Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing legislation to provide seniors with insurance coverage for prescription drugs. This legislation, the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act, SPICE, is the only bipartisan, market- based approach to provide seniors with choice and access to coverage that is actually paid for. It will give seniors the same kind of coverage that their member of Congress has. The key issue for seniors around our nation, when it comes to the issue of prescription drugs, is affordability. Our proposal will assure that each and every senior who voluntarily chooses to enroll in a SPICE plan will have the bargaining power of HMOs and of the large insurers whose job it is to get the best price they can. At least 13 million seniors have no prescription drug coverage at all. Those seniors get penalized twice: they have to pay all their costs, and they pay more because they can't get the negotiated rate that the insurers and HMOs can. This bill will level the playing field for those seniors giving them affordability and access. We know the kinds of drugs that are coming on the market now can help save lives, better the health status of an older person and, in many instances, save dollars because seniors taking their prescription drugs as they are told to by their doctor will prevent costly hospitalizations and the progression of disease. If we were to create Medicare today from scratch, there would be no questions about including prescription drug coverage. If we want to assure that Medicare beneficiaries stay healthy longer we must provide prescription drug coverage. If we want to be thoughtful, prudent purchasers of health care, we must find a way to assure seniors access to the drugs. I believe the Snowe-Wyden proposal is that thoughtful, prudent and reasonable way. It assures a variety of options for coverage, and it assures that we bring real dollars to the table to pay for the program. There is no smoke and mirrors, no IOUs or other budget gimmicks in this plan. The Snowe-Wyden proposal will be funded by funding from the non- Social Security on-budget surplus and a 55-cent increase in the tobacco tax. During this body's deliberations of the budget resolution, an amendment that Sen. Snowe and I offered received 54 votes, including 12 Republican votes to do just this--fund a prescription drug benefit for seniors with an increase in the tobacco tax. The SPICE legislation creates a senior-oriented program using the Federal Employees Benefit Program (FEHBP) as a model to provide benefits that include prescription drugs and other non-Medicare covered benefits. This benefit would be open to every beneficiary and be voluntary. However, if the senior elected coverage later rather when they were first eligible, the individual would pay incrementally more the longer he or she waited to choose a comprehensive coverage option. The individual senior would be able to select from an array of drug policies and Medicare+Choice plans with prescription drugs coverage. This would be voluntary. No senior would have to change what their current coverage is if they do not choose to do so. All plans would be offered by private sector companies. For beneficiaries under 150 percent of the poverty level--$12,075 for a single senior and $16,275 for a couple, the federal government would pay the entire premium. For those between 150 percent and 175 percent of the federal poverty level, the amount the federal government would pay phases down from 100 percent of premium to 25 percent of the premium amount. For beneficiaries at 175 percent of poverty and over, the federal government would pay 25 percent of the premium amount. Our SPICE benefit will be administered by a new Board that would be separate from the Health Care Financing Administration but report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Board would approve plan designs and premium submissions, approve and distribute consumer education materials, develop enrollment procedures and make recommendations concerning additional funding, further ability to pay mechanisms and other steps needed to assure continuing availability of comprehensive coverage as seniors' health needs change over time. Many of us would prefer to do an overhaul of Medicare and modernize it to include benefits like prescription drugs. However, the thirteen million Medicare beneficiaries who need coverage and the millions who have coverage that does not truly help them, need a way to get meaningful coverage today. This proposal will do that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing legislation to provide seniors with insurance coverage for prescription drugs. This legislation, the Seniors Prescription Insurance Coverage Equity Act, SPICE, is the only bipartisan, market- based approach to provide seniors with choice and access to coverage that is actually paid for. It will give seniors the same kind of coverage that their member of Congress has. The key issue for seniors around our nation, when it comes to the issue of prescription drugs, is affordability. Our proposal will assure that each and every senior who voluntarily chooses to enroll in a SPICE plan will have the bargaining power of HMOs and of the large insurers whose job it is to get the best price they can. At least 13 million seniors have no prescription drug coverage at all. Those seniors get penalized twice: they have to pay all their costs, and they pay more because they can't get the negotiated rate that the insurers and HMOs can. This bill will level the playing field for those seniors giving them affordability and access. We know the kinds of drugs that are coming on the market now can help save lives, better the health status of an older person and, in many instances, save dollars because seniors taking their prescription drugs as they are told to by their doctor will prevent costly hospitalizations and the progression of disease. If we were to create Medicare today from scratch, there would be no questions about including prescription drug coverage. If we want to assure that Medicare beneficiaries stay healthy longer we must provide prescription drug coverage. If we want to be thoughtful, prudent purchasers of health care, we must find a way to assure seniors access to the drugs. I believe the Snowe-Wyden proposal is that thoughtful, prudent and reasonable way. It assures a variety of options for coverage, and it assures that we bring real dollars to the table to pay for the program. There is no smoke and mirrors, no IOUs or other budget gimmicks in this plan. The Snowe-Wyden proposal will be funded by funding from the non- Social Security on-budget surplus and a 55-cent increase in the tobacco tax. During this body's deliberations of the budget resolution, an amendment that Sen. Snowe and I offered received 54 votes, including 12 Republican votes to do just this--fund a prescription drug benefit for seniors with an increase in the tobacco tax. The SPICE legislation creates a senior-oriented program using the Federal Employees Benefit Program (FEHBP) as a model to provide benefits that include prescription drugs and other non-Medicare covered benefits. This benefit would be open to every beneficiary and be voluntary. However, if the senior elected coverage later rather when they were first eligible, the individual would pay incrementally more the longer he or she waited to choose a comprehensive coverage option. The individual senior would be able to select from an array of drug policies and Medicare+Choice plans with prescription drugs coverage. This would be voluntary. No senior would have to change what their current coverage is if they do not choose to do so. All plans would be offered by private sector companies. For beneficiaries under 150 percent of the poverty level--$12,075 for a single senior and $16,275 for a couple, the federal government would pay the entire premium. For those between 150 percent and 175 percent of the federal poverty level, the amount the federal government would pay phases down from 100 percent of premium to 25 percent of the premium amount. For beneficiaries at 175 percent of poverty and over, the federal government would pay 25 percent of the premium amount. Our SPICE benefit will be administered by a new Board that would be separate from the Health Care Financing Administration but report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Board would approve plan designs and premium submissions, approve and distribute consumer education materials, develop enrollment procedures and make recommendations concerning additional funding, further ability to pay mechanisms and other steps needed to assure continuing availability of comprehensive coverage as seniors' health needs change over time. Many of us would prefer to do an overhaul of Medicare and modernize it to include benefits like prescription drugs. However, the thirteen million Medicare beneficiaries who need coverage and the millions who have coverage that does not truly help them, need a way to get meaningful coverage today. This proposal will do that.