Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Not only is the Senator right, but Senator Smith, in particular, deserves great credit because in a very close election, he made no assertions that there was any fraud in the election. My question is, Is the Senator from Nevada aware of any evidence of any studies or analyses indicating that these vote-by-mail elections are tainted by fraud? I am not aware of any. Senator Smith deserves a lot of credit because he could have raised that issue in our election, and he declined to do it. Is the Senator aware of any evidence of fraud in these races?

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I want to respond. The Senator clearly has been working in good faith and we appreciate that. What I am trying to do this morning is to see if I can help get the rest of the way. I think in this arcane area of election law, where I think, frankly, the Senators from Missouri and Connecticut and New York know more about this nationally than do I, it is very complicated. But I think there is the framework for a genuine compromise. If we stick with that kind of outline, I think we can still get there and we ought to try with this bill which, as a result of efforts of the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Connecticut, has a lot of good in it. It has a lot of useful provisions. I am for it, but we have to get over this particular problem.

Mr. WYDEN. Of course.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Senator makes a valid point with respect to the first part. With respect to the second part, I and others think the motor voter law has been an important step forward. We are concerned about the implication that some of the spirit and substance of it could be unraveled. That is why we are trying to stay at the table with the distinguished Senator from Missouri and work this out. I think if we can get an acceptance of the proposition that a signature should be valid to the ballot--if that basic proposition can be accepted, which is something we believe works in 27 States--I think we can do a great deal to reach out on the other concerns the Senator from Missouri has. He has raised them consistently. He understands the substance of this very well. We are trying to reach out to him in an effort to get this compromise. But what we need in return is to know that when people actually vote after they have gone through what I would call a real gauntlet of steps to make sure there are antifraud provisions at the front end, then let us have a signature be valid for the ballot, a system which works very well in our State. I will close by way of saying I think people are stunned by this. In the Senate special election in 1996, we trippled the rate of voter participation from the previous Senate special elections in this country. This is a system that has empowered voters. That is why it is so important in those 27 States to seniors, the disabled, minorities, and others. With record turnouts, people are being prosecuted now in a small number of instances. Where there is fraud, we would like to find a way to protect against that as it relates to having a signature be valid to the ballot. In return, we are willing to meet the Senator from Missouri halfway and more on the front end so that we come down aggressively on fraud in the area where we believe it can do the most. My time has expired. I am inclined to get back to the negotiating table with the Senators from Missouri, Connecticut, and New York so we can get a bipartisan compromise. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Missouri is in the Chamber. I want to make a comment to address some of the concerns the Senator has voiced. In particular, with respect to the process that has been followed, I was not involved in any of the negotiations with the Senator from Missouri. I made it very clear I am interested in meeting him halfway in trying to find some common ground. We have been talking since the vote yesterday--Senator Dodd, Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer, Senator Bond, myself--really, hour after hour since yesterday. I do believe at this point there is a framework for a genuine compromise that could allow this bill to go forward. I want to outline what I think that framework is because we all ought to try to come together and get a bill. I was asked yesterday by the press and others: Maybe those on the other side just don't want a bill? I stuck up for the Senator from Missouri. I said I believe he wants a bill. I think he wants us to come together. We have some differences of opinion. Here is the framework for what in my view is a genuine compromise. What we ought to try to do is tighten up at the front end of the process. Let's tighten up with respect to registration. That is the best way to deter fraud. Right now, the tough antifraud provisions with respect to registration don't kick in until a ways down the road. Let's figure out a way to make them kick in earlier. Let's tighten up at the front end so we all come together and make it clear we are interested in deterring fraud, we are not interested in deterring voting. But at the same time, what we would ask in return for our effort to meet the concerns of our colleague from Missouri with respect to the registration process and tough antifraud processes--at the front end we ask to let the signature be valid when people vote because on our side, and in the State of Oregon, we believe very strongly in the 27 States where that is used, it works. We know our colleague does not share that view. Sincere people agree with him. But I would say when he cites studies in Oregon, which I have not seen, the colleague that sits just a few seats from him, Senator Smith, made it clear--after a very difficult and contested election where he clearly could have said: I have some questions about how these votes were cast--Senator Smith, to his credit, said the system worked and there were not the problems the Senator from Missouri has found. So as of right now, without the legislation that has been drafted by the Senator from New York and me, it seems what we are doing is discouraging people from voting now but not putting in place the toughest antifraud provisions until 2004. We ought to keep negotiating. We ought to continue the work. By the way, even when we were debating the Schumer and Wyden amendment, I suggested to my colleagues, and was very appreciative of what the chairman of the committee said--I went to him and said: We have the votes. We have the votes now. We have done our checking. We have the votes. But let's still reach out even before the vote and try to have a compromise. That was echoed by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, who said even the night before the vote: Let's stay at it. I didn't have a chance to be part of the negotiations and the process. I know there are some who have concerns about that process. But I said from the very beginning, because I was not part of that process, I would have to take steps--I was inclined to put a public hold on the bill to make sure my State wasn't rolled. At every stage of the process that I had a chance to be part of, and this has been backed up by Senator Dodd and Senator Schumer and the leadership, we have been trying to find a way to meet in a genuine compromise. I think the framework for that genuine compromise is to tighten up on the front end, come down as aggressively as we possibly can on fraud where we can best deter it, which is at the beginning of the process, through registration, but then let those signatures be valid for a ballot, a system that we believe works in 27 States, and not create new obstacles.

