Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Hospice Improvement Program Act, which is supported by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. The purpose of this bill is to provide for at least three demonstration projects within Medicare to improve the delivery of the hospice benefit to seniors. This legislation would allow us to find new ways to: (1) Allow people to enroll in hospice even though they may want to continue trying curative treatment for a limited time; (2) modify the requirements to decrease the strain on rural hospice providers; and (3) revise reimbursement rates to more adequately cover comfort care. In addition this bill would provide a grant program to help defray the costs of providing education of the public, the medical community and patients about hospice care. The Medicare hospice benefit has not been revised since it was first created nearly two decades ago. Too often patients and their families are unaware of the Medicare hospice benefit or they seek hospice care too late to get the full benefit of hospice services. This legislation is important because it would help us find ways to assure that the Medicare hospice benefit is better integrated into medical care, as well as improve patient access to the pain and symptom management, counseling, and other comfort care services provided by hospice.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. It certainly is. I believe it is imperative that, since these funds are allocated to the State of Oregon, they be spent for on- the-ground activities within Oregon. These funds will be an important component of the near-term solutions that the Oregon delegation is trying to put together, literally as we speak, in order to assure more stability in the operation of the Federal Klamath Project next spring.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Chairman Hollings, for accepting the amendment I sponsored to provide funding to aid Oregon groundfish fishers and their families. I also want to thank Chairman Hollings for providing this opportunity to clarify, for the record, how the money provided by this amendment should be spent. This amendment provides $2,000,000 in additional National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funds for Cooperative Research on West Coast groundfish. It also provides $3,000,000 in additional NOAA funds for emergency assistance for the Oregon groundfish fishers suffering from the groundfish fishery disaster resulting in more than 40 percent drop in income since 1995. The $2,000,000 for cooperative research surveys will be used by the National Marine Fisheries Service to put currently out-of-work groundfish fishing vessels and their owners to work doing annual groundfish data collections. In Oregon, and along with the West Coast, the National Marine Fisheries Service sets harvest regulations regarding 83 species of groundfish but collects data on only 16 species. They do so every three years instead of annually, as they do in many other fisheries. This funding for annual surveys means jobs for displaced fishers and reliable economical and educated labor for an agency that claims it can't do its work because it doesn't have enough money or manpower. It also means better fisheries data, which should yield better fisheries management and benefit the environment and local fishers. The $3,000,000 for economic assistance is provided for fishers impacted by the loss of the August court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council sued NMFS and won because NMFS used 15-year- old data to set groundfish harvest levels. Allowable harvests have been cut by an average of 64 percent over the past five years, and for some species it has been cut by 90 percent. This court order will result in further catch reductions. These folks are on the ropes; if they can't fish, they can't pay their bills. They need some help while they figure out what to do next as almost 3,000 of them try to transition into other lines of work. This assistance money should be used for single, lump sum payments to vessel owners who are suffering from these financial losses. The precedent for this type of payment can be found in the Hawaii longline fishery where fishers received $3,000,000 of emergency assistance through the Secretary of Commerce in FY 2001 after the courts shut down their swordfish and tuna fisheries.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Hospice Improvement Program Act, which is supported by the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. The purpose of this bill is to provide for at least three demonstration projects within Medicare to improve the delivery of the hospice benefit to seniors. This legislation would allow us to find new ways to: (1) Allow people to enroll in hospice even though they may want to continue trying curative treatment for a limited time; (2) modify the requirements to decrease the strain on rural hospice providers; and (3) revise reimbursement rates to more adequately cover comfort care. In addition this bill would provide a grant program to help defray the costs of providing education of the public, the medical community and patients about hospice care. The Medicare hospice benefit has not been revised since it was first created nearly two decades ago. Too often patients and their families are unaware of the Medicare hospice benefit or they seek hospice care too late to get the full benefit of hospice services. This legislation is important because it would help us find ways to assure that the Medicare hospice benefit is better integrated into medical care, as well as improve patient access to the pain and symptom management, counseling, and other comfort care services provided by hospice.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, on Tuesday morning this Nation witnessed an attempt to pitch into darkness the light of American liberty. It was nothing less than an offensive against the freedom our Nation represents. It was nothing less than pure evil that cast a shadow over our country darker than the smoke from any explosion. Yesterday, fanatics challenged our Nation to war, striking at civilians and service members alike. Today the Senate is making it clear that we will not bow to this brutality. We believe passionately in our country in due process, in the rule of law. But the effort to find justice cannot be allowed to degenerate into the all-too-frequent endless debate. America must act decisively. Families across this country are in their darkest hour right now. At the moment, not all of the victims' names are known out of the thousands believed lost in the tragedy. In the coming days, they are going to become familiar to us, and their lives and legacies will be shared with the world. But we already know them. These victims are husbands and wives, daughters and sons, brother and sisters to every American. We honor the memory of those whom we have lost, but we also make it clear today that we will not allow this Nation to be sapped by terror. America is not going to be drained by devilish acts of rage. The light of hope is burning across this country. The voice of a New York firefighter who says he will not stop searching until the last stone is turned is a voice of hope. The courage of the Federal employees who returned to work today across the country is a courage ground in hope. Hope shines in the people willing to wait for hours to help, as we saw yesterday when they donated blood. It shines in the hearts of those who are praying today in churches and synagogues and mosques across the country. Here is my bottom line, Mr. President: The light that shines in America is going to be relentless when it is turned on those who have declared themselves our enemies. The dark forces that perpetrated these acts ought to make sure today that they are in their hiding places because we are going to come after them. The blinding beam of our determination and the long arm of the United States of America is going to expose them and extract justice. Our entire Congress stands united behind the President of the United States and against our enemies and against those who would shelter them. Our whole Nation stands together with a very clear intention: To endure. Our enemies should know the entire free and democratic world stands unmoved in its dedication to liberty for all. We speak with one voice, and we will move in concert to protect principles that we hold dear. The flame of democracy is going to be fanned even brighter. We will not just carry the torch, but we are going to make sure that standard is held higher than ever before. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I draw the Senate's attention to National Assisted Living Week. The National Center for Assisted Living is sponsoring National Assisted Living Week this week to highlight the significance of this service and the hope that it can provide seniors. Assisted living is a long term care alternative for seniors who need more assistance than is available in retirement communities, but do not require the heavy medical and nursing care provided by nursing facilities. Approximately one million of our Nation's seniors have chosen the option of assisted living in this country. This demonstrates a tremendous desire by seniors and their families to have the kind of assistance that they need in bathing, taking medications or other activities of daily living in a setting that truly becomes their home. This year's theme of National Assisted Living Week is ``Sharing the Wisdom of Generations,'' and it is intended to recognize the value of sharing insights and experiences between assisted living residents, their families, volunteers and assisted living staff. I think that it is appropriate because it highlights the variety of options assisted living can provide to meet different needs of patients. Oregon has led our Nation in the concept of assisted living. My State spends more State health dollars to provide assisted living services than any other in our Nation. Assisted living has taken different directions in different States, and I believe offering these choices for consumers is important to provide security, dignity and independence for seniors. Assisted living will become even more important for seniors and their families as our nation experiences the demographic tsunami of aging baby boomers. It is 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 that they need.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Harkin, for this opportunity to speak on the drought funding and legislative needs for the Klamath Basin in southern Oregon. I understand that the bill currently being considered, the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001, is primarily a bill to provide money for farmers suffering market loss this year. A market loss, as I understand it, happens when a farmer receives less money for his crop than he spent to produce it. But, due to drought, my constituents were unable to plant their crops.

