Floor Statements

Mr. President, the threat of terrorism is an unfortunate fact of life today, and it is not going to go away any time soon. Protecting American citizens against this threat will continue to be an essential and urgent task for the foreseeable future.

However, I do not believe that fighting terrorism aggressively requires tossing civil liberties protections into the scrap heap. This is not an ``either or'' choice. This country's tradition of high standards of civil rights and civil liberties should not and need not become the first casualty of the war on terrorism.

I have made this point repeatedly in the time since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Still, all too often, we have seen well-meaning government agencies take the approach of designing a security system or program first, and worrying about the civil liberties and privacy implications later.

I am convinced that the approach of making civil liberties an afterthought doesn't work and isn't acceptable. Civil liberties and privacy considerations need to be built into the DNA of the Homeland Security Department and its various programs.

The legislation that created the Homeland Security Department included some very positive steps in that regard, by creating an Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and a Privacy Officer.

Today, I am joining Senator Collins in introducing new legislation to flesh out the role and stature of these key offices within the Department.

Specifically, the legislation would add a reference to civil liberties to the statutory mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security. It would provide further detail as to the duties of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. It would specify that both the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Officer shall report directly to the Secretary. And it would direct the DHS Inspector General to designate a point person within the I.G. office to focus expressly on civil liberties matters.

None of these items represents a radical departure from the original Homeland Security legislation or the current practice of the department. Rather, this new bill codifies much of what is already going on, giving it a firm statutory basis.

I hope my colleagues will join Senator Collins and me in supporting this legislation, and in delivering a strong message that civil liberties matters remain a core factor in this country's homeland security efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as many as half a million Americans in the services sector have lost their jobs in the past three years; off- shoring threatens to wipe out 3.3 million more jobs in the coming decade. An off-shoring tsunami is bearing down on workers in the information technology and services sector. The most vulnerable jobs are those considered the cream of the new economy: highly paid database managers, software coders, financial analysts and accountants.

In places like my own State of Oregon, the prolonged jobless recovery is causing many people real pain. Highly educated and experienced workers are being forced to walk an economic tightrope. Displaced software workers with advanced degrees are forced to search for entry- level positions, but employers won't hire them because they're overqualified. In Oregon and elsewhere, the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce altogether is unprecedented. If these folks were counted the national unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent rather than the current 5.6 percent.

Something in the country's tax and trade policy is seriously awry when productivity is generating wealth for a few, but not employment for the many who want to work. Something just isn't right when people can't find jobs but productivity is growing faster now than in the late 1990's, corporate profits as a share of national income are at an all- time high and all of the extra $220 billion in GDP has gone into corporate profits. In my view part of problem can be traced to U.S. tax and trade policies that actually encourage U.S. corporations to move jobs overseas rather than encourage American business to invest in American workers. These policies need to be changed.

The legislation that I am introducing today, the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, takes a first step toward eliminating tax and trade policies that favor off-shoring and overseas outsourcing at the expense of American workers. It will eliminate tax breaks for off-shoring and extend wage and training and health care premium assistance to serviceworkers who lose their jobs because of trade.

The first key feature of the bill will eliminate tax breaks for U.S. corporate off-shoring so that corporations cannot ship millions of jobs overseas courtesy of the American taxpayer. The average American probably does not know that his or her taxes are used to offset the off-shoring of their own jobs. That's right: current law allows the taxes of hard-working Americans to go right into the pockets of corporations to help them offshore and outsource American jobs. No corporation should get such a tax break, and no American taxpayer should be asked to foot the bill for their own pink slip.

Today, when a corporation sends executives and staff overseas to scope out a new facility, to buy an existing firm, or to hire foreign workers to replace employees in the United States the corporation can deduct the costs from its gross income. This means that the corporation gets a tax break on the compensation of the executives, the salaries and wages of workers, travel, lodging, meals, the cost of Internet access, computer time, copies, faxes and anything else that falls into the broad category of deductions from gross income for trade and business expenses. This means a corporation get a business expense write-off for just about any item imaginable related to off-shoring.

