Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. That is acceptable to me as well.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Maine for her thoughtfulness.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come here today to ask a question, a question that is a mystery to the vast majority of Americans: Why will the United States Senate not ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? If there were any issue debated in the history of this Senate that called for more sober reflection, more independent thought, it is how to end the proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons. This may be the greatest burden the United States will carry into the next millennium. The United States was the first nation to develop and test nuclear arms. More than a half century ago we were the first, and so far only, nation to use those arms. Three years ago we were the first nation to sign this treaty that takes a step back from a nuclear-armed world. No other nation in the world can possibly gain more than the United States does from this treaty. The treaty holds real promise for putting an end to the international development of nuclear weapons. It removes the ability of belligerent nations to enhance their nuclear stockpile. It removes the ability to use nuclear test explosions to bully and threaten their neighbors. It removes the incentive to throw much-needed capital into an insatiable and wasteful weapons program. The American people understand this simple logic better than some in this body. Over 84% of the American public understands that ratifying the CTBT is the best way to protect the United States against the threat of nuclear attack by other nations. They are not talking about defensive missiles, they are talking about an America where their children won't have to grow up as they did; under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. This treaty, they understand, is a first step toward that goal. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a five star general as well as a two term President of the United States. He led men in wartime against a real, living threat to the security of the United States. He led America at the beginning of the cold war, at the most dangerous time for nuclear confrontation in our history. He had a unique understanding of the needs and necessities of national security, an understanding that I don't believe any member of this chamber can pretend to possess. His view of a nuclear test ban treaty was this: that the failure to achieve such a ban, when the opportunity presented itself would ``have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade, of any time, and of any party.'' Opponents of this treaty say we are letting down our guard, that we are leaving ourselves open to be overwhelmed. President Eisenhower understood clearly and personally the dangers of failing to prepare for war. But it was precisely this experience with war that led him to conceive of the test ban as a means of preserving the safety and security of the American people. This clear and rational thinking has continued, at least with our senior military leaders. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is responsible for our entire national defense infrastructure. It is his duty to the American people to insure that our military forces, nuclear and conventional, are strong, prepared and able to provide for the common defense. Our current Chairman, General Hugh Shelton, and Former Chairmen General Colin Powell, Admiral William Crowe, General John Shalikashvili, and General David Jones all believe firmly that, for the safety and security of the American people, the CTBT must be ratified. President Bush signed into law a ban on American nuclear testing in 1992. As a matter of fact, we have not conducted a nuclear test for seven years. We have already stopped running this race. Has this test ban, already in place domestically for the better part of a decade, harmed our nuclear stockpile? The President says no, our military leaders say no, and the men whose responsibility it is to maintain the weapons say no. The CTBT has the support of all of the directors of our national labs whose first responsibility is to ensure that our nuclear weapons stockpile functions safely and reliably far into the future. They confidently believe this treaty, and the continuation of the test ban, is in our national interest. It's been seven years since we have conducted a nuclear test. We are no less safe then we were a decade ago. No one who is qualified to make the judgment believes that we need to resume testing in the future. What would passage of this treaty mean? Without test explosions, a new nuclear state cannot know that their crude bombs will work. Only very recently, after decades, over one thousand tests, and thousands of nuclear bombs manufactured, did our bomb making experts feel confident enough to proceed without testing. Without testing no other state can achieve that level of confidence. While testing continues there is always the possibility that a nation will develop a bomb that is smaller and more easily concealed, the perfect weapon with which to attack a superpower like the United States, perhaps even without fear of relation. Missile defenses cannot stop a bomb carried over our borders, but an end to testing can stop that bomb before it is even made. What would the failure of Senate ratification of the CTBT mean? Failure by the Senate to ratify the Treaty would mean a future full of new and more dangerous weapons. It would make infinitely more difficult a new effort to prevent the proliferation and use of nuclear arms. Those states that are currently non-nuclear trust that, in exchange for not attempting to acquire or develop nuclear arms, the current nuclear states will cease using their own. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of our efforts to prevent the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons, was indefinitely extended in 1995. It was extended with the promise that the CTBT would be ratified by the worlds' nuclear powers. If we defeat this treaty, we will be breaking that promise, and putting our entire world-wide non- proliferation strategy in jeopardy. If we cannot commit to cease testing, we cannot expect other nations to adhere to their commitments on nuclear non-proliferation. When one nation tests nuclear arms, their neighbors get nervous. They are justifiably concerned for their defense and security. The natural response to this threat, for which there is no real defense, is to acquire a threat of ones own. A rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate would send a chilling message around the world. The tests by India and Pakistan earlier this year highlight another, more sinister motivation for nuclear tests, the desire to threaten and intimidate. How do we expect nations like India and Pakistan to react to the Senate's rejection of this treaty? For 50 some years we have lived under a gruesome umbrella known as Mutual Assured Destruction. This grim strategic relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States meant that the entire world lived under constant threat of global thermonuclear war. In times of great international tension we were a hair trigger away from unleashing that destruction. If the treaty fails we must contemplate the prospect of dozens of states facing each other in the same insane standoff--in Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa--over disputed borders, scarce resources and ancient hatreds. The opponents of this treaty say we cannot afford the risk that another nation might have the skill and luck required to sneak a couple of nuclear tests under a world-wide monitoring regime. They believe that possibility is a mortal danger to the United States and the advances we have made in over 1,000 nuclear tests. I say we cannot afford the risk of another 50 years of the unfettered development of nuclear weapons around the world. Our stockpile is secure, our deterrent is in place. The United States does not need to test as we have witnessed over the past seven years. We unleashed the nuclear genie that has hung over the world for the last 50 years. But in that moment of leadership, when we signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, we took a strong step toward making the world a safer place. Let us today take the next step toward a safer, more secure future.