Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senator from West Virginia, in my view, has outlined a very important position with respect to a critical health issue for the States. I commend him for his outstanding work. It is going to make a difference in Oregon and across the country. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as America mobilizes to protect itself from terrorism, a key weapon in its defensive arsenal is its great technological prowess. From high-tech ``cyber attacks'' to more conventional threats, many of the solutions for reducing America's vulnerabilities at home will be rooted in technology. And much of the country's science and technology expertise resides outside the government in the dynamic arena of private sector entrepreneurship. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that America's antiterrorism efforts tap the tremendous science and technology talents of the private sector. To that end, the Science and Technology Emergency Mobilization Act will help forge strong partnerships between the government and private sector science and technology experts, in order to provide the best protection and response for the American people. The legislation the Senate is approving today has been in the works since shortly after September 11. The Subcommittee on Science and Technology held a series of hearings in 2001-2002 on the best way to mobilize science and technology experts, drawing on first-hand accounts of those who sought to offer help in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. The subcommittee's ranking Republican, Senator Allen, joined me as a cosponsor and helped to draft the bill. House Science Committee Chairman Boehlert participated as well, making this a bipartisan and bicameral effort. The bill also bears the imprint of various executive branch agencies: we worked very closely with the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Commerce Department's Technology Administration, FEMA, and NIST to shape the original legislation into a finely-turned and targeted bill. On May 17, it was approved by the Commerce Committee without dissent. The legislation provides for the creation of a database of private sector science and technology experts whom government officials may call upon in emergencies. It provides for the creation of National Emergency Technology Guard, NET Guard, teams of volunteers with technology and science expertise, organized in advance and available to be mobilized on short notice, similar to existing urban search and rescue teams. It also calls for the creation of a Center for Civilian Homeland Security Technology Evaluation, modeled on the existing Technical Support Working Group, to serve as a single point of contact and clearinghouse for innovative technologies relating to emergency prevention and response. The center will have an online portal, so that the numerous small businesses that have been struggling to negotiate the maze of bureaucracy will finally have a way to get their bright technology ideas into the right hands. In addition, the legislation provides for pilot projects to improve the interoperability of communications systems used by fire, law enforcement, and emergency preparedness and response agencies. The legislation does not create a large bureaucracy, nor does it seek to micromanage; instead, it gives the President flexibility to decide where within the executive branch the different functions set forth in the bill should be placed. This is particularly important in light of the pending proposals for reorganizing the Federal Government's homeland security functions. This bill is flexible enough to fit comfortably within whatever structure is ultimately adopted. I express my appreciation to Senator Allen for his efforts on the bill; to the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, for his help and support as the bill was considered by the committee; and to Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, for mobilizing his staff to work with us on the fine points of the legislation. I also thank all the private sector organizations and individuals who provided important advice throughout the process, and in particular those who have expressed formal support for the legislation, including Intel, Microsoft, America Online, Oracle, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very hopeful the Senate will be able to get on the issue of prescription drug coverage very soon. This is an urgent issue for seniors and the people of this country. I want to spend a few minutes tonight talking about why this is so important and what I think the real challenge is to the Senate in the next couple of weeks. Mr. President, for the last quarter of the 20th century, the standard Government line on prescription drugs for older people was a little bit like the marquee of the big, old-fashioned theaters you would see downtown. The marquee sign was all lit up and it always read: ``Coming soon.'' But, for seniors, that ``soon'' just never seems to arrive. Years ago, when I was director of the Oregon Gray Panthers--I had the honor to be co-director for about 7 years before I was elected to the House--I got many of the questions then that all of us in the Senate get now. Seniors asked then, just as they do now at our town meetings, if anybody in Washington is ever going to provide some real help in paying for prescription medicines. I am very pleased that Senator Daschle has made this a priority issue for the Senate. He has made it very clear to me that he is willing to work with anybody in the Senate to finally get this job done and to get it done right. I think we know what this issue is all about