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed after Senator Bond.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, there is a reason the American Association of Retired Persons so strongly supports this amendment. They and the sponsors feel strongly that the photo ID provision in effect is making it tougher for those who saved our democracy in World War II to participate in our democracy today. Nursing home residents in this country are not asking to be taken to a copy center. The Senate should not be telling them they should have to go to the copy center before they can vote by mail, which is clearly one of the most popular ways to participate in our democracy today. I am particularly troubled that the tough provisions to deter fraud do not even kick in until 2004. I would like to work with colleagues to address those issues. It seems to me various approaches that encourage voting are not kicking in for quite some time. Last night, the Senate voted wisely to call this the Martin Luther King Voting Rights bill. If we put in place a photo ID for first time voters, we step back, in my view, to the days when only the enfranchised had the opportunity to vote. That would be a mistake. I urge strongly this amendment be supported. I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Washington.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in Oregon, the penalty for registering dogs that have become so famous, the monetary penalty is something like ten times the amount in this bill. When fraud happens with the vote-by-mail system, it is caught and it is stopped. Our penalties prove it. Any way you slice it, making it harder to vote isn't the way to deter fraud. I come back in closing to why the American Association of Retired Persons and senior citizens groups feel so strongly about this amendment. They like voting by mail. It is convenient for them. They and millions of Americans are saying make it easier to vote. Congress should do everything possible to make it easier to vote rather than to make it harder. I don't think this body this morning should make it tough for those who saved our democracy in World War II to participate in our democracy in the days ahead. I urge my colleagues to strongly support the amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Does the Senator from Kentucky desire time?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is the first time we have seen this proposal, but certainly on its face it raises a number of very troubling issues. To start with, it seems it goes after the wrong end. Our view has been if the question of vote fraud is really going to be tackled, we have to go after the registration kind of process. That is what we have sought to do. Once again, this goes to the process of signature verification, which is basically trying to deal with the problem after it is all out of the barn and off to the races. I think what really troubles me is that this would make a presumption that in scores of States, the State and local officials are not doing their jobs. They are essentially bad guys. They would have to go through a very cumbersome, almost incomprehensible process, to try to prove they are good guys. In our State, it has empowered thousands and thousands of people, without instances of fraud. We are running a system that has not been a sieve of fraud and abuse. To say they are now going to create a presumption that people who are running effective, efficient vote-by- mail systems are essentially bad guys and they should have to go through a process from Washington, DC, to prove they are good guys does not make a whole lot of sense to me. Hopefully, there will be further discussion how this will work, how you would even go about determining who these so-called abusers are in the two most recent elections. I have great reservations about what I have seen at this point. First, it seems to go at the wrong end of the process. We ought to be trying to address voter fraud questions at the registration level rather than essentially so late in the process. Second, I am very troubled by the presumption that seems to underlie this amendment that all these State and local people are bad guys, they are doing an inefficient job, they are not up to the task of challenging fraud, so what we ought to do is create a presumption, in effect, that they are the problem and that somehow they ought to have this convoluted process to convince the Federal Government they are not. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I never had the chance to negotiate with the distinguished senior Senator from the State of Missouri. But I can tell him that despite his strong views on the subject, I never would have agreed to the photo ID provision in any negotiation because I believe this provision is a poison pill that is going to silence the political voices of seniors, the disabled, young people, and minorities from coast to coast. The distinguished senior Senator from Missouri talked about discussing it with nursing home residents. Let us talk about that for a moment. I was director of the Gray Panthers for 7 years before I was elected to the House of Representatives. I served on the aging committee there, and I serve on the aging committee here. I have dedicated my whole professional life to the cause of senior citizens. I can assure the distinguished Senator from the State of Missouri that there are not any nursing home residents in this country asking to be taken to the copy center to make Xerox copies of driver's licenses or other documents. That is just not going to happen. Many of the seniors are voting by mail because physically going to the polls is hard for them. Forcing seniors to get to a library or a copy center to photocopy an identification card would be just as hard as a trip to the polling place. I don't think the principal way to stop voter fraud is to make it harder for Americans to vote. The way to deter fraud is to go after it early, when people fraudulently register to vote, and punish it hard. That is what this bill does. That is on what the State of Oregon is focusing. If someone submits a false Federal photo ID or