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am going to yield the floor at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes tonight-- Senator Graham of Florida will be joining me, and Senator Gordon Smith of my home State, my friend and colleague, will be joining me as well tonight--the three of us want to take a few minutes to talk about the important amendment we were able to have added to the HHS appropriations bill during the course of the last week. In the beginning, we especially express our appreciation to Senator Specter and Senator Harkin. They worked with the three of us and our staffs over the last week on this particular issue. What our agricultural labor amendment does is require the Department of Labor to report to the Congress on how the Department plans to promote a legal, domestic workforce--specifically, to improve compensation, working conditions, and other benefits for agricultural workers in the United States. Today's agricultural labor program is a disaster for both farm workers and for farmers. We have a system that is completely broken. Estimates are that well over half of the farm workers in this country are illegal. As a result of their status, they can have no power at all. They can't even vote. They are subjected to the worst possible conditions imaginable, horrendous housing, and, in many instances, thrown into the back of pickup trucks and moved by people called coyotes, who, for a profit, bring them from other countries. The conditions to which our agricultural workers are subjected in so many instances are nothing short of immoral. At the same time, the growers, who have a dependable supply of workers to pick their crops, are also in a completely untenable situation, the growers who want to do the right thing. Senator Smith and I represent a great many of those growers and farmers in our home State of Oregon, who don't know where to turn to find legal workers. The General Accounting Office did a report a couple of years ago on the farm worker situation in our country. They said there really are enough farm workers, but they came to that conclusion only by counting the illegal farm workers in our country. Well over half of the farm workers in the United States are illegal. It is a situation that essentially turns those farmers, when they want to do the right thing, into people who have to make a choice as to whether or not they want to be felons and not comply with the law or simply another individual in the bankruptcy line in our country. To give you an idea how absolutely unacceptable this situation is, just this week I had berry farmers from my home State in Oregon telling me they had recently had meetings with the Department of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They were told, in effect, how to work the system, but they weren't given any hope that what they were doing was within the law. In effect, the administration was telling the berry farmers in my State, with a wink and a nod, they should tolerate this system that is based on workers who can have no power and farmers who lack a system that is dependable and reliable so they can find legal workers. In the last session of Congress, Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and I put together a bipartisan proposal to change this wholly unacceptable situation and produce a new system for dealing with agricultural labor that would be in the interest of both the farm worker and the farmer. Under our proposal, workers who were legal would get a significant increase in their benefits. Just how significant was documented in a report done for us by the Library of Congress, October 21, 1998. At page 2 of that report, it states specifically that the Library of Congress found that under our proposal--it received 67 votes in the Senate--the legal farm worker would get significantly higher wages, under what the Senate voted for. In addition, there would be benefits for housing, transportation, a variety of benefits that are so critical to the farm workers. But after 67 Members of the Senate voted for our proposal, the administration said: It is unacceptable. We are going to veto it. It is not good enough. We have other ideas. At that time, Senator Smith, Senator Graham, and I entered into a series of discussions with the Clinton administration asking them for their plan on how to produce this system that would address the legitimate concerns of both the farm workers and the growers. We have been at that for more than a year. I see our good friend Senator Graham coming to the floor, and I will yield to him in just a moment. Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and I have been at the task of trying to get from the administration their plan to deal with agricultural labor for more than a year. We told them, if they don't like our proposal--67 votes in the Senate; the Library of Congress said it will produce higher benefits, wages, improved transportation, and improved housing for so many legal workers--since it wasn't good enough for the Clinton administration, we would like to see their proposal. We decided we would, in the spirit of comity and a desire to get an agreement with the executive branch, wait for their proposal. We are still waiting to this day. The administration remains on the sideline to this day, unwilling to come forward with any specific ideas that would be in the interests of both the workers and the growers. Just this week, they told the berry farmers in my home State--and we do a lot of things in Oregon well; frankly, what we do best is grow things; our farmers are very important to our State--the administration basically told them, just wink and nod at the rules that are out there today. In December of 1998, Alexis Herman, Secretary of Labor, sat in a meeting in Senator Graham's office with Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and myself. Alexis Herman told us, three Members of the Senate, that the administration would give us a specific proposal for dealing with this agricultural labor situation by the end of February 1999. No such proposal has ever been delivered. In a moment, I am going to yield to my friend from Florida because he has essentially laid out a timeline that demonstrates how many times we have tried to get the administration off the sidelines and to join us in a bipartisan effort to produce a system that would work for the farm worker and for the grower. By its inaction, the administration is perpetuating a system that is a disaster for both the farm worker and the farmer. It is a system that is totally broken--a system that has condemned the vast majority of farm workers to some of the most terrible and immoral conditions imaginable. It is a system that has made it impossible for the farmers who want to do the