Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified to reflect that the vote occur on the nominee following my remarks.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a few minutes ago the Senate voted on an Endangered Species Act amendment with special impact for farmers and rural people in my home State. I voted against the motion to table with great reluctance and wanted to take just a couple minutes to explain my vote this afternoon. I think it is dangerous to legislate biological opinions about species without the opportunity to thoughtfully review the effects of such a far-reaching amendment. I think it is just as dangerous to force our citizens in rural communities into dire circumstances when a law that has accomplished many good things contains serious administrative flaws that are producing an increasing number of bad things. It was my intent, if the Endangered Species Act amendment had not been tabled, to offer a second-degree amendment to it. My amendment would have allowed the Senate to pick up on the very generous offer made by Chairman Jeffords to try to get this job done right. My amendment would have sought to try to address the problems in the Klamath Basin in a comprehensive way, in a fashion that would have helped farmers produce water conservation and improve water quality and, at the same time, would have protected species. I think it is very clear that the challenge with the Endangered Species Act is to bring folks together. The challenge is to get everybody at the table--all of the stakeholders; farmers, environmental leaders, scientists, and others--to try to come up with ways that keep the important protections of the Endangered Species Act and, at the same time, encourage the administrative flexibility so we can have more homegrown solutions. I am absolutely convinced that the objectives of the Endangered Species Act make a lot of sense. But what you do in the Klamath Basin has to be different than what you do in the Bronx. And what you do in Detroit to protect a species is different than the challenge in Coos Bay, OR. I look forward very much to picking up on the generous offer of Chairman Jeffords to work with our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to find comprehensive solutions to this Endangered Species Act challenge. As I say, I voted against the motion to table today with great reluctance. I am very anxious to work with our colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, for a more comprehensive solution. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senate, on a hectic day, giving me a few minutes this afternoon to explain my vote. I yield back and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I sincerely thank Chairman Byrd and his staff, Galen Fountain and Chuck Kieffer, for all their hard work and consideration on this bill. I would especially like to thank the Chairman for his understanding the needs of my constituents in the Klamath Basin and thereby including these much needed payments in this bill. I would also thank Senator Stevens and his staff, Rebecca Davies, for their understanding and support. This amendment provides $20,000,000 for the farmer families in the Klamath Basin. While the Secretary has the discretion to disseminate this money as she sees fit, I am pleased that we have an understanding with the Bush administration that this money will be distributed as grants or direct payments but not as loans. The Klamath Basin stretches between southern Oregon and northern California. The water in the Basin is managed primarily by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. The management of this water has assured the continuation of a significant agricultural community in the Basin. But this growing season the Basin is home to 1,500 growers and their families whose farms are parched. It is home to three National Wildlife Refuges and fish bearing lakes and rivers that are also parched. There is not enough water to go around. I, and several colleagues, fought so hard for the $20,000,000 contained in this bill for these farmer families because this money provides our farmers the assurances they need to get through this season. It provides the Basin farmers with the safety net they need as the tightrope between agriculture and the environment is traversed. This $20,000,000 safety net is necessary to keep these folks alive while the larger natural resource issues evident in the Klamath Basin are debated and ecological balance in the Basin is pursued. There is a balance that can and should be struck and this money is, unfortunately, a necessary step on that long and arduous journey. There is a precedent for this appropriation in other USDA conservation programs. For instance, this money may be able to be used by the Secretary to purchase, under short term contracts, water easements for the sake of water conservation in the Basin. In this way, the money will get directly to the farmer much like land easement payments under the conservation Reserve Program are made directly to the farmer. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague and friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, and my colleagues and friends from California, Senators Feinstein and Boxer, in thanking the Chairman and Senator Stevens for their inclusion of this important provision in this supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fallen American hero: Deputy United States Marshal Peter P. Hillman. Deputy Hillman was tragically killed in the line of duty 1 year ago when the van he was driving was hit by a truck, killing Deputy Hillman and the three prisoners he was transporting. Deputy Hillman's defensive driving actions during that terrible incident helped save the life of a U.S. Marshals Service guard traveling with him that afternoon. The U.S. Marshals Service and Oregon experienced a great loss with the death of Deputy Hillman. His 14-year U.S. Marshals Service career began in 1986 in San Jose, California. He later transferred to the Eastern District of California in Fresno. It was there that he was given the nickname ``The Hillmanator'' for his relentless efforts in apprehending narcotics fugitives. Whether his duties entailed lending support to members of the community in the U.S. Virgin Islands after Hurricane Marilyn, apprehending fugitives during ``Operation Sunrise,'' providing security at a high-threat trial in Montana or at the Olympic Games in Atlanta, Georgia, he gave his all in everything he did. Deputy Hillman was a dedicated and courageous man with an enthusiasm for life. His name is now engraved on the Marshals Service's ``Roll Call of Honor,'' along with nearly 200 other dedicated and brave individuals who have set a standard of excellence for all United States Marshals and Deputy Marshals. Today is the anniversary of Deputy Hillman's death, so I would like to take this opportunity to express my sorrow to the family of Deputy Marshal Hillman. I know they miss him dearly, and I want them to know he has not been forgotten. I ask my colleagues to join me today in expressing gratitude to the family of Deputy U.S. Marshal Peter Hillman for his service to our country. Displaying valor in both his life and his work, Deputy Marshal Hillman is a tribute to this great nation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, pain is our Nation's silent public health crisis. Pain is often left untreated or under-treated, especially among older patients, minorities and children. Forty to 50 percent of dying patients experience moderate to severe pain at least half of the time in the last days of their lives. A Brown University study published in last month's Journal of the American Medical Association found that 40 percent of nursing home patients nationwide with acute or chronic pain are not getting treatment that brings them relief. Thousand of Americans die in pain every year, and thousands live in chronic pain. What is truly tragic for these patients is that the medical technology and know-now exist to make them more comfortable. What does not exist is a medical system that supports clinicians trying to address these issues or a system to support patients and families as they try to find help for pain. The primary goal of the Conquering Pain Act, a bipartisan bill that I am introducing today with Senators Smith, Rockefeller, and Breaux is to create a public health framework with on which effective pain management policies can be developed. Providing help to patients in pain, to their health care providers, and to others caring for those patients will ensure their access to pain management 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The widespread crisis of failing to adequately address patients in pain is made crystal clear by the fact that only one State in the Nation has ever has sanctioned a physician for the under-treatment of pain. That State is my home State of Oregon, which is now also considering the creation of a commission on pain management with the State health department. The Conquering Pain Act does not seek to tell clinicians how to practice medicine. It does not override State regulation and oversight of medicine. it does provide information to physicians and families in an effort to support them. It also seeks to find answers to the complex problems created by the interplay between State and Federal regulation of pain medications. Most importantly, the bill would create six regional Family Support Networks linking patients, families and providers to information and services to assist patients in pain. These networks would also assist clinicians who need additional information, mentoring or support to deal with the medically complex cases that patients in pain often present. It would be cruel and callous for this Congress to continue to ignore the overwhelming number of scientific studies that show patient after patient failing to get relief from pain. This legislation, which enjoys broad support with the medical and patient community, would start us down the road toward addressing in a bipartisan, positive way one of our Nation's most serious and continued health problems. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, pain is our Nation's silent public health crisis. Pain is often left untreated or under-treated, especially among older patients, minorities and children. Forty to 50 percent of dying patients experience moderate to severe pain at least half of the time in the last days of their lives. A Brown University study published in last month's Journal of the American Medical Association found that 40 percent of nursing home patients nationwide with acute or chronic pain are not getting treatment that brings them relief. Thousand of Americans die in pain every year, and thousands live in chronic pain. What is truly tragic for these patients is that the medical technology and know-now exist to make them more comfortable. What does not exist is a medical system that supports clinicians trying to address these issues or a system to support patients and families as they try to find help for pain. The primary goal of the Conquering Pain Act, a bipartisan bill that I am introducing today with Senators Smith, Rockefeller, and Breaux is to create a public health framework with on which effective pain management policies can be developed. Providing help to patients in pain, to their health care providers, and to others caring for those patients will ensure their access to pain management 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The widespread crisis of failing to adequately address patients in pain is made crystal clear by the fact that only one State in the Nation has ever has sanctioned a physician for the under-treatment of pain. That State is my home State of Oregon, which is now also considering the creation of a commission on pain management with the State health department. The Conquering Pain Act does not seek to tell clinicians how to practice medicine. It does not override State regulation and oversight of medicine. it does provide information to physicians and families in an effort to support them. It also seeks to find answers to the complex problems created by the interplay between State and Federal regulation of pain medications. Most importantly, the bill would create six regional Family Support Networks linking patients, families and providers to information and services to assist patients in pain. These networks would also assist clinicians who need additional information, mentoring or support to deal with the medically complex cases that patients in pain often present. It would be cruel and callous for this Congress to continue to ignore the overwhelming number of scientific studies that show patient after patient failing to get relief from pain. This legislation, which enjoys broad support with the medical and patient community, would start us down the road toward addressing in a bipartisan, positive way one of our Nation's most serious and continued health problems. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, let me begin by especially thanking two of our colleagues as we begin this debate about a part of this country's educational system that, unfortunately, has gotten short shrift. For the next few minutes we are going to talk about summer school, which I think is a critical time between the spring achievement tests that our youngsters take and that time in the fall when it is so critical to evaluate their performance for the upcoming school year. Suffice it to say, what the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and I would like to do is have an opportunity to supercharge those few months in an effort to beef up the test scores, particularly the test scores of math and science, for youngsters across this country. What Senator Sessions and Senator Durbin and I envision is establishing a new demonstration program that would empower States and local educational agencies to develop models for exceptionally high- quality summer academic enrichment programs that would be designed to help public school students meet those achievement requirements being required by the States in the performance standards that are being established. For me, it all came down to what Nehemiah Vaughn told me in Portland not long ago when he was going into the sixth grade. Nehemiah Vaughn told me: Summer school, Mr. Senator, is helping me to raise my grades. I think, as we look at educational reform in this country, we ought to think about what students and families are telling us. For example, in Baltimore--and we know our colleague, Senator Mikulski, has been very interested in these education issues--the Baltimore Sun had an exceptionally important article a few days ago indicating that more than 30,000 children--nearly one-third of Baltimore's public school population--had failed to meet the tough new promotion standards and were being directed to summer school. So this legislation, which Senator Sessions and I have worked on for many months, on a bipartisan basis, with Senator Durbin especially--and we are pleased to have Senator Landrieu, Senator Breaux, and Senator Mikulski as bipartisan cosponsors--is an effort to develop these model projects around the country that can be duplicated in the years ahead. We are not saying that we can spend an unlimited sum of money at this point, but we are saying that $25 million is a modest amount of money to spend each year over the next few years to set in place these demonstration projects which we believe would then be projects that could be duplicated in school districts across this country. For example, Senator Durbin has done very important work with the Chicago program which is called the Public School Summer Bridge Program. I happen to share his view that it is going to take a substantial investment in the years ahead to strengthen these summer school programs. Frankly, I would like to be able to invest a bit more in those programs now. I think it is critically important that one of those major urban school districts be part of the set of programs that are selected when these programs are evaluated by the experts in the field. So I want it understood that his contribution, in my view, is extremely important. I also note the chairman of the committee, Senator Kennedy, is with us. He has again and again and again raised these issues in this Senate Chamber. I think this country is very fortunate that someone is in this Chamber who consistently makes it impossible for the Senate to forget these priorities. I express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee as well for all of his help, and that of the staff. Finally, I will yield to my colleague from Alabama. He and I have been talking about this effort for more than a year. I have always thought that the really important work for this country can only be accomplished on a bipartisan basis. I think it is clear that when we look at the future of education, it does not get much more important than summer school. It is our hope, the hope of Senator Sessions and I, and Senator Durbin, that after we get the results of these demonstration projects-- and we see what works and what is most cost effective--we can be in this Chamber again, on a bipartisan basis, making the case to our colleagues that these are the kinds of programs that are going to allow us to use those months, those precious months between the spring achievement tests and the fall, to make sure that when young people leave in the spring they say more than: See you in September; that they say: See you in summer school, and that they and their families know the programs that truly make a difference. I yield the floor and especially thank my colleague, Senator Sessions, from Alabama who has worked with me on this for more than a year. And I also recognize the critically important work of Senator Durbin. I think when we get the results of these demonstration projects, you are going to see the bipartisan team that has advanced this demonstration project effort back in this Chamber again saying that now this country has to make a truly significant investment in summer school because these are programs that make a difference. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 405 from the submitted amendments eligible for consideration to the bill, call up amendment 450, to modify my amendment, and to send my modification to the desk.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my good friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing the Pacific Coast Commercial Fishery Preservation Act of 2001. The West Coast groundfish fishery is in crisis, and many fishermen are facing bankruptcy. This legislation will help fishermen get through the crisis, and move the fishery toward a more sustainable future. Sustainable management of this resource is long overdue and in January 2000, the Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast groundfish fishery a disaster. This bill will put the right number of fishers out there, at the right time, catching the right number of fish. Catching the right number of fish should mean using the fish that are caught. Fish that are caught in excess of a fisher's trip limit are called ``regulatory discards'' or ``overages,'' and thousands of pounds of fish are wasted every year when they are thrown overboard. This bill authorizes fishermen to retain those extra fish and donate them to charitable organizations. The right number of fishers is key to a sustainable fishery. There are currently too many fishers in the West Coast groundfish fishery to sustain the resource. This bill authorizes the Secretary to administer and implement a capacity reduction or ``buyback'' plan to ease the transition to the right number of fishers. In a survey distributed by the author of the buyback plan, 70 percent of recipients completed and returned their survey and a majority of them were interested in participating in the buyback program. A buyback plan has been developed by Oregonians, in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and this bill incorporates key elements of it. This is not a Federal handout. Half the funding will come from the industry and half from the Federal government. The industry portion will be a government-backed loan which will be repaid by the fishers who stay. The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements in California, Washington and Oregon to collect the fees that will be used to repay the industry portion of the buyback fund. Another way we seek to ease the transition away from fishing is through reform of the Capital Construction Fund. Currently, the fund allows fishers to put pre-tax funds aside for the construction of a new boat, or for upgrading their old one. It was effective in building America's fishing fleets, but in these days of dwindling stocks and fisheries disasters it is crucial that the fisheries have an alternative use for their money, such as retirement. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently trapped in the Capital Construction Fund to be rolled over into a retirement account without adverse consequences to either taxpayers or the account holders. Ultimately, sustainable fisheries are a result of government regulation and management. When federal management fails, the government has a responsibility to help fishers and their families in a timely fashion. It has taken 18 months for the recent fishery disaster funding to hit Oregon. When you are an out-of-work groundfisher, 18 months is way too long to wait. This bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to recommend legislative or administrative changes to the existing law that would enable disaster funding to reach fishers more expeditiously. This plan is supported by the West Coast Seafood Processors, the Fishermen's Marketing Association, the Pacific Federation of Fishermen, the Pacific Conservation Council, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by my good friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, in introducing the Pacific Coast Commercial Fishery Preservation Act of 2001. The West Coast groundfish fishery is in crisis, and many fishermen are facing bankruptcy. This legislation will help fishermen get through the crisis, and move the fishery toward a more sustainable future. Sustainable management of this resource is long overdue and in January 2000, the Secretary of Commerce declared the West Coast groundfish fishery a disaster. This bill will put the right number of fishers out there, at the right time, catching the right number of fish. Catching the right number of fish should mean using the fish that are caught. Fish that are caught in excess of a fisher's trip limit are called ``regulatory discards'' or ``overages,'' and thousands of pounds of fish are wasted every year when they are thrown overboard. This bill authorizes fishermen to retain those extra fish and donate them to charitable organizations. The right number of fishers is key to a sustainable fishery. There are currently too many fishers in the West Coast groundfish fishery to sustain the resource. This bill authorizes the Secretary to administer and implement a capacity reduction or ``buyback'' plan to ease the transition to the right number of fishers. In a survey distributed by the author of the buyback plan, 70 percent of recipients completed and returned their survey and a majority of them were interested in participating in the buyback program. A buyback plan has been developed by Oregonians, in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and this bill incorporates key elements of it. This is not a Federal handout. Half the funding will come from the industry and half from the Federal government. The industry portion will be a government-backed loan which will be repaid by the fishers who stay. The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements in California, Washington and Oregon to collect the fees that will be used to repay the industry portion of the buyback fund. Another way we seek to ease the transition away from fishing is through reform of the Capital Construction Fund. Currently, the fund allows fishers to put pre-tax funds aside for the construction of a new boat, or for upgrading their old one. It was effective in building America's fishing fleets, but in these days of dwindling stocks and fisheries disasters it is crucial that the fisheries have an alternative use for their money, such as retirement. This bill amends the Merchant Marine Act and the Internal Revenue Code to allow funds currently trapped in the Capital Construction Fund to be rolled over into a retirement account without adverse consequences to either taxpayers or the account holders. Ultimately, sustainable fisheries are a result of government regulation and management. When federal management fails, the government has a responsibility to help fishers and their families in a timely fashion. It has taken 18 months for the recent fishery disaster funding to hit Oregon. When you are an out-of-work groundfisher, 18 months is way too long to wait. This bill requires the Secretary of Commerce to recommend legislative or administrative changes to the existing law that would enable disaster funding to reach fishers more expeditiously. This plan is supported by the West Coast Seafood Processors, the Fishermen's Marketing Association, the Pacific Federation of Fishermen, the Pacific Conservation Council, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the people of this country always come through when there are tough problems, as long as they know everyone is pitching in and doing their fair share. That is the problem with much of what is coming out of Washington, DC, today, when it comes to this country's energy policy. Oregonians are telling me, for example, at townhall meetings that what alarms them about the energy debate in Washington, DC, is that it seems everybody is supposed to tighten their belt except for the powerful. I don't believe that passes the fairness test for most Americans. Even business leaders at home tell me the country just is not going to rally behind an energy plan that is not balanced, an energy plan that does not say: Everybody has to do their fair share. There is not a whole lot of balance in a plan that would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling now, although it will not produce any gas for at least 8 to 10 years, when our consumers are getting clobbered at the gas pump today. Where is the balance in a plan that cuts funding for renewable energy--solar, wind, and geothermal--while building as many as 1,900 new powerplants? Where is the balance in a plan that would provide large new tax breaks for the energy industry and tells consumers the answer is to spend their tax relief on misguided energy policies? With all due respect, the idea that Americans should have to use their much needed tax relief to prop up ill-conceived energy policies is the ultimate in throwing good money after bad. I want to take a few minutes to talk about where I think Congress ought to go with respect to the