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased that last night the Senate adopted the Abraham-Wyden New Millennium Classrooms Act as an amendment to the reconciliation tax bill. Senator Abraham and I have worked on many technology issues together as members of the Senate Commerce Committee. The New Millennium Classrooms Act is about digital recycling. It gives companies an incentive to recycle technology. It says the computer Bill Gates may see as a dinosaur, is really a dynamic new opportunity for seniors and students who have none. There is a growing need to encourage access to information technology for both seniors and students. The Administration on Aging estimates there are about 11,500 senior centers throughout the United States serving millions of older Americans. The centers offer a variety of services, including employee assistance and educational programs. Equipping senior centers with donated computer equipment could help open the door to employment opportunities. We know there is a growing demand for skilled high tech workers. Just last year, the high tech community came to Congress asking for a large increase in the number of skilled H-1B visas so they could hire foreign workers to fill the gap. Congress agreed to boost the number of H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000. Those are 50,000 jobs that could have gone to Americans. Many seniors have the drive and the desire to keep working; they simply need to gain some basic computer skills. While it is important for all Americans to have equal access to information technology, the most pressing need is in our schools. The Department of Commerce recently published a report, ``Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide.'' It shows that the rapid build- out of the information superhighway has by-passed many in rural and in less-advantaged urban communities. The report says factors such as race, income and area of residence help limit access to information technology. For example, the study found that households earning more than $75,000 are five times more likely to own computers than those earning less than $10,000. Households earning more than $75,000 are seven times more likely to use the Internet as those earning less than $10,000. We know that very early in the next Century 60% of all jobs will require high-tech computer skills. To prepare our children for the jobs of the future, they not only must have access to technology, but they must be trained to use it as well. But we cannot count on children in low-income and rural communities even to have access to computers. Schools can serve as great equalizers in this equation, giving all children access to information technology resources. However, a 1997 report by the Educational Testing Service found that on average there was only one multimedia computer for every 24 students. In economically disadvantaged communities, the situation is worse: the computer to student ratio rises to one in 32. The purpose of our amendment is to build more bridges between the technology ``haves'' and the ``have nots'' to build more on-ramps to the information superhighway. You can't get 21st Century classrooms, using Flintstones technology. However, technology is not cheap and school budgets are limited, making it tough for schools to upgrade their systems by themselves. The point of our amendment is to enhance existing incentives to businesses to donate computer equipment to schools. There is a federal program in place, the 21st Century Classroom Act of 1997, but its use has been limited. It allows businesses to take a tax deduction for certain computer equipment donations to K-12 schools. But most businesses take longer to upgrade their computers than allowed for under the law. The New Millennium Classrooms Act would make this law work the way it was intended, and include donations to senior centers under this tax credit. First, our legislation would increase the age limit from two to three years for donated equipment eligible for a tax credit. This more realistically tracks the time line businesses follow for their computer upgrades. It will cover hardware that possesses the necessary memory capacity and graphics capability to support Internet and multimedia applications. Second, our bill expands the current limitation of ``original use'' to include both original equipment manufacturers and any corporation that reacquires their equipment. We believe that by expanding the number of donors eligible for the credit, we will expand the number of computers donated to schools and senior centers. Third, our bill provides for a 30% tax credit of the fair market value for school and senior center computer donations, and a 50% credit for donations to schools located in empowerment zones, enterprise communities and Indian reservations. The Department of Commerce report highlights the need to encourage school computer donation in these notoriously under-served communities and we want to target donations toward these communities. Finally, our bill requires an operating system to be included on a donated computer's hard drive in order to qualify for the tax credit. This will ensure students and seniors don't get empty computer shells, but the brains that drive the computers. Our legislation is supported by a wide range of business and education groups. Leaders of technology associations, like the Information Technology Industry Council and TechNet, and the National Association of Manufacturers have joined education associations, such as the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Association of State University and Land Grant Colleges, in support of the amendment. The Digital Millennium Classrooms Act promotes digital recycling. It will encourage companies to put their used computers into classrooms instead of into landfills. It will help build a safety net under students trying to cross the digital divide. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment, and again wish to commend Senator Abraham for his leadership on this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Craig and I are introducing a bill that will help protect the global climate system by improving local natural resource management and strengthening the economy in rural communities. The Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act of 1999 will expand the nation's forested lands and provide effective tools for including forests in our national efforts to fight global warming. The bill focuses on forests because they are the lungs of our planet. Investing in healthy forests is an investment in the health of our environment today and 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. It 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 an 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. By quantifying forests' contribution to climate protection, the bill puts the free market to work at turning the initial Federal investment into a long-term source of non-federal funding for forestry projects. And the bill takes an important first step toward reducing greenhouse gases on Federal lands by directing the Forest Service to report to Congress on options to increase carbon storage in our national forests. I am deeply concerned about the risks that we are taking with our unprecedented experiment with the global climate system. Global climate change may jeopardize critical forest and other natural resources that are closely tied with Oregon's economy and our citizens' quality of life. Water managers in the Northwest may be faced with daunting challenges if the predicted climate changes, such as drier, hotter summers, complicate protection and management of water supplies. Over the last Century, the average temperature in Corvallis, Oregon has increased 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and average temperatures across Oregon could increase by 5 degrees or more over the next century, putting the elderly in Oregon especially at risk from more intense heat waves. And sea level rise resulting from global warming could eliminate the salt marshes along Tillamook and Coos Bay regions. Given these potential hazards of global warming, the challenge is to find strategies to protect our quality of life that won't cause an economic meltdown. One of the key strategies for meeting this challenge is something this planet has been doing for more than 300 million years--growing abundant and healthy forests. Forests are a critical part of our global climate system. 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. In fact, the world's forests contain 200 times as much carbon as is emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels. 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. And here's the good news--an ounce of investment in our forests is worth not only a pound of global warming cure, but also two pounds of jobs and three pounds of protection for our waterways and wildlife. The bill that I am introducing today will not only protect our global environment, but also will provide immediate dividends in terms of watershed and habitat protection. It will provide jobs today for tree planting and forest management, and jobs tomorrow in carbon accounting and monitoring to ensure that greenhouse gas reductions are real and verifiable. I recognize that global warming is a large problem that cannot be solved by forestry actions alone. We need a portfolio of approaches, and I continue to strongly support research, development and deployment of energy efficient and renewable technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But increasing our nation's forest lands is a key part of the solution and something we can do immediately. Forests may not be a silver bullet that will solve the entire global warming problem, but they are a silver lining to the problem that can provide jobs around the country while taking a big step to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It is sometimes hard to believe that seven years ago Senators from both parties proclaimed their universal 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. We cannot afford to let the current debates about international treaties paralyze this Congress into inaction when there are opportunities here at home to protect our environment in ways that also provide jobs and economic growth. Forests are one of those opportunities. This bill will take 