right thing to know where to turn. In the last Congress, Senator Graham, Senator Smith, and myself brought a legislative proposal that would change that, which the Library of Congress said would produce a significant amount of additional benefits for the legal farm worker. The Clinton administration said that wasn't good enough, and we have waited and waited for their ideas. Well, tonight, as a result of the action taken in the Labor-HHS bill, we are calling, as a matter of law, on the Clinton administration to give us their plan as to how to produce a legal domestic workforce, which would have improved compensation, improved working conditions, and improved benefits that those farm workers are entitled to as a matter of simple justice. So I am hopeful that we will get the administration off the sidelines soon. I am hopeful that they will do what they promised to do well over a year ago. If the Senator from Vermont is willing, I would like to break my remarks off at this point and allow the Senator from Florida to speak for a few minutes. We want to be courteous to our colleague from Vermont because he is dealing with an issue of great importance to him. We will be brief. I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. If I could have 10, that would be appreciated. I know this is an important bill. I do not want to hold it up.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada who has been a strong champion of the rights of seniors. He and I serve on the Committee on Aging. I take this opportunity this morning to talk about an extraordinarily important issue for the older people of this country, and that is the need to make sure senior citizens can get prescription drug coverage as part of the Medicare program. I am especially proud that Senator Olympia Snowe and I have introduced what is now the only bipartisan prescription drug bill before the Senate, and I am hopeful in the days ahead we can get this legislation before the Senate and ensure that the millions of vulnerable older people in this country get decent prescription drug coverage under Medicare. I believe it is time to get this issue out of the beltway, get it out of Washington, DC, and get it to the grassroots of America. That is why Senator Snowe and I have initiated a grassroots campaign to get prescription drug coverage under Medicare. As folks can see in the example next to me, we are hoping in the next few weeks that senior citizens and their families from across the country will send in copies of their prescription drug bills to their Senators. We think our proposal, the Senior Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act, known as SPICE, is the way to proceed because it is bipartisan, it is market oriented, it gives senior citizens choice in the marketplace, and uses marketplace forces to hold down costs for prescription medicine. We use as a model the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which is what Members of Congress and their families have as the delivery system for health care. If it is good enough for Members of the Senate, Senator Snowe and I believe it is good enough for the older people of our country. We are hoping that instead of this just being a discussion within the beltway, with the various interest groups on one side or the other lining up, we hope in the days ahead, as a result of senior citizens sending in copies of their prescription drug bills and their families weighing in with their legislators, we can get our bipartisan bill moving. More than 50 Members of the Senate have already voted for the funding proposal Senator Snowe and I advocate. We propose there ought to be a tobacco tax to fund this program. We believe that is only right, because in this country, more than $12 billion goes out of the Medicare program each year to handle tobacco-related illnesses. We believe there is a direct connection between the funding proposal we establish and making sure older people get this benefit. With more than 50 Members of the Senate on record for the budget vote that Senator Snowe and I offered earlier this year, we ought to be able to build on that vote and actually get this program added to Medicare. I am especially pleased the approach Senator Snowe and I have taken is one that can help lower the cost of prescription drug coverage for older people. A key part of this debate is coverage, but equally as important is the need to hold down the costs of these prescriptions. We are seeing around this country that the big buyers of prescription drugs--the health maintenance organizations and the large purchasers-- get a discount and senior citizens are hit with a double whammy. Not only does Medicare not cover their prescriptions, but when a senior citizen walks into a pharmacy and picks up their prescription, say, in Arkansas or Oregon or Maine, they, in effect, are subsidizing the discounts the big buyers are getting as a result of their marketplace power. Some have proposed a system of price controls, putting Medicare in the position of buying up all the medicine and using that as their idea of holding down costs. Senator Snowe and I think that will end up generating a lot of cost shifting on to the part of other people who are having difficulty covering their prescription drug bills. We favor a market-oriented approach along the lines of the Federal employee health plan. We are not talking about a price control regime or a run-from-the-beltway approach to this issue. We are talking about using marketplace forces to hold down the costs of prescription drugs for our older people. It is especially urgent now. More than 20 percent of the Nation's senior citizens are spending more than $1,000 a year out of pocket for their prescription medicine. We have older people with incomes of $15,000, $16,000 a year spending $1,000 or $1,500 each year on their prescription drugs. Very often those seniors are not able to pick up a prescription their doctor phoned in to their neighborhood pharmacy because the senior citizen cannot afford it, and the prescription languishes for weeks at the pharmacy because they cannot pick it up. That is what I have heard from seniors in my State of Oregon. We have heard from other seniors whose physicians tell them they should be taking three pills a day and they cannot afford that, and they start by taking two, and then they take one. Eventually they get sicker and they need much more expensive care. In fact, the pharmaceuticals now and the medicines of the future are going to be preventive drugs. They are going to be drugs that help lower blood pressure and help us deal with cholesterol problems. As a result, in the long term, we are going to save significant dollars by preventing expensive institutionalizations and hospital services as a result of adding immediate prescription drug coverage to the Medicare program. Clearly, this benefit needs to be paid for. The proposal Senator Snowe and I have offered will generate more than $70 billion in the next few years to add this benefit to the program. I am very hopeful the Senate will move on a bipartisan basis to tackle this issue. There are many, certainly, in Washington, DC, who think the prescription drug issue is too complicated and too political to deal with now, that we should wait until after the election. Senator Snowe and I reject that approach. It is more than a year until the next election. We are hoping senior citizens, just as this poster next to me says, will send in copies of their prescription drug bills to their Senators. Tell the Members of the Senate exactly why this issue is important to them, why the lack