyden-Hatch bill changes that. Under our proposal, the public gets to jump-start health reform by stating their priorities at the outset, rather than being treated as an afterthought. We believe our legislation can serve as an illuminated route to a health care system where each American has the ability to obtain quality, affordable health care coverage. We placed three signposts on our roadmap to provide guidance to the American people and their elected officials as they make the tough choices inherent in tackling health care reform. At the first signpost, the public is given an extensive opportunity, in their home communities and on line, to state their personal health care priorities and how they should be paid for. In addition, the public will be asked to look beyond their personal needs, to those of the community at large, and how those needs should be paid for. Our legislation forthrightly asks the questions that must be answered to have meaningful health reform--questions such as: What kind of health care do you want most? How much are you willing to pay? How should costs be contained without sacrificing the quality of care? Should the Government or private businesses be required to pay a portion of your costs? How about those of your neighbors? Our national Government has never directly asked the public these questions. After asking these questions, the Government ought to keep quiet for a bit and listen to the people because without some sense of the public's view, it is always going to be virtually impossible to create a health care system that works for everyone, with the consensus that is needed to get it done. To ask the key questions and follow up on the suggestions given by the American people, the Wyden-Hatch legislation creates a Citizens' Health Care Working Group. The Working Group is made up of a representative cross-section of our people. It is not just another Washington, DC commission of so-called policy experts. The Working Group directs the public participation portion of this proposal. For example, as a guide to help the public in formulating their views on the tough choices that lie ahead, the Wyden-Hatch legislation directs the Working Group to prepare and make widely available a ``Health Report to the American People.'' The legislation we have authored requires that this report be written in understandable language and describe the cost and availability of the major public and private health choices now available--and also contain enough information so the public can create alternatives. Here are the kinds of issues we want to address: ``If covering liver transplants under government health programs requires cutting other services, what services are you willing to cut, or would you rather not have liver transplants covered? If government coverage of long-term care for the elderly would require workers to begin contributing to the program at age 40, is it still worth it to you?'' These are moral choices about what health care the public has a right to expect. These are economic choices that affect the finances of our families. These are legal and social choices that will be difficult for our people to make. The Wyden-Hatch proposal is built around the proposition that these choices are too important to duck any longer. After establishing a sense of how the public feels about these hard choices, the legislation directs that the Working Group move to the second signpost on our roadmap. There the Working Group is to take the ideas offered by the American people, and translate these views into recommendations for our elected officials to create a health care system that works for all. With the Working Group's involvement in the public participation requirement of this legislation, we believe they are the right people to take this historic step: to synthesize the opinions and information provided by the public and then present a faithful picture to Congress. At the third signpost, the Congress takes the recommendations from the Working Group and utilizes the legislative process to develop one or more plans for the recommendations, with a guarantee to the public that the plans will be voted on in both Houses of Congress. We believe that the assurance that Congress will vote after the public's will is expressed provides an added measure of credibility for this legislation. Simply put, people will be able to see their voices, their participation, lead to actual votes on the floors of both Houses of Congress to create a health care system that works for all. With these steps I have described, our country can as never before discuss, decide and deliver on health care reforms. I know there will be many questions about this proposal, and I'll try to answer them in the coming days. I'd like to briefly answer just one question I've already been asked: ``Why now? This is the end of the Congressional session; we are all concerned about the possibility of war with Iraq. Why are you putting this before Congress today?'' My answer is that the lack of decent health care for so many Americans, and the skyrocketing costs of coverage for insured Americans, threaten countless lives and our economic security just as tenaciously as any foreign enemy our Nation has ever faced. Just as we are beginning a debate about how best to address the Nation's security interests, it is high time Congress resumed the debate about how to address the inequities and failures of the American health care system. On health care, our families can't afford to wait any longer. Congress is completing another session without significant progress on major health care issues. A demographic tsunami of baby boomer retirees is coming soon. It is increasingly evident that piecemeal health reform--considering prescription drugs one day, patients' rights legislation the next, something else after that--isn't working. I have no intention on giving up on any one of those important issues when it's possible to get Congress to consider them separately. I still believe the bipartisan prescription drug bill I authored with Olympia Snowe could bring the Senate together and help seniors get and afford prescription medicine now. Yet is clear that because health care is like an ecosystem, with one part affecting all others, it is extremely difficult to make real progress on a single important issue without factoring in the way it will ripple through our entire health care system. So as the Congress pushes ahead on prescriptions and other urgent needs, let us simultaneously reopen the debate about creating a health care system that works for all. That debate stopped in 1994, and needs to begin again. The Wyden-Hatch bill provides an opportunity to reopen this debate, and by introducing our bill now we believe it will be ready for full Congressional deliberation when the next Congress begins in January. One way or another, it is urgent that Congress find a way to do better by the people's health care needs. My constituents at home in Oregon make this case constantly. At town meetings, Chamber of Commerce lunches, labor halls, non-profit board meetings, after church coffee hours, and especially at my ``sidewalk office hours'' where I just set up a card table to listen, they ask, ``Ron, when's Congress going to get going on health care and help us out?'' One Oregon business after another has been telling me their health premiums are going up by as much as 20 percent a year. The number of uninsured is going up, with many of these individuals working at small businesses whose owners desperately want to offer health coverage and can't figure out how to do it and keep their doors open. Many physicians have been leaving government health programs because of inadequate reimbursements. Thousands and thousands of pages of health care regulations now exist and the system is almost choking on all the bureaucracy. We know that America's health care system is scientifically prodigious. Every day our dedicated and caring health care providers are performing miracles. Last year more than $1.4 trillion was spent on health care in America. Divide that sum by the number of Americans, and there would be enough for every family of four to receive more than $18,000 for health care. With all this money, and so much talent and creativity in America, shouldn't it be possible to create a health system that works for everyone? Senator Hatch and I believe it is. We know it will be hard, but we believe it can be done if our roadmap is used. For example, to achieve real reform our elected officials are going to have to reject the blame game. Republicans can no longer say the problem in health care is primarily the trial lawyers. Democrats can no longer say the problem in health care is primarily the insurance companies. All--let me repeat, all--of the powerful lobbies are going to have to accept some changes they have rejected in the past if America is to have a health care system that works for everyone. I believe that's what we'll hear from the public if they're given the chance to discuss and decide their health care priorities as the Wyden- Hatch legislation envisions. Before I wrap up, I wish to offer a few thank yous. The first thank you is to the people of Oregon. They have honored me with a chance to serve, and I get up every morning feeling like the luckiest guy around. It was not very long ago, as codirector of the Oregonian Gray Panthers, I was driving to senior citizens meetings in a beat-up station wagon, and I never thought I would have the privilege of being able to serve in this capacity. Oregonians can see I have modeled much of this legislation after the debate that Oregon has had on health care. And we are proud that we are the first of the initiatives to ask the tough questions. Oregonians began asking those difficult questions more than a decade ago in community meetings, for one reason: Gov. John Kitzhaber, an emergency room physician, insisted that we do it. He deserves great credit for his efforts, his courage, and his tenacity. When I told him I was going to push Congress to build on Oregon's public process, the Governor said: Go for it. Senator Hatch--and I note that Senator Hatch is in the Chamber this morning--could easily have said he wanted no part of this whole discussion. Senator Hatch has written several vital health care laws, from his S-CHIP legislation, to his community health centers bill, to the Hatch-Waxman legislation, to make sure there are pharmaceuticals available for the public, and that they are affordable. All of those pieces of legislation have made a huge contribution. Senator Hatch has about the fullest plate in the Senate, with his Judiciary and Intelligence responsibilities, but he and Patricia Knight and Patricia DeLoatche have been thoughtful and patient as we went through draft after draft of this proposal in an effort to start the discussion now. I want Senator Hatch to know how grateful I am to him. Dr. Paul Ellwood, who founded the Jackson Hole Health Group, has been working for more than three decades to create a health system that works for everybody. Now, when he could be enjoying retirement, riding horses in beautiful Wyoming, he is still bringing together health care policymakers, at 7 o'clock on a Sunday morning, in an effort to try to find a consensus on the kinds of common ground that Senator Hatch and I are pursuing. Dr. Ellwood has been so helpful in the development of this proposal and his own new plan called Heroic Pathways, which encourages the use of information technologies and evidence-based