for seniors, and that is the cost of medicine and coverage for medicine. In effect, cost and coverage really go hand in hand because if you are able to get seniors coverage, but you have not held down the cost, then you are not getting a whole lot for the Government's money. Of course, if you take steps to control costs, but many seniors still don't have the ability to meet even those costs, we will continue to have more and more older people fall between the cracks. So it is important that the Senate addresses both of these issues and addresses them right. I want to talk for a few minutes about what I think some of the key components are first of holding costs down. First, I think it is important that it be done with bargaining power in the private sector. In discussing this--and we will do this over the next couple of weeks--I want to describe what I was involved in back in the 1970s when I was co-director of the Oregon Gray Panthers. I remember one rainy night standing with a swarm of seniors around a labor union pharmacy that was barely bigger than a pill box. We were kicking off a program that night where seniors, through labor unions and others in the community, had been able to bargain with pharmaceutical concerns, and seniors were able to get their drugs at cost, plus a small monthly fee. It worked for the company, it worked for the seniors. The community pulled together, and in this little pharmacy, which I have said was really no bigger than a pill box, we saw that you could set up bargaining power right in the private sector. I think tonight, how many more older people in this country need the benefits of bargaining power today? So I am very hopeful that on this question of cost containment we focus on bargaining power. Senator Daschle made it clear that it is a priority to him. He will work with all our colleagues to make sure that is in a final bill and that we remember that across this country, and that what happened in Eugene, OR, more than 25 years ago has been duplicated elsewhere, and that what happened there is all about making sure people could have bargaining power in the private sector so that senior citizens can afford their medicine. The underlying legislation that is going to give all Americans--not just seniors, but all Americans--quicker access to generic drugs is another step toward private sector cost containment. I commend my colleagues--Senator Schumer, Senator McCain, and others--who have worked so hard on this legislation. After I had the honor of serving as codirector of the Gray Panthers, I served on the Health Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, and we had a chance to work on what I thought was historic legislation. It was drafted by our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, and Congressman Waxman. It struck a good balance between holding down costs for seniors by making it easier to get access to generic medicine, while at the same time promoting innovation and research in the breakthrough products that are so important to seniors in this country. I believed the Congress got it right in that Hatch-Waxman legislation and that the legislation we will be considering over the next couple of weeks is going to continue that kind of balance. We may try to refine it, and I am certainly open to that, but I think it will continue that crucial balance that was put together in the historic Hatch-Waxman legislation of helping to contain the costs for seniors and others through access to generic medicine, while at the same time promoting the new cures, the new research, the exciting breakthrough products that are so important. What I have tried to contribute to the Senate on prescription drugs has been an effort to come up with solutions that are going to work in the real world for Americans trying to navigate our health care system. In the past two sessions of the Congress, Senator Snowe and I have introduced bipartisan legislation. Tonight for just a few minutes, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Daschle and others in the leadership because the bill they will try to offer when we get to the question of Medicare coverage for seniors has been a genuine effort to address each of the concerns Senator Snowe and I have focused on in our legislation. When we get to that question, we are sure to have Members say this country cannot afford such coverage. They are going to say that the costs have already accelerated today; that we are having a demographic tsunami coming in just a few years, with millions of more older people in 2009, 2010, and 2011 retiring, and they are going to say the country cannot afford for the Congress to cover prescription drugs for older people. I want to make it clear that, in my opinion, the Congress cannot afford not to cover senior citizens, and I want to give a short example of why this is so urgently needed. Not long ago, a physician in Hillsboro, OR, in the metropolitan area surrounding Portland, wrote to me that he put a senior citizen in a hospital for a 6-week course of antibiotics because it was the only way the patient could afford the treatment. Of course, when the senior goes into the hospital, Medicare Part A, which covers institutional services, picks up the bill, no questions asked. The check gets written by the program to cover the costs in the hospital. Of course, that same condition could have been treated under Medicare Part B, the outpatient portion of Medicare. Our assessment is that to spend 6 weeks in an Oregon hospital probably cost the Medicare Program $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, to pick up those huge costs for an individual who had to be hospitalized to get the