The bill says the costs of off-shoring and outsourcing will no longer be ``ordinary and necessary expenses.'' When is it ever necessary that a taxpayer foot the bill for her own pink slip? When is it ever necessary that taxpayer dollars subsidize the traveling expenses of a group of executives looking to relocate a manufacturing facility in a foreign country?

A respected industry research group predicts that by the end of this year, one of out every ten jobs in the U.S. IT provider industry will move to emerging markets and one out of every 20 IT jobs within user enterprises. And these figures cover jobs only in the IT sector. Under current law, all of the ``ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred'' in moving these millions of jobs overseas would be deductible from corporate gross income.

If a corporation opts to fire U.S. workers here at home and instead hire workers overseas, then the company should make that business decision based on the full cost of the transaction, not the cost subsidized by tax deductions courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Another important part of the bill will put in place a safety net for displaced IT and other service workers. Such a safety net, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, has been in place since l962 for displaced manufacturing workers. This provision will make service sector workers displaced by trade eligible for TAA, giving them retraining, income support and a health insurance tax credit.

I was disappointed when this part of the legislation won a majority vote in the United States Senate recently, but failed to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to overcome a point of order raised by opponents. I believe it is more necessary than ever to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of policies the Federal Government has adopted.

Globalization of technology is globalizing the technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. The transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one built on packets of light has come at a heavy price. Today, a software programmer in Beijing or Bangalore can perform the same tasks as a programmer in Beaverton, OR, but the programmer in Beijing or Bangalore will cost the company as little as one-fifth to one-tenth what the American programmer will be paid.

The irony is that some of the very same workers who launched the technology revolution have now become its victims. Hardly a day goes by without a front page story about an American programmer on his way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace him.

The average American may think the Federal Government is helping those tech workers displaced by trade. But it is not. That's because U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era. Since 1962, when a worker lost his job in a manufacturing plant as a result of trade, he could get help through the TAA. TAA has helped hundreds of thousands of displaced workers.

But workers in the services sector--which now accounts for four- fifths of the U.S. workforce--are not eligible for TAA. Time after time, when a displaced software developer, accountant, or telemedicine support staff has gone knocking on TAA's door for help, they have been turned away. Our bill will open TAA's door to these and other displaced service sector workers. All of these workers who have been displaced by trade deserve the same benefits.

This part of the bill will establish equity in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program between manufacturing and service workers. It will cover three categories of trade-impacted service workers: 1. those who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of import competition; 2. public and private sector service workers who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and 3. secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for TAA and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm.

Why is TAA so important? Because it provides retraining, income support, health insurance tax credit and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help ``secondary workers''-- those supplying parts or services and who may lose their jobs when the facility they service shuts down due to import competition or moves overseas.

Another innovative way to encourage the unemployed to reenter the workforce is to provide wage insurance for qualifying displaced workers upon reemployment. Eligible workers receive up to $10,000 over two years to cover up to 50 percent of the difference in salary between a new, lower paying job and their former position. The bill also would lower the qualifying age from 50 to 40. Wage insurance helps ease the burden of reentry for eligible workers who cannot find new employment at wages comparable to their previous positions.

Workers reeling from the off-shoring of service sector jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher-skilled jobs economists promise are around the corner. Higher-value, higher-paid systems integration jobs may come along, but in this jobless recovery unemployed IT professionals are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help wanted ads for new, highly-skilled IT jobs. The wage insurance and TAA pieces of this legislation address what American workers really need: a fighting chance to survive in a relentlessly global economy.

This provision offers corporate boards of directors and officers a safe harbor against shareholder lawsuits involving a business decision not to outsource or off-shore American jobs. A corporation that chooses to keep its workers out of breadlines over the numbers on its bottom line should not run the risk that it could be sued for potentially lower profits or return to shareholders.

