Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I know he is waiting to speak as well. I thank him for the chance to follow my colleague, Senator Frist. For too long the major political parties in this country have been at war on the education issue. Today, with this bipartisan legislation, we are beginning to make the peace and to do it in a way that is good for America's children. I especially thank my colleague, Senator Frist. He and I have worked together on this legislation for many months. The heart of this legislation is that now we will be able to take the dollars away from various bureaucratic Federal requirements and pour those dollars into our classrooms to help our kids. This legislation involves eight Federal programs and more than $12 billion. What we have found in the course of our hearings is that again and again across this country we are wasting a substantial portion of that money on various duplicative Federal rules that essentially put our local school districts through what one called to me ``bureaucratic water torture,'' when what they want to do is put those dollars into our classrooms. I happen to think both political parties have made an important contribution in this discussion about education. A number of my colleagues have said, before we spend additional money, we are going to have to spend billions and billions of dollars that the Federal Government allocates today in a more effective way. The Ed-Flex legislation does that. That is why Senator Frist and I have made it a priority, and that is why we have told our colleagues in the Senate we want that to be the first education bill to come to the floor of the Senate: Before you go to the American people and ask for additional funds, demonstrate clearly you are spending the dollars that are allocated today effectively. That is what this legislation does. I also think a number of our colleagues, led by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, are absolutely right in saying that additional money is going to be needed for education. It is going to be needed to ensure we have the technology we need for youngsters. It is going to be needed to reduce class size in America, and I think that is an important part of this debate as well. When this legislation is signed into law by the President of the United States, we are going to go on to consider that legislation. I submit to our colleagues, we are in a lot better shape going to the American people to ask for additional funds when we have proven with legislation like Ed-Flex that we can squeeze more value out of the existing dollars that are being allocated. Make no mistake about it, existing funds are going to be liberated with Ed-Flex and are going to help us achieve some objectives that Members of this body feel very strongly about. For example, Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle very much want to reduce class size in America. Existing dollars using the Ed-Flex program can do that. In fact, in a school a short distance from here, in Howard County, MD, the Phelps Luck Elementary School used the Ed-Flex program to reduce the average student/teacher ratio in math and reading from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1. Some of us believe we are going to need additional dollars to reduce class size in America, but make no mistake about it; under the legislation that Senator Frist and I have brought to the Senate today, we can use existing dollars to reduce class size in America. I think that is something of value to our colleagues. I will pass on one example from my home State of Oregon from The Dalles High School that I think sums it all up. We found at one of our high schools in rural Oregon that low-income students were unable to take advanced computer courses at a local community college because the high school lacked the necessary equipment and instructors. Yet there was a community college very close by, and we were not able to use the dollars that had to be spent at the high school at that nearby community college without going through all kinds of redtape and bureaucracy. With Ed-Flex, we were able to use those dollars earmarked for the high school at the local community college without any additional cost to the taxpayers. The students were able to go to the community college. They got the training they needed. Ed-Flex, again, showed that with just a modest change in Federal regulation, we could do a better job of educating young people in America. We have had this program, as my colleague from Tennessee has noted, in 12 States. We have debated this on the floor of the Senate for some time. And through that debate, there has not been offered one example, not one in any community or any State, of low-income students being exploited in any way. I cannot recall another Federal program where it has not been possible to show some problem somewhere, but in the course of this debate, which has gotten a bit contentious, as we know, over the last few months, not one example has been produced with respect to how this program in 12 States has been abused. The fact is, it has worked. It has worked everywhere. The scores are up in the State of Texas where they are using it. Class size is down in Howard County where they are using it. Students are getting access to advanced technologies in my home State of Oregon. It has worked virtually everywhere, but it is going to work even better when we pass this legislation. I will close this part of the debate by saying I am especially pleased, and I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his help on this, with the changes in this legislation to ensure that the role of Ed-Flex will be expanded in a variety of areas involving interactive computer technology in our schools. When this Ed-Flex legislation becomes law in my State, which was the very first in the country to pioneer this, it is going to start a new program using Ed-Flex authority so that every second grader in the State of Oregon will be able to use interactive computer technology to learn and improve their reading skills. I am especially pleased that we have been able to add this technology waiver program. This is a good day for the Senate. My colleague, Senator Frist, thanked so many people when we were on the floor before, but I especially thank Ms. Lindsay Rosenberg of my staff who is with us here today. Bipartisan legislation such as this does not happen by osmosis. It happens because a lot of our staff have spent a lot of weekends and evenings working on this legislation. Today the first bipartisan education bill is coming to the floor of the Senate. It offers a fresh, creative approach to Federal/State relations, one with enormous potential for improving education for all our citizens. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I think he has raised a number of important issues and several that I agree with. During my 3 years in the Senate, I have consistently stated, along with the Senator from Minnesota, that we must do more. It is a moral imperative that we do more in terms of the Head Start Program, child care programs, and the variety of domestic needs that the Senator from Minnesota is talking about. To build support in America for additional funding for those programs, we ought to go to taxpayers and show them that with programs such as Ed-Flex we are squeezing more value out of the existing $12 billion that we are spending. There is no quarrel between the Senator from Minnesota and I about the need for additional funding for these programs. It is absolutely essential. We also happen to agree about eliminating some of the tax boondoggles and get the money. But, if we are going to get support from the American people for additional funding, it seems to me we ought to pass the bipartisan Ed-Flex bill and show that we are squeezing existing value out of the current spending, get dollars out of bureaucracy and get them into the classroom. The one point I would differ with my friend from Minnesota on, and I am happy to discuss this with him, is that in the weeks and weeks that we have been debating on the floor of the Senate, there has not been one example given of how much this program has been abused in the past. This program is operating in 12 States in the country in countless communities, and we are told now we are taking a step backwards with respect to this program though there has not been one example put before the Senate of how this program is being abused. We have plenty of examples of how it works. The fact is, there is one very close to this Capitol Building. Just a few miles from here in Howard County, for example, they have reduced class size by one half. They did not do that by spending extra dollars. You already heard the Senator from Minnesota and I agree on that point. We ought to spend additional funds to reduce class size. But a few miles from here they have reduced class size with existing funds. So we have examples of how this program works. Yet we are told this is a big step backwards while there has not been one example, not one, of how this program has been abused though it has been in place since 1994 in 12 States. It does not change any of the core requirements of title I--civil rights laws, labor laws, safety laws; all the things that are important for vulnerable children, that the Senator from Minnesota and I agree on, are kept in place. What this is going to do, as it did in my home State of Oregon, is make it possible for poor kids, who could not get advanced computing because of Federal redtape, to use Ed-Flex so they can get those skills and get the high-wage, high-skilled jobs the Senator from Minnesota and I want to see poor kids get. I am very hopeful we will see overwhelming support today for this legislation. I think by showing you can use existing dollars more effectively, this is going to lay the groundwork for the objective the Senator from Minnesota and I would like to see, which is additional support for Head Start, child care programs, domestic programs. I look forward, after we pass Ed-Flex and after it works, not talking about who is wrong between the Senator from Minnesota and I, but talking about how we can join together and get additional support for Head Start, child care programs, and these domestic needs, because we can go to the American taxpayer and show that, with Ed-Flex, we use existing dollars in a more efficient way so we build more credibility with them for domestic services. I look forward to working with my colleague towards those ends. I thank him for giving me the time. He feels strongly about it. I do as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. In a moment, I will. In the Budget Committee, this received a 21-1 vote. Suffice it to say, for an issue that has been this controversial, which generated so much discussion in the Medicare Commission, to be able to come to the Senate today with a 21-1 vote from the Senate Budget Committee and then to take the additional step that the Senator from Maine and I and many of our other colleagues have taken, like Senator Kennedy who has fought this battle valiantly for so many years--we have now taken the additional step of saying that any new tobacco tax money could be used for this program, and that strikes me as the kind of bipartisan work that the Senate ought to be doing. It would be one thing if this was a narrowly fought battle in the Senate Budget Committee. Instead, we got a 21-1 vote. Now we come to the Senate floor and say that onbudget surpluses could be used to finance this program for the vulnerable, No. 1. The second is to say that any new tobacco tax revenue could be generated for this program. That is the kind of bipartisan approach we ought to be taking. I thank my colleague from Maine. I know my friend from Massachusetts wants to speak.

Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think we can be finished with this in probably 15 minutes. The Senator from Maine and I, as well as our colleague from Massachusetts, have been here for the last few hours. If I had 10 minutes and Senator Snowe could wrap up briefly, we could be done.