energy issue and what could constitute some of the core principles of an effective bipartisan energy policy. First, it is time to provide significant and real financial rewards for conservation. Everybody talks about conservation. We all know it makes sense to conserve energy. But there are very few actual financial rewards for conserving. I think it is time to put real dollars behind those who are willing to make the tough decisions with respect to conservation. For example, if it is a hardship to move your energy use from peak hours to times when demand is lower, let's reward that financially. Let's reward real-time pricing so as to take steps that are meaningful to decrease electric power shortages that are now causing price spikes and blackouts. Second, I think it is time to lift the veil of secrecy around energy markets in this country. It is clear that energy is being commoditized, but it is not possible to get real information about supply and demand and transmission, which is what is needed when energy is being bought and sold in markets all across this country. In electricity markets today, power is, in fact, being traded as a commodity, but basic information about how electric power systems and markets work is just unavailable in much of the United States. If electricity is going to be traded as a commodity, let the Congress take steps to ensure access to information so those markets can function efficiently. I intend to introduce legislation shortly to ensure that Americans in every part of this country can get access to information about transmission capability, outages, and the information that is needed to be in a position to make energy markets work in a fair way. Third, to encourage responsible power production, reward developers who demonstrate a commitment to good environmental policy. I do not think energy production and meeting this country's environmental needs ought to be mutually exclusive. There are ways to do both. I think there ought to be an effort by Congress to reward energy developers who meet tough environmental standards by moving them to the head of the line, the head of the queue for permits. This country needs new powerplants. I think there is bipartisan support for that effort. But we ought to say to power producers and power generators, when you are going to be an environmental leader, we are going to move you to the head of the regulatory queue. Fourth, we need to bring free enterprise back into the energy markets. In my home State of Oregon, four companies essentially control 70 percent of the gas that is sold at the pump. I believe if there were real competition at the gas pump, prices would come down. Competition works in Oregon and across this country. But a variety of anti- competitive practices are squeezing competition out of the oil industry. I do not think it is an accident that people of my State have lost more than 600 gasoline stations in just a few years. It is true in much of the country that three or four companies control delivery of gas at the pump. Unfortunately, the Federal Government seems to have taken the position with respect to competition that, unless you have a handful of big energy producers huddled up, say, at a steak house in a downtown hotel dividing up energy markets, there is really nothing wrong. In fact, we learned last week that even though west coast gasoline markets are being redlined--there is significant evidence that those west coast gasoline markets are being redlined--the Federal Government is not prepared, under the laws as written today, to take significant action to deal with it. Just because something is not illegal doesn't mean it is not anti- consumer and that it does not have anti-competitive ramifications. So I think it is extremely important we look now to steps that actually produce competition in the gasoline markets rather than to conclude that just because you do not have energy producers huddled up at a steak house dividing markets everything is all right. Finally, it seems to me that good science ought to be the basis of a bipartisan effort to address our energy predicament in this country. The Vice President recently stated the United States has to build 1,300 powerplants to meet projected increases in demand for energy over the next 20 years. However, scientists at the Energy Department's National Laboratories recently said that new technologies could reduce projected growth in energy demand by 20 percent to 47 percent, which could translate into as many as 600 fewer powerplants. Certainly on a bipartisan basis this Senate can agree that we cannot ignore the science. More efficient transmission lines, moving away from the old model of a central powerplant and towards cleaner energy with combustion-free fuel cell technology, is just one of the options available. When it comes to the oil and gas sector, that fuel cell technology could be making cars run cleaner and more efficiently within a few years. Instead of subsidizing just the old fossil fuel industries with an energy proposal that says, go do your thing, our energy policy could be jump-starting a variety of renewable energy technologies with real promise for the future. What I have discussed today--first, financial rewards for conservation; second, lifting the veil of secrecy around energy markets; third, creating incentives for energy developers to comply with tough environmental laws; fourth, bringing some free enterprise back into energy markets; and, fifth, looking at the science that comes out of the Energy Department itself--are five initiatives that the Senate could use on a bipartisan basis to build a sensible energy policy. I was struck at the end of last week when the President of the United States said that Americans should use their tax relief as the primary way to deal with the energy crisis in this country. I don't think Americans ought to have to use their much needed tax relief to prop up misguided energy policies. I think that is just throwing good money after bad. I think it is important--and the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Kansas, and I have home roots in a place that knows something about energy production--to create incentives for energy production in this country. I think it is possible to do it while rewarding those who are going to meet tough environmental standards. So I am hopeful that this week, as Congress focuses on energy policies and the President unveils his proposal, that we recognize this country is ready for bold and bipartisan leadership on the energy issue. This Congress can provide it. We can insist on policies that make sense for the environment and for consumers and for the energy industry, but it has to be a policy that says everybody does their fair share. It has to be a policy that says everybody has to be part of the solution and we are not just going to say to the country: You tighten your belts while the power folk get a free ride. I believe it is possible to bring together responsible leaders in industry, the environmental sector, and the consumer movement to create an energy policy that will get us beyond the very difficult months ahead and build a sound foundation for the future. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Craig and I are introducing legislation that uses a simple, scientifically sound and entirely voluntary approach to combat global warming. It's not revolutionary, and it's not regulatory. We believe growing more trees, bigger trees and healthier trees is one of the most effective ways to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and help protect the earth's climate. The Forest Resources for the environment and the Economy Act of 2001 will expand the nation's forested lands and put our forests on the frontlines in the battle against global warming. 