In 2002, Congress offered TAA workers help in paying for health insurance while they pursue TAA training or retraining. The vast majority of unemployed workers just don't have the money to afford health care for themselves and their families. The Health Care Tax Credit program was intended to help workers keep coverage until they are reemployed. Unfortunately, the level of premium assistance and bureaucratic obstacles led to fewer than five percent of eligible workers taking advantage of the health care tax credit.

The provisions in Title II of the bill seek to remove these barriers to participation. The bill would boost the premium coverage from 65 percent to 75 percent, clarify that any TAA worker who had three months coverage prior to losing his job is eligible for the HCTC, allow workers to get less expensive group coverage, give coverage to spouses of Medicare-eligible TAA recipients workers, and require the IRS to expedite refunds of the first month's tax credit.

In closing, I recall that the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors just a few months ago called off-shoring ``just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing. When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically.''

If this is the ``new way of doing international trade,'' the United States needs a new policy to help the nearly 4 million Americans whose information technology and related jobs have been or are expected to be moved overseas. The country needs a tax and trade policy that promotes rather than discourages investment in American workers. The country needs a tax and trade policy that eases rather than increases the pain of worker dislocation and that eliminates the tax breaks that entice U.S. businesses to move overseas. These are the goals of the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as many as half a million Americans in the services sector have lost their jobs in the past three years; off- shoring threatens to wipe out 3.3 million more jobs in the coming decade. An off-shoring tsunami is bearing down on workers in the information technology and services sector. The most vulnerable jobs are those considered the cream of the new economy: highly paid database managers, software coders, financial analysts and accountants.

In places like my own State of Oregon, the prolonged jobless recovery is causing many people real pain. Highly educated and experienced workers are being forced to walk an economic tightrope. Displaced software workers with advanced degrees are forced to search for entry- level positions, but employers won't hire them because they're overqualified. In Oregon and elsewhere, the number of discouraged workers leaving the workforce altogether is unprecedented. If these folks were counted the national unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent rather than the current 5.6 percent.

Something in the country's tax and trade policy is seriously awry when productivity is generating wealth for a few, but not employment for the many who want to work. Something just isn't right when people can't find jobs but productivity is growing faster now than in the late 1990's, corporate profits as a share of national income are at an all- time high and all of the extra $220 billion in GDP has gone into corporate profits. In my view part of problem can be traced to U.S. tax and trade policies that actually encourage U.S. corporations to move jobs overseas rather than encourage American business to invest in American workers. These policies need to be changed.

The legislation that I am introducing today, the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, takes a first step toward eliminating tax and trade policies that favor off-shoring and overseas outsourcing at the expense of American workers. It will eliminate tax breaks for off-shoring and extend wage and training and health care premium assistance to serviceworkers who lose their jobs because of trade.

The first key feature of the bill will eliminate tax breaks for U.S. corporate off-shoring so that corporations cannot ship millions of jobs overseas courtesy of the American taxpayer. The average American probably does not know that his or her taxes are used to offset the off-shoring of their own jobs. That's right: current law allows the taxes of hard-working Americans to go right into the pockets of corporations to help them offshore and outsource American jobs. No corporation should get such a tax break, and no American taxpayer should be asked to foot the bill for their own pink slip.

Today, when a corporation sends executives and staff overseas to scope out a new facility, to buy an existing firm, or to hire foreign workers to replace employees in the United States the corporation can deduct the costs from its gross income. This means that the corporation gets a tax break on the compensation of the executives, the salaries and wages of workers, travel, lodging, meals, the cost of Internet access, computer time, copies, faxes and anything else that falls into the broad category of deductions from gross income for trade and business expenses. This means a corporation get a business expense write-off for just about any item imaginable related to off-shoring.

The bill says the costs of off-shoring and outsourcing will no longer be ``ordinary and necessary expenses.'' When is it ever necessary that a taxpayer foot the bill for her own pink slip? When is it ever necessary that taxpayer dollars subsidize the traveling expenses of a group of executives looking to relocate a manufacturing facility in a foreign country?