of prescription drug coverage is causing them a hardship, and help Senator Snowe and I ignite a grassroots movement to ensure that prescription drug coverage does become part of the Medicare program. In effect, it is time for a wake-up call to the Congress. Some of the naysayers and those who say we ought to put this issue off I think are missing the real needs of the Nation's older people. If you have an income of $15,000 or $16,000 and you are spending $1,500 a year for prescription drugs, if you are giving up other essentials, such as electricity, to pay for your prescription drugs, you cannot afford to wait until after the next election. It may be a luxury for people here in the beltway to wait until after the next election to talk about the need to come up with a practical solution to covering older people with their prescriptions. Senator Snowe and I think waiting is not a luxury that the millions of vulnerable, older people in this country have. They cannot afford to wait. We are hoping, as a result of this campaign we have launched in the last week to have folks send in a copy of their prescription drug bills, that this can serve as a wakeup call to this Senate and this Congress that the time to act is now. We hope the Senate will choose the proposal we have developed. Undoubtedly, there are other very good ideas. I am sure we will hear from seniors, when they send in copies of their bills, about the best way to address this issue legislatively. Ours is a marketplace-oriented approach. It is based on the kind of program that Members of the Senate have. We hope, in the days ahead, seniors from across the country will send us copies of their prescription drug bills. We want to see this coverage added now. We want to see the Senate address this in a bipartisan way. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time be evenly charged.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think it is extraordinarily important that the Senate take steps promptly to remedy some of the loopholes in the antiquated Death on the High Seas Act. I have had constituents bring to my attention a tragedy that is almost unique in my years of working in the consumer protection field. Mr. John Sleavin, one of my constituents, testified before the Commerce Committee that he lost his brother, Mike, his nephew, Ben, and his niece, Annie, under absolutely grotesque circumstances. The family's pleasure boat was run over by a Korean freighter in international waters. The only survivor was the mother, Judith Sleavin, who suffered permanent injuries. The accident was truly extraordinary because, after the collision, there was absolutely no attempt by the Korean vessel to rescue the family or even to notify authorities about the collision. Mr. Sleavin's brother and his niece perished after 8 hours in the water following the collision. It was clear to me that there was an opportunity to have rescued this family. Yet there was no remedy. We have had very compelling testimony on this problem in the Senate Commerce Committee. The chairman has indicated a willingness to work with me on this. We have a Coast Guard bill coming up, and because this is an important consumer protection issue and a contentious one, I don't want to do anything to take a big block of additional time. I will yield at this time for a colloquy with the chairman in the hopes that we can finally get this worked out so we don't have Americans subject to the kind of tragic circumstances we saw in this case, where a family was literally mowed down in international waters by a Korean freighter and should have been rescued and, tragically, loved ones were lost. I feel very strongly about this. I yield now to the chairman of the full committee to hear his thoughts on our ability to get this loophole-ridden Death on the High Seas Act changed, and particularly doing it on the Coast Guard bill that will be coming up.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman. I am going to be very brief in wrapping this up. I think our colleagues know that I am not one who goes looking for frivolous litigation. The chairman of the committee and all our colleagues on the Commerce Committee know that I spent a lot of time on the Y2K liability legislation this year so we could resolve these problems without a whole spree of frivolous litigation. But we do know that there are areas, particularly ones where injured consumers in international waters have no remedy at all, when they are subject to some of the most grizzly and unfortunate accidents, where there is a role for legislation and a need for a remedy. I am very appreciative that the chairman has indicated he thinks it is appropriate that we devise a remedy. I intend to work very closely with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee. I know the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gorton, has strong views on this. I am willing to look anew with respect to what that remedy ought to be so we can pass a bipartisan bill. But I do think we have to devise a remedy because to have innocent Americans run down in international waters without any remedy can't be acceptable to the American people. With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw all four of the amendments I have had filed on this bill with respect to the Death on the High Seas Act.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for a few minutes. I see Chairman McCain, and I wanted to engage him in a brief discussion on a matter involving the Death on the High Seas Act. I have offered several amendments with respect to this issue, but I don't intend to offer them this morning because this bill has several hundred amendments.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, since we are on the FAA bill this morning, I will take a few minutes to discuss the issue of airline passenger rights. In the face of a wave of consumer complaints which are running at twice the number this time last year, the airline industry has proposed a Customer First program. I will take a few minutes this morning to ensure the Senate understands what this program is all about. After the industry released its voluntary proposal, I asked the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Search Service to analyze what the industry had actually proposed. In summary, these two reports--the one done by the General Accounting Office and the one done by the Congressional Research Service--demonstrates, unfortunately, when it comes to the industry's plan to protect passenger rights, there is no ``There there.'' These two reports found the airline industry's proposal puts passenger rights into three categories: first, rights that passengers already have, as in the rights of the disabled; second, rights that have no teeth in them because they are not written into the contracts of carriage between the passenger and the airline; third, rights that are ignored altogether, such as the right to full information on overbooking and ensuring that passengers can find out about the lowest possible fare. Specifically, I asked the General Accounting Office to compare the voluntary pledges made by the airline industry to the hidden but actually binding contractual rights airline passengers have that are written into something known as a contract of carriage. The Congressional Research Service pointed out: . . .front line airline staff seem uncertain as to what contracts of carriage are. The Congressional Research Service found that: . . . even if the consumer knows they have a right to the information, they must accurately identify the relevant provisions of the