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. In debates about forest policies, there are those who have advocated an exclusively environmental pathway, and others who have stressed an exclusively economic pathway. This bill is part of what I believe is a third pathway through the woods, a path to both stronger rural economies and healthier forests. I introduced this bill with Senator Craig in the 106th Congress. Though there have been numerous changes to the bill to address specific concerns, the underlying functions of the bill remain the same: this bill will reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and help protect our global climate for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. It will provide improved wildlife and fish habitats and protect our waterways. It will enhance our national forests by reducing water pollution within their watersheds. It will provide jobs in the forestry sector in areas that have been hard hit by declining timber harvests. And it will grow additional timber resources on underproductive private lands. The legislation does all of this through entirely voluntary, incentive-based approach. The bill makes new resources available to private landowners through state-operated revolving loan programs that provide assistance for tree planting and other forest management actions. I know that this approach works because of the leadership of my home state, Oregon. The loan program is modeled after the innovative Forest Resource Trust, which was established in Oregon in 1993, and is just one of the many ways Oregon continues to lead the nation in state actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am introducing this bill to make sure that we take advantage of these opportunities across the country and encourage more businesses to invest in the nation's forests. The bill is based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences to overcome the capital constraints that prevent non- industrial, private forest land owners from growing healthy forests. Almost 10 million landowners in the United States own 42 percent of the non-industrial, private forest land in parcels of less than 100 acres. Access to the low-interest loans provided by this bill can empower these landowners to improve their lands while providing global environmental protection. In addition to establishing the state revolving loan programs, the bill makes important changes to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to strengthen the voluntary accounting and verification of greenhouse gas reductions from forestry activities. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop new guidelines on accurate and cost-effective methods to account for and report real and credible greenhouse gas reductions. These guidelines will be developed with the input of a new Advisory Council representing industry, foresters, states, and environment groups. As I said above, numerous changes have been made to the bill since its introduction in the 106th Congress. By a process of intellectual give and take between various Congressional offices, stakeholder groups and environmental organizations, this bill has been improved to offer greater environmental protection opportunities and better science. The bill now requires that all funded projects have ``a positive impact on watersheds, fish habitats, and wildlife diversity.'' It promotes reforestion activities for species that are native to a region. Also, the bill now allows flexibility in the loan repayment requirements that encourage the longer rotation, and permanent protection, of lands reforested under this program. In addition, the new Advisory Council will have three independent scientists instead of one and the members must have an expertise in forest management; carbon storage reporting will include monitoring requirements to assure the net increase of carbon storage; and the bill allows for the incorporation of the latest scientific and observational information. Overall, this bill is a solid step forward in the long journey towards addressing global climate change. As in the last Congress, this bill will pay for itself by taking the money that polluters pay when they are caught violating the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and use it to expand our forests, protect streams and rivers and help remove greenhouse gases from the air. In fiscal year 1998, $45 million of these environmental penalties were assessed against polluters. There are currently no guarantees that these penalties, which revert to the General Fund, are used to improve our environment. This bill would make this money available as loans to small and medium landowners to cover the upfront costs of tree planting and other activities that aid in the growth of healthy, productive forests and provide better wildlife habitats. We cannot afford to play Russian roulette with our global climate. The total amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere depends, in part, on the efficiency of forests and other natural ``sinks'' that absorb carbon dioxide--the most significant greenhouse gas--from the atmosphere. The implications are as simple as they are scientifically sound--if we grow more trees, bigger trees, and healthier trees, we will remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and help protect the global climate. 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. This bill 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. It is hard to believe that nine years ago, during the first Bush Administration, both Democrat and Republican Senators proclaimed their support for taking action to protect the climate system and reducing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified by the Senate, Senators from both parties came to the floor to applaud this commitment to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And then- President Bush supported that position as well. We cannot afford to let the current debates about international treaties paralyze this Congress when their are opportunities here at home to protect our environment in ways that also provide jobs and economic growth. 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 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 Fund, Governor John A. Kitzhaber of Oregon, PacificCorp, The Nature Conservancy, and The Pacific Forest Trust. I look forward to pursuing this common-sense step toward protecting the environment and supporting our forest workers. This bill will have a sequential referral to both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee. These Committees share jurisdiction over all our nations forests, public and private. They represent the interests of the people who use our forests from the National Forest visitor, to the large industrial land owner, to the small woodlot owner. Through the combined efforts of both of these Committees, I am sure that the bill will receive a thorough hearing. I look forward to starting this process with a hearing in early May in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by- section analysis of the Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Craig and I are introducing legislation that uses a simple, scientifically sound and entirely voluntary approach to combat global warming. It's not revolutionary, and it's not regulatory. We believe growing more trees, bigger trees and healthier trees is one of the most effective ways to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and help protect the earth's climate. The Forest Resources for the environment and the Economy Act of 2001 will expand the nation's forested lands and put our forests on the frontlines in the battle against global warming. 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. In debates about forest policies, there are those who have advocated an exclusively environmental pathway, and others who have stressed an exclusively economic pathway. This bill is part of what I believe is a third pathway through the woods, a path to both stronger rural economies and healthier forests. I introduced this bill with Senator Craig in the 106th Congress. Though there have been numerous changes to the bill to address specific concerns, the underlying functions of the bill remain the same: this bill will reduce the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and help protect our global climate for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. It will provide improved wildlife and fish habitats and protect our waterways. It will enhance our national forests by reducing water pollution within their watersheds. It will provide jobs in the forestry sector in areas that have been hard hit by declining timber harvests. And it will grow additional timber resources on underproductive private lands. The legislation does all of this through entirely voluntary, incentive-based approach. The bill makes new resources available to private landowners through state-operated revolving loan programs that provide assistance for tree planting and other forest management actions. I know that this approach works because of the leadership of my home state, Oregon. The loan program is modeled after the innovative Forest Resource Trust, which was established in Oregon in 1993, and is just one of the many ways Oregon continues to lead the nation in state actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am introducing this bill to make sure that we take advantage of these opportunities across the country and encourage more businesses to invest in the nation's forests. The bill is based on recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences to overcome the capital constraints that prevent non- industrial, private forest land owners from growing healthy forests. Almost 10 million landowners in the United States own 42 percent of the non-industrial, private forest land in parcels of less than 100 acres. Access to the low-interest loans provided by this bill can empower these landowners to improve their lands while providing global environmental protection. In addition to establishing the state revolving loan programs, the bill makes important changes to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to strengthen the voluntary accounting and verification of greenhouse gas reductions from forestry activities. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop new guidelines on accurate and cost-effective methods to account for and report real and credible greenhouse gas reductions. These guidelines will be developed with the input of a new Advisory Council representing industry, foresters, states, and environment groups. As I said above, numerous changes have been made to the bill since its introduction in the 106th Congress. By a process of intellectual give and take between various Congressional offices, stakeholder groups and environmental organizations, this bill has been improved to offer greater environmental protection opportunities and better science. The bill now requires that all funded projects have ``a positive impact on watersheds, fish habitats, and wildlife diversity.'' It promotes reforestion activities for species that are native to a region. Also, the bill now allows flexibility in the loan repayment requirements that encourage the longer rotation, and permanent protection, of lands reforested under this program. In addition, the new Advisory Council will have three independent scientists instead of one and the members must have an expertise in forest management; carbon storage reporting will include monitoring requirements to assure the net increase of carbon storage; and the bill allows for the incorporation of the latest scientific and observational information. Overall, this bill is a solid step forward in the long journey towards addressing global climate change. As in the last Congress, this bill will pay for itself by taking the money that polluters pay when they are caught violating the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and use it to expand our forests, protect streams and rivers and help remove greenhouse gases from the air. In fiscal year 1998, $45 million of these environmental penalties were assessed against polluters. There are currently no guarantees that these penalties, which revert to the General Fund, are used to improve our environment. This bill would make this money available as loans to small and medium landowners to cover the upfront costs of tree planting and other activities that aid in the growth of healthy, productive forests and provide better wildlife habitats. We cannot afford to play Russian roulette with our global climate. The total amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere depends, in part, on the efficiency of forests and other natural ``sinks'' that absorb carbon dioxide--the most significant greenhouse gas--from the atmosphere. The implications are as simple as they are scientifically sound--if we grow more trees, bigger trees, and healthier trees, we will remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and help protect the global climate. 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. This bill 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. It is hard to believe that nine years ago, during the first Bush Administration, both Democrat and Republican Senators proclaimed their support for taking action to protect the climate system and reducing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. When the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was ratified by the Senate, Senators from both parties came to the floor to applaud this commitment to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And then- President Bush supported that position as well. We cannot afford to let the current debates about international treaties paralyze this Congress when their are opportunities here at home to protect our environment in ways that also provide jobs and economic growth. 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 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 Fund, Governor John A. Kitzhaber of Oregon, PacificCorp, The Nature Conservancy, and The Pacific Forest Trust. I look forward to pursuing this common-sense step toward protecting the environment and supporting our forest workers. This bill will have a sequential referral to both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee. These Committees share jurisdiction over all our nations forests, public and private. They represent the interests of the people who use our forests from the National Forest visitor, to the large industrial land owner, to the small woodlot owner. Through the combined efforts of both of these Committees, I am sure that the bill will receive a thorough hearing. I look forward to starting this process with a hearing in early May in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the section-by- section analysis of the Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield time to my friend from Michigan, who has already shown that she is going to be a tremendous advocate for working families and seniors on health. I am happy to yield to her.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I commend my colleague and thank him for the opportunity to work with him on this bipartisan agenda. I commend him for a very fine statement this afternoon as well. Each night more than 43 million Americans go to bed without basic health coverage knowing that a serious illness could wipe their family out. These are Americans who aren't old enough for Medicare. They aren't poor enough for Medicaid. Very often they work as small businesses. And yet in a country as strong and good as ours we have not made sure that they have access to basic health coverage. In my view, for the Congress not to respond now at a time when there are layoffs, at a time when there is great fragility in our economy, for this Congress not to respond to the needs of the uninsured is, in my view, nothing short of government malpractice. This amendment ensures, with the $28 billion that would be provided for mandatory spending, that the Senate Finance Committee could develop a program that would allow for public and private options. There are many in the business community who argue--and I think correctly so-- that there are a variety of approaches with employer-based health care coverage that makes sense. This amendment would allow for that. There are advocates for the low income who argue--and I think correctly so-- that we ought to be spending for important programs like my colleague mentioned, the CHIP program. Senator Kennedy, for example, has done yeoman and exceptional work in trying to extend coverage for adults whose children are on Medicaid. And yet those adults, for example, who might work at a small business lack coverage. This proposal would make that possible. We would have a chance to cover those individuals who are part of what Senator Kennedy has correctly termed ``family care.'' In my view, this proposal represents an opportunity for a major breakthrough on the health care issue which unfortunately to a great extent has been deadlocked since the downfall of the discussion over the Clinton health care plan. In my view, with this amendment it will be possible to provide immediate relief to millions of our citizens through public and private options and at the same time build a foundation for a longer term approach that, again, looks to both the private and the public sector to fill in these gaps in American health care. I particularly want to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus. They have been leaders in our party in the development of advocacy for these individuals. Senator Conrad and his staff have been exceptionally helpful as well in ensuring that this amendment was crafted so that it would not in any way allow for a raid of the health insurance trust fund. I will tell you, Mr. President, since my days when I was codirector of the Gray Panthers, I dreamed that I could one day be part of a bipartisan effort to really fill in the gaps in the American health care system. I thank my colleague, Senator Smith, for the opportunity to work with him. These important breakthroughs for the uninsured can, in fact, only be accomplished if they are bipartisan. I thank him for the chance to work with him. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I was always under the impression you ought to quit while you are ahead. I yield my time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. First, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. If there is one change that the Democratic Party has tried to transmit over the last decade, it has been the question of emphasizing fiscal responsibility. I want to make it clear to the Senator from North Dakota how appreciative I am that he has pounded away again and again in the committee and on this floor how important it is to reduce the national debt. In my view, that is the single most important message the Democrats have tried to communicate over the last decade. I am so pleased he has emphasized it again today. I will speak briefly on this question of prescription drugs because in the last year I have come to the floor of this Senate more than 25 times to talk about the need for a bipartisan initiative in this area. The fact is, the Baucus amendment, the amendment on prescription drugs, will allow Members to bring together legislators of both political parties to come up with a sensible prescription drug benefit that will contain the spiraling costs that our seniors face. It would be built around the proposition that there would be defined benefits that senior citizens in every community would be entitled to. It would be a benefit that would be part of the Medicare program. Finally, it would be a benefit that allows containment of costs by offering senior citizens choices and alternatives in the marketplace. What pleases me about both the Baucus amendment and the alternative that the ranking member, Senator Conrad, has put before this body, is that it goes right to the heart of the question; that is, ensuring that we have resources to do the job right. The fact is, America can't afford not to do this job right. I hear from physicians in my home State, for example, that they have actually put senior citizens in the hospital in order to get prescription drug coverage because those older people could not afford their medicine on an outpatient basis. Colleagues, think about the insanity of such a system that can rack up $40,000 or $50,000 worth of costs for medicines in a hospital rather than spending perhaps $500 or $600 on an outpatient prescription drug benefit so a senior citizen can, for example, have a leg ulcer treated on an outpatient basis. Under the Baucus amendment, it will be possible to have those resources, to bring together Democrats and Republicans in this body, and get the job done right. We all understand the extraordinary revolution we have seen in the medicine field over the last few decades. Everybody acknowledges if we were to design Medicare today, not a Republican nor a Democrat would advocate leaving out a prescription drug benefit. It is going to take the resources to do the job right. It seems to me the Baucus-Graham amendment makes those resources available. By the way, it is an approach that would be consistent with what we did in the Senate Budget Committee last year on a bipartisan basis--Senator Snowe, Senator Smith, and I--and is consistent with a variety of other approaches. I hope my colleagues will recognize what we are trying to focus on today is, first, the single most important message of Democrats in the last decade, which is we have to have fiscal responsibility. That is why we emphasize today the question of paying down the debt. Second, we do want this country to make a handful of well-targeted investments in our future. In my view, one of those key areas would be prescription drug coverage. When it comes to paying for this benefit, this country can't afford not to do prescription drug coverage right. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. If the Senator will yield briefly, I thank him for that. What the Baucus amendment does is allow Members to put together that bipartisan effort that would encourage an approach that is within Medicare, with defined benefits, based on real marketplace choices, so there would be cost containment. I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Baucus for emphasizing the two key messages of this party. First, our message of the last decade, which is that fiscal responsibility is paramount. One does that with the focus on debt reduction. Second, that we can have a handful of well-targeted investments in our country's future. That is what the Baucus amendment does. I am very pleased to be associated with both Senators' efforts.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Internet communications are increasingly important to Americans' daily lives and business. However, as the public's reliance on online and Internet services continues to grow, so do the burdens and frustrations stemming from unwanted junk e-mail. This type of e-mail is commonly known as ``spam,'' and it isn't hard to see why. Getting spam e-mail in your in-box is a lot like getting its namesake lunchmeat in your lunchbox: You didn't order it, and you really can't tell where the stuff comes from. Until now, you also have been virtually powerless to stop it. The recipient has no opportunity to refuse to accept the message, and thus is forced to take the time and bear the costs of storing, accessing, reviewing, and deleting such unwanted e-mail. In short, spammers have all the power. A spammer can send a recipient whatever messages it wants, and the recipient has no choice but to deal with them. Technology is on the side of the spammer. E-mail technology enables spammers to send huge quantities of messages quickly and cheaply. With the stroke of a key, a spammer can let fly a torrent of tens or hundreds of thousands of identical e-mails at minimal cost. Such bulk spam can clog up the network, impairing Internet service for everyone. For example, back in December, an influx of millions of junk e-mails slowed Verizon's network to a crawl, causing delays of several hours for customers trying to send and receive messages. Spam affects Internet companies as well as end users. Internet service providers are the ones who have to deal directly with the traffic jams caused when bulk spam floods their networks. And when consumers become frustrated by the receipt of spam, the first place they turn to complain will be the Internet companies from whom they purchase service. Left unchecked, spam could have a significant impact on how consumers perceive and use Internet services and e-commerce. Because of this, Internet service providers have often played a major role in trying to shield their customers from spam. But the bottom line is that existing laws do not provide the tools to deal with the mounting problem of junk e-mail. That is why I am teaming up again today with my good friend Senator Burns to introduce the ``Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act,'' the CAN SPAM Act, for short. This bipartisan legislation says that if you want to send unsolicited marketing e-mail, you've got to play by a set of rules, rules that allow consumers to see where the messages are coming from, and to tell the sender stop. The basic goal is simple: give the consumer more control. Specifically, our bill would require a sender of any marketing e-mail to include a working return address, so that the recipient can send a reply e-mail demanding not to receive any further messages. A spammer would be prohibited from sending further messages to a consumer that has told it to stop. The bill also would prohibit spammers from using falsified or deceptive headers or subject lines, so that consumers will be able to tell where their marketing e-mails are coming from. The bill includes strong enforcement provisions to ensure compliance. Spammers that intentionally disguise their identities would be subject to misdemeanor criminal penalties. The Federal Trade Commission would have authority to impose civil fines. State attorneys general would be able to bring suit on behalf of the citizens of their states. And Internet service providers would be able to bring suit to keep unlawful spam off of their networks. In all cases, particularly high penalties would be available for true ``bad actors''--the shady, high-volume spammers who have no intention of behaving in a lawful and responsible manner. Our goal here is not to discourage legitimate online communications with consumers. Senator Burns and I have no intention of interfering with a company's ability to use e-mail to inform customers of warranty information, provide account holders with monthly account statements, and so forth. Rather, we want to go after those unscrupulous individuals who use e-mail to annoy and mislead. I believe this bill strikes that important balance. Senator Burns and I have worked with a number of different groups in shaping this legislation, and we believe we have made real progress in addressing some concerns that were raised about the spam bill we proposed last year. We feel that the version of the bill we introduce today is a workable, common-sense approach. I am pleased that Senators Lieberman, Landrieu, Torricelli, Breaux, and Murkowski are cosponsoring this bill today, and I look forward to working with them and the rest of my Senate colleagues to see that the bill moves forward as quickly as possible.