Mr. WYDEN. In addition, there are other solutions for the Klamath Basin, such as, but not limited to, water conservation, wetlands restoration and irrigation system updates that will have to be considered. These may require legislative action. May I count on you to help me craft appropriate language that will be acceptable in the upcoming Farm Bill that will begin to address the long term solutions needed in the Klamath Basin?

Mr. WYDEN. In the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2001 Congress provided $20,000,000 in emergency money for farmer families in the Klamath. This amount was designed only to keep these farms afloat until further monetary assistance could be found or until the drought ended. According to the Klamath Basin Water Users Association, this drought will cost the Klamath Basin agricultural community at least $200 million above the $20 million provided already. In 2000, the revenue for agriculture in the Klamath Basin, according to the USDA Farm Service Agency, was $132 million. The projected income for 2001 is only $28 million. There is a difference of $104 million in lost revenues alone. That figure does not include the increased costs my constituents incurred to get through the drought with their farms intact, such as well augmentation and cover crop planting to protect topsoil from erosion. May I count on the consideration of the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and a member of the Agriculture Appropriation Subcommittee, as I pursue additional funding for the Klamath Basin farmers at the first possible opportunity?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate that response, and I heartily agree. If I could just briefly sum up my point here, it is that if the FTC decides to investigate airline practices--which it can already do under current law--I believe it could do an important service. And I wouldn't want lack of cooperation from the Department of Transportation to stand in the way. I thank my friend from Washington for her attention. approach lighting system improvement

Mr. WYDEN. I would like to take a moment to talk about a transportation issue that is very much on the mind of many Americans as we head into the busy summer travel season. That issue is potentially unfair and deceptive practices in the airline industry. My good friend and Pacific Northwest colleague, Senator Murray, has heard me talk about this before, in the context of pushing for passenger rights legislation. But today, I would like to talk briefly about a small step the government could take without enacting any new legislation. It wouldn't solve all the problems, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator, both for this opportunity and for all her hard work and leadership in crafting an excellent Transportation appropriations bill. The bill will do a great deal for all types of transportation in this country, including aviation. She has served the public well, as she has done throughout her service here in Congress. But as the Senator knows, airline travelers are frustrated. In the last five years, delays, cancellations, and consumer complaints have all risen dramatically. Earlier this year, the DOT inspector general reported that ``the aviation system is not working well.'' Part of the problem is insufficient capacity. That is why I support efforts to increase capacity by building more runways and improving air traffic control. It is also why Senator Murray's efforts on the aviation portions of this year's are so appreciated. At the same time, part of the problem is that there isn't enough competition. Airlines too often treat consumers in ways that would not be tolerated for long in other industries--and the airlines get away with it because passengers have limited choices for air travel. The Department of Transportation is charged with protecting consumers against airlines that engage in ``unfair and deceptive'' practices. But the truth is, the Department of Transportation is not primarily a consumer protection agency. It has limited resources for this task, and limited experience with ``unfair and deceptive'' practice enforcement. The agency with the most expertise in this area is the Federal Trade Commission. Protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive practices is the FTC's bread and butter. Under existing law, the FTC cannot take enforcement actions against airlines. And I am not proposing to change that. However, while the FTC has no enforcement authority over airlines, nothing prevents it from studying and reporting on unfair practices in the airline industry. I believe the FTC could do a real service to the flying public by providing some much needed expert analysis of arguably unfair practices in the airline industry. For example, I think it would be very illuminating for the FTC to take a look at whether airlines tend to cancel flights simply because they are not sufficiently full. A movie theater doesn't cancel the 3:00 matinee just because only a handful of people show up. But does this happen in the airline industry? The FTC, with its strong economic and investigatory staff, would be in an excellent position to get to the bottom of this issue. Let me be clear. I am not in a position to tell the FTC what to do. And I am not proposing to impose new requirements on them through legislation. I am simply saying that if the FTC chose to look into this, I think its conclusions would carry a lot of weight. In my opinion, the FTC's involvement here, on a purely investigatory basis, could make an important contribution to our understanding of what goes on in the airline industry. I think there is that potential. To do any really serious analysis, the FTC would need cooperation from the Department of Transportation for important data and statistics. Clearly, the sharing of data would be more efficient and cost effective than having the FTC try to duplicate all the extensive data gathering that the Department of Transportation has already done. My fear is that everything could get bogged down in institutional jealousies and jurisdictional squabbles. If the Department of Transportation chose not to cooperate, the FTC's effort would be slowed tremendously or even stalled entirely. The good news is, I don't see any legitimate reason why the Department of Transportation shouldn't cooperate. As chair of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, is the Senator aware of anything in this year's funding bill or in any other law governing the Department that would prevent it from cooperating, in the event that FTC chose to pursue one or more airline-related investigations?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse being built in downtown Eugene, OR after one of Oregon's greatest heroes, my friend and mentor, Senator Wayne Morse. Naming the Eugene courthouse in the city that Wayne Morse loved and called home would be an appropriate way to honor the independence and integrity of our former Senate colleague. I find it especially fitting to be here today to honor one of the Senate's great independents. Without going into too much detail of the last few months of the Senate's history, the act of moving one's seat on the Senate floor is not a new concept, and Wayne Morse may have done it most famously. In January 1953, Senator Morse walked into this very Chamber carrying a folding chair that he would place in the center of the aisle, thereby removing himself from either major party as an Independent. Again in 1956, he moved his chair to become a Democrat. He was subsequently overwhelmingly re-elected by the voters of Oregon. The independence displayed by Senator Morse throughout his 24-year service in the Senate was always rewarded by Oregonians who showed their continuing faith in his ability to truly represent their interests, no matter their party label. It would benefit us all to follow the principles Wayne Morse lived by in politics today. Senator Morse would have had little sympathy for the world of the sound byte. Wayne Morse did not just talk; he worked on the issues that our citizens care about most: education; resources; health care; and justice for all. To paraphrase an old saying, he was ``unbought and unbossed.'' He, instead, set the bar for integrity and truly embodied the Oregon spirit. I can't imagine a better tribute to Senator Morse's independence and integrity than to name a United States courthouse to honor his legacy. Senator Morse never forgot where he came from. He could never wait to return to his house in Eugene, at 595 Crest Drive, an address I remember well because I worked as a campaign aide for two of his Senate Campaigns. It was during this time that he got me interested in working with the elderly and started me in public service, which ultimately led me here to the Senate floor. I was given the high honor of being elected to serve in the Senate seat he had held more than 30 years after he was last reelected by the people of Oregon. Known as the ``Tiger of the Senate'' for his eloquently outspoken and vigorously independent views, Senator Morse worked diligently on the behalf of the American family. He pushed the Senate to improve education and create a better future for American children by passing the New Frontier and Great Society bills, supporting federal aid to public schools and universities, and implementing scholarship programs for low-income students. It is, therefore, only right that the Federal courthouse that we will build in Eugene, OR be named after Senator Morse. This courthouse will represent his respect for the law, his love for that city, and the future he envisaged for the people of his home State. Naming this courthouse after Senator Wayne Morse will promote and honor the legacy of Oregon's illustrious, maverick leader. I am especially pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing this bipartisan legislation to designate the new Eugene Federal courthouse as the Wayne Lyman Morse Federal Courthouse. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to name the Federal courthouse being built in downtown Eugene, OR after one of Oregon's greatest heroes, my friend and mentor, Senator Wayne Morse. Naming the Eugene courthouse in the city that Wayne Morse loved and called home would be an appropriate way to honor the independence and integrity of our former Senate colleague. I find it especially fitting to be here today to honor one of the Senate's great independents. Without going into too much detail of the last few months of the Senate's history, the act of moving one's seat on the Senate floor is not a new concept, and Wayne Morse may have done it most famously. In January 1953, Senator Morse walked into this very Chamber carrying a folding chair that he would place in the center of the aisle, thereby removing himself from either major party as an Independent. Again in 1956, he moved his chair to become a Democrat. He was subsequently overwhelmingly re-elected by the voters of Oregon. The independence displayed by Senator Morse throughout his 24-year service in the Senate was always rewarded by Oregonians who showed their continuing faith in his ability to truly represent their interests, no matter their party label. It would benefit us all to follow the principles Wayne Morse lived by in politics today. Senator Morse would have had little sympathy for the world of the sound byte. Wayne Morse did not just talk; he worked on the issues that our citizens care about most: education; resources; health care; and justice for all. To paraphrase an old saying, he was ``unbought and unbossed.'' He, instead, set the bar for integrity and truly embodied the Oregon spirit. I can't imagine a better tribute to Senator Morse's independence and integrity than to name a United States courthouse to honor his legacy. Senator Morse never forgot where he came from. He could never wait to return to his house in Eugene, at 595 Crest Drive, an address I remember well because I worked as a campaign aide for two of his Senate Campaigns. It was during this time that he got me interested in working with the elderly and started me in public service, which ultimately led me here to the Senate floor. I was given the high honor of being elected to serve in the Senate seat he had held more than 30 years after he was last reelected by the people of Oregon. Known as the ``Tiger of the Senate'' for his eloquently outspoken and vigorously independent views, Senator Morse worked diligently on the behalf of the American family. He pushed the Senate to improve education and create a better future for American children by passing the New Frontier and Great Society bills, supporting federal aid to public schools and universities, and implementing scholarship programs for low-income students. It is, therefore, only right that the Federal courthouse that we will build in Eugene, OR be named after Senator Morse. This courthouse will represent his respect for the law, his love for that city, and the future he envisaged for the people of his home State. Naming this courthouse after Senator Wayne Morse will promote and honor the legacy of Oregon's illustrious, maverick leader. I am especially pleased to be joined by my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing this bipartisan legislation to designate the new Eugene Federal courthouse as the Wayne Lyman Morse Federal Courthouse. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Brownback and I are introducing legislation that uses a simple, scientifically sound and entirely voluntary approach to combat global warming. It's not regulatory, and it's not revolutionary, except for the fact that this approach could account for and solve up to 50 percent of the United States' atmospheric carbon problem. The Carbon Sequestration and Reporting Act will expand the Nation's forested lands, protect watersheds, conserve agricultural lands and put forests and farms on the frontlines in the battle against global warming. The legislation is entirely voluntary and incentive-based. It makes new resources available to private landowners through State-operated revolving loan programs and USDA conservation programs to provide assistance for tree planting, other forest management actions, and soil conservation for the purposes of carbon sequestration. Both of these programs will lead to better water quality, less runoff pollution, better wildlife habitat and an additional revenue source for farmers and forest land owners. Thirty-eight industrialized countries account for one-half of the carbon released into the atmosphere. The U.S., all alone, accounts for one-quarter of the total carbon released into the atmosphere. This country cannot afford to be a bystander on the climate change issue, and yet two days ago the headlines read: ``Climate Agreement Leaves U.S. Out in the Cold;'' ``Isolated on Global Warming;'' ``178 Nations Reach Climate Accord; U.S. Only Looks On.'' I am convinced that it is possible to put together a bipartisan alternative to inaction. I started that process with the Forest Resources for the Environment and Economy Act. Today, I continue that process with Senator Brownback as we introduce The Carbon Sequestration and Reporting Act. We cannot afford to sit out this debate as it goes on around us. It costs between $2 and $20 per ton to store carbon in trees and soil but alternative strategies such as emissions reductions can cost up to $100 per ton. Sequestering carbon in forests and soil is a scientifically sound and cost-effective strategy that can reduce carbon dioxide levels by up to 50 percent. My approach has been to use trees for carbon sequestration; Senator Brownback's approach has been to sequester carbon in agricultural soil. Our legislation joins the best of both these approaches. I am not saying that carbon sequestration should be the only tool in our toolbox. We need all the tools available to address the enormous issue of global climate change. But we believe this approach, this bill, will provide a jump start to a stalled political process. Carbon sequestration is a technology that can begin working right now, today, to reduce the negative effects of climate change. Investing in healthy forests today is an investment in the well-being of our planet for decades to come. In the Pacific Northwest, forests are more than critical environmental resources, they are also a cornerstone of our economy. The same is true for agriculture. Last year, in Oregon alone, agriculture accounted for over $3 billion in trade and business revenues. Investing in improved land management and conservation to offset greenhouse gases is a win for the environment, a win for agriculture and a win for local economies. According to the Pacific Forest Trust, our forest lands in the United States are only storing one-quarter of the carbon they can ultimately store. Just tapping a portion of this potential by expanding and increasing the productivity of the Nation's 737 million acres of forests is an important part of a win-win strategy to slow global warming. The forestry component of this bill works through a revolving loan fund for private, non-industrial landowners to be used to plant trees for carbon sequestration and conservation purposes. The forestry loans are not limited by time, but can be forgiven if the landowner decides to institute a permanent easement on his or her land for the purposes of conservation and carbon sequestration. This bill also takes an important first step toward sequestering greenhouse gases on Federal lands: it directs the Forest Service to report to Congress on options to increase carbon storage in our national forests. The agriculture portion of the bill will encourage landowners to offer the best plans detailing practices they would be willing to undertake to store additional carbon in the soil. The program is limited to 5 million acres, and is not a set aside. Rather, this bill encourages conservation practices like no-till, buffer strips and biomass production, to name a few, which are known to enhance soils' ability to store carbon. Using funding similar to current CRP payments, the agricultural contracts under this bill would be for a minimum of 10 years and USDA would be required--in conjunction with other agencies-- to finalize criteria for measuring the carbon-storing ability of various conservation practices. We know these types of approaches work because of the leadership of our home states in carbon sequestration practice and research: Oregon for forestry and agriculture and Kansas for agriculture. The objectives of this bill will be greatly aided by institutions like Oregon State University and Kansas State University, who are already conducting significant research on various carbon-storing practices. This bill also makes important changes to the Energy Policy Act of 1992: it would strengthen the voluntary accounting and verification of greenhouse gas reductions from forestry and agricultural activities. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to develop new guidelines on accurate and cost-effective methods to account for and report real and credible greenhouse gas reductions. These guidelines are absolutely necessary because without them we could be doing all the environmental good in the world, but we have no record of it and, therefore, no concept of the progress we would have made. The guidelines will be developed with the input of a new Advisory Council representing agriculture, industry, foresters, States, and environmental groups. As in the last Congress, the forestry portion of the bill will pay for itself by using money that polluters pay when they are caught violating the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act as there are currently no guarantees that these penalties, which revert to the General Fund, are used to improve our environment, but our bill would put the penalties toward this goal. We would use these fines to expand our forests, protect streams and rivers and help remove greenhouse gases from the air. The agricultural portion of this bill will be paid for by conservation appropriations to the USDA. This bill is about taking advantage of a clear win-win opportunity. It's a win for the global environment. It's a win for sustainable forestry. It's a win for local water protection. And it's a win for rural communities. For these reasons, the forestry portion of this bill has already received positive reactions from timber companies and environmental organizations alike, including the National Association of State Foresters and the Society of American Foresters, American Forest and Paper Association, American Forests, Environmental Defense, Governor John A. Kitzhaber of Oregon, PacifiCorp, The Nature Conservancy, and The Pacific Forest Trust. The agricultural portion of this bill has received positive reactions from many of these same groups. I look forward to pursuing this common-sense step toward protecting the environment and supporting our forest workers and agricultural interests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the Carbon Sequestration and Reporting Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Brownback and I are introducing legislation that uses a simple, scientifically sound and entirely voluntary approach to combat global warming. It's not regulatory, and it's not revolutionary, except for the fact that this approach could account for and solve up to 50 percent of the United States' atmospheric carbon problem. The Carbon Sequestration and Reporting Act will expand the Nation's forested lands, protect watersheds, conserve agricultural lands and put forests and farms on the frontlines in the battle against global warming. The legislation is entirely voluntary and incentive-based. It makes new resources available to private landowners through State-operated revolving loan programs and USDA conservation programs to provide assistance for tree planting, other forest management actions, and soil conservation for the purposes of carbon sequestration. Both of these programs will lead to better water quality, less runoff pollution, better wildlife habitat and an additional revenue source for farmers and forest land owners. Thirty-eight industrialized countries account for one-half of the carbon released into the atmosphere. The U.S., all alone, accounts for one-quarter of the total carbon released into the atmosphere. This country cannot afford to be a bystander on the climate change issue, and yet two days ago the headlines read: ``Climate Agreement Leaves U.S. Out in the Cold;'' ``Isolated on Global Warming;'' ``178 Nations Reach Climate Accord; U.S. Only Looks On.'' I am convinced that it is possible to put together a bipartisan alternative to inaction. I started that process with the Forest Resources for the Environment and Economy Act. Today, I continue that process with Senator Brownback as we introduce The Carbon Sequestration and Reporting Act. We cannot afford to sit out this debate as it goes on around us. It costs between $2 and $20 per ton to store carbon in trees and soil but alternative strategies such as emissions reductions can cost up to $100 per ton. Sequestering carbon in forests and soil is a scientifically sound and cost-effective strategy that can reduce carbon dioxide levels by up to 50 percent. My approach has been to use trees for carbon sequestration; Senator Brownback's approach has been to sequester carbon in agricultural soil. Our legislation joins the best of both these approaches. I am not saying that carbon sequestration should be the only tool in our toolbox. We need all the tools available to address the enormous issue of global climate change. But we believe this approach, this bill, will provide a jump start to a stalled political process. Carbon sequestration is a technology that can begin working right now, today, to reduce the negative effects of climate change. Investing in healthy forests today is an investment in the well-being of our planet for decades to come. In the Pacific Northwest, forests are more than critical environmental resources, they are also a cornerstone of our economy. The same is true for agriculture. Last year, in Oregon alone, agriculture accounted for over $3 billion in trade and business revenues. Investing in improved land management and conservation to offset greenhouse gases is a win for the environment, a win for agriculture and a win for local economies. According to the Pacific Forest Trust, our forest lands in the United States are only storing one-quarter of the carbon they can ultimately store. Just tapping a portion of this potential by expanding and increasing the productivity of the Nation's 737 million acres of forests is an important part of a win-win strategy to slow global warming. The forestry component of this bill works through a revolving loan fund for private, non-industrial landowners to be used to plant trees for carbon sequestration and conservation purposes. The forestry loans are not limited by time, but can be forgiven if the landowner decides to institute a permanent easement on his or her land for the purposes of conservation and carbon sequestration. This bill also takes an important first step toward sequestering greenhouse gases on Federal lands: it directs the Forest Service to report to Congress on options to increase carbon storage in our national forests. The agriculture portion of the bill will encourage landowners to offer the best plans detailing practices they would be willing to undertake to store additional carbon in the soil. The program is limited to 5 million acres, and is not a set aside. Rather, this bill encourages conservation practices like no-till, buffer strips and biomass production, to name a few, which are known to enhance soils' ability to store carbon. Using funding similar to current CRP payments, the agricultural contracts under this bill would be for a minimum of 10 years and USDA would be required--in conjunction with other agencies-- to finalize criteria for measuring the carbon-storing ability of various conservation practices. We know these types of approaches work because of the leadership of our home states in carbon sequestration practice and research: Oregon for forestry and agriculture and Kansas for agriculture. The objectives of this bill will be greatly aided by institutions like Oregon State University and Kansas State University, who are already conducting significant research on various carbon-storing practices. This bill also makes important changes to the Energy Policy Act of 1992: it would strengthen the voluntary accounting and verification of greenhouse gas reductions from forestry and agricultural activities. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to develop new guidelines on accurate and cost-effective methods to account for and report real and credible greenhouse gas reductions. These guidelines are absolutely necessary because without them we could be doing all the environmental good in the world, but we have no record of it and, therefore, no concept of the progress we would have made. The guidelines will be developed with the input of a new Advisory Council representing agriculture, industry, foresters, States, and environmental groups. As in the last Congress, the forestry portion of the bill will pay for itself by using money that polluters pay when they are caught violating the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act as there are currently no guarantees that these penalties, which revert to the General Fund, are used to improve our environment, but our bill would put the penalties toward this goal. We would use these fines to expand our forests, protect streams and rivers and help remove greenhouse gases from the air. The agricultural portion of this bill will be paid for by conservation appropriations to the USDA. This bill is about taking advantage of a clear win-win opportunity. It's a win for the global environment. It's a win for sustainable forestry. It's a win for local water protection. And it's a win for rural communities. For these reasons, the forestry portion of this bill has already received positive reactions from timber companies and environmental organizations alike, including the National Association of State Foresters and the Society of American Foresters, American Forest and Paper Association, American Forests, Environmental Defense, Governor John A. Kitzhaber of Oregon, PacifiCorp, The Nature Conservancy, and The Pacific Forest Trust. The agricultural portion of this bill has received positive reactions from many of these same groups. I look forward to pursuing this common-sense step toward protecting the environment and supporting our forest workers and agricultural interests. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the Carbon Sequestration and Reporting Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, when Americans see people in need, their first instinct is to help. It is the kind of attitude that makes our Nation great. But imagine if you had the knowledge and the tools to help someone in need--but weren't permitted to lend a hand. Health care professionals all across our country are prevented from donating their services in the free clinics that serve those most desperate for medical care, because these practitioners do not have malpractice coverage that will cover their work in volunteer clinics. Today, I urge Secretary Tommy Thompson and his Department of Health and Human Services to finish a job that Congress started 5 years ago and solve this problem once and for all. For several years now, doctors and dentists in Oregon have been calling me, saying they want to give back to their communities by volunteering in free clinics, but are not allowed to do so. I also have been contacted by an organization--Volunteers in Medicine--that operates free clinics across the country. They know of many health care providers who want to volunteer but cannot. When Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, in 1996, one small provision was included, aimed at helping health care providers who wanted to volunteer in free clinics but were concerned about malpractice claims. Section 194 of HIPAA would let free clinics apply to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to have health providers certified and given immunity from malpractice claims. This small provision could be a big help to the uninsured and those who count on free clinics for health care. The problem is, this provision of HIPAA has been overlooked and regulations for this section--detailing how the legislation should be implemented--were never written. I am sending a letter to Secretary Thompson calling on him to get those regulations written and published as soon as possible. This should not be difficult. Legislation passed in 1992, which extended the Tort Claims Act coverage to volunteers in community health centers, can serve as a model. Congress did the right thing in 1996 in recognizing this problem, but we need to finish the job. Two things need to happen now. We need those regulations published, and Congress needs to appropriate funding for the provision. This will not solve the problems of the more than 40 million Americans without health insurance, but it sure could make a big difference in making care more accessible. It could make a big difference in the lives of the many health professionals who want to give back to their communities. I again want to urge Secretary Thompson today to get these regulations published as soon as possible. For my part, I intend to stay on the job to assure his Department has funding for this provision.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time to lift the veil of secrecy around energy markets in this country. Now that electric power is being traded as a commodity, with electricity bought and sold in markets all across the country, basic information about things like transmission capability and outages must be made available to the public. This information is crucial both for the markets to function efficiently and for the public to have confidence in these markets. But, unlike other commodities, it is often difficult to get basic information about how electric power systems and markets work. Information about the supply, demand and transmission of electricity around the country is simply unavailable in many areas of the country to State regulators and the general public. The electric power industry has not made this information available, and without Congressional action, Americans will continue to be kept in the dark about information they need to make informed choices and which will enable energy markets to work in a fair way. Today, along with Senator Burns, I am introducing the Electricity Information, Disclosure, Efficiency, and Accountability Act to open up access to operating information so that the markets can operate more efficiently, which can ultimately provide lower prices for consumers. Our legislation will create a standard system to provide market participants, regulators and the public with access to key operational information about wholesale electric transmission systems and power markets. The bill requires operators of wholesale electric transmission and other bulk power systems to provide all system users with basic operating information, including all transmission line and generation facility data used to determine capacity or restraints on a transmission line and the supply and demand for electricity. Power system operators already have access to this information as part of their routine operation of bulk power systems. So there should be no additional burden on power generators to disclose information beyond what they are already providing to their system operators. In general, the bill would require operating information to be released on a real-time basis, updated hourly. This would ensure that market participants can keep current with changing conditions throughout the day that impact market decisions. This release of real- time data will also ensure there is a level playing field for all users of the transmission grid and prevent some users from gaining a competitive advantage by access to non-public information. At the same time, the bill also creates a mechanism for keeping commercially sensitive information confidential or delaying disclosure of information that could be used to manipulate markets. Our legislation gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to decide what data is considered commercially sensitive and either should not be publicly disclosed or should only be disclosed when the data is no longer commercially sensitive. In developing this legislation, we have worked with a broad range of stakeholders including market participants, regulators and consumer groups. The supporters include Enron, the largest electric power marketer in the U.S. today, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, and the Consumer Federation of America. The bill we are introducing today will lift the veil of secrecy now shrouding the operations of electric power systems around the country. It will improve access to critical information about how electric power systems and markets work while fully protecting commercially sensitive data. By improving access to information, market participants will be better informed when they make the thousands of decisions that must be made every day about how electricity is generated to customers across the country. Better access to information will enable regulators to take appropriate steps to ensure our electric power systems are reliable and that markets are functioning properly. Ultimately, by creating more efficient systems and markets, electricity customers throughout the country will be better served. I urge my colleagues to support the Electricity Information, Disclosure, Efficiency, and Accountability Act. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support written by NARUC and the Consumer Federation of America be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time to lift the veil of secrecy around energy markets in this country. Now that electric power is being traded as a commodity, with electricity bought and sold in markets all across the country, basic information about things like transmission capability and outages must be made available to the public. This information is crucial both for the markets to function efficiently and for the public to have confidence in these markets. But, unlike other commodities, it is often difficult to get basic information about how electric power systems and markets work. Information about the supply, demand and transmission of electricity around the country is simply unavailable in many areas of the country to State regulators and the general public. The electric power industry has not made this information available, and without Congressional action, Americans will continue to be kept in the dark about information they need to make informed choices and which will enable energy markets to work in a fair way. Today, along with Senator Burns, I am introducing the Electricity Information, Disclosure, Efficiency, and Accountability Act to open up access to operating information so that the markets can operate more efficiently, which can ultimately provide lower prices for consumers. Our legislation will create a standard system to provide market participants, regulators and the public with access to key operational information about wholesale electric transmission systems and power markets. The bill requires operators of wholesale electric transmission and other bulk power systems to provide all system users with basic operating information, including all transmission line and generation facility data used to determine capacity or restraints on a transmission line and the supply and demand for electricity. Power system operators already have access to this information as part of their routine operation of bulk power systems. So there should be no additional burden on power generators to