benefit, whereas it probably would have cost a few hundred dollars to have treated that person on an outpatient basis under Part B of the Medicare Program. When we hear in this Chamber and elsewhere that America cannot afford to cover prescription drugs for seniors, I am going to do my best to remind people about what I heard from that physician in Hillsboro, OR, and it has been repeated all over this country, because I think it is clear we cannot afford not to have this important program. We know what needs to be done in the next few weeks. We ought to promote easier access to generics. It is one of the key parts of the equation of doing this right. We ought to make sure that seniors have bargaining power in the private sector. The model that will be used in the legislation Senator Graham and Senator Miller have drafted incorporated much of what I and Senator Snowe have been concerned about, and that is to make sure that bargaining power is structured in the private sector so that costs are not shifted to millions of other Americans. There is no Senator who wants, in the effort to come up with a prescription drug proposal for seniors, to end up shifting costs on to their children and their grandchildren. That is why private sector bargaining power, something about which I and Senator Snowe have felt strongly, and Senator Daschle has graciously worked with us on, is included in what the Senate is going to have a chance to vote for. Those are some of the key questions. I will wrap up by way of saying that as we move into this discussion over the next couple of weeks, we have one principal challenge as we try to pass a comprehensive bill and then have it go to discussions with our colleagues in the House, and that is to make it clear to the country that this is a real effort to help, and not just an exercise in election-year rhetoric. The seniors who have come to us at our meetings have watched this Congress and other Congresses debate this topic and come back to it sporadically from time to time. They want to know: Is this on the level? Is this a real effort now to do the job right? I believe it is. I believe the commitment is there now and that this is not just an election-year exercise. There are key principles. We have an opportunity to address the questions of cost and coverage in a way that can win the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The question of private sector bargaining power, ensuring that the program is voluntary so that any senior who is comfortable with their existing coverage can continue it if they choose to do otherwise--these are principles that are going to be in the Graham-Miller proposal that can win the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. These are principles that can bring the Senate together. Let us make sure that at the end of this 2-week period, when we have had the opportunity to help seniors and help all Americans with respect to the cost of medicine, we do not let this opportunity slip away once again. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just to be very brief, with regard to the amount of time the Guard has spent overseas, they might as well be active duty people. These are people who have served our country with extraordinary valor all over the world. They could just as well be called active duty military. I hope our colleagues support this bipartisan amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to pick up on a remark of the Senator from Arizona. Again, he knows how much I enjoy working with him. We have worked together on the forest fires and a whole host of issues that are important. I wish to address my friend's comments with respect to the contribution Oregon makes to our national security and why Senator Smith and I see this as being important to our military and why it is a very constructive expenditure as it relates to the military. For example, my colleague from Arizona said our State does not have high mountains. Well, the State of Oregon does. The State of Oregon-- and we are very proud of them--have many high mountains. Those high mountains are part of a very good training ground for our military. The Department of Defense has consistently said--as both of the Senators from Arizona know because they are very knowledgeable in military policy--that we ought to, as a nation, be strengthening our search and rescue capability. I think my good friend, Senator Kyl, has pointed out one of the aspects that Arizona lacks and with which Oregon can assist, and that is training as it relates to dealing with rescues from high mountains. The fact is, the people in the Northwest have been trained to rescue men and women wounded in combat. The value to our Nation of having this national training ground and this capability is a central reason why we are in support of this effort. I am very hopeful that our colleagues will approve our bipartisan amendment. I want to wrap up by way of saying I certainly do not consider this an Oregon against Arizona kind of battle. I am going to continue to work with both of my colleagues on this issue, but it seems to me that when we have tried to be considerate of the State of Arizona throughout this process, we would just hope that our colleagues would be willing to address these concerns that our constituents have, especially when we are showing that the contribution that Oregonians make is a contribution that advances our national security, advances our military well-being, and particularly makes a contribution that Senator Kyl has said cannot be made in terms of training people in Arizona. Mr. President, I yield at this time and reserve the right to respond to comments that might be made further.