contract of carriage or take home the address or phone number, if available, of the airline's consumer affairs department, send for it and wait for the contract of carriage to arrive in the mail. As the Congressional Research Service states with their unusual tact and diplomacy: . . . the airlines do not appear to go out of their way to provide easy access to contract of carriage information. I want the Senate to know the current status of passenger rights so we can begin to strengthen the hand of passengers at a time when we have a record number of consumer complaints. Two weeks ago, the Senate began the task of trying to empower the passengers with the Transportation appropriations bill. In that legislation, we directed the Department of Transportation inspector general to investigate unfair and deceptive practices in the airline industry. The Department of Transportation inspector general does not currently conduct these investigations so we added the mandatory binding consumer protection language in the Transportation appropriations bill to ensure the Transportation inspector general would have exactly the same authority to investigate these consumer protection issues that I proposed in the airline passenger bill of rights early this session. On this FAA bill, I am proposing another step to help passengers. The purpose of the amendment I offer is to make sure customers can find out whether the airlines are actually living up to their voluntary commitments by beginning to write them into the contracts of carriage-- the binding agreement between the passenger and the airline. This is what the law division of the Congressional Research Service had to say on that point: It would appear that the voluntary aviation industry standards would probably not have the same level of contractual enforceability that the provisions of the ``contract of carriage'' has. Under basic American contract law, the airlines offer certain terms and service under these ``contracts of carriage'' and the consumer accepts this offer and relies on the terms of the contract when he or she buys a ticket. The voluntary industry standards are not the basis of the contract and may lack the enforceability that the conditions of the ``contract of carriage'' may possess. What especially troubles me is that the airlines are clearly dragging their feet on actually writing these consumer protection provisions in any kind of meaningful fashion. In fact, one of the proposals I saw from American Airlines stipulates specifically that their pledges to the consumer are not enforceable, that they are not going to be in the contracts of carriers. Under my amendment on this FAA bill, the Department of Transportation inspector general is going to investigate whether an airline means what it says, whether it is actually moving to put these various nice- sounding, voluntary proposals into meaningful language. I am very hopeful that as a result of this amendment, we are going to know the truth about actually what kind of consumer protection proposals are in the airline industry's package. This amendment has been shared with the ranking minority member of the committee and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and I have talked about it with the chairman of the full committee, Senator McCain. Also, it has been shared with the chairman of the subcommittee. There are many things in this good bill with which I agree. I am especially pleased, with Senator Rockefeller, Senator McCain, and Senator Gorton, we are taking steps to improve competition. I am very pleased, for example, we are doing more for small and medium-size markets. These are very sensible proposals. My concern is that together and on a bipartisan basis, we need to persuade the airline industry to put just a small fraction of the ingenuity and expertise they have that has produced one of the world's truly extraordinary safety records--the airline industry's safety record is extraordinary, and I simply want to see them put the ingenuity and expertise they have into trying to ensure that passengers get a fair shake as well. It is not right at a time like this, particularly when many of the airlines are making such significant profits, to leave airline service for the passengers out on the runway. The figures are indisputable. There are a record number of complaints. I hear constantly from business travelers about the unbelievable problems they have with failure to disclose, for example, overbooking. Many consumers have had problems trying to find out about the lowest fare. With the binding consumer protection language that was adopted in the Transportation appropriations bill so there will be an investigation into the problems I outlined in the airline passenger bill of rights, we have made a start. Today we will have a chance to build on that by making sure these voluntary pledges begin to show up in the contracts of carriage that actually protect the consumer. I express my thanks to Chairman McCain and Senators Rockefeller and Gorton for working with me on these matters and particularly to make sure the Senate knows that in many areas, the areas that promote competition and address the needs of small and medium-size airports-- this is an important bill. We can strengthen it with this consumer protection amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to do that and anxious to work with the chairman and Senator Rockefeller. I will be glad to do that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do not intend to object. But I have been trying now for almost 2 years on this very important legislation to deal with a very serious problem my constituents have brought to my attention dealing with the loophole-ridden Death On The High Seas Act. We had families at home in Oregon lose loved ones in international waters as a result of a situation where a Korean freighter ran them over. I have been repeatedly assured in the Senate Commerce Committee that we would have an opportunity on the floor of the Senate to remedy this great injustice. In fact, Chairman McCain had agreed with me previously to work to reform the Death On The High Seas Act to ensure that victims of maritime accidents would have the same rights as those provided to victims of aviation accidents under the FAA bill. I have been extremely patient with respect to this matter. I have indicated on at least two occasions that I would not offer the amendment. I do not intend to do it now because the FAA legislation is of such extraordinary importance. But I want to make it clear to the Senate that at the next available opportunity, I am going to do everything I can to ensure that these victims of these maritime tragedies--tragedies in international waters where very often they are run over by foreign freighters and left at sea languishing for hours and hours--actually have a remedy. They do not today. It is a grave injustice. We have discussed this at considerable length in the Senate Commerce Committee. In fact, we even made changes in the Death on the High Seas Act in the past without addressing this particular issue. I do not intend to hold up the consideration of the FAA legislation because it is so important, but I want to make it very clear to the Senate that at the next available opportunity, we are going to debate this on the floor of the Senate. We are going to have an up-or-down vote on it. My colleagues are now aware of that. Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy and Baucus to introduce today a resolution calling for an international ban on tariffs and on special, multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and the Internet. Representative Cox, with whom I have collaborated in the past on Internet-related matters, is introducing a companion resolution in the House of Representatives. The resolution urges the President to seek a global consensus supporting a permanent international moratorium on tariffs on electronic commerce, and an international ban on special, multiple, and discriminatory taxation of electronic commerce and the Internet. The resolution urges the President to pursue the ban on tariffs through the World Trade Organization--particularly at the WTO Ministerial meeting that will be held in Seattle this November, and to pursue the moratorium on discriminatory, special, and multiple taxes on global e- commerce through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. These positions reinforce the efforts of the U.S. Trade Representative at the WTO and of the U.S. negotiators at the OECD. In the Internet Tax Freedom Act, enacted during the last Congress, we challenged the concept of 30,000 U.S. tax jurisdictions swamping online consumers and entrepreneurs with a crazy quilt of discriminatory taxes. But this problem is small potatoes compared to the prospect of thousands of additional discriminatory tax regimes Americans might face in nearly 200 countries around the world. We are not going to sit by while the booming, global e-market becomes a tasty feast for overly hungry tax collectors from Bonn to Beijing and Manila to Milan. The same questions we dealt with in the United States become vastly more complex at the international level. For example, during the course of the debate about the Internet Tax Freedom Act last year, I asked what happens when Aunt Millie in Iowa uses America Online in Virginia to order Harry and David's pears from Medford, Oregon, pays for them with a bankcard in California and ships them to her old friend in Florida? In the global arena, we have to ask what happens when a tax collector in Germany tries to collect a Value Added Tax on a U.S. e-entrepreneur from Coos Bay, Oregon with no physical presence in Europe? This is a very real threat because not long ago, the tax chief of a key European nation called trade over the Internet ``a threat to all government tax revenue--a very serious threat.'' In addition, we have heard about the possibility of discriminatory bit taxes, which are taxes levied on the volume of e-mail that passes over the Net. And we have recently learned that the European Union is discussing something known as ``blocking and takedown.'' This is not a rugby term, but if established, it would allow the EU to bar the use of an American entrepreneur's website in Europe if he or she was unwilling to participate in an EU tax registration scheme. Moreover, some countries are blurring the line between services and products in an effort to impose still more special, targeted tariffs and taxes on global e-commerce. At present, some digital delivery--for example, downloading a CD or software program--is not taxed, but there's considerable support for turning this service into a product that could be the subject of discriminatory taxes. Developing fair ground rules for the global digital economy is not a job for the faint hearted. That is why strong U.S. leadership is imperative in key multinational groups that are beginning to consider how to update old laws and regulations to apply in the global electronic marketplace. That is the point of the resolution we are introducing today. Again, the resolution does two things: it urges the President to seek a global consensus supporting a global moratorium on tariffs on electronic commerce at the upcoming WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle, and second, it urges the President to seek through the OECD a global moratorium on discriminatory, multiple and special taxes on electronic commerce and the Internet. This resolution builds upon the good work we accomplished in the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act. It is time to take the effort to stop discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce to the international level. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the resolution.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. We know new prescriptions are right on the forefront of preventive medicine. What is exciting about the new medicines is they help to lower blood pressure and they can be helpful in dealing with a wide variety of health concerns, including cholesterol and other problems seniors have. Could the Senator tell Members a little bit about how the model SPICE benefit was devised? It seems to me the Senator is trying to focus on wellness, holding costs down, and making prescriptions affordable.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Maine. I think she has said it superbly. It has been a pleasure to be working with her over the last few months. The reality is that nothing important in the Congress gets done unless it is bipartisan. It is just that simple. What Senator Snowe and I have said repeatedly is that we want to get beyond some of the squabbling that goes on in Washington, DC, and really come together as a Congress, across the political aisle, and get prescription drug coverage added to the Medicare program. I think it is especially important now to hear from the Nation's senior citizens. For the last few months, we have been hearing from all of these beltway experts. Some of them, as Senator Snowe mentioned, have actually said seniors don't need these benefits. They say, well, this isn't a very serious problem, in spite of the fact that we have more than 20 percent of the Nation's elderly spending $1,000 a year out of pocket on their prescription medicine. We have some of these self- styled experts in Washington, DC, going to conferences and programs and saying seniors really don't need this coverage. So what we want to do is take this debate about prescription drug coverage and the need to assist seniors out of the beltway, get it out beyond Washington, DC, and start hearing from seniors and their families. Maybe some of these experts have good coverage and that is why they don't think it is important to cover the needs of seniors. Maybe they are not talking to their parents. But I can tell you, the seniors who come out to town meetings in Maine and Oregon are saying they can't afford prescription medicine and, very often, they will leave an order that has been phoned in by their physician at a pharmacy because they can't afford to pick it up. They are told to take three pills as part of their program to recover, but they start off taking two; they can't afford that; and then they take one; and eventually they get much sicker and end up needing much more expensive care. So we want to make sure in the days ahead, in our effort to pass a bipartisan prescription drug bill, that the Senate and the Congress hear from the Nation's older people. We would like to say today that we hope senior citizens and their families across this country who want to see the Congress pass a bipartisan bill to add prescription drug coverage--we hope those seniors and their families, just as this chart next to me indicates, will send copies of their bills to their Senator and their Member of Congress. Right next to me is a chart showing how simple it is for seniors and their families to make sure their voices aren't drowned out by some of these experts saying we don't need prescription drug coverage as part of Medicare. Just as this chart shows, a simple note to a Member of Congress, a Member of this body, can help us forge a bipartisan