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 projects that grow healthy, productive forests and provide better wildlife habitats. This bill is supported by the National Association of State Foresters and the Society of American Foresters. It responds to recent recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences by providing assistance 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 non-industrial, private forest land in parcels of less than 100 acres. Access to these low-interest loans can empower these landowners to improve their lands while providing global environmental protection. Under the bill, State Foresters will be able to give loans for forest projects that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while improving habitats and protecting waterways. For example, loans will be available for planting trees as buffer zones along salmon streams and rivers in areas that are currently being used by livestock or for crop production. Loans will be available to turn thin and poorly stocked forest lands into healthier and more productive lands that remove greater amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and provide additional timber resources on private lands. And loans will be available to grow trees for use in bioenergy facilities that can provide energy without increasing the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. These loans must be repaid with interest--money that will be reinvested in additional loans to double and triple the impact of every federal dollar over time. Loans may not be provided for reforestation activities already required under any state or local laws. And the bill ensures that people aren't paid to cut their existing trees in order to receive funding for replanting afterwards. A critical element of the bill is that it harnesses the power of the free market to allow responsible businesses to invest in the nation's forests. Across the nation, companies are voluntarily seeking ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Some companies are going as far as sending money oversees to protect forests in other countries. Forests in Brazil are important, but forests in Bend, Oregon, can do just as good a job at fighting off global warming. In fact, our Northwest forests are some of the best carbon ``sinks'' in the world. This bill provides a way for companies to invest in American forests and know with accuracy the amount of greenhouse gases that are removed from the atmosphere due to their investments. Once businesses recognize that the nation's forests are an opportunity for environmental investment, their entrepreneurial ingenuity will generate new opportunities for consumers and other businesses to tap into this win-win opportunity. We know that this approach works because of the leadership of my home State of 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 pleased to say that PacifiCorp announced last month that it is contributing $1.5 million to the Forest Resource Trust to support tree planting and reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This leadership by PacifiCorp will create forestry jobs in Oregon, protect salmon and fish habitat, create new wildlife habitats, and remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. 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. 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 board representing industry, foresters, states, and environmental groups. 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 is already supported by timber companies and environmental organizations alike. I have already received supportive letters from: American Forest and Paper Association, American Forests, Environmental Defense Fund, Governor John A. Kitzhaber of Oregon, National Association of State Foresters, PacifiCorp, Society of American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and The Pacific Forest Trust. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that we pursue this common-sense good step toward protecting the environment and supporting our forest workers. I ask unanimous consent that 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 a bill that will help protect the global climate system by improving local natural resource management and strengthening the economy in rural communities. The Forest Resources for the Environment and the Economy Act of 1999 will expand the nation's forested lands and provide effective tools for including forests in our national efforts to fight global warming. The bill focuses on forests because they are the lungs of our planet. Investing in healthy forests is an investment in the health of our environment today and 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. It 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 an 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. By quantifying forests' contribution to climate protection, the bill puts the free market to work at turning the initial Federal investment into a long-term source of non-federal funding for forestry projects. And the bill takes an important first step toward reducing greenhouse gases on Federal lands by directing the Forest Service to report to Congress on options to increase carbon storage in our national forests. I am deeply concerned about the risks that we are taking with our unprecedented experiment with the global climate system. Global climate change may jeopardize critical forest and other natural resources that are closely tied with Oregon's economy and our citizens' quality of life. Water managers in the Northwest may be faced with daunting challenges if the predicted climate changes, such as drier, hotter summers, complicate protection and management of water supplies. Over the last Century, the average temperature in Corvallis, Oregon has increased 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and average temperatures across Oregon could increase by 5 degrees or more over the next century, putting the elderly in Oregon especially at risk from more intense heat waves. And sea level rise resulting from global warming could eliminate the salt marshes along Tillamook and Coos Bay regions. Given these potential hazards of global warming, the challenge is to find strategies to protect our quality of life that won't cause an economic meltdown. One of the key strategies for meeting this challenge is something this planet has been doing for more than 300 million years--growing abundant and healthy forests. Forests are a critical part of our global climate system. 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. In fact, the world's forests contain 200 times as much carbon as is emitted to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels. 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. And here's the good news--an ounce of investment in our forests is worth not only a pound of global warming cure, but also two pounds of jobs and three pounds of protection for our waterways and wildlife. The bill that I am introducing today will not only protect our global environment, but also will provide immediate dividends in terms of watershed and habitat protection. It will provide jobs today for tree planting and forest management, and jobs tomorrow in carbon accounting and monitoring to ensure that greenhouse gas reductions are real and verifiable. I recognize that global warming is a large problem that cannot be solved by forestry actions alone. We need a portfolio of approaches, and I continue to strongly support research, development and deployment of energy efficient and renewable technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But increasing our nation's forest lands is a key part of the solution and something we can do immediately. Forests may not be a silver bullet that will solve the entire global warming problem, but they are a silver lining to the problem that can provide jobs around the country while taking a big step to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It is sometimes hard to believe that seven years ago Senators from both parties proclaimed their universal 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. We cannot afford to let the current debates about international treaties paralyze this Congress into inaction when there are opportunities here at home to protect our environment in ways that also provide jobs and economic growth. Forests are one of those opportunities. This bill will take 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 projects that grow healthy, productive forests and provide better wildlife habitats. This bill is supported by the National Association of State Foresters and the Society of American Foresters. It responds to recent recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences by providing assistance 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 non-industrial, private forest land in parcels of less than 100 acres. Access to these low-interest loans can empower these landowners to improve their lands while providing global environmental protection. Under the bill, State Foresters will be able to give loans for forest projects that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere while improving habitats and protecting waterways. For example, loans will be available for planting trees as buffer zones along salmon streams and rivers in areas that are currently being used by livestock or for crop production. Loans will be available to turn thin and poorly stocked forest lands into healthier and more productive lands that remove greater amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and provide additional timber resources on private lands. And loans will be available to grow trees for use in bioenergy facilities that can provide