Mr. WYDEN. I have to reclaim my time to say that is factually wrong. The night we tried to have the compromise, we in fact talked about it on several occasions. Now I am happy to yield further to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. WYDEN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague. As he knows from our work on the Senate Commerce Committee, I worked with the Senator from Arizona again and again because I appreciate his counsel and his wisdom. Yes, we have talked about this subject. We talked about it, in fact, the night that Senator Smith and I tried another effort to come up with a bipartisan approach that would satisfy the Senator from Arizona. Today, we do feel that we have to go forward and protect our constituents. People in Arizona are, in fact, going to be protected. As Senator Smith said, the 939th is going to go to Arizona. That means the two Senators from Arizona, both of whom I value as good friends and worked with on many subjects, are going to have protection for their constituents. What we have said is, now that Arizona is going to be protected, let us try another approach, an approach that is not injurious to the Senators from Arizona, so that our citizens, in an area where there are vast amounts of Federal land and great risks for our citizens, can also be protected. So it is in that context that I seek to have this move forward today in conjunction with Senator Smith. Finally, as I yield to my good friend from Arizona, I want to say to him that I will continue to work with him on this issue and virtually everything else that conceivably comes before the U.S. Senate because I value his input and his counsel. We have worked together on a whole host of questions. Now, if the Senator from Arizona desires me to yield to him, I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. WYDEN. I will be glad to yield as soon as I finish.

Mr. WYDEN. If I might finish? The fact is, we have come to the distinguished Senator from Arizona and discussed this several times. In fact, we discussed it at some length the night the Senator was unwilling to support another bipartisan effort to reach out to the distinguished Senator. I want to make it clear, I think he knows----

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to make clear how extensive the efforts have been on the part of Senator Smith and myself to work with the Senator from Arizona, to work with all of our colleagues on this issue. We have tried again and again. The distinguished Senator----

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. It is not clear to me what the Senators from Arizona intend. Certainly I understand the desire of the distinguished Senator from Nevada to move expeditiously. I think both of us will try to do that.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Pacific Northwest must have a search and rescue capability. The vast expanses of Federal land in our part of the country mean our citizens constantly face the risk of disasters and accidents, far from help. Local communities, many of them with tiny populations, do not have the resources to provide search and rescue services to the extraordinarily large surrounding wilderness areas. The amendment I offer this afternoon on behalf of myself and Senator Smith is a compromise. It would not have been our first choice. In an effort to work with our colleagues and appeal to our colleagues on a bipartisan basis, we offer this compromise to preserve a search and rescue capability in our region. Without this capability, the Pacific Northwest faces the certain loss of lives for disasters, fires, and accidents that are unique to our region. This amendment authorizes a total of $4.8 million to the Oregon National Guard to upgrade three Blackhawk helicopters of the National Oregon Guard to the capabilities of the UH-60Q search and rescue helicopters similar to upgrades in the past. It would increase the authorization for military personnel by $1.8 million to ensure the Oregon Guard can respond to emergencies that require rapid medical attention. Particularly during this season we are concerned about the host of possibilities that can strike our local communities, tragedies we have already seen won in recent difficulties in our region. We cannot afford to play Russian roulette with the safety, health, and security of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support the Wyden-Smith amendment that we have worked on with both the majority and the minority for many days. I reserve my time to speak later in the debate.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4060 that I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Smith of Oregon.