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, first let me thank my colleague from Maine and say that the reason we have come to the floor at this time is there would be an opportunity today for the Senate, after all of the frustrations surrounding the Medicare Commission, to take a major step forward in the cause of Medicare reform, and finance it in a responsible way. What the Senator from Maine and I have done, both in the Budget Committee and with this amendment, is sought to ensure that the Senate would have an opportunity in this bipartisan amendment to ensure for the first time in this session the Senate could make a significant addition to the Medicare program: Start covering prescription drugs for vulnerable older people and pay for it in a responsible fashion. More than 20 percent of the Nation's elderly spend over $1,000 a year out of pocket on their prescription medicine. These are older folks who are walking on an economic tightrope. They balance their food bills against their medical bills, their medical bills against their housing expenses, and many of these older people end up with a prescription that would involve their taking three pills a day which they cannot afford. So they end up taking two pills at the beginning and then maybe they take one. They get sicker. As a result, this country's inability to finance prescription drug coverage for older people under Medicare, this results in a lot of those older folks having to face hospitalizations, unnecessary surgeries, institutional health care. The reason Senator Snowe and I have acted as we have: First, to ensure that part of the onbudget surplus could be used for this additional benefit; and, second, to raise the opportunity for additional revenue through new tobacco taxes. We believe that a significant portion of Medicare expenses are due to tobacco-related illnesses. In fact, the evidence shows that perhaps 15 percent of all Medicare costs are tobacco related. In this amendment we have provided a two-step process for ensuring that we will have the opportunity to finance a decent pharmaceutical benefit for low-income older people. The first is the proposition that many Democrats have felt strongly about, and that is to ensure that a portion of the onbudget surplus could be used for this benefit. Second, we have felt that it may take additional funds, which is why we are saying that the Senate Finance Committee would have the opportunity, should they choose to do so, to add to the reserve fund money that would come from a new tobacco tax. I believe, having seen the frustrations of the Medicare Commission and their inability to come up with a bipartisan agreement, the Snowe- Wyden amendment, the amendment that we will vote on today, is a major step forward. When we talk with our older constituents, they tell us that the great gap today in Medicare is prescription drugs. More than 37 percent of older people are responsible for their prescription drug bill. On average, they pay twice as much as those without coverage. The AARP has estimated that fee-for-service beneficiaries with annual incomes below $10,000 are estimated to be spending about 10 percent of their entire income on prescription drugs. I am very pleased to have a chance, after some of the bickering that has surrounded this Medicare issue, to come to the floor of the Senate today and say that with the Snowe-Wyden amendment we are in a position to add coverage for the vulnerable older people of this country and to pay for it in a responsible way. Many of our colleagues know that Medicare offers very little in the way of preventive benefits. We have finally been able to add some mammography coverage, some coverage for those with diabetes. But the fact of the matter is, this drug coverage benefit is perhaps the next best step we can take in terms of preventive health care. What we are seeing with these new drugs and new therapies, they are absolutely key to keeping older people out of the hospital, to making sure we are avoiding unnecessary surgeries. I submit that this legislation, which meets an enormous need in our country, is also a major step forward in terms of preventive health services. I know that there are going to be some on the Republican side and some on the Democratic side who will say that this is not perfection in terms of Medicare reform. Well, I would agree with that. But I also say that the opportunity to take a major step now to helping those 20 percent of the Nation's senior citizens who pay more than $1,000 out of pocket for their prescription drugs is certainly an opportunity that the Senate should move to take advantage of. It isn't a perfect amendment. The Senate Finance Committee is going to have an opportunity to make refinements in it. But for the vulnerable older people, 37 percent of the Nation's elderly that are responsible for their prescription drug bill, this is going to mean that some of those folks are actually going to be able to pay for three pills a day when the doctor tells them that is needed. I want to wrap up by thanking my colleague from Maine. She, like myself, has worked on this issue for many years--really, since our House days. I am so pleased that now we can, after there have been the frustrations surrounding the Medicare Commission, come to the floor of the Senate with a significant Medicare reform that is responsibly financed. We got a 21-1 vote in the Senate Budget Committee, and the addition that we have made today, with the opportunity for additional revenue to be generated for this program with any new tobacco tax, is another step forward. I thank my colleague from Maine for this time. I know she would like to wrap up, and I tell her I very much appreciate the opportunity to, with her, address Medicare reform now in a bipartisan fashion and to meet the needs of some of the Nation's most vulnerable citizens, our elderly. I thank her for this time to speak. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague from Maine. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for yielding. I want to come back to how bipartisan this amendment has been----

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, can we waive it at this time? I move to waive it at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I will be happy to yield to the chairman. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for giving me this time, and also, before he leaves, the chairman of the full committee, Senator Domenici. Since I have been here, both Senator Lautenberg and Senator Domenici have worked very closely with me on a special passion I have in terms of public service, which is health care. I thank them for all their assistance. Let me also say to the Senator from Maine, I am so glad she has been willing to put in all this time on this issue because it seems to me, colleagues, that after the Medicare Commission it is especially important that the Senate demonstrate that it is possible to take on this Medicare issue in a bipartisan fashion. The reserve fund that Senator Snowe and I have developed, that will be perfected tomorrow, is going to allow for a significant step forward in Medicare reform. It is an addition to the Medicare program that is so important to the vulnerable elderly, but also will ensure it is responsibly financed. Suffice it to say, the legislation Senator Snowe and I have pursued is not going to be seen as perfection to partisans on either side. But I will tell you the seniors that we represent, and there are more than 20 percent of them who spend over $1,000 a year out of pocket on their prescription medicine, they are going to say this legislation is a significant step forward. We have millions of older people in this country who are walking on an economic tightrope. They are balancing their food costs against their medical bills and their medical bills against their housing expenses. They do not want to see the Senate spend its time bickering about Medicare reform. They want to see, as Senator Snowe has just said, the Senate get serious about real reform as we have tried to do with the overwhelming vote that we got in the Budget Committee on the question of prescription drugs. I think it is well understood we are literally on the cusp of a pharmaceutical revolution today. A lot of the therapies and the drugs and devices today constitute perhaps the very best health care preventive program we could have in our country, because what they do is prevent unnecessary hospitalizations. They keep older folks out of these acute care facilities. I say to the Senate today, if we can take the first step, the first step in the next couple of days, with this breakthrough in Medicare in terms of covering pharmaceutical services, I think it will also constitute a breakthrough in terms of preventive health care, because I believe a lot of these new medicines can prevent hospitalizations and costly institutional care. As the Senator from Maine has indicated, the heart of our bipartisan proposal is to stipulate that a portion of the onbudget surplus could be used to meet the needs of vulnerable older people. I will also say I think as the Senate Finance Committee goes forward with this issue-- because, of course, it will be their job to actually craft a number of the details of this legislation--it will be possible for the Senate Finance Committee to look at a variety of ways to fund this important breakthrough in Medicare reform. But the bottom line is they will have some options in looking at this issue because, as part of the budget process, we will have set out a general outline, the overall parameters of what really would be after the Medicare Reform Commission has reported--and we have seen the frustrations that surround it. We can then say to the country we at least have made the beginnings of real Medicare reform, responsibly financed. I will also say I think as we go forward we ought to make some tough choices with respect to this drug benefit. Perhaps not all of our colleagues agree, but I happen to think the Senate should not say that Lee Iacocca ought to have access to the same kind of prescription benefit as would an elderly woman, a 78-year-old who has Alzheimer's, an income of $13,000 a year, and a prescription drug bill out of pocket of $2,000. I do not think we ought to treat those two the same. But that is an issue we can talk about as this legislation goes forward. I indicated I would be brief. I want to wrap up by thanking our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. She and I have been active in these senior issues since our days in the House of Representatives. I want to tell her I think it is especially helpful that she has been willing to come forward and lead this kind of bipartisan effort after the frustrations of the Medicare Commission so we can show the country we are at least making a beginning. I know a number of our other colleagues care greatly about this issue. Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts has been a leader in this effort to extend prescription drug coverage as well. He and I both feel strongly that the key to getting started with this issue is to use a portion of the onbudget surplus to make sure seniors, vulnerable seniors, will have access to this benefit. I think there is a reason that the Senate Budget Committee voted 21 to 1, I believe, for this benefit. We are going to refine it in the next day or so, but I think we are showing the country we can expand coverage for the vulnerable and do it in a responsible way. I hope our colleagues will support our effort in the next day or so as we move to a final vote on that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maine.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, online consumer purchases are exploding, having topped more than $8 billion last year. But the goldrush in cyberbuying is likely to carry along with it a boom in cyberfraud. As with telemarketing fraud, fraudulent schemes over the Internet are increasingly aimed at seniors--some of our most vulnerable citizens. Congress can help head-off this cybercrime by extending our current telemarketing laws to encompass fraud on the Net. That is the purpose of the legislation I am introducing today. In response to the staggering $40 billion consumers lose in telephone fraud each year, Congress passed the l998 Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act. I strongly supported that effort. The new law builds upon the four federal laws enacted since the early 1990s that deal directly with telemarketing fraud. The 1998 law stiffens penalties for telemarketing fraud by toughening the sentencing guidelines--especially for crimes against the elderly, requires criminal forfeiture to ensure the booty of telemarketing crime is not used to commit further fraud, mandates victim restitution to ensure victims are the first ones compensated, adds conspiracy language to the list of telemarketing fraud penalties so that prosecutors can find the masterminds behind the boiler rooms, and will help law enforcement zero in on quick-strike fraud operations by giving them the authority to move more quickly against suspected fraud. The 1998 law is a good step forward but it's not enough to deal with today's digital economy. As more Americans--and especially seniors--go online, cyberscams are proliferating. The Congressional crackdown on telemarketing fraud will only encourage cyberscammers to migrate to the Net unless the law gets there first. That is the purpose of the legislation I am pleased to introduce today with Senator Baucus. The