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Internet communications are increasingly important to Americans' daily lives and business. However, as the public's reliance on online and Internet services continues to grow, so do the burdens and frustrations stemming from unwanted junk e-mail. This type of e-mail is commonly known as ``spam,'' and it isn't hard to see why. Getting spam e-mail in your in-box is a lot like getting its namesake lunchmeat in your lunchbox: You didn't order it, and you really can't tell where the stuff comes from. Until now, you also have been virtually powerless to stop it. The recipient has no opportunity to refuse to accept the message, and thus is forced to take the time and bear the costs of storing, accessing, reviewing, and deleting such unwanted e-mail. In short, spammers have all the power. A spammer can send a recipient whatever messages it wants, and the recipient has no choice but to deal with them. Technology is on the side of the spammer. E-mail technology enables spammers to send huge quantities of messages quickly and cheaply. With the stroke of a key, a spammer can let fly a torrent of tens or hundreds of thousands of identical e-mails at minimal cost. Such bulk spam can clog up the network, impairing Internet service for everyone. For example, back in December, an influx of millions of junk e-mails slowed Verizon's network to a crawl, causing delays of several hours for customers trying to send and receive messages. Spam affects Internet companies as well as end users. Internet service providers are the ones who have to deal directly with the traffic jams caused when bulk spam floods their networks. And when consumers become frustrated by the receipt of spam, the first place they turn to complain will be the Internet companies from whom they purchase service. Left unchecked, spam could have a significant impact on how consumers perceive and use Internet services and e-commerce. Because of this, Internet service providers have often played a major role in trying to shield their customers from spam. But the bottom line is that existing laws do not provide the tools to deal with the mounting problem of junk e-mail. That is why I am teaming up again today with my good friend Senator Burns to introduce the ``Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act,'' the CAN SPAM Act, for short. This bipartisan legislation says that if you want to send unsolicited marketing e-mail, you've got to play by a set of rules, rules that allow consumers to see where the messages are coming from, and to tell the sender stop. The basic goal is simple: give the consumer more control. Specifically, our bill would require a sender of any marketing e-mail to include a working return address, so that the recipient can send a reply e-mail demanding not to receive any further messages. A spammer would be prohibited from sending further messages to a consumer that has told it to stop. The bill also would prohibit spammers from using falsified or deceptive headers or subject lines, so that consumers will be able to tell where their marketing e-mails are coming from. The bill includes strong enforcement provisions to ensure compliance. Spammers that intentionally disguise their identities would be subject to misdemeanor criminal penalties. The Federal Trade Commission would have authority to impose civil fines. State attorneys general would be able to bring suit on behalf of the citizens of their states. And Internet service providers would be able to bring suit to keep unlawful spam off of their networks. In all cases, particularly high penalties would be available for true ``bad actors''--the shady, high-volume spammers who have no intention of behaving in a lawful and responsible manner. Our goal here is not to discourage legitimate online communications with consumers. Senator Burns and I have no intention of interfering with a company's ability to use e-mail to inform customers of warranty information, provide account holders with monthly account statements, and so forth. Rather, we want to go after those unscrupulous individuals who use e-mail to annoy and mislead. I believe this bill strikes that important balance. Senator Burns and I have worked with a number of different groups in shaping this legislation, and we believe we have made real progress in addressing some concerns that were raised about the spam bill we proposed last year. We feel that the version of the bill we introduce today is a workable, common-sense approach. I am pleased that Senators Lieberman, Landrieu, Torricelli, Breaux, and Murkowski are cosponsoring this bill today, and I look forward to working with them and the rest of my Senate colleagues to see that the bill moves forward as quickly as possible.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, because we have gone through various versions, he has indicated that he is strongly in support of this effort and is still looking at some of the specifics. The Senator is absolutely right. I think the Senator from West Virginia has made a real contribution because he has seen from a historical standpoint how there has been such an explosion of these negative commercials. I want our colleagues to know that we are very appreciative of the input of the Senator from West Virginia in fighting these negative ads.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning with Senator Collins of Maine to offer a bipartisan amendment that we believe will help slow the explosive growth of negative political commercials that are corroding the faith of individuals in the political process. I also thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon on the House side, who has also been extremely interested in this issue over the years. Negative commercials are clearly fueling citizens' cynicism about politics. Those negative commercials are depressing voter participation and, in my view, they are demeaning all who are involved in the political process. The amendment I have prepared with Senator Collins is a straightforward one. In order to qualify for the advertising discounts that Federal law requires candidates for Federal office receive, those candidates would have to personally stand by any mention of an opponent in a radio or television advertisement. We have asked the Congressional Research Service to do an analysis of our proposal. In their view, they believe it would be upheld as constitutional. I am of the view that they came to that conclusion because the fact is there is no constitutional right to a subsidized dirty political campaign. Everybody in this body knows and knows full well that when candidates mention their opponent in an advertisement, they are not spending those campaign funds to state that their opponent is the greatest thing since night baseball. They are going to be spending, in so many instances, advertising money where, in effect, the candidate would hide behind grainy photographs of the opponent, pictures that make that opponent look pretty much like a criminal, and often there is this bloodcurdling music that portrays the whole thing in such an ominous way that the children sort of run for another room. What Senator Collins and I are seeking to do in this amendment is to make it tough for candidates to disown their negative political commercials. We say that candidates can say anything they want. We are not trampling on the first amendment. A candidate is free, totally free, completely unfettered, under our bipartisan proposal, to say anything about their opponent. But what we say, however, is if you are going to mention your opponent, you have to own up to it. You cannot hide any longer. The fact is, negative campaigning is done to obscure ownership. It is done to obscure who is actually going to be held personally accountable. A number of analysts have looked at negative commercials over the years and the fact is, as they have noted, it is almost always done by advertising. It is almost impossible to do a negative exchange if you are in a debate because the candidate on the other side has an opportunity to answer. The sneak punches, the low blows, are easily delivered through TV and radio, especially radio. As our colleagues know, a lot of the newspapers at home will do these ad watches. So very often it is possible to blow the whistle on a television commercial. But with respect to radio, that so often is completely under the radar so there is absolutely no accountability. What Senator Collins and I seek to do is to make it clear that it is not going to be so easy to skulk around, to sneak around and engage in these negative ads and pretend they are not yours. You can say anything you want about your opponent under our proposal, but there is not going to be a subsidized rate if you don't own up to it. It just doesn't seem right to me to say the car dealer or the local restaurant or the hardware store should have to pay a higher rate while you get a discounted rate for running a negative advertisement. A lot of our colleagues want to speak on this. I believe we have an hour and a half for this debate. I am very appreciative that Senator Collins is on the floor. She has a long history of being involved in reform efforts. I also thank Senator Bingaman who has had a great interest in this issue over the years. Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold, Senator McCain, Senator Levin--all of them have worked with us on this proposal in recent days. I see Senator Dodd on the floor, and I commend him for the superb way in which he handled this debate. Nobody ever said this topic was going to be a walk in the park. He has handled it superbly, in my view. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?