medicine, which is a fancy way of saying health care that actually works. I am of the view that Dr. Ellwood's ideas have great potential. To Paul and Barbara Ellwood, I say this morning, we would not be here today without you. In my office, Stephanie Kennan and Carole Grunberg kept us tethered to reality, and Ms. Daphne Edwards, a young lawyer in the legislative counsel's office, produced eight separate drafts of this legislation alone. Finally, I went into public life because I have always believed if people could not get affordable, quality health care, they were not in a position to be able to do much of anything else. Since those Gray Panther days, I have believed that it is wrong for people in this country to die because they could not get health care or because it came too late. America is now hemorrhaging dollars into a health care system that simply does not work at all for too many people. The longer people go on dying needlessly, and the longer prosperity and security allude our families, the less America looks like the America of our dreams. No one I know thinks it should be so easy to slip through the cracks in our health care system. No one I know believes America is supposed to be a place where people forfeit their well-being for doing honest work that just does not pay enough for good medical care. The Wyden-Hatch legislation is a chance to move toward America as it is meant to be. People can voice their vision for health care in America. Their voices can count. Their vision can come to pass. So today I ask the Senate to give our people this opportunity. The Wyden-Hatch bill provides a roadmap. The great people of this country, working with their public servants, can use it as a guide to a health care system that works for everyone. Mr. President, I see that my colleague is on the floor this morning. I wrap up by again expressing my appreciation to Senator Hatch. I have come to the conclusion that if you want to get anything important done, particularly in health care, it has to be bipartisan. Senator Hatch and I have been talking about this health care reform for an awfully long time. He has been extraordinarily patient--he and his staff--in working with me. I think we bring to the Senate today a chance, as we end this session--a session where there has not been the progress the people deserve on health care--a chance to move forward in a bipartisan way. I am just especially grateful to my colleague from the State of Utah, who is one of the most caring people I have known in public life, for all his help. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 20 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, as our country faces the possibility of war with Iraq, one of the most patriotic steps our Nation can take is to change our energy policy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Today, more than half of our Nation's oil is imported from overseas. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil would reduce threats to our Nation's economy and security, whether from enemies who would do us harm, like Saddam Hussein, or simply the greed of the OPEC cartel. If Congress passes an energy bill that truly reduces our dependence on imported oil, that would be important. It would be a strategic security action. Reducing our dependence on oil imports would clearly strengthen our energy and our national security. It would provide an additional measure of economic security. Reducing oil imports also strengthens our economy by reducing our vulnerability to shortages and price spikes. And it would be patriotic. As our Nation does face the possibility of war, this would reduce our vulnerability to one of the enemy's most powerful weapons. So far this year, the United States has been importing more than 600,000 barrels of oil per day from Iraq. How does the energy bill currently in the House-Senate conference reduce our dependence on foreign oil and strengthen our Nation's security? The short answer is it does not do enough. The best way to reduce our dependence on imported oil is, in fact, to take specific steps that do that. That is the critical yardstick--my guess is a lot of Americans might call it a dipstick--that could be used for measuring the importance of any energy bill that Congress passes. I happen to think the best place to look for those energy savings is in the transportation sector. All the evidence shows the best place to look is in the transportation sector with the cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles all of us drive each day. By that measure, the conference has basically left us stalled by the side of the road. At a time when the fuel economy has sunk to the lowest point in 21 years, the conference agreed on provisions that amount to savings of less than 1 mile per gallon. Think about that: At a time when fuel economy has sunk to the lowest point in 21 years, the conference agreed on provisions that amount to savings of less than 1 mile per gallon. That is doing virtually nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The bottom line, when one looks at all of the fuel economy provisions together, as far as I can tell by the energy conference at this point, this country would actually be increasing consumption of gasoline by billions of gallons. Where is that oil going to come from to meet the increased demand for gasoline that I think will be required by the conference as the bill is written now? It is not going to come from the United States. Our Nation has only 3 percent of the known oil reserves in the world. Almost two- thirds of the reserves come, in fact, from the Middle East. Instead of reducing dependence on foreign oil, the energy conference has adopted provisions that would increase consumption and, my guess is, increase imports from the Middle East. Better fuel economy could have saved millions of barrels of oil a day, almost as much as U.S. imports from the Persian Gulf. The energy conference not only has missed the boat as far as reducing oil imports, it missed the supertanker when it failed to adopt an increased fuel economy standard. Passing the right kind of energy bill, in fact, would advance our Nation's energy security, our economic vitality, and our strategic interests. I fear Congress may pass legislation that has the word ``energy'' in the title but does little or nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That will not strengthen our national security. That will not strengthen our economic security, and it is going to send the wrong message around the world to all of those who would use oil as a weapon against the United States of America. There are those who are going to try to claim the energy bill could meet all the goals if only the Congress opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But even if Congress authorized drilling today, the oil produced would be too little too late to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Even the rosiest scenarios show if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is open to drilling, it would provide only a 6-month supply of oil, and it would take about 10 years to even do that. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is certainly a risky proposition. The U.S. Geological Survey, in their most likely scenario, estimates a profitable yield of just 2 billion barrels. If that is the case, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, at peak production, would supply no more than 1 percent of America's projected daily petroleum needs. By comparison, the National Academy of Sciences says the fuel economy savings needed to reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be achieved using existing technologies. That is the choice, use existing technologies, technologies today that are available in Arkansas, Oregon, Montana, and around this country, something we can look to now to stop those who are using oil as a weapon against us, or look at risky scenarios that do not produce a whole lot and take a long time to do it like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Our country urgently needs an energy policy that meets our national security needs and our economic needs, especially as the prospect of war with Iraq looms on the horizon. If the energy conference can produce a bill that actually does it, I think one of the most patriotic steps the Congress can take now is to pass that legislation. If Congress cannot come up with an energy bill that actually meets those challenges, maybe there should not be an energy bill at all. That is not what I want. I want a bill that takes away the weapons of those around the world who are using oil against this country. That is one of the key challenges we face. As I go home to Oregon--I am sure this is true in Arkansas, Montana, and all of our States--I see such extraordinary patriotism at this time. The people of our country understand we face extraordinary threats around the world, and I want us to come together to show that we understand how strongly we feel about the concerns of our citizens and that we identify with the patriotism that we see in our communities every day. One of the most patriotic steps that can be taken now is to change our energy policy, stop those who are using oil as a weapon against us, and to actually pass energy legislation that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus, who I know has a unanimous consent request to make at this time--and then I could follow him for my remarks--I would like to let Senator Baucus make his unanimous consent request at this time, and then per my unanimous consent request, when Senator Baucus has completed, I would then make my remarks.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Montana speak next to respond and then, per my unanimous consent request, I will make my comments following those of the Senator from Montana.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I had intended to talk on energy, but since our good friend, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, is here and talking about getting the important business of the Senate done in the last few days, I wish to reflect for a minute on how we are in these delays, particularly on issues such as homeland security. I note that the New York Times this morning points out that on the homeland security bill--and I am going to quote from an editorial in the New York Times: . . . the Democrats have made key concessions on personnel management for the department in recent weeks that give the administration almost everything it wants. It is clear Senators on this side are very anxious to attack the serious questions that are before this country. This editorial really sums it up. They point out literally that Democrats have practically done somersaults to address these important questions that colleagues on the other side and the administration have with respect to homeland security, and this morning in one editorial in the New York Times, they say on the other side of the aisle there is an inexcusable filibuster taking place on a measure that is of great importance to this country as we struggle to win this war against terrorism. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a bill I am introducing today, 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. 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 it 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 University of Oregon tells me that this creates a significant loophole. Specifically, Oregon has a State law, but it doesn't apply when 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 House Commerce Committee has held hearings and, most recently, unanimously approved the bill on September 25. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, thousands of working families in Oregon feel as if they have been hit by an economic wrecking ball. From Ontario to Portland, OR workers have been laid off their jobs, left to fend for themselves, while their medical and energy bills skyrocket, and they have been left out of what Larry Lindsey and the administration's economic team keep calling an economic recovery. Oregonians are hungry for leadership on the economic issue. We are trying to do our part at home down the road at the election. All of Oregon's elected officials are going to be working with the private sector on a new economic game plan. I think starting in January, with the ISTEA legislation, we will have an opportunity to make some important investments. But Oregonians expect economic leadership from Washington, DC, now. That is what they want today. I am anxious to work with the administration on these issues, but there has just not been the leadership forthcoming. For example, on the trade issue, I cast a vote--unpopular with many with whom I am close-- to give the President the authority to negotiate trade agreements. Trade involves one out of seven jobs in Oregon. The trade jobs pay better than the nontrade jobs. So I want to meet the administration halfway. Unfortunately, the administration and its economic team is not willing to move forward and, in fact, is moving backward on a host of issues. I want to outline several of those this morning, Madam President. It is very obvious we need a transfusion--immediate transfusion--that can restore our economic health. There is nothing that could bring our economy back faster than getting increased transportation funds for the States. One State after another has shown that money for transportation projects, particularly repaving and other maintenance items, gets money into our economy and creates family wage employment for our workers faster than any other area. A number of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, understand this. Unfortunately, the administration's economic team does not agree. They continue to propose significantly less money than is needed for our economic and transportation needs and push for it. While the transportation officials of my State calculate that the administration's approach will mean tens of millions of dollars less funding for Oregon's struggling economy and hundreds of fewer family wage construction jobs that could put our citizens back to work, the administration persists in taking an approach that I think is a huge mistake for our country, particularly our economic needs. On the health issue, something the Chair knows much about, we can find common ground, for example, on a measure that could significantly lower health costs, a bipartisan approach involving making wider use of generic drugs, the same drug as essentially the brand name in the majority of instances. Senators of both political parties want to support this issue. There is support on the Democratic side and the Republican side. The administration will not support something that could have immediate benefit--immediate benefit--for the economic crunch that our citizens face and would have bipartisan support in the Senate. Finally, it seems on issues such as unemployment compensation, we have Senators, again, who would like to move forward to provide what I call this transfusion of assistance to the people who are so hard hit. Thousands of laid-off workers are exhausting their temporary extension of benefits every week. The program expires on December 31 of this year. Anyone laid off before June 30 of this year is going to lose all their benefits come December 31, and anyone who lost a job after June 30 will not have any Federal extension in place when their State benefits expire. For my home State with soaring unemployment, this means that nearly 30,000 laid-off workers currently getting a temporary extension of unemployment compensation would see the end of their benefits at the end of the year, according to the Department of Labor. Again, it seems to me this is an issue where Democrats and Republicans could, as has happened so often, come together and provide some solace, some actual relief to these families who are hurting in our country. I will be talking more about this issue in the days ahead while working on a significant health reform proposal that I have been discussing with colleagues. I come back in closing to the central reason I have come to the Chamber, and that is that in my State and in much of the country, our families are hurting and our economy is hemorrhaging. I have listed three issues where, if there was some leadership from the administration--transportation, lowering medical costs immediately, particularly on the prescription side, which has the support of Senators of both parties, the expanded access to generic drugs, and finally unemployment compensation--three steps where, with a little bit of leadership from the administration on these vital economic issues, we could take steps now that would help working families. Let's not go the wrong way. Let's find an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work on key issues and go the right way, which means providing economic relief to our working families. I know the Senator from Georgia has been waiting very patiently. I yield the floor, Madam President.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about a bill I am introducing today, 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. 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 it 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 University of Oregon tells me that this creates a significant loophole. Specifically, Oregon has a State law, but it doesn't apply when 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 House Commerce Committee has held hearings and, most recently, unanimously approved the bill on September 25. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a little more than a year ago, the terrible events of September 11 forced the awakening and mobilization of a critical resource in this country. In response to that tremendous tragedy, America's technology innovators, skilled workers in all walks of life, have stepped forward to help America address the numerous threats our enemies pose. One of these threats is cybersecurity. As computer networks have become increasingly central to this Nation's infrastructure and businesses, that the importance of securing our information and information technologies has grown. Today I wish to draw the Senate's attention to emerging technologies for dealing with these new threats. I also want to discuss how this country can maximize a uniquely American resource: that is, the skilled innovation of our tech sector. Technology workers and managers from my home State of Oregon have inspired me with their technical skills and their passion to put their talents to work serving America. The Portland area is home to one of the Nation's largest concentration of cybersecurity vendors in the country. Portland now boasts a remarkable cluster of small and large companies actively working to make America's portion of cyberspace a safer place. Just a few examples: Tripwire is the world leader in data integrity assurance, providing software that establishes the foundation for IT security and reliability. Tripwire is used to protect some of the world's most sensitive data, and that includes some of the most important systems right here in Washington. Digimarc provides digitally watermarked drivers licenses for 37 States, and supplies official identification documents for governments around the world. Its technology enables authentication with a greater level of assurance than has historically been possible. Swan Island Networks is building software platforms that enable secure communications of sensitive information to trusted users across organizational boundaries. It is helping Federal and local agencies and first responders to communicate effectively to audiences inside and outside the firewall. Intel Corporation, which has its largest base of employment in Oregon, is leading the National Emergency Messaging Systems initiative from the Portland area. Intel is helping local, State and Federal officials respond to emergencies. WireX has won international recognition for its Immunix Network Security Solutions. The company was founded by a grant from DARPA in 1998. Galois Connections designs and develops high confidence software for critical and demanding applications. Its clientele includes the National Security Agency. Kryptiq builds secure email systems that are built to preserve privacy, as well as the integrity of documents. Oregon is home to many, many more, including Flatrock, Infotects, Network Associates, Rulespace, TechTracker and True Disk. Some of these companies have persevered and become successful selling products and services that government is using to defend its infrastructure. Many others have developed products, launched companies, and knocked on doors in Washington, trying to find an entry point. Their efforts must be sustained and encouraged. There are numerous ways to provide that encouragement, and not all of them originate in Washington. It is vital to look at what is working on the local level and nurture it there. It is time to lower the speedbumps. Straighten the curves. Shorten the straightaways. Bring our technological talent quickly to the front lines of this new kind of war. In Oregon, a coalition of these cybersecurity companies has come together in the wake of 9/11. The Oregon Regional Alliance for Information and Network Security, or Oregon RAINS, is banding together to offer products and services America needs now. These companies are working together to find new ways of navigating the Federal bureaucracy to get their products on the ground. In my view, the Federal Government should do all it can to be responsive to organizations like Oregon RAINS. Currently, our sluggish bureaucracy often discriminates against small, young and distant vendors. America's enemies won't be defeated solely by the ideas of huge corporations or entrenched government contractors. This country needs the help of smaller, nimble players who are long on passion and talent, but short on expertise about dealing with their Federal Government. It is essential to eliminate the roadblocks American innovators face. A 20-person company in Beaverton, OR shouldn't have to devote precious resources to hiring lobbyists, making multiple trips to see different people in different agencies, and pursuing expensive and, frankly, frequently obsolete certifications. Earlier this year I was proud to author the Science and Technology Emergency Mobilization Act, along with my colleague Senator Allen, and to see it passed by this Senate. That legislation mandated the creation of a clearinghouse, or single entry point, for technology innovators offering new products for the war on terrorism. I am gratified to see that concept echoed in the Homeland Security legislation sponsored by Senator Lieberman. My legislation, as well as Senator Lieberman's homeland security bill, also directs the executive branch to establish a national test bed to evaluate new technologies. In my view, this national test bed could eventually serve as a model for regional test beds. If that little company in Beaverton, OR, could run pilot programs in its backyard, the company could more easily answer questions, deal with challenges and monitor results. Regional efforts to test new technologies would also increase our likelihood of finding unexpected solutions in unexpected places. Some technology or technique that we couldn't have foreseen might pop up and help us win this war. The beauty of American innovation is that it could just as easily come from a suburban basement, a sparsely furnished loft, or a coalition of small companies as it could from the business-as-usual landscape. There are other ways the Federal Government can be a better partner to small technology innovators like those in my home State. Accelerating research and public-private technology partnerships through Federal grants. Deepening our cyber-security bench by funding IT education and channeling bright students into those areas. Raising awareness in the general public so that everyone sees the importance of securing this country's infrastructure. I can assure you that in my home state alone there are a plethora of skilled software engineers and managers who are eager to see their technologies deployed to serve America. The Federal Government needs to partner with them and help them help their neighbors. American lives are at stake.