Telemarketing Fraud and Seniors Protection Act, which I introduced last year as S. 2587, simply extends current law against telemarketing fraud to include the same crimes committed over the Internet. The approach expands the existing law applicable to mail, telephone, wire, and television fraud to fraud over the Internet, and its enforcement would follow the same division of labor there is today between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice. The bill would apply the same tough penalties that Congress enacted in l998 to cyberscams. The growth of Internet telephony makes it more attractive for cyberscammers to set up shop offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. law. My bill would address this problem by allowing law enforcement to freeze the assets and deny entry to the United States of those convicted of cyberfraud. The bill takes special aim against those attempt to defraud one of our most vulnerable groups--our senior citizens. Seniors are the target for more than 50 percent of telemarketing fraud. Although telemarketers convicted of fraud face stiff penalties--a minimum of 5-10 years in jail and restitution payments to their victims, we also need to better educate and inform senior citizens on how to avoid becoming victims of telemarketing fraud in the first place, and how to assist law enforcement in catching the perpetrators. The legislation would also authorize the Administration on Aging, through its network of area agencies of aging, to conduct an outreach program to senior citizens on telemarketing fraud. Seniors would be advised against providing their credit card number, bank account or other personal information unless they had initiated the call unsolicited. They would also be informed of their consumer protection rights and any toll-free numbers and other resources to report suspected illegal telemarketing. Mr. President, the Federal Trade Commission is off to a good start against cyberscammers. Some of the operations the FTC has targeted are not companies at all, but merely websites that promise consumers everything from huge new consulting contracts to the elimination of bad credit reports. They may use scare tactics to frighten consumers into sending important personal financial information and hundreds of dollars for services the consumer will never see, or attempt to lure consumers with the promise of helping them cash in on the Internet explosion. The FTC also has a strong operation going against junk e- mailers. My legislation will complement and strengthen the FTC's effort to target telemarketing fraud over the Internet and especially when such fraud is aimed at seniors. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Baucus. This legislation is similar to that which Rep. Weygand has introduced in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to cosponsor this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue that is vital to improving health care in America--specifically, whether the States are actually going to use a portion of the billions of dollars they received in tobacco settlement funds to keep America's youngsters from starting to smoke. The Senate has discussed this issue over the last few weeks, but I think it may be appropriate to have a new context as we go forward with these discussions. To get an indication of how the tobacco industry believes it is doing and why the Senate ought to be concerned about this issue, you can take a look at how the tobacco industry assesses its executives' job performance. Recently, the public got a look at information concerning the 1998 compensation packages for several of the CEOs of the major tobacco companies. The combined compensation package for the CEO of Philip Morris and the CEO of RJR equals $36 million. Last week, Mr. President, you and I marked up the Federal budget in the Budget Committee with our colleagues, but even when you spend a week dealing with the Federal budget, $36 million certainly sounds like a lot of money. I am not against CEOs being compensated for their work. My guess is that the CEOs, in this case, earn their salaries. I don't think they would be pulling down $36 million a year unless they were doing a pretty good job of keeping the ashtrays filled in America. Now, the combined compensation packages for just these two CEOs is more than 39 of our States and the District of Columbia would have received under the legislation Congress voted on last week. Let me be clear. Two of the tobacco CEOs were making more money in 1998 than the vast majority of our States would have received for programs to keep young people from getting started with tobacco. For example, my home State of Oregon would receive just over $15 million under the legislation which was considered last week. That is less than half of the CEOs' compensation. The State of Wyoming would have received $3.61 million, 10 percent of the combined compensation packages. I believe that the traditional targets of tobacco in harvesting new smokers--women, children, and minorities--are certainly worth 10 percent of the combined compensation for 1 year of these two executives. Let us also remember that it is not just the money the tobacco industry is spending on high-priced executives that the Congress should be concerned about. There is another threat to our children, and that comes from the $5 billion the tobacco industry spent last year on advertising and marketing. That is $96.2 million every week, or $13.7 million every day. Again, that is far more than many of our States would have received to protect young people from smoking. Last year, in the Senate Commerce Committee, I wanted to make sure that the individuals who had historically been targeted by the tobacco companies would have been eligible to receive funds for tobacco control and prevention programs. I wanted to make sure that just as the tobacco companies have poured billions of dollars into advertising in the inner cities and for ads targeted to children, the Federal Government would make a special effort to prevent smoking in those communities. I continue to believe the Federal Government needs to play an activist role in assuring that populations which historically have been targeted by the tobacco industry would be armed with good information and good preventive kinds of services, so that the tobacco companies would know that our communities are fighting back. Let me give you an example