coalition and actually get this done. We hope when we hear from seniors and their families, they will support the SPICE legislation. But what is really important is that the Congress hear from those older people and their families. We think ours is a good bill. For example, under our legislation, seniors will have the bargaining power and the clout in the marketplace the way the big health maintenance organizations have, so we can keep the costs of prescription drugs down. A lot of our colleagues, both in the Senate and in the House, are touting studies about how seniors spend a lot more when they walk into a pharmacy for their prescription drugs than would a big buyer such as a health maintenance organization. That is true. Seniors get hit by a double whammy: They can't afford prescription drug coverage. Yet when they walk into a pharmacy, they subsidize those big buyers, the purchasers through a health maintenance organization who get a discount. Well, Senator Snowe and I think that if a health plan is good enough for Members of Congress and their families and that health plan uses marketplace forces to hold costs down, let's use a model such as that to serve the needs of older people. We are not reinventing the wheel. We are not having the Federal Government take over health care. We are using a system that Members of Congress and their families know well, a system that ensures that seniors will be in a position to hold down the costs of their medicine as well as be able to obtain coverage. I am very pleased to have a chance to work with Senator Snowe and to spend a few minutes discussing issues with her. I think the big challenge is to get this issue out of the beltway and to work in a bipartisan fashion. Senator Snowe and I have been trying to do that in the Budget Committee. There are some who want to make this a political issue for the 2000 campaign. We are not naive. We recognize that. Certainly if there were no good ideas to tackle this problem, it would be an issue that would come up in the campaign. However, Senator Snowe and I think because more than half of the Senate has already voted for the funding plan that we propose, because we are relying on a model we know works for Members of Congress and their families, we shouldn't wait another 2 years for another election to act. We think the time to act is now. I will address my colleague by way of saying, Senator, what strikes me as missing is the voice of seniors and their families. We have heard from all the experts in Washington, DC. What has been missing is the voices of seniors and their families. I want them to start sending in their bills and telling Members what they think about the crushing costs of prescription medicine. Perhaps the Senator could comment.

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague's question. We use marketplace forces. We use a dose of free enterprise, how our Federal employee health plan works. What troubles me is a lot of those other bills focus on an approach of Government purchasing the medicine, but that will shift the costs onto a lot of other people. I am very fearful that under some of those approaches, particularly the ones in the House, because Medicare essentially would control prices, they will shift the costs. What will happen is an African American woman who is 27, maybe single with a couple of children, will end up with a higher prescription drug bill because that person will end up seeing the costs shifted when prices are controlled just for the Medicare Program. I think we ought to use marketplace forces, competitive principles. That is what our legislation does. It will prevent cost shifting and help to hold down costs for all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the outstanding work of the VIEWS volunteers at Mt. Hood Community Mental Health Center of Gresham, Oregon. They devote many hours to helping seniors in emotional crisis. Mt. Hood Community Mental Health Center began in 1985 as an outreach program for seniors at risk of suicide, and soon developed several programs to address various levels of depression or emotional crisis among seniors, including Volunteers Involved in the Emotional Well- being of Seniors (VIEWS). Over the last ten years, Mt. Hood Community Mental Health Center has trained more than 100 peer counselors who have, in turn, provided crucial counseling to over 400 seniors. Without the help of these volunteers, many of Oregon's seniors would have sunk deeper into isolation and despair. As a result of the assistance of these invaluable volunteers, the medical professionals at Mt. Hood Community Mental Health Center have been able to extend their reach far beyond what their limited budget would otherwise allow. These volunteers are performing extraordinary work. I am proud that my own State of Oregon has initiated this effort, and I again wish to congratulate the VIEWS volunteers for being an example of what we can do to help others make a positive difference in the lives of seniors.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief. I, too, appreciate Senators Mikulski and Bond supporting this. I think the point Senator Kerry is making with this amendment--I hope in the days ahead it yields to a broader debate--is that at a time of record economic prosperity, we are having extraordinary crises in terms of access to affordable housing. All across this country we have waiting lists, sometimes for years, for the kind of people that Senator Kerry is trying to assist with this amendment. I think this is a start. Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond have been very gracious to accept this amendment. I commend them for it. But I hope in the days ahead that we can build on the Kerry amendment and really drive these waiting lists down. If anything, the hot economy we are seeing is driving up rents and, in effect, contributing to the problems we are having with these waiting lists. I didn't want to take a lot of time of the Senate, and I am very pleased Senator Kerry is leading this effort. I hope this is seen as the beginning of a bipartisan effort to drive down these waiting lists that are years and years in some communities for disabled folks, seniors, and those with HIV. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding time. I am glad this amendment has been accepted on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to enact a new program that combines secure funding for county services with a fresh approach to the management of federal lands in rural communities. Under our legislation counties will be connected to federal lands not just through the cutting of timber but also through important road maintenance projects, watershed improvements and programs that promote tourism and recreation. Since 1908, natural resource dependent communities have received federal funds for schools, roads and basic services based on the level of federal timber programs. The Forest Service cuts timber and the counties receive revenue. This has long constituted the traditional relationship between the counties and federal land management. Now, as a result of changes in natural resource policies causing declines in timber production, many of our rural communities are finding it almost impossible to fund essential programs for school children, infrastructure and other needs. There is a crisis in rural, timber-dependent America that must be addressed now. This crisis can be addressed now and in the future by providing secure, consistent funding to counties, and by encouraging a new cooperative relationship between these communities and federal land