disclose information beyond what they are already providing to their system operators. In general, the bill would require operating information to be released on a real-time basis, updated hourly. This would ensure that market participants can keep current with changing conditions throughout the day that impact market decisions. This release of real- time data will also ensure there is a level playing field for all users of the transmission grid and prevent some users from gaining a competitive advantage by access to non-public information. At the same time, the bill also creates a mechanism for keeping commercially sensitive information confidential or delaying disclosure of information that could be used to manipulate markets. Our legislation gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to decide what data is considered commercially sensitive and either should not be publicly disclosed or should only be disclosed when the data is no longer commercially sensitive. In developing this legislation, we have worked with a broad range of stakeholders including market participants, regulators and consumer groups. The supporters include Enron, the largest electric power marketer in the U.S. today, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, NARUC, and the Consumer Federation of America. The bill we are introducing today will lift the veil of secrecy now shrouding the operations of electric power systems around the country. It will improve access to critical information about how electric power systems and markets work while fully protecting commercially sensitive data. By improving access to information, market participants will be better informed when they make the thousands of decisions that must be made every day about how electricity is generated to customers across the country. Better access to information will enable regulators to take appropriate steps to ensure our electric power systems are reliable and that markets are functioning properly. Ultimately, by creating more efficient systems and markets, electricity customers throughout the country will be better served. I urge my colleagues to support the Electricity Information, Disclosure, Efficiency, and Accountability Act. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support written by NARUC and the Consumer Federation of America be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murray. I commend her for the excellent job she has done on this bill. This is an extremely important measure. She has done a first-rate job handling it. We appreciate it in the Pacific Northwest and across this country. I want to take a few minutes tonight to discuss the situation that the flying public is facing as they look at using our airlines and our system of aviation this summer. Unfortunately, so many Americans are going to face long and tedious hours stranded in overcrowded airports. In many instances, they are not even going to have the basic courtesy of straight information about their flights, cancellations, and important details that are so essential to them when they make their plans. It seems to me the central aviation problem today is that there are no consequences for this flagrant mistreatment of passengers. There really is no accountability. While this problem is extremely complicated, clearly demand exceeds supply in this country. We need more runways. We need better air traffic control. But you do not have to pour more concrete to start telling passengers the truth about their travel options in the United States. Again and again we find that passengers are kept in the dark. They are not told when a flight is overbooked. For example, I have no problem with the airline selling a ticket to a passenger on an overbooked flight, but I think the passenger has a right to know that flight is overbooked. The inspector general found repeatedly that the airlines would know hours ahead of time that a flight was going to be significantly delayed by 2 or 3 hours. Yet the airlines would not go out and change the departure board. It seems to me what we ought to require, in an area that is extremely complicated, is that passengers at least have a right to know what their travel options are. Senator Reid and Senator McCain and I have been working together very closely for several years now. A bill has cleared the Senate Commerce Committee under the leadership of Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain. Under normal circumstances I would offer a measure that would ensure passengers have these basic rights as they fly this summer in what proves to be a pretty exasperating travel season for millions of Americans. But, frankly, I do not like to legislate on an appropriations bill. I think Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain and Senator Reid, our bipartisan group that has worked in this area, has put together a very good bill. It has passed the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously. Suffice it to say, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee has enough headaches in handling this legislation right now as to not put yet another challenge on the bill. But I will tell you my patience with respect to this matter is growing pretty thin. Senator McCain and I introduced the first bipartisan passenger rights legislation back in 1999. The airlines then said there really was no problem. They said this was just an anecdotal situation and there really was not a problem. Then, as the evidence began to pour in that this problem was systemwide, they said the answer is a voluntary approach. Just keep the U.S. Congress out of it and everything is going to be fine. The inspector general came forward and did an analysis of the voluntary approach and saw that was not working particularly well. Then the airlines said it was the FAA's fault, the Federal Aviation Administration. The fact is, it has been a bottomless pit of excuses with respect to this question of improving passenger service in this country. Now the airlines have basically said that if passengers want any rights, they should basically go to court to try to get them. They will have a voluntary program, but if the passengers want any rights they should go out and try to find somebody in the trial bar to get interested in a lawsuit. Suffice it to say, this country needs a straightforward, enforceable package of rights to protect the passenger. I want to make it clear, I am not calling for a constitutional right to a fluffy pillow on your airplane flight or a legal right to a jumbo bag of peanuts. But I do think you ought to have a right to basic information such as when your flight is chronically delayed. One of the areas the inspector general has felt most strongly about is a situation that would require airlines to inform a prospective passenger when a flight is going to be 2 or 3 hours late and has a track record of being that late 30 or 40 percent of the time. I also think disclosing that information to the flying public would inject a bit of competition into the system because, if consumers could have that kind of information, then they might choose another flight, say, that was only late 10 percent of the time or they might choose another travel option altogether. You could begin to hold the airlines accountable. You could begin to have some consequences for this shoddy service to which the passengers are so often subjected. The passenger bill of rights is really about the public's right to know. It is about giving passengers information. I was told early on that somehow giving passengers these rights was going to jack up the bills of consumers. It seems to me it only can be a force for holding costs down because when you give passengers information about their options, that helps to make the system more competitive and serves as a force to drive prices down. I hope we will not have to wait much longer to get an enforceable set of passengers' rights in place. I do not quarrel in the least with the airlines' argument that we need more funding for runways and air traffic control and infrastructure. The airlines are absolutely right. Today, demand exceeds supply with respect to American aviation, but I will tell my colleagues and the Senate that all the concrete in the world is not going to do it if the airlines are not required to give the passengers basic information about their flight options that is now in their possession. I am continually struck how it can be that this industry, which has performed such technological miracles in so many other areas, cannot devote just a tiny bit of that talent and ingenuity to making sure that passengers are kept well informed. It seems to me it is a basic sort of proposition of industry in this country that you try to treat the customer properly, that you tell someone what their options are. But essentially aviation is one of the few industries--perhaps the only one--where you consistently can't get the product for which you contracted. If the local movie house doesn't have enough people for the 3 o'clock showing, the local movie house doesn't go out and cancel the 3 o'clock showing. It has been found again and again that is what airlines do when they don't think they have sufficient people on a particular flight. I am not going to offer the passenger bill of rights as an amendment on Senator Murray's appropriations bill, but I wanted to come to the floor and say this is an area where I think the Senate is ready to go with the good work of Senator Reid and Senator McCain, and particularly Senator Hollings, who pulled together a bipartisan bill in the Senate Commerce Committee. I think we are on our way to passing legislation that could make a real difference. Given the fact that it will take some time to get that new infrastructure which is needed in place--it is going to take time to get additional runways and improvements in air traffic control and other basic purposes--that is all the more reason to pass a passengers' rights bill now so that passengers, as we are building the additional infrastructure, can know what their travel options are and know how to plan what is best for them and their families. I again thank Senator Murray for the excellent job she has done on this bill. I see Senator Shelby and others are here as well. Senator Shelby was very involved in passing and supporting passenger rights as well. I thank him for that. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing our bipartisan legislation to provide a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Yesterday, I spoke about our proposal, The Senior Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act of 2001. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, tomorrow I intend to introduce bipartisan prescription drug legislation with the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health, Ms. Olympia Snowe of Maine. For more than 3 years, Senator Snowe and I have teamed up in an effort to address this prescription drug issue, of which the Presiding Officer is acutely aware. It is one of the most vexing and contentious of all issues. We have been trying to address it in a bipartisan fashion. Perhaps no issue in the last political campaign generated more controversy, more attack ads on both sides, and more bitterness rather than thoughtful discussion than the question of prescription drugs for seniors. The reason Senator Snowe and I are moving now with the introduction of our bipartisan legislation tomorrow is that we are hopeful that when the Senate Finance Committee takes up the prescription drug legislation issue at this month, the legislation we have put together can serve as a template, a beginning, for a bipartisan effort to address this issue. Our legislation marries what I think are the core principles that Democratic Members of this body have advocated with certain key principles that Republicans have felt very strongly about as well. I want to discuss briefly tonight how our legislation does that. The legislation that I drafted with Senator Snowe, for example, has a defined benefit, which is absolutely key for the Nation's senior citizens. The alternative is what is known as a defined contribution--a sort of a voucher which you hand an older person, or a family with sort of a wish and a hope that maybe they will get meaningful benefits. What Senator Snowe and I have done--which has been extraordinarily important to Senator Daschle, and correctly so, in my view--is to make sure that under our legislation every senior would get these defined benefits. Second, our legislation ensures that the program is inside the Medicare Program. It is a part of the Medicare Program because, as the Presiding Officer of the Senate knows, the alternative is to in effect begin the privatization of Medicare and the prescription drug benefit. It is essential that this program be an integral part of Medicare. That is something that Senator Snowe and I have felt very strongly about. The third part of the legislation ensures that older people will have bargaining power to help make prescription drugs in this country more affordable. Older people today are in effect hit by a double whammy. Prescription drugs are not covered by the Medicare Program, of course, and they haven't been since the program began in 1965. When an older person isn't able to afford prescription drugs and has no private coverage, when they go to a pharmacy--in effect that senior citizen is subsidizing the person who gets their prescription drugs through a group plan. An individual who is fortunate enough to have bargaining power because they have insurance coverage, in effect is subsidized by the older person who has no coverage at all. Our legislation ensures that older people would have an opportunity to have real bargaining power. This is key for the millions of older people who spend well over a third of their income on prescription drugs. Finally, our legislation is voluntary. We want to make sure that the message goes out far and wide that any older person who is comfortable with their prescription drug coverage today can just keep it and in no way would be required or coerced to alter the prescription drug coverage with which they are comfortable. If they have a retirement package, or in some way get this assistance, our legislation would not in any way alter what they are receiving. Having had the privilege of working with the Presiding Officer on health care legislation over the years, I am pleased that I have a chance tonight to describe our bipartisan bill with you in the Chair. I think we all understand that there is no one who has studied the health care system today--not a Democrat or a Republican--if they were redesigning Medicare, who wouldn't include a prescription drug benefit. A physician in Washington County in my home State of Oregon wrote me not long ago saying that he put a senior citizen in the hospital for 6 weeks because that person couldn't afford their medicine on an outpatient basis. Medicare Part A, of course--the hospital portion of the Medicare Program--covers prescription drugs. If the older person goes into the hospital, Medicare Part A will write out that check, no questions asked. Medicare Part B, of course, has no outpatient prescription drug benefit. What happened in Washington County, in my home State of Oregon, recently is that the Medicare Program probably paid out $50,000 or $60,000 for the costs associated with hospitalizing a patient to get prescription drug coverage rather than making this benefit available on an outpatient basis the way I and Senator Snowe and the Presiding Officer have sought to do for so many years. Very often, when I am out around the country, people come up to me. They say: Ron, can this country afford prescription drug coverage? We are going to have this demographic sunami. Are we going to be able to afford to cover all of these older people? I think what we have learned here is that very clearly this country can't afford not to cover prescription drugs. We can't afford to allow the repetition of what happened in Washington County in Oregon and across this country where so many older people could have, with modest prescription drug assistance, prevented much more serious illnesses. And I could cite one drug after another tonight. Strokes are a very important health concern for older people. The cost of caring for a person who has had a stroke can be $125,000 or $150,000. But we have many drugs available that help prevent strokes that cost $800 or $1,000 a year. So the hour is late, and I am not going to go through one example after another. But I would say, what Senator Snowe and I are trying to do is break the gridlock on this issue. I have been at it for more than 3 years now with Senator Snowe. We got a majority of the Senate, in the last Congress, to vote for funding a prescription drug program that, frankly, is much broader than what we are talking about now. Senator Snowe and I were able to get over 50 Members of the Senate to vote for a tobacco tax to cover a prescription drug program. We are not talking about that at all here. In the budget resolution we have $300 billion to start a prescription drug program. I believe a properly designed prescription drug program would cause future Congresses to make available additional funds to meet this pressing need. The challenge today is to look at some of the sensible ideas that Senator Daschle, the majority leader, has advocated, such as a defined benefit, ensuring that the program is inside Medicare, providing bargaining power for older people, and marrying the sensible ideas Senator Daschle has talked about with some of the Republican ideas that promote choice and competition. As I have said to my colleagues on other occasions, we have a precedent for doing that. One of the accomplishments of which I am proudest is to have been the sponsor, when I was in the House of Representatives, of the Medigap legislation which really drained the swamp of so many questionable private insurers selling senior citizens policies that really were not worth the paper on which they were written. I remember back in the days when I was Co-director of the Oregon Gray Panthers, we would visit seniors and they would have a shoe box full of these policies. They would have seven or eight private policies. They, in effect, were wasting money on junk that could have been used to meet their heating bills or their other health needs. We drained that swamp, and we did it through a Medigap law, by ensuring that seniors had meaningful choices and strong consumer protections. So we have an example of how you can create choice and alternatives and promote competition, and do it in the context of the Medicare Program. You do not have to go out and privatize this program that has been a lifeline for millions of older people in order to create choice and competition. You can do it within the Medicare Program, which is what I am seeking to do with the senior Senator from Maine, the ranking Republican on the Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, Ms. Olympia Snowe. Our hope is that when the Senate Finance Committee gets together this month, on a bipartisan basis, they will look at our legislation, along with the other very good bills that have been introduced. The senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, for example, has talked at length with me about this issue and has a fine bill. I think there are a variety of ways the Senate Finance Committee, under the leadership of Senator Baucus, can take these bills and bring the Finance Committee Democrats and Republicans together and break this gridlock