of some of the steps that the tobacco companies may be pursuing in the days ahead to circumvent efforts by the Federal Government such as those we discussed last week. We know the tobacco companies are now test marketing cigarettes which produce less smoke so that individuals around the smoker will not be bothered in the same way as they were so often in the past. Yet, one of the cigarettes, the Eclipse, made by RJR, is showing even more signs of being dangerous to the smoker. With the Eclipse, the evidence shows that smokers may actually be breathing in glass fibers in addition to other carcinogens. I think it is important that the Senate understand this as we go forward with further discussions about how the tobacco settlement funds are going to be used. If the Federal Government wishes to waive its portion of the billions of dollars involved in the tobacco settlement, let's make sure that at least a portion of this money--at least a modest portion--is used to protect future generations of Americans against the tobacco industry. I hope the Congress won't pass up another opportunity to protect America's youngsters. I urge my colleagues to continue to try to assure that some portion of the dollars secured in the tobacco settlement are actually used for health services for American's children. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a chart prepared by the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids which compares the compensation package of just two of the tobacco CEOs with the money that would have been received by the States under the Senate legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes at this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I am proud to be a principal cosponsor of again today is a referendum on whether Congress will tolerate acts born out of prejudice. Every hate-filled attack, whether the target is a young gay man in Alabama or Wyoming or an African American man in Jasper, Texas, is an attack on all Americans. We must not allow such acts to stain our national greatness. Our nation is committed to the ideal that all men and women are created equal, and protected equally in the eyes of the law. But some people aren't getting the message. It is high time to drive that message home. The 1999 Hate Crimes Prevention Act will put bigots and racists on notice: hate and bigotry will not be tolerated in America. This bill will close the loopholes in the current hate crimes laws. Right now, there's a patchwork of hate crimes laws in states across the country. This bill will provide a unified, Federal approach in how to deal with these despicable crimes. It puts an end to the double standard where Federal authorities can help states and localities prosecute crimes motivated by ethnicity, religion, race, and color, but not those motivated by gender, disability, or sexual orientation. This bill would finally extend federal hate crime laws to cover attacks against women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities. It also removes the current straightjacket on local law enforcement seeking Federal help to prosecute hate crimes. Current law targets hate crimes that are committed against victims who are performing a federally protected act, like voting, or eating in a restaurant. But a hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of what the victims are doing when they're attacked. With this legislation, we could prosecute under Federal law the thugs who murdered James Byrd, Matthew Shepard, and Billy Jack Gaither, as well as other victims. No one is suggesting that the Federal government should override local law enforcement authorities. This bill will complement, not supplant, the work of local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It gives these local authorities more tools in prosecuting these crimes. If they need assistance in prosecuting a hate crime, then Federal authorities would be available to assist them--to make sure that justice is served. Of course, no legislation can ever make up for the loss of any victim of a hate crime. But we can honor their memories by doing our best to make sure that crimes like these never happen again.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I am proud to be a principal cosponsor of again today is a referendum on whether Congress will tolerate acts born out of prejudice. Every hate-filled attack, whether the target is a young gay man in Alabama or Wyoming or an African American man in Jasper, Texas, is an attack on all Americans. We must not allow such acts to stain our national greatness. Our nation is committed to the ideal that all men and women are created equal, and protected equally in the eyes of the law. But some people aren't getting the message. It is high time to drive that message home. The 1999 Hate Crimes Prevention Act will put bigots and racists on notice: hate and bigotry will not be tolerated in America. This bill will close the loopholes in the current hate crimes laws. Right now, there's a patchwork of hate crimes laws in states across the country. This bill will provide a unified, Federal approach in how to deal with these despicable crimes. It puts an end to the double standard where Federal authorities can help states and localities prosecute crimes motivated by ethnicity, religion, race, and color, but not those motivated by gender, disability, or sexual orientation. This bill would finally extend federal hate crime laws to cover attacks against women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities. It also removes the current straightjacket on local law enforcement seeking Federal help to prosecute hate crimes. Current law targets hate crimes that are committed against victims who are performing a federally protected act, like voting, or eating in a restaurant. But a hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of what the victims are doing when they're attacked. With this legislation, we could prosecute under Federal law the thugs who murdered James Byrd, Matthew Shepard, and Billy Jack Gaither, as well as other victims. No one is suggesting that the Federal government should override local law enforcement authorities. This bill will complement, not supplant, the work of local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It gives these local authorities more tools in prosecuting these crimes. If they need assistance in prosecuting a hate crime, then Federal authorities would be available to assist them--to make sure that justice is served. Of course, no legislation can ever make up for the loss of any victim of a hate crime. But we can honor their memories by doing our best to make sure that crimes like these never happen again.