a utility bill, or if somebody attempts to register a cat or a dog to vote, the time to catch them is at the beginning, at the point of registration. It will be a lot more difficult once the registration is in. In Oregon, those who falsify their registration face up to a $100,000 fine and/or up to 5 years in prison and the loss of their vote. It is a pretty stiff penalty for registering a dog. There are cases outstanding now from the last election. I tell my colleagues that I think there is also a question, if one really wants to go after fraud. The way my State thinks they can best deter fraud is, Why not figure out a way to make the registration provision kick in in 2002? I think there is a real question about how it is that the registration provision really isn't kicking in until 2004. I think that was an opportunity, had it be sped up, to really meaningfully go after fraud and do it in a way that would not deter voter participation. The new photo ID or proof of address requirement for first-time voters is going to create many more problems than it will solve. How will the election monitors know exactly who is the first-time voter and whom they should ask for a photo ID? What if only 5 people out of 50 in a line in a polling place are singled out to produce that photo? What if the utility bill that Mabel Barnes brings to the polling place lists her as ``M. Barnes'' and the election monitor says, How do I know the ``M'' doesn't stand for ``Mark,'' and they reject the identification? What if Mabel Barnes is an elderly widow who lives with her daughter, has no driver's license, has no accounts in her name, and has her Social Security check directly deposited to her daughter's bank account? In that case, Mabel Barnes, the senior citizen, wouldn't meet the necessary requirements for the first-time voter in the bill. I say to my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, that he may be talking to nursing home residents in his State, but I will put my 20 years of working with older people, going back to those days of the Gray Panthers, on the line here and say in the most sincere way that I can that I think this bill's photo ID provision is a poison pill. It is going to disenfranchise an awful lot of seniors. I do not know of any nursing home residents in this country who would be asking to be taken to a copy center if this were to go forward. They are going to be disenfranchised. That is a reality of the provision. I would like to take a couple minutes to explain Oregon's pioneering vote by mail system so my colleagues will get a sense of why section 103, if left unmodified, would be so damaging to States such as Oregon, and other States that rely on mail-in ballots such as Alaska, New York, and Washington. I also say to my colleagues, I guess it is worth noting that I am the first mail-in U.S. Senator. I am the first Senator ever elected exclusively by mail in a campaign that was very close with my colleague, my friend, Senator Smith. By the way, Senator Smith did not cite any evidence of voter fraud in that very closely contested election, to his credit. Many certainly pushed him to do it, and he did not because our system is working. Enacted by nearly 70 percent of the voters in the 1998 general election, Oregon's vote-by-mail system does not need fixing by the Federal Government. Our voter registration card already includes an oath swearing the signer is a U.S. citizen. Submitting a false registration is a class C felony carrying a penalty of up to $100,000 or 5 years in prison. The same penalties apply to anyone who knowingly votes twice or whose signature cannot be matched with the signature on file with the county clerk. Oregon's counties verify the signature on each ballot return envelope to the original signature on the voter registration card. Because ballots cannot be forwarded, Oregon's voting rolls have been clean. In the 2000 general election, out of 1.9 million registered voters, about 1.5 million cast votes, about 80 percent. Of the 1.5 million votes, the counties referred a number of ballots to the secretary of state, close to several hundred. In five of these cases, there was enough evidence for the State to prosecute. The remaining 187 votes were not counted because Oregon requires signature verification for counting the vote. Since the 1996 May primary, 13 cases of fraud have been prosecuted; convictions won in 5, and 8 cases still pending. So we want to make it clear that in our State, which has pioneered this innovative approach so popular with seniors and working families, and many who live very hectic and busy lives, the signature authentication system has proven remarkably good at detecting and deterring fraud. Despite that record, this bill, this legislation, says that that system is not good enough. The photo ID requirement would also be expensive for the States that use voter signature. Election officials at home in Oregon tell me they know of no State that has an easier and more inexpensive way to figure out just who is a first-time voter. So let's just think about the ramifications. We all--Democrats and Republicans alike--want to encourage young people and first-time voters, those who have not participated in the political process, to participate. So here we are, at a time when it is already difficult, according to the election officials, to try to keep track of who is a first-time voter, and we now have a bill that will make it even tougher to address these issues because of the added expense. If the provision were in effect, each time a new voter registered in a county, the county clerk would have to call the clerks--at least in my State--in the 35 other counties to determine whether the person was still registered there. Oregon is working to develop a centralized voter registration system, as the bill calls for, by 2004. But it is going to cost about $7 million to do that. So here is what is going to happen this fall at polling places across the country if the poison pill that is this photo ID provision remains in the legislation. Millions of first-time voters who register by mail in 28 States will get up on election day and go to the polls