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to discuss with the distinguished leader from Nevada and the chairman of the committee and the distinguished minority member the amendment I have with Senator Smith. This is an extremely important amendment. We have been trying to work out the details with respect to the majority and minority. I want to make sure that our right to offer that amendment is protected. It is not clear to me, with respect to the unanimous consent request posed by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, that our right to offer the Wyden-Smith amendment, which is of enormous importance to the State of Oregon, would be protected. If I could yield to the distinguished chairman and ranking member so this point could be clarified, I am speaking on behalf of both myself and the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I speak today because it is time for Congress to send its own message to those who would perpetrate hate crimes. That message should be that Federal law will no longer tolerate intolerance. Hate crimes are a stain on our national greatness, and it is time to stop that stain from spreading. Fighting hate crimes should not be a partisan issue. This is not about giving preferences to one group of people or another. I am talking about opposing violence. I am talking about opposing brutal crimes. When the fight for a hate crimes law first began in the early 1990s, many Americans questioned whether the problem was serious enough to warrant a specific law. But during the past decade, from one coast of the United States to the other, tragic events have proven that a law is badly needed. These crimes are so unspeakably ugly that the names of the victims are seared in our minds. James Byrd, Jr., dragged to his death because he was black. Matthew Shepard, beaten and left for dead because he was gay. My home State has been wounded by hate crimes, too. Oregonians will not forget Roxanne Ellis and her partner, Michelle Abdill, who were taped up and shot twice in the head in the back of their own pickup truck in Medford, Oregon in December 1995. Or Loni Okaruru, who was found last August bludgeoned to death in a field in Washington County, just outside Portland. Loni was a transsexual planning to undergo surgery. She had been beaten multiple times prior to that night. The Senate has passed hate crimes legislation unanimously several times, only to see it jettisoned in Conference with the other body. The consequences of all this legislative wrangling are real. Each time Congress delays, more brutal, hate-driven deaths go unpunished. Each time Congress delays, more hate crimes happen, because the perpetrators have no fear of being punished for the true nature of their acts. The legislation before this body today will close the loopholes in Federal hate crimes law. It will give local law enforcement the full force of Federal resources in investigating and prosecuting crimes motivated by bias against sexual orientation, gender or disability. This legislation will not preempt State and local laws or authorities. But it will provide Federal backup to important local efforts. Based on testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is likely that Federal help will be sought by local authorities in a dozen cases a year. The message Congress sends in passing this bill is as important as the resources that will be made available to local law enforcement. It is time to limit the lengths to which people can go to infect our society with diseases like racism, and homophobia, and religious intolerance. Hate crimes are intentionally directed at victims because of who they are. They strike not just at a person but at the heart of a community, be it a black community, a gay community, or a disabled community. And when any one group is targeted, the entire American community feels the blow. The scourge of hate crimes must be confronted and eradicated. This legislation gives Congress the means to do so. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the bill so that it can be enacted swiftly.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Two points. First, the position Senator Smith and I have tried to convey will cost the taxpayers no money, but what Senator McCain is talking about will cost taxpayers money. Second, there are no objective criteria for the project. There would be if the Smith-Wyden proposal went forward because we laid out basic criteria for dealing with life in Oregon. These people are saving lives. That is what people all over this country saw on national TV. Now, without any objective criteria and in a way that will cost taxpayers money, we are not even having a chance to debate a bipartisan amendment. That is regrettable. We ought to be following the example that Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens have followed. That is what Senator Smith and I have tried to be a part of. We will be back on this floor again and again and again. Let us put the Senate on notice. We are going to stay here all the way through this session until this gets done.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. That is certainly my understanding, and I agree with you that it was clearly our intent that the running camp be able to continue its historic operations on the mountain under this Act. In fact, the House report language states that the Act ``is intended to enhance statutory protections for the area while maintaining the viability of historic ranching and recreational operations in the Steens Mountain area.'' The real tragedy of this situation is that the running camp conducts most of its operations on the mountain on private lands, and is only in the wilderness areas on the mountain for two eight-hour periods the entire year. Most of the environmental organizations in Oregon support the running camp and the unique experience it offers to high school athletes. It would be a shame if these young runners were denied this experience because of the extreme solitude guidelines that a select few are trying to impose on the area, because I believe that these young people know and appreciate the ecological values of the wilderness that they are using.