energy without increasing the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. These loans must be repaid with interest--money that will be reinvested in additional loans to double and triple the impact of every federal dollar over time. Loans may not be provided for reforestation activities already required under any state or local laws. And the bill ensures that people aren't paid to cut their existing trees in order to receive funding for replanting afterwards. A critical element of the bill is that it harnesses the power of the free market to allow responsible businesses to invest in the nation's forests. Across the nation, companies are voluntarily seeking ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Some companies are going as far as sending money oversees to protect forests in other countries. Forests in Brazil are important, but forests in Bend, Oregon, can do just as good a job at fighting off global warming. In fact, our Northwest forests are some of the best carbon ``sinks'' in the world. This bill provides a way for companies to invest in American forests and know with accuracy the amount of greenhouse gases that are removed from the atmosphere due to their investments. Once businesses recognize that the nation's forests are an opportunity for environmental investment, their entrepreneurial ingenuity will generate new opportunities for consumers and other businesses to tap into this win-win opportunity. We know that this approach works because of the leadership of my home State of 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 pleased to say that PacifiCorp announced last month that it is contributing $1.5 million to the Forest Resource Trust to support tree planting and reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This leadership by PacifiCorp will create forestry jobs in Oregon, protect salmon and fish habitat, create new wildlife habitats, and remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. 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. 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 board representing industry, foresters, states, and environmental groups. 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 is already supported by timber companies and environmental organizations alike. I have already received supportive letters from: American Forest and Paper Association, American Forests, Environmental Defense Fund, Governor John A. Kitzhaber of Oregon, National Association of State Foresters, PacifiCorp, Society of American Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and The Pacific Forest Trust. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that we pursue this common-sense good step toward protecting the environment and supporting our forest workers. I ask unanimous consent that 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, the amendment seeks to deter violent crime borne out of prejudice and hatred. Since 1991, almost 50,000 hate crimes have been voluntarily reported to the FBI. More than 8,000 were reported in l997 alone, and many more probably occurred. I am of the view that violent hate crimes stain our national greatness. This amendment cannot erase the stain entirely, but it is a step toward removing the immunity from prosecution that perpetrators have enjoyed for too long. The amendment will close the loopholes in current federal hate crimes law and remove the straightjacket from local law enforcement so they can get federal help when they need it. The amendment does three things: First, it would remove restrictions on the types of situations in which the Justice Department can prosecute defendants for violent crimes based on race, color, religion or national origin. Second, it would assure that crimes targeted against victims because of disability, gender or sexual orientation that cause death or bodily injury can be prosecuted if there is a sufficient connection to interstate commerce. Third, it would require the Attorney General to certify in writing that she had consulted with State and local law enforcement and that they had asked for federal help, or did not have jurisdiction or, as in current law, that federal prosecution is necessary to secure substantial justice in eradicating hate-based crimes. Under current law, the Justice Department can prosecute crimes motivated by race, religion and ethnicity only if two tests are satisfied. First, DoJ must prove bias was the motive. Second, DoJ must prove the perpetrator intended to prevent the individual from doing certain federally protected things, such as serving on a jury, enrolling or attending a public school, or applying for or enjoying employment. Motive for the crime is a matter for the jury to determine. And, as is the case for every element of a criminal offense, DoJ would have to prove motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Motive plays the same rule under federal and state anti-discrimination laws as it does under the current federal hate crimes law. My amendment does not affect this. It is the second test which has prevented the law from reaching many cases where individuals kill or injure others because of racial or religious hatred. In 1994, a jury acquitted 3 white supremacists who had assaulted 3 African-Americans. Jurors revealed after the trial that they felt racial animus had been established but not that the defendants intended to prevent the victims from participating in a federally protected activity. My amendment addresses this limitation. Under my amendment, DoJ would still have to satisfy the first test and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that bias was involved. But in cases of crimes motivated by race, religion and ethnicity, DoJ would no longer be limited to those situations where the victim was engaged in or enjoying a federally protected activity. In 1996, 88 current members of the Senate voted to support a similar provision in the Church Arson Prevention Act. Under my amendment, federal involvement in prosecuting crimes based on sexual orientation, disability or gender AND where bodily injury or death result would be limited to those instances where the violent crime has a sufficient connection with interstate commerce. This provision is critical for the 28 states that have no authority to prosecute bias-motivated crimes based on disability or sexual orientation, and for the 29 states that have no authority to prosecute bias-motivated crimes based on gender, like the Son of Sam serial killings in New York. The amendment would provide two levels of penalties in all cases of hate crimes: 1. Imprisonment up to 10 years for persons who cause bodily injury, or through the use of fire, firearms or explosives, attempts to cause bodily injury; and 2. Imprisonment up to life if death results or if the offense includes kidnaping, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. Some believe that every crime is a hate crime. Every crime is tragic, but not all crime is based on hate. A hate crime occurs when the perpetrator intentionally chooses the victim because of who the victim is. A hate crime affects not only the victim but an entire community or group of people. Some believe this amendment would provide special protection to certain groups. But it is perpetrators who intentionally single out victims because of who they are in an attempt to send a chilling message to society or others in that group of people. Some argue that hate crimes laws threaten free speech. Hate crimes laws punish violent acts, not beliefs or thoughts, no matter how violent those thoughts or beliefs might be. Nothing in this amendment would prohibit or deny the lawful expression of one's deeply held religious beliefs. However, causing or attempting to cause bodily injury is clearly not protected speech. Some have expressed concern that this amendment would federalize crimes that are better left to the states to address. Today, there is overlapping jurisdiction in the case of many homicides, bank robberies, kidnaping and fraud. Like these areas, when both federal and state hate crimes statutes apply, there will be no need for federal prosecution in the vast majority of cases. The amendment will not invite a tsunami of new cases. In no one year since the first hate crime law was enacted in 1968 has there been more than 10 indictments. In fact, from 1992 to 1997, federal officials prosecuted only 33 cases, or an average of fewer than 6 hate crimes cases a year. Mr. Eric Holder testified that this amendment will only lead to ``a modest increase in the number of cases.'' The significance of this amendment is to backstop state and local law enforcement by giving them extra tools to fight hate crime, not to open the floodgates to frivolous cases. Even in states with broad hate crimes laws, the higher penalties available under federal statute, the complexity of the investigation, the procedural advantages of a federal prosecution, or the failure of a state prosecution may make federal prosecution desirable. All but 8 states have hate crimes statutes, but only 21 cover sexual orientation, 22 cover gender and 21 cover disability. Despite the clear evidence that last year's brutal murder of Matthew Shepard was motivated by hatred of gays, federal authorities were unable to assist state and local authorities in investigating the case because Wyoming had no hate crime law and federal agencies lacked the authority. Evidence indicates that hate crimes are under reported, but FBI statistics show that since 1991 hate crimes have nearly doubled, with more than 8,000 reported in l997. Race-related hate crimes were by far the most common, accounting for 60%. Hate crime based on religion accounted for 17%, and hate crimes against gays and lesbians, which