managers. Congress must promptly enact a new program that combines traditional funding for county services with creative new policies that provide real connections between rural communities and the federal lands they cherish. Senator Craig and I have been discussing how this might be accomplished because we realize that no pending proposal addressing the county payment issue has won the support of both the Congress and the Clinton administration. In an effort to break this gridlock, we have developed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act bill. Our proposal would work as follows: Counties will receive a consistent payment amount each year totaling 75% of the average of the top three federal land revenue years for their area between 1985 and the present, tied to the Consumer Price Index for rural areas. That consistent payment amount will be a combination of traditional 25% payments from the Forest Service and 50% payments from the Bureau of Land Management plus money from the general treasury where the traditional revenue stream does not rise to the level of the necessary consistent payment amount. Counties would receive an additional 25% of the average amount described above from the general treasury to use for projects recommended by local community advisory committees and approved by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. These projects could include watershed restoration, road maintenance, or timber harvest, among other opportunities, as long as the project is in compliance with all applicable forest plans and environmental laws. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management would be required to certify that a local consensus of environmental, industry, and other stakeholders exists, as well as approve the proposed project as environmentally sound. If consensus proposals cannot be developed in a particular county, then the money would be made available to counties that have developed such proposals. It bears repeating that all projects would have to comply with all environmental laws and regulations, as well as all applicable forest plans. We believe that this bill has the potential to break the impasse on the county payment issue on Capitol Hill. But even more important, it represents an opportunity to forge a new charter for federal/county government cooperation, to encourage local citizens to seek consensus- based solution for resource conflicts, and to make critical investments in the stewardship of our federal lands. This proposal will not please the proponents favoring pure decoupling of payments from timber harvest. It will also be opposed by those who are prepared to hobble the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management if they feel the timber harvest levels are not high enough. Our objective is to break the gridlock on federal support of counties, while bringing the nature of the relationship between the federal land managers and public land dependent communities into the twenty-first century. This bill provides a foundation to help rural counties through their immediate crisis, and down a path that will make sense in the next century.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is time for Congress to enact a new program that combines secure funding for county services with a fresh approach to the management of federal lands in rural communities. Under our legislation counties will be connected to federal lands not just through the cutting of timber but also through important road maintenance projects, watershed improvements and programs that promote tourism and recreation. Since 1908, natural resource dependent communities have received federal funds for schools, roads and basic services based on the level of federal timber programs. The Forest Service cuts timber and the counties receive revenue. This has long constituted the traditional relationship between the counties and federal land management. Now, as a result of changes in natural resource policies causing declines in timber production, many of our rural communities are finding it almost impossible to fund essential programs for school children, infrastructure and other needs. There is a crisis in rural, timber-dependent America that must be addressed now. This crisis can be addressed now and in the future by providing secure, consistent funding to counties, and by encouraging a new cooperative relationship between these communities and federal land managers. Congress must promptly enact a new program that combines traditional funding for county services with creative new policies that provide real connections between rural communities and the federal lands they cherish. Senator Craig and I have been discussing how this might be accomplished because we realize that no pending proposal addressing the county payment issue has won the support of both the Congress and the Clinton administration. In an effort to break this gridlock, we have developed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act bill. Our proposal would work as follows: Counties will receive a consistent payment amount each year totaling 75% of the average of the top three federal land revenue years for their area between 1985 and the present, tied to the Consumer Price Index for rural areas. That consistent payment amount will be a combination of traditional 25% payments from the Forest Service and 50% payments from the Bureau of Land Management plus money from the general treasury where the traditional revenue stream does not rise to the level of the necessary consistent payment amount. Counties would receive an additional 25% of the average amount described above from the general treasury to use for projects recommended by local community advisory committees and approved by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. These projects could include watershed restoration, road maintenance, or timber harvest, among other opportunities, as long as the project is in compliance with all applicable forest plans and environmental laws. The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management would be required to certify that a local consensus of environmental, industry, and other stakeholders exists, as well as approve the proposed project as environmentally sound. If consensus proposals cannot be developed in a particular county, then the money would be made available to counties that have developed such proposals. It bears repeating that all projects would have to comply with all environmental laws and regulations, as well as all applicable forest plans. We believe that this bill has the potential to break the impasse on the county payment issue on Capitol Hill. But even more important, it represents an opportunity to forge a new charter for federal/county government cooperation, to encourage local citizens to seek consensus- based solution for resource conflicts, and to make critical investments in the stewardship of our federal lands. This proposal will not please the proponents favoring pure decoupling of payments from timber harvest. It will also be opposed by those who are prepared to hobble the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management if they feel the timber harvest levels are not high enough. Our objective is to break the gridlock on federal support of counties, while bringing the nature of the relationship between the federal land managers and public land dependent communities into the twenty-first century. This bill provides a foundation to help rural counties through their immediate crisis, and down a path that will make sense in the next century.