Mr. WYDEN. I share that commitment, and I look forward to working with you and the Bureau of Land Management to ensure that congressional intent is following on this matter.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to support the 2002 farm bill conference report because it is good for Oregon producers at home and in the world market. Agriculture in Oregon is a $3.5 billion business. There are 40,000 farms in Oregon, totaling over 17 million acres. The average farm size is 430 acres, with a stunning variety of crops, made up of 10,000 plus wheat farms in the eastern part of the State to 100 acre vineyards in the western part of the State. Overall, the Oregon Farm Bureau supports this farm bill. Oregon wheat and barley growers are anxious to see the workings of the new loan rates and market transition payments. They are also pleased to hear that all changes are in effect for the 2002 crop. Oregon dairy producers tell me the compromise that maintains a permanent $9.90 milk price support program will help them in the long term, whereas the establishment of a 3.5 year National Dairy Program to provide assistance to all U.S. dairy producers will help them in the short term. Oregon's wool producers are pleased that the conference report provides marketing loans or loan deficiency payments to them based on a loan rate of $1 per pound for graded wool and $.40 per pound for non- graded wool. This conference report also provides $94 million, nationally, for apple producers who have suffered low market prices. But those are just specific examples of how this conference report will be good for Oregon producers. In a more general sense, this conference is good for Oregon's specialty crop producers in the following ways: specialty crop purchases for section 32 requiring not less than $200 million for fruits and vegetables. At least $50 million of that amount is for schools through the DoD Fresh Program; MAP funds--$650 million over the life of the bill, hitting the authorized ceiling of $200 million in the fifth year; Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops provides $19 million for exporter assistance to address barriers that restrict US specialty crop exports; $400 million for food assistance of which some is destined for specialty crop purchases; in addition, increased funds for school lunch programs, the WIC program, and the Seniors Farmers Market program, of which Oregon is one of the pilot States; and, Country of Origin Labeling for fresh meats, fruits, vegetables and fish will help Oregon's producers. In addition, while some environmental organizations are not pleased by the increases provided in the conservation title of this conference report, Oregon farmers will benefit overall from the 80 percent increase in conservation programs. Specifically, $50 million is provided for the Klamath Basin under a new Water Conservation Program that provides cost-share incentives and assistance for efforts to conserve ground and surface water. The nutrition title is supported by Oregonians who strongly supported, and were successful in maintaining, the provision that reinstates food stamp benefits for legal immigrants. Oregonians will benefit from simplifications to the TANF and food stamp programs. Oregonians will also benefit from the $1.03 billion Rural Development title that will, in addition to other new and improved rural development programs, make $100 million available nationally to allow rural consumers to receive high-speed, high-quality broadband service. It also provides $50 million for the Rural Firefighters and Emergency Personnel Grant Program which will help as rural Oregon communities face increasing fire danger from public lands. For years I have supported increased funding for agricultural research. Research dollars have been important to Oregon agriculture because they enable Oregon agriculture to be competitive in the world markets. This title increases funding from $120 million/year to $200 million/year in fiscal year 2006. This conference report contains a new $100 million cost share program to assist private non-industrial forest land owners in adopting sustainable forest management practices. It also authorizes research pilot programs in carbon sequestration for agriculture producers and forest land owners. Both of these programs will be available to Oregonians, regarded as leaders in these areas. There are additional programs in this conference report that will benefit Oregonians that I have not specifically mentioned. However, the real work will begin when the President signs this conference report into law, as he has indicated he will do. We will start the arduous process of implementation. I will be there, with my Senate and House colleagues, as that process moves forward to make sure the intent and spirit of this law is adhered to: to encourage environmentally sound, economically stable agriculture.