jumped by 8% last year, accounted for 14% of all hate crimes reported. The federal government has a long history in combating hate crimes: In addition to the landmark civil rights laws of the l960s, In 1990, Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act to keep track of hate crimes; In 1994, Congress enacted the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act to allow for increased sentences for offenses found beyond a reasonable doubt to be hate crimes; in 1994 Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act; and in 1996 Congress enacted the Church Arson Prevention Act. Under the able leadership of Senator Hatch, the Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the problem of hate crimes. In my view the record overwhelmingly established the need for this legislation. As if we need any further evidence, we need only look to the Fourth of July weekend headlines describing brutal acts of violence aimed at Orthodox Jews, Asian-Americans, African-Americans and a gay couple in California. We must correct the deficiencies in current law. Today, a crime motivated by race, religion or ethnic origin can be prosecuted by federal authorities because it occurred on a public sidewalk but not if it took place in the private parking lot across the street. This is wrong. I believe Congress must focus the full force of the federal government on investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. The vote on this amendment will be a referendum on whether members will continue to tolerate violent acts borne of prejudice. In closing, I would say to my colleagues that this is not a problem that needs further study. The evidence is in, and it is clear. We need to send a strong and unequivocal message that hate crimes will no longer be tolerated; that the full force of federal law enforcement will be brought to bear in prosecuting these violent acts. I hope my colleagues will ask themselves the following question. If they have a child or know of a child who has a disability, a child who is gay, or who is a girl, and that child suffers bodily injury or worse, death, simply because of who he or she is, do you want that child to be just another statistic that is studied, or do you want the perpetrator to be prosecuted to the fullest extent allowed by the Hate Crimes Prevention Act? amendment no. 1325 (Purpose: To provide for a study on older individuals and crime) At the end of title I, add the following: Sec. . (a) In this section: (1) The term ``hate crime'' has the meaning given the term in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note). (2) The term ``older individual'' means an individual who is age 65 or older. (b) The Attorney General shall conduct a study concerning-- (1) whether an order individual is more likely than the average individual to be the target of a crime; (2) the extent of crimes committed against older individuals; and (3) the extent to which crimes committed against older individuals are hate crimes. (c) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report containing the results of the study.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, very much. Mr. President and colleagues, I offer this amendment with a number of our colleagues to protect the relationship between health professionals and their patients. What this amendment is all about is essentially ensuring that patients can get all the facts and all of the information about essential health care services for them and their families. If ever there was an amendment that does not constitute HMO bashing, this would be it. I don't see how in the world you can make an argument for saying that in the United States at the end of the century, when doctors sit down with their patients and their families, the doctors have to keep the patients in the dark with respect to essential services and treatment options for them. Unfortunately, that is what has taken place. They are known as ``gag clauses.'' They are chilling the relationship between doctor and patient, and they are at the heart of what I seek to do in this amendment with my colleagues. I think Members of this body can disagree on a variety of issues with respect to managed care. I have the highest concentration of older people in managed care in my hometown in the United States. Sixty percent of the older people in my hometown are in managed care programs. We need this legislation, but at the same time we have a fair amount of good managed care. But today we are saying even though Members of the Senate will have differences of opinion, for example, on the role of government and health care, we will have differences of opinion with respect to the role of tax policy in American health care. If you vote for this amendment, you say we are going to make clear that all across this country, in every community, when doctors sit down with their patients and their families, they will be told about all of their options--all of their options, and not just the ones that are inexpensive, not just the ones that perhaps a particular health plan desires to offer, but all of the options. It doesn't mean the health plan is going to have to pay for everything. It means the patients won't be in the dark. By the way, when I talked to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts shortly after coming to the Senate, a majority of Members of this body said these gag clauses should not be a part of American health care. Let's differ on a variety of issues--the role of government, the role of taxes--but let's not say, as we move into the next century in the era of the Internet and the opportunity to get information, that the one place in America where you keep patients in the dark would be when they sit down with their provider and cannot be told all the options. There are other important parts of this amendment. One that complements the bar on gag clauses, in my view, is the provision that makes sure providers would be free from retaliation when they provide information to their patients, when they advocate for their patients. This amendment is about protecting the relationship between patients and their health care providers. If ever there was something that clearly did not constitute HMO bashing, it is this particular amendment. Unfortunately, across this country we have seen concrete examples of why this legislation is needed; why, in fact, we do have these restrictions on what forces health care professionals to stay in line rather than tell their patients what the options are with respect to their health care. We have seen retaliation against health care workers who are trying to do their job. It strikes me as almost incomprehensible that a Senator would oppose either of these key provisions. What Member of the Senate can justify keeping their constituents in the dark with respect to information about health care services? I don't see how any Member of the Senate can defend gag clauses. That is what Senators who oppose this amendment are doing. This amendment says to patients across America that they will be able to get the facts about health care services. We talked yesterday about costs to health care plans. What are the costs associated with giving patients and families information? That is what this legislation does. In addition, it says when providers supply that information, plans cannot retaliate against providers for making sure that consumers and families are not in the dark. We have seen instances of that kind of retaliation. It strikes me that it goes right to the heart of the doctor-patient relationship if we bar these plans from making sure patients can get the truth. It goes right to the heart of the doctor-patient relationship if providers are retaliated against, as we have seen in a variety of communities.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

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

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is absolutely right. What the Senator has pointed out is that you gut the effort to protect patients from these gag clauses unless you ensure that the providers are in a position to do their job and not get retaliated against and not face this prospect of getting financial incentives when they do their job. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. We are making sure that providers can be straight with their patients. We are actually giving them the chance to carry out that antigag clause effort by making sure they will not be retaliated against and by making sure they will not face the prospect of their compensation in some way being tied to doing their job. I am very hopeful all of our colleagues can support this amendment. It tracks what the majority of the Senate is already on record in voting for, the effort that the Senator from Massachusetts and I led in the last Congress shortly after I came here. I was director of the Gray Panthers at home in Oregon for about 7 years before I came to Congress. I can see a lot of areas where Democrats and Republicans have differences of opinion on American health care. There are a lot of areas where reasonable people can differ. I don't see how a reasonable interpretation of what is in the interest of patients and providers can allow for gag clauses and then give these plans the opportunity to vitiate any effort to bar gag clauses by saying: If you try to be straight with your patients, we will retaliate against you; we will tie your compensation to your keeping these parties in the dark. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It shouldn't be partisan. It doesn't constitute HMO bashing. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, well over 2 hours ago I offered the first- degree amendment that deals with an issue that ought to be totally nonpartisan, and that is protecting the relationship between health care professionals and their patients. The distinguished Senator from Texas is on the floor. I think he illustrated what the debate has now become. He wanted to talk about the Clinton health care plan of 1994. What my colleagues and I are here to talk about is giving patients and their families a voice in 1999. In over 2 hours of discussion on the floor of the Senate, there has not been one argument--not one argument--advanced against our provision involving gag clauses; not one argument advanced against our provision protecting the providers from retaliation; not one argument advanced as it relates to this matter of making sure there are not financial incentives to keep the patients in the dark. In 2 hours on the floor of the Senate, not one single argument was made against those positions. I think it is because the Senate understands that the free flow of information between patients and health care providers is at the heart of what we want for our health care system. It is also what this country is all about. It is what the first amendment is all about. I know this has been a very hard debate to follow. We have had discussions about HCFA. We have had discussions about the Clinton health care plan of 1994. We have heard discussions about costs, about making sure that patients get all the information from their health care providers, and that providers are free from retaliation when they do give out that information, that is not going to cost a good health care plan a penny. Maybe if you are offering poor quality care it may end up costing you a little bit of money but giving people information, protecting their first amendment rights, is not going to cost a penny. I am very hopeful our colleagues, when we get back to it, will support the first-degree amendment that was before the Senate a little over 2 hours ago, and recognize that, in the space of that time, not one single argument--not one--has been advanced against the idea that there ought to be a free flow of information. We ought to protect the relationship between health professionals and their patients. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 1251 to Amendment No. 1232 (Purpose: To prohibit the imposition of gag rules, improper financial incentives, or inappropriate retaliation for health care providers; to prohibit discrimination against health care professionals; to provide for point of service coverage; and, to provide for the establishment and operation of health insurance ombudsmen)

Mr. WYDEN. I do not think there is a good health plan in America that cannot support the idea of a good ombudsman program so we can solve problems without litigation. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague yielding. I so appreciate his leadership because this is a chance, with the Reed proposal, to make sure the consumers in this country can get what they need without litigation. I hope Members of the Senate will see this ought to be the wave of the future. It is a revolution in the concept of consumer protection because what this part of our proposal does, under the leadership of the Senator from Rhode Island, is essentially say: Let's try to help the patients and the families early on in the process. Let's not let problems fester and continue and eventually result in huge problems which can lead to litigation. It seems to me--I want the Senator from Rhode Island to address this--what he is doing is essentially changing consumer protection so it ought to be at the front end when problems have not become so serious.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask the Senator from Rhode Island be given 2 additional minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is a great honor to be on the floor today to express my special appreciation at being able to work with Senator McCain, Senator Dodd, and so many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this important legislation. This bill is designed with one point and that is to make sure that America's prosperity does not screech to a halt when the calendar pages flip over to start a new millennium. I am of the view that with this bill, millions of consumers and businesses are more likely to be on line at the turn of the century than waiting in line for a courtroom date. I am especially pleased at the bipartisan efforts to make sure the individual consumer was protected in this legislation. This legislation allows consumers to get punitive damages against the bad actors. It makes sure consumers cannot be ripped off with fraudulent misrepresentations. It greatly expands the opportunity for consumers to bring cases in State rather than Federal court. And the conference report ensures that the individual consumer doesn't get the shaft because they are going to be in a position to be made whole when you take the entire package of remedies that would be available to them. I am going to focus for just a moment on the 20 major changes that were made in this legislation after it left the Senate Commerce Committee; seven of them Chairman McCain and I agreed on and one of them was a bottom-line proposition for me. The Senator from South Carolina, who is so eloquent with respect to the rights of plaintiffs in our country, was concerned, legitimately, about the long-term ramifications of this legislation. At my insistence, after the Senate Commerce Committee completed its work, Chairman McCain added a 3-year sunset provision to this legislation. So this is going to be a bill to deal with a finite, discrete problem, not something that is going to linger for decades and decades. We also eliminated the vague Federal defenses that were involved early on. We dropped the preemptive standards for punitive damages. We made sure that bad actors were not going to get a free ride. We restored joint liability for defendants who knowingly committed fraud. There were extra damages for plaintiffs facing insolvent defendants and we restored limited liability for directors and officers. That is what we began with after it left the Senate Commerce Committee and why I was pleased to join with Chairman McCain. Then Senator Dodd, who is the Democrats' leader on these technology issues and who has given me, as a junior Member of this body, so much counsel, came along and made an additional set of important changes so as to particularly protect small businesses. We also went further with respect to officers and directors, and we made sure that plaintiffs were not going to face tougher evidentiary standards because of the good work done by the Senator from Connecticut. Then we went to the conference committee and there were 10 major changes made to address concerns of the White House. In the area of proportionate liability, we doubled the orphan share for the solvent defendants, we tripled the orphan share for defendants when the plaintiffs were bad actors, and we assured that individual consumers facing insolvent defendants were made whole. We made a number of changes in the class action area. We boosted the monetary threshold. In committee, when we began it was at $1 million. Now it is at $10 million. We boosted the class size from 50 to 100 plaintiffs. We also added provisions to make sure cases could be dealt with under remand provisions to assist the consumer. Finally, there were changes in securities law to exempt private securities claims under this act, strong provisions with respect to contract enforcement. And to address a number of the important issues that our colleague from North Carolina has raised with respect to economic loss, we stipulated the economic loss rules would apply in a number of instances so as to give the consumer yet another tier of protection. Our Nation needs a game plan for Y2K. This legislation is not going to solve all of the Y2K problems that crop up early in the next century. But what we will do by passing this legislation is ensure that we do not compound the problems we know are going to occur. We are doing it in a way that is going to ensure consumers are made whole, that bad actors face the stiffest of penalties, and at the same time we do not encourage mindless litigation that does nothing other than drain the vitality out of our economic prosperity. I have believed for a long time that failure to pass legislation in this area would be similar to lobbing a monkey wrench into the Nation's technology engine which is driving our prosperity. This legislation gives us the opportunity to keep that prosperity going. I am very honored to have had the opportunity to be part of this effort. I pay special thanks, in wrapping up my remarks, to my colleague, Senator Dodd, the Democratic leader on these technology issues. A little bit after midnight on Monday--I guess that would be early Tuesday morning--this relatively young Senator was getting a little pooped and beginning to wonder how much longer I could keep going. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut said: This is not an option. We are going to stay at it until this legislation gets done. I say to my pal from Oregon, I am going to be talking to the President of the United States tonight. I looked at my watch and I thought: Well, it is quarter to 1. This is going to be interesting, to learn a little bit more about this call. But in fact, as a result of the efforts of Senator Dodd, the work that was done by Chairman McCain and his staff and a variety of colleagues on both sides of the aisle in those early morning hours, on Tuesday we consummated the 20 major changes that were made in this legislation to ensure we had a bipartisan bill. So I have to tell you, this legislation, which was on the ropes early Tuesday morning with a lot of us thinking that it was going down for the count, now is a bill that our body can be proud of. It is a genuine compromise. I am not going to continue further because I know there are a number of colleagues who wish to speak as well. But I do want to pay tribute to a number of our staff who put in these extraordinary hours. I see Marti Allbright and Mark Buse over there, with Chairman McCain; Senator Dodd's staff as well. Carol Grunberg, who is here with me, is sort of the Senate's Bionic Woman. She just kept going when it was so important to keep the parties together. I am proud to be part of this effort. I look forward to what I hope will be a resounding vote in the Senate before too long. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many Americans are benefiting from today's robust economy--unemployment is down, the stock market is up and homeownership is at record levels. Sounds good. But while homeownership levels are up for some, for others, the idea of owning a home is about as realistic as winning the lottery. For millions of working families, paying for the house of their dreams too often turns into a financial nightmare. Homeownership should not be reserved for the wealthiest in our society, but should be within the grasp of every working man and woman. Families with incomes below $25,000 generally cannot afford rent-- much less monthly mortgage payments on most homes. Some of these are the people who keep our streets safe, fight fires and teach our children, people who play vital roles in our community. They deserve to own their own homes in the communities they know so well and work so hard to improve. Working families should be able to invest in themselves and in their families rather than put their hard-earned income every month into rent paid to someone else. Houses do more than provide shelter. Houses become homes. They allow adults a chance to become established. They give children a sense of security. They allow small towns to function and big cities to endure. It is no wonder then that we value homeownership in this country. Owning a home is a part of our culture, it's what we call ``the American dream.'' Still, this dream is out of the reach of many Americans. In Oregon, where more than 75 percent of jobs do not pay a living wage for a single parent, housing costs have skyrocketed, forcing nearly half of Oregon renters to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing and utilities. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's guidelines, if someone is spending more than 30 percent of his or her income on housing, they start cutting into other basic needs such as putting food on the table, taking elderly parents to the doctor or clothing kids for school. People should not have to choose between feeding their kids or keeping a roof over their heads. The bill that I am introducing, ``The Promoting Housing Affordability for Working Families Act of 1999,'' will help communities remove the barriers to affordable housing, so working families will not have to make this choice. Many factors, such as excessive rules and regulations, add to the price of a house. Cities and states must work together to remove these barriers. By working together, they can free up rental housing for those who cannot afford to buy a home while making the purchase of a first home easier for folks who have been previously denied the opportunity. This bill addresses the problem on three fronts. First, it brings communities together to form ``barrier removal councils'' so they can identify problems to housing affordability and begin implementing solutions. Second, the bill requires Federal agencies to examine the impact of their regulations on the cost of housing. Determining this information through a ``housing impact analysis'' at the outset will save states, communities and, ultimately, families a lot of hassle down the road. Third, it makes homeownership possible for people who help our communities thrive--teachers, police officers, fire fighters and other public employees. Through incentives such as downpayment assistance and closing cost flexibility this bill helps people live in the communities they serve. Many working families are ready for their first home. They are starting to raise families, move up the ladder at work and are prepared to take on the responsibilities of homeownership. But when they get to the front door, they cannot step over the threshold because they are tied up in unnecessary regulation that drives up home prices. The ``Promoting Housing Affordability for Working Families Act of 1999'' will help these families untangle this regulatory knot and unlock the door to their first home.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many Americans are benefiting from today's robust economy--unemployment is down, the stock market is up and homeownership is at record levels. Sounds good. But while homeownership levels are up for some, for others, the idea of owning a home is about as realistic as winning the lottery. For millions of working families, paying for the house of their dreams too often turns into a financial nightmare. Homeownership should not be reserved for the wealthiest in our society, but should be within the grasp of every working man and woman. Families with incomes below $25,000 generally cannot afford rent-- much less monthly mortgage payments on most homes. Some of these are the people who keep our streets safe, fight fires and teach our children, people who play vital roles in our community. They deserve to own their own homes in the communities they know so well and work so hard to improve. Working families should be able to invest in themselves and in their families rather than put their hard-earned income every month into rent paid to someone else. Houses do more than provide shelter. Houses become homes. They allow adults a chance to become established. They give children a sense of security. They allow small towns to function and big cities to endure. It is no wonder then that we value homeownership in this country. Owning a home is a part of our culture, it's what we call ``the American dream.'' Still, this dream is out of the reach of many Americans. In Oregon, where more than 75 percent of jobs do not pay a living wage for a single parent, housing costs have skyrocketed, forcing nearly half of Oregon renters to spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing and utilities. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's guidelines, if someone is spending more than 30 percent of his or her income on housing, they start cutting into other basic needs such as putting food on the table, taking elderly parents to the doctor or clothing kids for school. People should not have to choose between feeding their kids or keeping a roof over their heads. The bill that I am introducing, ``The Promoting Housing Affordability for Working Families Act of 1999,'' will help communities remove the barriers to affordable housing, so working families will not have to make this choice. Many factors, such as excessive rules and regulations, add to the price of a house. Cities and states must work together to remove these barriers. By working together, they can free up rental housing for those who cannot afford to buy a home while making the purchase of a first home easier for folks who have been previously denied the opportunity. This bill addresses the problem on three fronts. First, it brings communities together to form ``barrier removal councils'' so they can identify problems to housing affordability and begin implementing solutions. Second, the bill requires Federal agencies to examine the impact of their regulations on the cost of housing. Determining this information through a ``housing impact analysis'' at the outset will save states, communities and, ultimately, families a lot of hassle down the road. Third, it makes homeownership possible for people who help our communities thrive--teachers, police officers, fire fighters and other public employees. Through incentives such as downpayment assistance and closing cost flexibility this bill helps people live in the communities they serve. Many working families are ready for their first home. They are starting to raise families, move up the ladder at work and are prepared to take on the responsibilities of homeownership. But when they get to the front door, they cannot step over the threshold because they are tied up in unnecessary regulation that drives up home prices. The ``Promoting Housing Affordability for Working Families Act of 1999'' will help these families untangle this regulatory knot and unlock the door to their first home.