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me begin by expressing my thanks to Senator Feinstein. I still hope the Feinstein wisdom will prevail upon the Senate and we can get to common ground on this contentious issue. I want my colleague to know how much I appreciate the many hours and nights we have been at this, shuttling back and forth between our offices and the offices of Senator Craig and Senator Bingaman. I share the Senator's commitment that, despite the news we have to deliver that there is no compromise today, we are not going to give up and we expect to revisit this issue in the Senate again soon. I thank my colleague for all her leadership, and particularly for her passion on this issue. When I came to the Senate, I never felt very comfortable when the news media said I was elected to fill the seat of Senator Morse or Senator Packwood. That is because I do not think the people of Oregon send someone to the U.S. Senate just to fill a seat. The people of Oregon send someone to the Senate to work for what is right. That is what they expect of their Senators: to do what is right and take your lumps. They can live with that. With that in mind, Senator Feinstein and I have now spent certainly 6 or 7 weeks trying to help find the common ground in the Senate for a balanced, narrowly focused bill to address the fire threat in our forests. We knew it would be a difficult task when we took it on, and it has certainly lived down to that promise. This is what the Senate faced, as Senator Feinstein and I tried to move forward. On the one hand, there is one camp of considerable passion that, unfortunately, would be willing to use this summer's horrendous fires to deny citizens the right to seek justice in a court of law or to severely limit those rights. In another camp, there have been many who have said we will accept no changes in these laws whatsoever, even changes that will benefit the environment. Their position, as far as I can tell, is that there is practically a constitutional right to a 5-year delay on forest management decisions. Given these two camps, Senator Feinstein and I, optimists by nature, said we know there are Senators who want to try to come together to find the common ground. We set out to do it. Unfortunately, as of this afternoon, it seems the Senate is not willing to seize the common ground which Senator Feinstein and I believe is within the Senate's grasp. Today, in a front page article of the Oregonian newspaper it was suggested that the Bush administration does not think it needs congressional authorization to pursue a solution to the forest health problem. My sense is they agree with Senator Feinstein and myself that the use of, for example, what are called categorical exclusions offers a way to expedite the process required to reduce fire threats and restore diseased and damaged forests. The administration plans to pursue categorical exclusions though history shows there have been successful court challenges to administratively created categorical exclusions in the past. We believe the American people and the forests would have been better served with narrow specific congressional authorization of categorical exclusions--but, due to the lack of a compromise, that congressional action, as of this afternoon, will not happen on this bill. Though, as we worked over the last few weeks, it seemed a core group Senator Feinstein, Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, and others--were very close to a compromise, we did not get there. Instead, the result has been so many pieces of stray paper floating around Washington, the country, and the internet, as well as a whole host of poorly informed rumors. So much misinformation is out there that I have posted our joint Feinstein/Wyden proposal on my Web site so that people will see what it is we have sought to do to try to bring the Senate and our constituents together. I will touch on that proposal just briefly. First, we allow the use of broad categorical exclusions to thin and salvage in the most fire-prone areas within the urban-wildland interface and allow the use of somewhat narrower categorical exclusions to manage fire-prone lands in other areas. Second, we require people who may want to file an administrative appeal on a project at a later date to participate in the public comment process on that project. Third, we require judges to periodically review temporary injunctive relief granted and to review those injunctions with updated information every time a project is brought before the court. My sense is the administration could have accepted the proposal Senator Feinstein and I have pursued--but not enough Senators could see their way there. If Members want to get something done, they are going to have to take some political risk. I am not here to blame anyone. Senators have worked in good faith. However, I do not think it is too much to ask Senators to take a political risk to solve this critical problem so that families and forests are not facing the ultimate risk of devastating fires summer after summer. There should be no confusion on this point. Unless there is some willingness on the part of the Senate to take the kind of political risk necessary to find common ground, we will see these devastating unnatural fires summer after summer after summer, as sure as night follows day. There were a host of obstacles to a compromise today, though in the past we have been able to find common ground. Senator Craig and I, for example, led an effort in this body to write the county payments law, a critical law that is used to offer billions of dollars for rural communities to pay for services and schools. People said that could not be done. The Forest Service now calls it the most important law for that agency in 30 years. Senator Craig and I came together more recently to try to advance an old growth protection proposal for the Pacific Northwest, though we have a lot more work to do in that arena. My point is, it is possible to find common ground. I am going to try again, probably a lot sooner than some people think or may want, on this issue. But I do know that two Democrats, despite all the pushing and pulling, do not make a winning hand in the Senate. Senator Feinstein and I faced some big challenges. I opposed those who hold out for a major overhaul of the judicial process on this bill, though, due to its controversial nature, that approach is not going to allow us, any time soon, to address the risk of fire. We opposed others who may want to grant very broad forest management exemptions for projects conducted within municipal watersheds. That will also make it impossible to find common ground and a compromise. But like I said earlier, I don't want to blame anyone today. Certainly, with all the misinformation out there about what I have done and supposedly not done or said during the last few weeks--and I am sure other Senators feel the same--this is not a time to offer a litany of charges with respect to any Member of this body. My bottom line is this: I hope these efforts, laborious though they have been, can someday soon yield fruit. Toward that end, I thank a number of colleagues. Senator Craig has worked in good faith, and certainly closely with me. I hold him in the highest regard. Senator Feinstein, as I have already mentioned, was there night and day working on this issue and I appreciate her efforts. Senator Daschle and Senator Bingaman went out of their ways to try to accommodate Senator Feinstein and me. For their efforts, I am appreciative, as well. I chair the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. In Oregon, we have had tragic fires. I have been consumed by this day after day after day. I wish we were in the Senate today saying we had found the common ground. I think it is possible to do it. The Senate cannot leave this subject for too long and will return to it after this bill is done in some form or another. Too many lives and too many communities will be devastated if the Senate washes its hands of this issue. I am committed to working with all my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, day after day after day, until this gets done. I hope one day soon I will be able to come to the floor of the Senate and participate with my colleagues on something that all Members can believe is a positive step forward to make sure these treasures, our forests and lands across this country, are managed properly. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 21st Century Nanotechnology Act. This bill would authorize a coordinated interagency program that will support long-term nanoscale research and development leading to potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials and manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, environment, energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, and national and homeland security. Building on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the bill would authorize appropriations for research throughout the government while providing tools for better cross-agency management and coordination Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules on a scale of one one-billionth of a meter. It will one day change the way Americans live. I am convinced that this so-called ``small science'' is the next big thing'' in technology. The world is on the cusp of a nanotechnology revolution that will change our lives on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. The United States could miss that revolution if our nanotechnology work remains uncoordinated and scattered across a half-dozen Federal agencies. That would be tragic on several levels, from scientific to social to economic. I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology. To do this, I want America to marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe Federal support is essential to achieving that goal. The legislation I am pleased to be introducing today with Senator Lieberman will provide a smart, accelerated, and coordinated approach to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view, there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest success for its nanotechnology efforts. First, a National Nanotechnology Research Program should be established to coordinate long-term fundamental nanoscience and engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the development of this discipline. Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a program of research grants, and also through the establishment of nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale projects to succeed. As these research efforts take shape, educational opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. As chairman of the Commerce Committee's Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, I have already laid out a challenge to triple the number of people graduating with math, science and technology degrees. Today, I commit to helping students who would enter the field of nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise. Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry, and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can offer. Third, the government should create connections across its agencies to aid in the coordination of nanotechnology efforts. These could include a national coordination office, and a Presidential Nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. I also believe that at these organizational support structures are put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the maximum efficiency of our efforts. The bill would call for an annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the U.S. should keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of benchmarking studies. If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with organized, goal-oriented support, this nation runs the risk of falling behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain-resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national security. America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere molecules. America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State, Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will travel through human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today. America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safest. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their wounds. Nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment. Moreover--and this is key--America risks missing an economic revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone. It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next ten years. As nanotechnology grows, the ranks of skilled workers needed to discover and apply its capabilities must grow too. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could become magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for nanotechnology applications--but only if government doesn't miss the boat. The Federal Government is already making some efforts with regard to nanotechnology. The U.S. does have a National Nanotechnology Initiative. This nation has already committed substantial funds to nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But here's my bottom line. It is essential to build on this foundation of funding with a framework for sound science over the long term. That is the reason for the legislation I am issuing today. On the framework it provides, of national coordination and strategic planning, scientists will be able to meet the grand challenges of nanotechnology. Over the long term, with Federal support, they will be able to plumb the depths of its capability, and scale the heights of its potential. In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States' scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death. In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it.'' Those principles, so true nearly sixty years ago, are truer still today. With the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in promoting and developing nanotechnology. I hope that the Senate can act swiftly on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 21st Century Nanotechnology Act. This bill would authorize a coordinated interagency program that will support long-term nanoscale research and development leading to potential breakthroughs in areas such as materials and manufacturing, nanoelectronics, medicine and healthcare, environment, energy, chemicals, biotechnology, agriculture, information technology, and national and homeland security. Building on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the bill would authorize appropriations for research throughout the government while providing tools for better cross-agency management and coordination Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building electronic circuits and devices from single atoms and molecules on a scale of one one-billionth of a meter. It will one day change the way Americans live. I am convinced that this so-called ``small science'' is the next big thing'' in technology. The world is on the cusp of a nanotechnology revolution that will change our lives on a scale equal to, if not greater than, the computer revolution. The United States could miss that revolution if our nanotechnology work remains uncoordinated and scattered across a half-dozen Federal agencies. That would be tragic on several levels, from scientific to social to economic. I am determined that the United States will not miss, but will mine the opportunities of nanotechnology. To do this, I want America to marshal its various nanotechnology efforts into one driving force to remain the world's leader in this burgeoning field. And I believe Federal support is essential to achieving that goal. The legislation I am pleased to be introducing today with Senator Lieberman will provide a smart, accelerated, and coordinated approach to nanotechnology research, development, and education. In my view, there are three major steps America must take to ensure the highest success for its nanotechnology efforts. First, a National Nanotechnology Research Program should be established to coordinate long-term fundamental nanoscience and engineering research. The program's goals will be to ensure America's leadership and economic competitiveness in nanotechnology, and to make sure ethical and social concerns are taken into account alongside the development of this discipline. Second, the Federal Government should support nanoscience through a program of research grants, and also through the establishment of nanotechnology research centers. These centers would serve as key components of a national research infrastructure, bringing together experts from the various disciplines that must intersect for nanoscale projects to succeed. As these research efforts take shape, educational opportunities will be the key to their long-term success. As chairman of the Commerce Committee's Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee, I have already laid out a challenge to triple the number of people graduating with math, science and technology degrees. Today, I commit to helping students who would enter the field of nanotechnology. This discipline requires multiple areas of expertise. Students with the drive and the talent to tackle physics, chemistry, and the material sciences simultaneously deserve all the support we can offer. Third, the government should create connections across its agencies to aid in the coordination of nanotechnology efforts. These could include a national coordination office, and a Presidential Nanotechnology Advisory Committee, modeled on the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. I also believe that at these organizational support structures are put into place, rigorous evaluation must take place to ensure the maximum efficiency of our efforts. The bill would call for an annual review of America's nanotechnology efforts from the Presidential Advisory Committee, and a periodic review from the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to monitoring our own progress, the U.S. should keep abreast of the world's nanotechnology efforts through a series of benchmarking studies. If the Federal Government fails to get behind nanotechnology now with organized, goal-oriented support, this nation runs the risk of falling behind others in the world who recognize the potential of this discipline. Nanotechnology is already making pants more stain-resistant, making windows self-washing and making car parts stronger with tiny particles of clay. What America risks missing is the next generation of nanotechnology. In the next wave, nanoparticles and nanodevices will become the building blocks of our health care, agriculture, manufacturing, environmental cleanup, and even national security. America risks missing a revolution in electronics, where a device the size of a sugar cube could hold all of the information in the Library of Congress. Today's silicon-based technologies can only shrink so small. Eventually, nanotechnologies will grow devices from the molecular level up. Small though they may be, their capabilities and their impact will be enormous. Spacecraft could be the size of mere molecules. America risks missing a revolution in health care. In my home State, Oregon State University researchers are working on the microscale to create lapel-pin-sized biosensors that use the color-changing cells of the Siamese fighting fish to provide instant visual warnings when a biotoxin is present. An antimicrobial dressing for battlefield wounds is already available today, containing silver nanocrystals that prevent infection and reduce inflammation. The health care possibilities for nanotechnology are limitless. Eventually, nanoscale particles will travel through human bodies to detect and cure disease. Chemotherapy could attack individual cancer cells and leave healthy cells intact. Tiny bulldozers could unclog blocked arteries. Human disease will be fought cell by cell, molecule by molecule, and nanotechnology will provide victories over disease that we can't even conceive today. America risks missing a host of beneficial breakthroughs. American scientists could be the first to create nanomaterials for manufacturing and design that are stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safest. Nanoscale devices could scrub automobile pollution out of the air as it is produced. Nanoparticles could cover armor to make American soldiers almost invisible to enemies and even tend their wounds. Nanotechnology could grow steel stronger than what's made today, with little or no waste to pollute the environment. Moreover--and this is key--America risks missing an economic revolution based on nanotechnology. With much of nanotechnology existing in a research milieu, venture capitalists are already investing $1 billion in American nanotech interests this year alone. It's estimated that nanotechnology will become a trillion-dollar industry over the next ten years. As nanotechnology grows, the ranks of skilled workers needed to discover and apply its capabilities must grow too. In the nanotechnology revolution, areas of high unemployment could become magnets for domestic production, engineering and research for nanotechnology applications--but only if government doesn't miss the boat. The Federal Government is already making some efforts with regard to nanotechnology. The U.S. does have a National Nanotechnology Initiative. This nation has already committed substantial funds to nanotechnology research and development in the coming years. But here's my bottom line. It is essential to build on this foundation of funding with a framework for sound science over the long term. That