to vote. They will wait in line. And when they finally get to the front, they will be asked for a copy of their utility bill, their bank statement, or a valid photo driver's licence. Suppose they walk to the polls or share an apartment where the utilities are all under a roommate's name? They will not be able to satisfy that new requirement. They will go home. And I think any Member of the Senate who thinks those people are going to come back is just not talking to those people or to those election officials who have worked closely with them. The photo ID requirement in the bill also applies if you registered by mail and you are a first-time voter in any jurisdiction. That means that a voter who lived in a part of Salem, OR, who was in Marion County and moved to West Salem and Polk County, and was voting there for the first time, would have to mail in, with their ballot, a copy of a photo ID or a bank statement. If they voted at a polling place, they would have to show a proof of identification. Without the photo ID, an otherwise eligible voter would be turned away and would probably not come back. Some might say not to worry because there is a provisional ballot. However, every first-time voter who is turned away at the polls this November is not going to be able to use provisional ballots because under another section of the bill provisional ballots do not take effect until 2004. The defenders of this provision claim they want every vote to count, but, in my view, this requirement almost guarantees that seniors, the disabled, minorities, and others are going to be disenfranchised from coast to coast. My colleagues, it seems to me there is a lesson from Florida that is relevant to the debate tonight. What the message from Florida was all about is that the elections process needs to be simplified. It needs to be made less complicated. The photo ID requirement is going to take the elections process across this country in just the opposite direction and make it more complicated. My State is not alone in its opposition to the photo ID requirement because of the damage the provision would cause, and cause nationwide. The provision, in my view, is going to work a hardship on minority voters. In fact, last November a Federal court ruled against an identification requirement used at a polling place in Massachusetts, finding that: The burden imposed by this photo ID requirement will fall disproportionately on the Latin American community, thereby violating section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. There is a reason that this coalition of groups of seniors and minorities and a variety of organizations that have worked to expand the franchise is opposing this legislation. They want to see us expand the franchise. They want to deter fraud, but they do not want to deter voting. I say to my colleagues, supporting this amendment is going to allow 27 States and the District of Columbia to keep their voters' signature or attestation systems, but even more importantly, it is going to protect an approach, a system for voting to which more and more Americans are attracted. More and more Americans like the appeal and the convenience of this way to vote. In my view, putting a photo ID system in place at the end of the line, at the very end of the process, rather than taking strong steps to discourage fraud at the outset of the process, when a voter registers, is not the way to go. We ought to be taking steps that are cost effective, that are practical. I know my colleague from Missouri is sincere in his views. I wish I could have been part of the negotiations that took place in committee because I would have brought to the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Kentucky some of the senior citizens with whom I have worked over the years, some of the seniors with whom I have worked in the Meals on Wheels programs and in nursing homes. They are not going to be able to comply with these provisions. These are folks who are having difficulty reading existing government forms. My goodness, we all hear from seniors who are having difficulty reading some of what is on a pill bottle. And my colleague has said that these are people who are going to be able to go out and find Xerox machines and copy centers and the like. It is just not going to happen. It is not a debate about my colleague's sincerity. I know he feels strongly about these views. This is a debate about the real-life provisions of this legislation and the hardships that are going to be caused by this photo ID provision. In my view, it is in fact a poison pill that does great harm to an otherwise very good bill that the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky have put together. I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. It has great ramifications for the electoral system in our country. I strongly urge the support of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes to respond to the comments the distinguished Senator from Missouri made about Oregon and offer up a proposal for how we might avoid the gridlock that looks as if it may be at hand. With respect to vote by mail and how it is working in the State of Oregon, in the special election held in 1996 where the principal candidates were myself and our colleague, Senator Smith, we had almost two-thirds of all eligible voters participate in that election. The level of participation was three times as high as that held in the previous special election for a Senate seat. We in effect broke all the records for participation in a Senate special election. As I stated earlier, our colleague, Senator Smith, to his credit, when pressed on the subject, said that there was no evidence of voter fraud that he in any way believed affected the election. What we have in the State of Oregon is tremendous benefit in terms of voter participation. The level of participation is three times as high as that seen in the previous Senate special election that certified new Senators in this body with my colleague Senator Smith--the person who might well have expressed concerns and did not state any whatever at the time, or since. My sense is that the distinguished Senator from Missouri is basically now saying he is against mail-in voting as well. He has said he is following the constitutionality of various issues relating to mail-in voting, and I think this raises again that there is a lot being presented to the Senate other than deterring fraud. I am certainly interested in working with our colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Bond, in particular, on this issue because I think we are in a very difficult position, given the last hour and a half of debate. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky has essentially announced if our side prevails, if the amendment prevails and the photo ID is struck, he will in effect have to take to the floor for a considerable length of time, and that will obstruct our ability to go forward. I certainly do not want to respond in kind. I have passed on that effort up to this point. I was not party to the negotiations that took place in committee. I can tell the President and our colleagues I very much wanted to put a hold on this bill and would have come to the floor and publicly announced that hold in line with the procedural reforms that Senator Grassley and I have advocated, stipulating that all holds ought to be public, but I didn't do it in deference to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, who made it clear he would work with me and others to try to resolve this issue. So there has been a lot of good faith on this side of the aisle. I would offer up the idea, even at this late hour, that rather than having this sort of mutual assured destruction, where everybody takes down everybody else's work product--and there is so much that can be agreed upon--I think we ought to have another round of negotiations. As one Senator who did not get to participate in the first round, I am anxious to meet our colleagues halfway. For example, if our colleagues are willing to talk about getting rid of the photo ID, which I and others believe is so onerous for seniors, minorities, and others, I think we ought to be looking at ways to figure out how to put the voter registration requirement into effect in 2002. If we are going to be tough on fraud, let's be tough now rather than waiting to get so far down the road. I know it is difficult to do, but I think those kinds of ideas would provide an opportunity for at least some further discussion in an effort to try to work this out. I know there have been months and months of negotiation in good faith in the committee. But this Senator, who has a State where vote by mail has worked, a State that has empowered so many through vote by mail, I didn't participate in any of those negotiations. On top of that, I probably, without thinking about Senators Dodd and McConnell, I probably would have put a hold on this bill until this issue had been resolved because of my concern for the State. I am anxious to meet my colleagues halfway in an effort to resolve this issue. But I think at the end of the day we have to figure out ways to make it easier to vote, easier to participate in the political process, as we deter fraud. The fact is, this is going to make it tougher to vote. The hour is very late. I cannot believe the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator McConnell, are all that wild about staying here until the wee hours trying to figure out another way to deter fraud without having this photo ID requirement. But I want to make that offer. This is so important. There is so much good work that has been done on this issue. Let us try to find common ground on the issue of deterring fraud--that is something both Democrats and Republicans feel strongly about--rather than taking this bill down, which is where we appear to be headed tonight. I would like to participate in the negotiations. I have made it clear I wish I had the opportunity as a member of the committee to do so. This basically is my first opportunity to have a chance to formally participate in the discussion. I would like to look at ways to deter fraud aggressively. If we are serious about it, we should not be waiting until 2004, we should be trying to do it now. We should be trying to do it for this upcoming election. I think it is just one of several ideas that we might possibly, even at this late hour, figure out a way to come together on and make sure we are united in terms of fighting fraud, not going forward with something which is going to disenfranchise so many voters, which I believe is the end result of photo ID. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, for myself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Smith of Oregon, the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2002. The groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest continues to face daunting challenges as a result of the groundfish fishery disaster, resulting in a more than 40-percent drop in the income of Oregon fishers since 1995. To assist in rebuilding healthy groundfish stocks, my goal remains to reduce overcapitalization in the groundfish fishery. We want to get the right number of fishers out there, at the right time, catching the right number of fish. This legislation supports this effort by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the transition for groundfish fishers away from fishing. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, was created by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended in 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177. CCF has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. The program has been a success; however, the CCF's usefulness has not kept up with the times, and today the CCF is exacerbating the problems facing U.S. fisheries, including the West Coast groundfish fishery. CCF works like an Individual Retirement Account, IRA, in that deposits to the fund earn interest and are deducted from the fishermen's taxable income. But unlike IRAs, there is no limit on contributions to the CCF; so fishers are able to accumulate funds quickly. In Oregon, the amounts in the accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. The problem my legislation will address is that fishers lose up to 70 percent of their funds in taxes and penalties if they withdraw funds from the CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels. Because of the environmental problems plaguing commercial fishing, as well as the overcapitalization of the fishing fleet, fishermen who want to opt out of fishing are penalized for doing so. This bill takes a significant step towards helping fishermen and making the West Coast groundfish fishery and the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other types of retirement accounts, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation, and I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, for myself, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Smith of Oregon, the Capital Construction Fund Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2002. The groundfish fishery in Oregon and adjoining States in the Pacific Northwest continues to face daunting challenges as a result of the groundfish fishery disaster, resulting in a more than 40-percent drop in the income of Oregon fishers since 1995. To assist in rebuilding healthy groundfish stocks, my goal remains to reduce overcapitalization in the groundfish fishery. We want to get the right number of fishers out there, at the right time, catching the right number of fish. This legislation supports this effort by reforming the Capital Construction Fund in a way that will ease the transition for groundfish fishers away from fishing. The Capital Construction Fund, CCF, was created by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended in 1969, 46 U.S.C. 1177. CCF has been a way for fishers to accumulate funds, free from taxes, for the purpose of buying or refitting fishing vessels. The program has been a success; however, the CCF's usefulness has not kept up with the times, and today the CCF is exacerbating the problems facing U.S. fisheries, including the West Coast groundfish fishery. CCF works like an Individual Retirement Account, IRA, in that deposits to the fund earn interest and are deducted from the fishermen's taxable income. But unlike IRAs, there is no limit on contributions to the CCF; so fishers are able to accumulate funds quickly. In Oregon, the amounts in the accounts range from $10,000 to over $200,000. The problem my legislation will address is that fishers lose up to 70 percent of their funds in taxes and penalties if they withdraw funds from the CCF for purposes other than buying new vessels or upgrading current vessels. Because of the environmental problems plaguing commercial fishing, as well as the overcapitalization of the fishing fleet, fishermen who want to opt out of fishing are penalized for doing so. This bill takes a significant step towards helping fishermen and making the West Coast groundfish fishery and the commercial fishing industry sustainable by amending the CCF to allow non-fishing uses of investments. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently in the CCF to be rolled over into an IRA or other types of retirement accounts, or to be used for the payment of an industry fee authorized by the fishery capacity reduction program, without adverse tax consequences to the account holders. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation, and I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution calling for the creation of ``National Importance of Health Care Coverage Month'' to call attention to the need for information about health care coverage options. I am joined in this effort by Senator Collins of Maine. A person's physical and mental well-being are fundamental to his or her ability to learn, to work, and to contribute to our society. For healthy communities, the health of our citizens is vital. It is a fact that people who have health insurance have better health; forty-four million Americans, however, do not enjoy the protection of health care coverage. This resolution calls for the promotion of a multifaceted educational effort about the importance of health care coverage; to increase awareness of the many health care coverage options already available; and to inform those who are eligible for public insurance programs on ways to access those programs. This resolution alone will not provide insurance to the millions of Americans who need it. However, it will draw much-needed attention to an issue that touches every citizen in every state.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman again for answer and commend him for his leadership on this important issue.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator for his clarification. I also ask him whether under his legislation, the Coast Guard would have authority to oversee dangerous cargoes transported along the Columbia/Snake River system as well as cargoes in port?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee in a colloquy on very important legislation he has sponsored--the Port and Maritime Security Act of 2001. This legislation, which I am pleased to have cosponsored, would establish new Federal safeguards for the security of our ports and maritime commerce. I would appreciate the chairman clarifying whether the intent of this legislation is to cover not only the security of ports but also inland waterways such as the Columbia-Snake River system. This is an important issue for the Pacific Northwest region because dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are not only critical for maritime transportation in our region but also a major source of our region's energy. Barges pass through the locks on these dams every day carrying gasoline and other explosive cargoes that could disrupt our waterways or energy production and even put residents downstream at risk of flooding if these cargoes exploded while in transit through one of the navigation locks. So I would ask my Chairman whether the authority provided to the Coast Guard and S. 1214 includes evaluating not just security for ports but also inland waterways like the Columbia/Snake River system?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. If the chairman will yield, I will take 5 minutes and yield my time to Senator Brownback.