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the chance to continue this for a moment because the Senator from Rhode Island is essentially being logical. Heaven forbid that actually takes over some of the debate we have. There is nothing partisan about making sure that consumers have all the facts about their health care. That is the effort with respect to barring gag clauses. And there is nothing partisan about this ombudsman approach. I am very hopeful, frankly, that as the Senate learns more about this kind of concept pioneered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Families USA, and others, that we will see some of the good health care plans in this country saying we are going to support this because it makes sense to solve problems early on. Frankly, if we can win support for the Reed proposal early on--I am honored to join in on it--I think this will go a long way to eventually resolving the controversy about litigation because I think we will see good advocacy programs early on, and we can confine then the need for litigation to really only the outrageous, outlandish cases where I think every Member of the Senate would say, goodness, this is an area where you really ought to have a legal remedy. But we would have skewed the whole system toward prevention and early intervention, or answering the questions that the Senator from Rhode Island has properly identified. I will tell you that in my hometown, where we do have a lot of good managed care, folks want to see this kind of proposal. They want to see what is laid out in the legislation that our colleagues on this side of the aisle are offering, and they want to see us reach a bipartisan agreement. The Presiding Officer of the Senate and I have had the most competitive elections in the history of the West. We have teamed up together on a whole host of issues in the Senate. It would seem to me that around the ombudsman program and around barring gag clauses, this is another area where essentially partisan politics ought to stop outside the Chamber. We ought to work together to enact a good ombudsman program to say that this is the best anecdote to frivolous litigation, frankly, that we could possibly find. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island, with whom I have enjoyed working for well over a decade on senior and consumer issues, and for the chance to work with him on it. Perhaps by way of wrapping up my question to the Senator from Rhode Island, could he fill us in on progress with other colleagues? I know that Senator Collins has been very interested in this issue. She has done good work in her home State of Maine. Perhaps the Senator from Rhode Island could just wrap up by telling us where his proposal stands. I want to assure him and Senator Kennedy, who has been leading this fight--and I am anxious to work with him. In fact, when I first came to the Senate, just a few weeks after arriving I had a chance to work with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts on the effort to bar gag clauses. I only wish we had gotten that in place back then several years ago. It is long overdue that we get that protection for consumers as well as the Reed proposal. Perhaps the Senator from Rhode Island could tell us where the ombudsman proposal stands at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. I will be very brief as well. I think the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, particularly with Families USA, is on to something that really constitutes a revolution in consumer protection. What we have seen on one issue after another--just a few minutes ago the distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and Senator Dodd of Connecticut, and I were able to get an agreement on the Y2K issue with respect to trying to hold down frivolous lawsuits surrounding Y2K. What the Senator from Rhode Island and Families USA have been able to do is essentially say in the health care system: We are going to do everything we possibly can to limit frivolous lawsuits; we are going to help people when they need it most, when the problem first develops. I want to assure the Senator from Rhode Island and the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts that I am anxious to work with them on this proposal, because I think this is one of the areas where the parties ought to be able to come together. It may sound quaint, but the ombudsman notion is simply good government. It is preventive kind of medicine. I thank the Senator for the chance to work with him on it. I will not ask him to yield further. But I am very hopeful that in the days ahead both political parties can see the merit in this idea and have it included.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for yielding. He has made an excellent presentation with respect to the need for strong advocates for these kids. I will turn briefly to another area where the Senator from Rhode Island has, in my view, done yeoman work, and an area, frankly, that I think has sort of gotten lost a little bit in this discussion. That is the proposal the Senator from Rhode Island has made with respect to having ombudsmen or advocates for consumers around the country. It ought to be one of the areas that both political parties could gravitate to, because I believe that what the Senator from Rhode Island has done--of course, we have gotten great input from Families USA and Ron Pollack and some of the folks who have done so much for consumers over the years--is essentially talk about a true revolution in the area of consumer protection. What happened--I have seen this so often since my days as director of the Gray Panthers; I was head of the Gray Panthers at home for about 7 years before I was elected to the House--what we saw was that the consumer would have a problem and, without any advocates or the ability to get it handled early on, a problem that started off relatively modest and minor would just fester and get worse and eventually blossom into a huge controversy which ended up in litigation. As the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island knows, one of the most controversial aspects of this whole debate about managed care is litigation. It seems to me that if the Senate were to adopt the proposal of the Senator from Rhode Island or some version of it, this would shift the focus of consumer protection away from litigation, away from problems after they have unnecessarily developed into something serious. Instead, we would resolve a lot of the problems early on and we wouldn't need this focus on litigation. Certainly, we ought to have legal remedies for the really outrageous examples of consumer rip-offs and the like. But I think what the Senator from Rhode Island has done, and it is such a valuable service in this debate and a real revolution in consumer protection, is said: Let's get at it early on when the consumer and the families can find somewhere to turn. We will prevent problems then. It can be done relatively inexpensively. I would like the Senator from Rhode Island to elaborate a little bit on this and make sure that over the next few minutes the Senator from Rhode Island can lay out his proposal, on which I am honored to join with him. I think this has the potential of, frankly, being one of the areas where the parties, once they focus on it, can say: This is good public policy that will reduce the need for litigation and, as Ron Pollack and Families USA have said so eloquently, help a lot of consumers when they need it most. Perhaps the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island could take us through it.

Mr. WYDEN. I just want to, at a convenient time, ask my good friend from Rhode Island to yield for a question or two because I think the Senator has made an excellent presentation on the need to advocate for kids. All the latest research with respect to these children is really dropped-dead material. Unless you get there early, as the Senator from Rhode Island is suggesting, you end up, with a lot of these poor kids, playing catchup ball for the next 10 years. So when it is convenient, I would like to engage the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island in a few questions about some of the other areas where he has contributed on this bill that, frankly, I think ought to help bring the parties together and help us fashion a bipartisan proposal. I just want the Senator from Rhode Island to know how much I appreciate him standing up for those kids who do not have political action committees and do not have clout and cannot speak for themselves. At an opportune time in the Senator's address, I would like to be able to ask the Senator to yield just to address a few other questions about some of the areas on which he has focused.

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the distinguished Senator yielding. I have felt that he has really gone to great lengths to try to ensure that this could be supported by every Member of the Senate. Frankly, I feel about his proposal much like I do about the gag clause discussion. I think he and I have talked about this. I am probably a lot of things, but one of the last things I guess I would qualify as is an HMO basher. We have a lot of good managed care in my part of the United States. My hometown of Portland has the highest concentration of folks in HMOs in the United States. About 60 percent of the older people are part of a managed care program. The distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Smith, and I have worked together on a lot of these issues. Frankly, one of our big concerns is, we do offer a lot of good managed care. We end up getting the short end of the stick in terms of reimbursement. I think what the Senator is talking about with an ombudsman, much like gag clauses where people, of course, ought to be entitled to all of the information about their options, the ombudsman concept is much the same kind of approach to good government. The Senator from Rhode Island has written this now so as to ensure it cannot result in litigation, that this specifically is designed to help consumers at the front end and bars litigation. I don't think the majority of the Senate is aware of that. The Senator from Rhode Island has indicated to this Senator and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who has been very interested in this issue over the years, who has done good work, that he wants to make sure we don't duplicate existing services. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I have informed the minority leader that I will object to any unanimous consent request to proceed to S. 1272 or any legislation containing provisions that would override Oregon's physician assisted suicide law. I have notified the bill's sponsor and the committee chairman and ranking member to which it was referred.