is the reason for the legislation I am issuing today. On the framework it provides, of national coordination and strategic planning, scientists will be able to meet the grand challenges of nanotechnology. Over the long term, with Federal support, they will be able to plumb the depths of its capability, and scale the heights of its potential. In 1944 the visionary President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested a leading American scientist's opinion on advancing the United States' scientific efforts to benefit the world. Dr. Vannevar Bush offered his reply to President Harry S Truman the next year, following FDR's death. In his report to the President, Dr. Bush wrote, ``The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national security. It is in keeping also with basic United States policy that the Government should foster the opening of new frontiers and this is the modern way to do it.'' Those principles, so true nearly sixty years ago, are truer still today. With the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, I propose that the government now accept new responsibilities in promoting and developing nanotechnology. I hope that the Senate can act swiftly on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I proceed after the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senate has before it the Craig-Domenici amendment with respect to how we should spend the money we have in this appropriations bill designated for hazardous fuels reduction. It is an enormously important issue to my constituents. I chair the Senate Subcommittee on Forest and Public Lands Management. There were devastating fires throughout this summer all over the west. Because of that, I have spent a large chunk of my waking hours in the last few months, both out in Oregon and here in DC, trying to find the common ground that would allow us to deal with the risk of fire on the millions of acres of national forest land that are fire prone and at the same time be sensitive to environmental values and legal processes. It saddens me to rise today in opposition to this amendment because I had hoped by this morning to be able to come to the Chamber and talk about how the Senate had found common ground. I know the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, is very much committed to this as well. I agree that hazardous fuels reduction on our national forests must be pursued aggressively. I strongly believe in the concept of expedited treatment for fire-prone areas, but I simply cannot agree to the excessively broad slashes that this amendment takes at our environmental laws. For instance, let me spend a moment talking about some of the provisions with respect to access to the courts that are in the amendment that is before the Senate this morning. First, I feel strongly that citizens have a constitutional right to access the courts with respect to concerns over the management of our national forests, but I also believe they do not have a constitutional right to a 5-year delay. So, I have made it clear I support reforms that address these questions and expedite the critical work that needs to be done. But, I want my colleagues to understand this amendment before us today goes too far and that is why I oppose it. This amendment strips away a plaintiff's right to a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. This means, essentially, that the plaintiff's case will be heard on its merits, but while he is waiting to be heard the agency does not need to wait to complete the project over which the suit was filed. In effect, people are going to be suing over stumps. I do not think that is what the Senate wants. I do not think that is what makes sense. They are going to say this keeps the courthouse door open. I want my colleagues to know that though the courthouse door may be open, the effect of this provision is the plaintiff never makes it past the coat closet of the courthouse. This is not a meaningful and balanced approach to forestry. Justice is not going to be found with respect to the provisions as written. This issue is fundamentally about trust. Certainly, there are many good people at the federal land management agencies. But suffice it to say there are many in the environmental community that do not trust the natural resources leadership of these agencies. There are many on the other side and many people in rural communities who believe there are some in the environmental community that simply are committed to delay. So what I have tried to do, along with Senator Feinstein, Senator Bingaman, and others who spent many hours with us, is to come up with a reasonable, mainstream proposal to reduce hazardous fuels, improve the environment and protect communities. For example, we have said there ought to be a categorical exclusion from required NEPA analysis of the hazardous fuels reduction projects that produce a significant amount of green timber and salvage when accompanied by environmental safeguards like protecting big old trees and the assurance that the building of new roads will not waste the limited resources we have for such projects. This provision that we have talked about could save between 1\1/2\ and 3\1/2\ years of time. Going even further, we said--and this can only be done by statute-- there should be no administrative appeals on these projects. Senator Bingaman, Senator Feinstein, myself and others, have said these are the kinds of ideas and approaches that help to bring the Senate together to try to find the common ground in this area. Unfortunately, that has been unacceptable to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle up to this point. That is why I believe the Craig- Domenici language that overreaches will polarize, in my view, this very contentious debate even further. I would like to see the Senate make a very real and meaningful attempt to address the important forest management issues and reduce the risk of wildfire. I would like to see expedited treatment for key areas. My sense is there is broad agreement now that on 5 million acres, even 6 million acres--I have heard colleagues talk about 7 million acres--if we could address the questions of a fair and open process with respect to the courts, the Senate could come together. I am very anxious to work with my colleagues to do that. But given the contentiousness of this issue, I think the amendment before us now so restrains people who would like to bring legitimate questions of forest policy to the courts, that provision is going to so polarize the Senate as to set back the effort to try to find common ground. What I want to do is work on a bipartisan basis to implement the National Fire Plan. That is a collaborative effort. That is the kind of effort that would bring the Senate together. That is what we were able to do in the county payments law and I hope we can do it again. We have to put firefighting dollars where they can best be used in a strategic way to reduce hazardous fuels, to start in the places where treatment would be most effective, the wild and urban interface ecosystems and municipal watersheds where fire can cause the most damage. Senator Bingaman has worked with Senator Feinstein and others on that. I think this is the kind of approach that brings people together. Certainly there is a commitment to cut these never-never land legal processes down in a significant way, but they have to maintain the integrity of the system. Already I mentioned the prospect of being able to save 1\1/2\ to 3\1/ 2\ years of time when we are talking about the categorical exclusions from required NEPA analysis on hazardous fuels that myself and Senator Bingaman and others have supported. That is a significant step towards reducing the time line that so many folks are upset about in pursuing hazardous fuels reduction projects. I am open to other ideas and suggestions but I hope the Senate will not support the amendment that is before us now. I do believe what will happen if this amendment passes is that plaintiffs will be suing over stumps. People will not be able to have the issues addressed, in effect, while it is appropriate, while the case is moving forward. That is why I think the amendment is an overreach. I hope my colleagues will continue to work with Senator Bingaman, Senator Feinstein and me, and the many colleagues who would like to find common ground come forward to work with us and support a package that would allow us to get expedited treatment for important projects while at the same time be sensitive to fair access to the courts and to environmental values. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to be very brief because I am imposing on the time of Senator Dodd. As chairman of the Senate's Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands, I regret to say this morning I have to oppose the amendment that has been laid down by my colleagues. I have enormous respect for both Senator Domenici and Senator Craig. I want to take a couple of minutes to talk about my concerns. I want to be clear, having lived this issue constantly with my constituents through the summer months, I am totally committed to the concept of expedited treatment when we are dealing with areas that are fire prone, when we are dealing with areas that are at risk for fire, as so much of the West is. I am committed to expedited treatment. I will say, and I regret to have to do so this morning, I believe this amendment is an overreach. The history in the West, because things are so polarized, is that the surest way to taint an effort to try to bring the parties together is to overreach. Particularly, this analogy to South Dakota, I would say to my good friends, simply does not wash. The South Dakota example involved 800 acres. We are talking about millions and millions of acres in this debate. If there is one thing that we westerners have learned, it is that one size does not fit all. I hope we can continue to talk about ways to really ecologically improve the health of fire-prone forests, work together to tailor our approach to deal with areas that are at risk for fire. I have made it clear I support expedited treatment there. Let us not lock the doors to the courthouse. I believe people have a constitutional right to access the courts, but they do not have a constitutional right to a 5-year delay. Let us make sure all the stakeholders have a place at the negotiating table. Senator Craig and I have an experience that has worked with the county payments bill, a bill that the Forest Service called the most important bill in 30 years. Finally, it seems to me we ought to be sensitive to the ecological importance of the big old-growth trees. So I am saddened that I have to oppose this amendment. I plan to continue to keep talking to my colleagues. I thank Senator Dodd again for his graciousness in giving me this time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to draw the Senate's attention to National Assisted Living Week, which begins September 8 and continues through September 14. Since 1995, the National Center for Assisted Living has sponsored National Assisted Living Week to emphasize the importance of this service that nearly 1 million seniors rely on for long-term care. Assisted living offers hope to seniors who can no longer live independently at home but do not need the level of care provided by nursing facilities. In assisted living facilities, seniors find dedicated caregivers to provide assistance in the activities of daily living in a setting that truly becomes a home. It is predicted that the demand for assisted living will continue to grow as more and more seniors and their families seek out home-like independent living with the benefits of 24-hour supervision. The theme of this year's National Assisted Living Week is ``Honoring the Spirit of Our Nation,'' which is intended to honor the Nation's rekindled interest in our heritage and values. It is an appropriate theme because it celebrates the residents' lifetime of memories, devotions, and patriotism and the dedication and service of assisted living caregivers. The theme for National Assisted Living Week will highlight the variety of ways assisted living meets the different needs of seniors in our Nation. I am proud that Oregon has led our Nation in the concept of assisted living. Assisted living has developed differently in each State and its importance in meeting the needs of seniors continues. I believe offering these choices for seniors is important in order to provide them with security, dignity, and independence. It is also important for us to continue to support options that allow seniors and their families a choice of settings in order to assure that they get the level of care they need and deserve.