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg, the Senator from New Jersey, is interested in speaking on this as well. He is not here at this time. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our time be allowed to go to Senator Lautenberg. I believe it is just under 5 minutes. It is my understanding there will be a vote on this measure at 2 o'clock or sometime in that time vicinity, so he would have to get here, obviously, fairly soon. But I ask unanimous consent the remainder of our time be allocated to Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am going to speak for a few minutes, and then I am going to yield some of our time to the Senator from New Jersey, the cosponsor of this resolution who has very strong feelings on this matter as well. We appreciate him coming over, as well, this morning. Mr. President, a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood is irresponsible political brinkmanship, a provocative act that literally dares the State of Israel to respond, and it directly contravenes the spirit of the historic Oslo accords. Six years ago, at those accords, the Israeli and Palestinian people took significant steps towards achieving peace and stability in the Middle East. Together there was a commitment to work and cooperate to produce a lasting peace through open and honest negotiations. Despite that very promising beginning, the peace process is now on dangerously thin ice. The greatest risk to stability in the Middle East today is a repeated threat by Palestinian leaders to unilaterally declare statehood once the historic Oslo accords expire on May 4. Not only would such a declaration run counter to the spirit of the accords, but it would truly send a chilling message to all those who want meaningful peace in the Middle East. That meaningful peace is why Senator Brownback and I in our bipartisan resolution today have garnered the support of 95 Members of the U.S. Senate to stand in strong opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. We believe that step would constitute an ill-conceived plan that would truly short circuit the peace process. It would be bad news to all those who value stability in the Middle East. The question of achieving Palestinian statehood while maintaining Israel's security lies at the heart of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people. It is not going to be resolved overnight with a press release. It is going to take careful face-to-face negotiations and real commitment from both sides. Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders made a commitment in the Oslo accords to go forward with the negotiated process. Chairman Arafat said so himself in a letter to Prime Minister Rabin in 1993. In his own words, he said, ``All outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' He needs to be held to this promise. Israel has held up its end of the bargain. Mr. Arafat must do the same. A rash move such as unilateral declaration would derail these negotiations and risk a dangerous escalation of this conflict. This sheer defiance of both the Oslo accords and the peace process would be the diplomatic equivalent of drawing a line in the sand, which invites a response and a potential escalation of this conflict. On the playground, fights begin when the schoolyard bully balances a stick on his shoulder and dares someone to knock it off. A unilateral declaration of statehood employs the same kind of school-yard bullying--it dares the State of Israel to respond. And when Israel does respond by taking reasonable and necessary steps to ensure its security, these actions would be used as an excuse to further escalate this conflict. How long would it be before we have Israeli defense forces and Palestinian militiamen standing eyeball to eyeball across the disputed boarder waiting for the other to blink, if there is a unilateral declaration of statehood? How long before tensions rise so high that the smallest spark ignites more violence? How long before we are faced again with the disturbing images where both Palestinian and Israeli mothers are shown mourning their children slain in some senseless act of violence? The people of the Middle East have been down that road before. They have tried the old ways in resolving conflict through violence and bloodshed. Now they want the opportunity to use peaceful negotiation to resolve their differences. Let us not sabotage the prospect of peaceful resolution with a unilateral declaration. The Oslo peace process is a valuable opportunity to begin healing centuries-old wounds. A unilateral declaration of statehood would only reopen those old wounds and eventually lead to yet more bloodshed. No one wants to see diplomats being replaced by armed soldiers. No one wants to see open dialog give way to angry threats. The peace process will be far better served by an open hand extended in friendship than by a fist clenched in anger. Mr. President, the resolution that we will be voting on today is vitally important to keep the peace process moving forward. With overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, we have the opportunity to send a clear, unequivocal message that we stand united in our opposition to a unilateral declaration of statehood. This resolution will hopefully make Palestinian leaders think twice about scrapping the peace process. I am pleased that the President of the United States indicated his opposition to a unilateral declaration of statehood. The reason so many Members of the Senate join us today in this bipartisan resolution is we wish to drive this message home even further. The President is going to be meeting with Chairman Arafat in several weeks to discuss this important issue. By the Senate making this unequivocal assertion this morning, we can strengthen his hand as he goes forward using the Oslo peace process to make sure that there are no end runs around the critically needed negotiations. I am optimistic that a peaceful resolution can be found in the Middle East. Last month, Israeli and Palestinian authorities committed themselves to try to change the images they have of each other and to break through the mistrust that has divided them for so long. They decided to exchange columns in each other's newspapers and to hold joint briefings for Israeli and Palestinian journalists. These are positive steps toward peace, and I'm hopeful to see more of this kind of cooperation in the Middle East. But even an incurable optimist like me knows that it would be difficult to take further positive steps after a bad-faith attempt to unilaterally declare independence. Palestinian statehood is a complex issue that must be dealt with carefully. It cannot be resolved through force or fiat. The prospect of peace in the Middle East is just too important to risk in a game of political chicken. If the Palestinian leadership is truly serious about peace, they will abandon the prospect of unilateral statehood. Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as an Oregonian, I am especially proud this evening that a program that began in my home State--we were the first to get an Ed-Flex waiver--on the basis of this vote in the U.S. Senate, this program that began in my State is going to be expanded across the country. I would like to spend just a couple of minutes of the Senate's time this evening, and first begin by thanking my colleagues who put so much effort into this. Senator Frist is here this evening. He and I have been living and breathing this legislation for well over a year. I think it is worth noting that this began in the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Domenici worked on a bipartisan basis with a number of us. And this legislation began with hearings in the Senate Budget Committee. I thank the Senator from Tennessee for the opportunity to work with him. I also see Senator Jeffords here. He was especially gracious to me this afternoon. He pointed out that from time to time it felt a little lonely on their side. But I want to assure him that I think that this is truly bipartisan. Senator Daschle every step of the way was enormously supportive in this legislation. I thank Senator Kennedy. He had to leave this evening. But he worked very closely with us, especially on the accountability provision. Now, shortly after dealing with the impeachment matter, the Senate can show that we have dealt with the premier domestic issue of our day--the premier domestic issue of our day--education, in a bipartisan fashion. It is always possible in the Senate and just about anywhere else to find something on which to disagree. The Senate ultimately resisted that proposition, and we went forward with something we could agree on, which is the principle that you ought to squeeze every dollar of value out of the Federal budget for education in order to help the kids, to help them raise their scholastic performance, to deal with the issues that were debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think my only regret is that to some extent in the last hours of this discussion it became a debate about whether you are for more resources for education or whether you are for more efficiently allocating the dollars that are currently obligated. I think that is a false choice. I happen to believe that we are going to need some additional resources for the key education areas. We want our young people to get a good quality education so they will be ready for the high-skill, high-wage jobs of tomorrow. But the single best way to go to the taxpayers when additional resources are needed is to show the taxpayers that you are efficiently spending the dollars that are currently obligated. That is why Ed-Flex is so important. All across the country we saw that without Ed-Flex what you have is sort of a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to education. Folks inside the beltway will say, ``Well, what works in Coos Bay, OR, is what we ought to do in the Bronx, and what works in the Bronx ought to be done in the State of the majority leader, the State of Mississippi.'' That doesn't make sense. We ought to hold school districts accountable. But we also ought to give them the freedom to be innovative and creative and make those dollars stretch so that we can serve more poor schoolchildren. The fact of the matter is that there is a school very close to the U.S. Capitol that has cut class size in half with Ed-Flex using existing dollars. They didn't spend $1 more, not one, and they cut class size in half. In my home State of Oregon, in one rural district, the poor kids weren't able to get advanced computing, because their school district didn't have the technology and they didn't have the instructors. There was a community college close by with Ed-Flex. Without any additional expenses to the taxpayers, those kids could go to the community college and get the skills they needed. Again, we see a concrete example of how with just a little bit of flexibility we can better serve the poor kids of this country. We were on the floor of the U.S. Senate, I guess, for the better part of 2 weeks dealing with Ed-Flex, and not one single example of abuse was ever shown on the floor of the Senate--not one. But there were plenty of examples of how this program worked. I just cited one close by the Capitol that cut class size in half. In Texas, the scores went up with better use of technology. From one end of the country to the other, we see how this program has worked. I know that my colleagues wish to speak tonight on this issue. But I just wanted to take a minute or two to talk about why I think this is a particularly good day for the U.S. Senate. There is no issue more important than this. I see the majority leader is here. I want to express my thanks to him, and to Tom Daschle. The fact is that this important legislation could have blown up 15 or 20 times in the last few days. And Tom Daschle and Trent Lott said that this was too important to let that happen. Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords hung in there as well, with Senator Frist, who constantly came to the floor and just appealed to let this bipartisan idea, which every Governor in the country wants, to go forward. We were able to get it done. I suspect the conference on this legislation will not be for the fainthearted. There are certainly differences of opinion on a number of the issues. But this is a very good day for the U.S. Senate, and a good day for American families, because we have shown that we could tackle important issues. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?