on a vital issue. I know of few issues that are more important at this point to American families than prescription drugs. I think we all understand that with a well crafted prescription drug program, this country can take a significant step forward towards meaningful Medicare reform. I say to the Presiding Officer, the hour is late, and you have been gracious to allow me, along with the Democratic leader, this extra time. I intend to keep coming back to this Chamber again and again and again throughout this Congress to, in effect, proselytize--I use that word deliberately--with my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, for a bipartisan effort on this issue. It has dragged on too long. There has been too much partisan bickering and squabbling surrounding this issue. I would like to see just a tiny fraction of the millions of dollars that were spent on attack ads during the last political campaign on this issue spent on trying to bring Democrats and Republicans--Members of Congress across the political spectrum --together on this issue. That is what older people deserve. Every month that this issue drags on is a month where older people-- who are walking an economic tightrope, having to balance their fuel needs against their medical needs--have to worry about how they are going to pay for their essentials. The Presiding Officer understands that very well. I look forward to working with her and all of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before he leaves the floor, I want to express my thanks to the Senator from Arizona. Because of his thoughtfulness, I am able to speak now. I want him to know I very much appreciate that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to discuss my opposition to the nomination of J. Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. In my view, Mr. Griles' past record and recent statements, both public and private, indicate he is lacking the single most important quality needed for this key position; that is, the ability to bring people together despite very disparate and differing views on natural resources issues. We have learned in the West--and I see my good friend Senator Craig from Idaho. He and I, again and again, sat in hearings in the forestry subcommittee, and we have seen how difficult these natural resources issues are. I am proud we have come together on issues such as the county payments bill which the Forest Service said was the most important law in the last 30 years, and Senator Craig and I teamed up to get that law passed because we recognized how important it was to bring people together. What has troubled me about Mr. Griles' past record--and I will discuss that--and his recent statements, both public and private, is that record indicates he really isn't much interested in the kind of work that Senator Craig and I have spent many years pursuing. One of the things that struck me earlier this year was that Mr. Griles told the Washington Post, in effect, that he had changed. He said he had matured, he had learned from his past experience. When I read about these statements, I was very encouraged. I don't oppose people on philosophical grounds; I don't think that is right. I read these statements and I got the distinct impression that Mr. Griles was going to work to be more inclusive, collaborative, and more creative in looking at the difficult natural resources issues. He said he was going to be a problem solver who would try to listen to all the parties involved and try to take a balanced approach to any and all issues. Again, I was encouraged by these comments. Mr. Griles came to my office. I told him about my concerns about his past record, and given his statements I was hoping he had, in fact, changed, and if he would give me some examples. He really didn't have any that day. I said: I will ask you about this when you come for your confirmation hearing. When he came for his confirmation hearing, he was not any more forthcoming. I said after the hearing my door would still be open to him and that I hoped he would give me some examples in areas such as the Endangered Species Act that require so much cooperation, that he would come forward with some specific ideas. He has not. He has not been willing on three separate occasions to show some evidence that he would take a more collaborative, inclusive approach, and that he would be more balanced in his approach to natural resources issues. My concern is that as of now the record indicates the J. Steven Griles of the past is going to be back in action after the Senate confirms him. I will talk for a few minutes about that Jay Steven Griles' track record over 20 years. Over 20 years, again and again, he has placed the interests of powerful special interests above the public. This includes the support for environmentally unsound drilling for oil off the coast of California and looking the other way when powerful corporations were fined for breaking the environmental laws. It is one thing to try to figure out ways to ensure compliance with the environmental laws; however, it is another thing to not follow through when these powerful interests have actually been fined for violating the law. I was troubled about those past positions. I told Mr. Griles about that. It is certainly his right to hold those views. I have not made it a habit of opposing candidates with whom I differ on substantive issues. Given those past positions, given his public statements and his private statements to me that, in fact, he was going to change, it is troubling we have not seen any evidence of it. His record is important. I will give a few examples of that record. During his service with the Reagan administration, Mr. Griles is reported to have single-mindedly pushed for an oil lease sale off the coast of California, despite objections from his own Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. In 1988, he wrote a memo to the Assistant Secretary advising him to change the tone and conclusions of a Fish and Wildlife Service report citing the specific environmental damage that could be caused by a proposed northern California offshore oil lease. Mr. Griles concluded that memo by stating: The memorandum is part of the public record and could prove very damaging to this lease sale. The subsequent final report on the sale, from Fish and Wildlife, did not refer to any potential environmental harm that could result from the lease sale. Within the year, as Americans know, the Exxon Valdez disaster occurred and, by 1990, the first President Bush declared a moratorium on offshore oil leases, so this lease sale was never completed. But it is certainly troubling to me that Mr. Griles wanted Federal researchers not to report accurate conclusions but to prop up a decision, regardless of the environmental facts. This, in my view, would have been an ideal issue that Mr. Griles could have raised with me and with colleagues and said: Look, there are a variety of ways that I treat these oil sales differently now, having learned from some of the controversy in the past. Yet he was unwilling to say that or anything resembling that. He has also, as far as the public report, indicated that he has no interest in cracking down on the illegal behavior of polluters and special interests. Of course, that would be a task that he would be expected to perform in this position. Between 1984 and 1987, the House of Representatives reviewed, for example, the internal workings in the Office of Surface Mining. They found that, under his leadership, this office collected only $6.8 million of an estimated $200 million due in civil penalties for those who broke the environmental laws. Again, I have tried to single out just the areas of the record that concern me the most. There is not a Member of the Senate who is in favor of breaking the environmental laws. Yet this was an instance where there were violations and they were not followed up. I think that is troubling and, in fact, in successive years the percentage of collection of the civil penalties that were owed continued to go down. I am concerned about the past public record, but I would not be here making the statement that I am tonight if Mr. Griles had said: Look, all of us change and here are some approaches that I would take in the days ahead to ensure that we could do the kind of work that Senator Craig--I see my friend Senator Burns here as well--that the three of us have sought to do. These natural resources issues are extraordinarily difficult. The American people want what I call the win-win. They want to protect our treasures and at the same time they want to be sensitive to local economic needs. It is a lot easier said than done. But Senator Craig and Senator Burns and I have teamed up to do just that. I had been hoping that Mr. Griles would offer some specifics, given that he said he had changed, and would indicate he would want to do the kind of bipartisan work that we Westerners have done on some of these particularly contentious issues. Unfortunately, on three separate occasions, in both public and private, Mr. Griles was unwilling to back up his public statements about how he had changed, how he would take a more collaborative approach. So tonight I want to make clear I am opposed to the nomination of J. Steven Griles to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior. My questions have not been answered. My reservations about the nominee's commitment to finding common ground have not been resolved. I tell my colleagues, I do not think we can get on top of these natural resources issues without a collaborative approach. Mr. Griles has said he is in favor of it but has not offered any evidence that he will actually do it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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