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it seems like every morning, Americans wake up to another headline about the collapse of a big United States corporation. The failures have devastated the savings of millions of hardworking Americans, savings they were depending on for their retirement, or to pay for their kids' college education. When the smoke clears and the fall-out settles, the issue of stock options comes to the fore. Report after report details the massive fortunes amassed by the directors and top executives of so many of the companies that are at the center of the storm. So often, these executives were granted huge stock option packages, which they cashed out quickly for multimillion dollar payouts shortly before the company went over the brink. The landmark legislation that the Senate passed unanimously last week, and which I strongly supported, will curb significant corporate abuses and accounting scandals, but it does not touch the issues surrounding stock options. It is time the Senate acted to do so. Therefore, today I am introducing the Prevention of Stock Option Abuse Act. There is no question in my mind that some companies have abused stock options, using them as a vehicle for funneling large amounts of wealth to top executives. What's more, options have been granted in ways that fail to serve their intended purpose of aligning the interests of management with the long-term interests of the company. Instead, several of the massive option grants have created perverse incentives, enabling top executives to get fabulously rich by pumping up the company's short-term share price. The tactics they use to do so may jeopardize the company's long-term financial health, but by the time the long term impact is felt, the executives have already cashed out and left the firm. When an executive develops a big personal stake in options, it can lead to a big conflict of interest. Too often, the company's long-term interests take a back seat to the executive's desire for personal reasons to boost the short- term share price. When the betting is between massaging the numbers to ``manage'' quarterly profit projections and improving the quality of the business through such things as R&D investments, short-term profits, and the value of executive stock options, can be the odds-on favorite. But the abuse of stock options in the executive suite should not be taken as an indictment of stock options in general. I remain convinced that stock option plans, as long as they are broad-based plans that extend to rank-and-file employees as well as CEOs, can play a very important role in our economy. They can enable corporations to attract and retain good workers and top talent. And they can improve motivation and productivity, by giving employees a strong personal interest in the long-term success of the corporation. Therefore, the legislation I am introducing today aims to stop the abuses at the top while not gutting options that are so vital to rank- and-file workers. It focuses on restoring the link between the long- term interests of the company and those of senior management, and giving shareholders knowledge about and control over the stock options of corporate leaders. Specifically, the bill would direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules, applicable to all publicly traded companies, in three main areas. First, to increase shareholder influence and oversight with respect to grants of stock options, the bill calls for rules requiring shareholder approval of stock option plans. This would help prevent the all too common ``I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine'' culture of clubby directors and top executives voting each other huge option packages with little or no shareholder input. Second, the bill contains tough provisions to ensure that stock options will provide incentives for corporate officers and directors to act in the best long-term interests of their corporations, rather than incentives to stimulate short-term run-ups in the stock price. It would do this by establishing substantial vesting periods for options and holding periods for stock shares, so that top executives do not have the ability to quickly cash out and jump ship. The holding period would be multi-tiered. Directors and officers would be allowed to sell up to one quarter of their shares six months after acquiring them, to permit a degree of diversification or to meet their current financial needs. But for the majority, they would be required to wait at least three years. And they would be required to hold on to some of their stock until at least six months after leaving the company. Third, and finally, to improve the transparency of stock option grants to directors and officers, the bill calls for rules to provide better and more frequent information to shareholders and investors. Shareholders deserve more information than that contained in the average footnote. Specifically, the bill would require stock option information to be reported quarterly, not just annually, and broken out into a separate, easy-to-find section in each company's public SEC filings. To date, there have been two paths offered to deal with the issue of stock options. Some think the problem is so severe that options should be pared back across the board and that Congress should dictate new accounting rules for them. Others say that business as usual should be the order of the day, and that no immediate action is necessary. The bill that I have introduced today seeks to lay out a third path. It offers a way to ensure that broad-based stock options can continue to be a useful tool for deserving workers, shareholders and the economy as a whole, while still curbing abuses by those in the executive suites whose conduct is over the line. I don't claim that the bill is the complete solution in its present form, but I believe it offers a strong framework for a new approach, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and others to refine and improve it as it moves through the legislative process. The job of cleaning up corporate corruption will not be complete until Congress acts to correct the abuse of stock options. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to put tough new rules in place that will retain broad-based stock options for workers and curb their abuse by top management.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it seems like every morning, Americans wake up to another headline about the collapse of a big United States corporation. The failures have devastated the savings of millions of hardworking Americans, savings they were depending on for their retirement, or to pay for their kids' college education. When the smoke clears and the fall-out settles, the issue of stock options comes to the fore. Report after report details the massive fortunes amassed by the directors and top executives of so many of the companies that are at the center of the storm. So often, these executives were granted huge stock option packages, which they cashed out quickly for multimillion dollar payouts shortly before the company went over the brink. The landmark legislation that the Senate passed unanimously last week, and which I strongly supported, will curb significant corporate abuses and accounting scandals, but it does not touch the issues surrounding stock options. It is time the Senate acted to do so. Therefore, today I am introducing the Prevention of Stock Option Abuse Act. There is no question in my mind that some companies have abused stock options, using them as a vehicle for funneling large amounts of wealth to top executives. What's more, options have been granted in ways that fail to serve their intended purpose of aligning the interests of management with the long-term interests of the company. Instead, several of the massive option grants have created perverse incentives, enabling top executives to get fabulously rich by pumping up the company's short-term share price. The tactics they use to do so may jeopardize the company's long-term financial health, but by the time the long term impact is felt, the executives have already cashed out and left the firm. When an executive develops a big personal stake in options, it can lead to a big conflict of interest. Too often, the company's long-term interests take a back seat to the executive's desire for personal reasons to boost the short- term share price. When the betting is between massaging the numbers to ``manage'' quarterly profit projections and improving the quality of the business through such things as R&D investments, short-term profits, and the value of executive stock options, can be the odds-on favorite. But the abuse of stock options in the executive suite should not be taken as an indictment of stock options in general. I remain convinced that stock option plans, as long as they are broad-based plans that extend to rank-and-file employees as well as CEOs, can play a very important role in our economy. They can enable corporations to attract and retain good workers and top talent. And they can improve motivation and productivity, by giving employees a strong personal interest in the long-term success of the corporation. Therefore, the legislation I am introducing today aims to stop the abuses at the top while not gutting options that are so vital to rank- and-file workers. It focuses on restoring the link between the long- term interests of the company and those of senior management, and giving shareholders knowledge about and control over the stock options of corporate leaders. Specifically, the bill would direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue rules, applicable to all publicly traded companies, in three main areas. First, to increase shareholder influence and oversight with respect to grants of stock options, the bill calls for rules requiring shareholder approval of stock option plans. This would help prevent the all too common ``I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you-scratch-mine'' culture of clubby directors and top executives voting each other huge option packages with little or no shareholder input. Second, the bill contains tough provisions to ensure that stock options will provide incentives for corporate officers and directors to act in the best long-term interests of their corporations, rather than incentives to stimulate short-term run-ups in the stock price. It would do this by establishing substantial vesting periods for options and holding periods for stock shares, so that top executives do not have the ability to quickly cash out and jump ship. The holding period would be multi-tiered. Directors and officers would be allowed to sell up to one quarter of their shares six months after acquiring them, to permit a degree of diversification or to meet their current financial needs. But for the majority, they would be required to wait at least three years. And they would be required to hold on to some of their stock until at least six months after leaving the company. Third, and finally, to improve the transparency of stock option grants to directors and officers, the bill calls for rules to provide better and more frequent information to shareholders and investors. Shareholders deserve more information than that contained in the average footnote. Specifically, the bill would require stock option information to be reported quarterly, not just annually, and broken out into a separate, easy-to-find section in each company's public SEC filings. To date, there have been two paths offered to deal with the issue of stock options. Some think the problem is so severe that options should be pared back across the board and that Congress should dictate new accounting rules for them. Others say that business as usual should be the order of the day, and that no immediate action is necessary. The bill that I have introduced today seeks to lay out a third path. It offers a way to ensure that broad-based stock options can continue to be a useful tool for deserving workers, shareholders and the economy as a whole, while still curbing abuses by those in the executive suites whose conduct is over the line. I don't claim that the bill is the complete solution in its present form, but I believe it offers a strong framework for a new approach, and I look forward to working with my colleagues and others to refine and improve it as it moves through the legislative process. The job of cleaning up corporate corruption will not be complete until Congress acts to correct the abuse of stock options. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to put tough new rules in place that will retain broad-based stock options for workers and curb their abuse by top management.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, today we are resolved to see a new, rational foreign policy toward Iran, a policy that will engage the proud people of that nation and support their aspirations to be free of the theocratic state that abuses and oppresses them. It is time that we recognized that the forces of extremist clerics and their allies have so completely dominated the government of Iran that there is no means to achieve political liberalization within the current system. While President Khatami has often spoken of liberalization, the last 5 years show that either he is unwilling or unable to effect any democratic change. In fact, the record of his administration has been increasing censorship, religious vigilantes and intimidation, and wide-spread political repression. The State Department has identified systematic abuses including summary executions, disappearances, and wide-spread use of torture and other forms of degradation. Student dissidents within Iran have become increasingly better organized, and have been faced with greater repression. The frequent demonstrations by these students, women, and even religious dissidents, as well as the growing movements of expatriates show that there is a yearning for democratic change within the Iranian people. It should be a core value of our foreign policy to encourage and support any people who seek only the fundamental human freedoms laid out in our own bill of rights. There is also self-interest involved in this move. The Iranian regime has been supplying arms and cadre to terrorist movements attacking our allies in Turkey, Armenia, and Israel, and has striven to be a destabilizing force throughout the middle-east and central Asia. This is not the fault of the Iranian people, but of a criminal class that dominates them and strangles their hopes for a peaceful and progressive future. In the days following the tragedy of September 11, it is the people of Iran who spontaneously filled the streets in shared grieving over the loss of American lives. In dealing with Iran we must focus all of our efforts on the people, and their hopes for a free and democratic nation. The Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty must redouble their efforts to provide uncensored truth to the Iranian people. The State Department must cease lending legitimacy to the current regime and pursue a policy of fundamental democratic change; this administration must seek ways to aid and sustain those movements that will effect that change, to the benefit of the Iranian and American people alike.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am a strong supporter of the Rockefeller amendment which will make a huge difference for our States at a time when the situation is truly dire with respect to health care. So I thank my colleague. When we get to a vote on the Rockefeller amendment--I know Senator Nelson of Nebraska has done excellent work on this as well--I hope the amendment will pass with a resounding majority. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to outline briefly an approach with respect to the stock option issue that I am hopeful could bring together Senators of varying philosophies in both political parties. It seems as if every morning Americans wake up to yet another headline about the collapse of a major U.S. corporation. These failures have devastated the savings of millions of hard-working Americans, savings they were depending on for their retirement or to pay for their kids' college. When the smoke clears and the fallout settles, the issue of stock options invariably comes to the fore. I serve as chair of the Science and Technology Subcommittee, and I have spent a considerable amount of time analyzing the stock option issue. There is no question in my mind that some companies have abused stock options, using them as a vehicle for funneling large amounts of wealth to top executives. What is more, options have been granted in ways that fail to serve their intended purpose of aligning the interests of management with the long-term interests of the company. Instead, a number of these massive option grants have created perverse incentives, enabling top executives to get extraordinarily rich by pumping up a company's short-term share price. The tactics they use can jeopardize the company's long-term financial health, but by the time the long-term impact is felt, the executives invariably have cashed out and left the firm. When an executive develops a big personal stake in options, it can lead to a big conflict of interest. Too often the company's long-term interests take a backseat to that executive's desire for personal reasons to boost the short-term share price. When the betting is between massaging the numbers to ``manage'' quarterly profit projections and improving the quality of the business through such initiatives as long-term research and development investments, short-term profits and the value of executive stock options can be the odds-on favorite. The abuse of stock options in the executive suite should not be taken as an indictment of all stock options that are offered. I remain convinced that stock option plans, as long as they are broad based and have significant shareholder investment protection, can play a very important role in our economy. They can enable corporations to attract and retain good workers and top talent. They can motivate and increase productivity by giving employees a strong personal interest in the long-term success of the corporation. The program I would like to outline this afternoon is based on the premise that it is time for the Senate to act to stop abuses at the top, while not gutting options that are so vital to rank and file workers. This can best be done by restoring the link between the long- term interests of the company and those of senior management and giving shareholders knowledge about control over the stock options of corporate leaders. So I hope we will be looking to discuss with Senators of both parties the differing philosophies on the stock option issue, and that we can come together as a Senate around reform based on three issues. First, the rule should increase shareholder influence and oversight with respect to grants of stock options to corporate officers and directors by requiring shareholder approval. This would help prevent the all-too-common ``I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine'' culture of clubby directors and top executives voting each other huge option packages with little or no shareholder input. Second, new rules should seek to ensure that stock options provide incentives for corporate officers and directors who act in the best long-term interests of their corporation, not incentives to stimulate short-term runups in stock prices. I believe the way to do this is to establish substantial vesting periods for options and holding periods for stock shares so that top executives do not have the ability to quickly cash out and jump ship. Specifically, I believe there needs to be a multitiered holding period. Directors and officers should be allowed to sell a modest proportion of shares, for example, to permit a degree of diversification; but for the large majority, they should have to wait a substantial period of time and they should be required to hold on to a portion of their stock until at least 6 months after leaving the company. Finally, a third requirement in the proposal I outline today would be new rules improving the transparency of stock option grants to directors and officers. It is critical that better and more frequent information be provided to shareholders and investors. They deserve more information than what is buried in the typical footnote. Stock option information ought to be reported quarterly, not just annually, and broken out into an easy-to-find section in each company's public SEC filings. In concluding, there have been two paths presented in the Senate in recent months with respect to the issue of stock options. Some now think the problem is so severe that options should be pared back across the board and that Congress should take that action. Others say that business as usual should continue, that this is a problem that has affected just a handful of companies. The principles I have described today lay out a third path--a path that will ensure that broad-based stock options can continue to be a useful tool for deserving workers, shareholders, and the economy as a whole, while at the same time curbing abuses by those in the executive suites whose conduct is over the line. On the Science and Technology Subcommittee, which I chair, we have heard again and again how important these stock options are. There is no question that is correct. But I think it is also correct to say that the job of cleaning up corporate corruption is not going to be complete until Congress acts to curb the abuse of stock options. I look forward to working with my colleagues to put in place tough, new rules that will ensure that stock options remain broad based, but also address this issue of abuse that, unfortunately, has drawn options and their value into question.