A respected industry research group predicts that by the end of this year, one of out every ten jobs in the U.S. IT provider industry will move to emerging markets and one out of every 20 IT jobs within user enterprises. And these figures cover jobs only in the IT sector. Under current law, all of the ``ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred'' in moving these millions of jobs overseas would be deductible from corporate gross income.

If a corporation opts to fire U.S. workers here at home and instead hire workers overseas, then the company should make that business decision based on the full cost of the transaction, not the cost subsidized by tax deductions courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Another important part of the bill will put in place a safety net for displaced IT and other service workers. Such a safety net, known as Trade Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, has been in place since l962 for displaced manufacturing workers. This provision will make service sector workers displaced by trade eligible for TAA, giving them retraining, income support and a health insurance tax credit.

I was disappointed when this part of the legislation won a majority vote in the United States Senate recently, but failed to reach the 60 vote threshold needed to overcome a point of order raised by opponents. I believe it is more necessary than ever to provide assistance to workers who lose their jobs because of policies the Federal Government has adopted.

Globalization of technology is globalizing the technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. The transformation from an economy built on smokestacks to one built on packets of light has come at a heavy price. Today, a software programmer in Beijing or Bangalore can perform the same tasks as a programmer in Beaverton, OR, but the programmer in Beijing or Bangalore will cost the company as little as one-fifth to one-tenth what the American programmer will be paid.

The irony is that some of the very same workers who launched the technology revolution have now become its victims. Hardly a day goes by without a front page story about an American programmer on his way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace him.

The average American may think the Federal Government is helping those tech workers displaced by trade. But it is not. That's because U.S. trade assistance laws were designed for the manufacturing era. Since 1962, when a worker lost his job in a manufacturing plant as a result of trade, he could get help through the TAA. TAA has helped hundreds of thousands of displaced workers.

But workers in the services sector--which now accounts for four- fifths of the U.S. workforce--are not eligible for TAA. Time after time, when a displaced software developer, accountant, or telemedicine support staff has gone knocking on TAA's door for help, they have been turned away. Our bill will open TAA's door to these and other displaced service sector workers. All of these workers who have been displaced by trade deserve the same benefits.

This part of the bill will establish equity in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program between manufacturing and service workers. It will cover three categories of trade-impacted service workers: 1. those who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays off because of import competition; 2. public and private sector service workers who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas; and 3. secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for TAA and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm.

Why is TAA so important? Because it provides retraining, income support, health insurance tax credit and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help ``secondary workers''-- those supplying parts or services and who may lose their jobs when the facility they service shuts down due to import competition or moves overseas.

Another innovative way to encourage the unemployed to reenter the workforce is to provide wage insurance for qualifying displaced workers upon reemployment. Eligible workers receive up to $10,000 over two years to cover up to 50 percent of the difference in salary between a new, lower paying job and their former position. The bill also would lower the qualifying age from 50 to 40. Wage insurance helps ease the burden of reentry for eligible workers who cannot find new employment at wages comparable to their previous positions.

Workers reeling from the off-shoring of service sector jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher-skilled jobs economists promise are around the corner. Higher-value, higher-paid systems integration jobs may come along, but in this jobless recovery unemployed IT professionals are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help wanted ads for new, highly-skilled IT jobs. The wage insurance and TAA pieces of this legislation address what American workers really need: a fighting chance to survive in a relentlessly global economy.

This provision offers corporate boards of directors and officers a safe harbor against shareholder lawsuits involving a business decision not to outsource or off-shore American jobs. A corporation that chooses to keep its workers out of breadlines over the numbers on its bottom line should not run the risk that it could be sued for potentially lower profits or return to shareholders.

In 2002, Congress offered TAA workers help in paying for health insurance while they pursue TAA training or retraining. The vast majority of unemployed workers just don't have the money to afford health care for themselves and their families. The Health Care Tax Credit program was intended to help workers keep coverage until they are reemployed. Unfortunately, the level of premium assistance and bureaucratic obstacles led to fewer than five percent of eligible workers taking advantage of the health care tax credit.

The provisions in Title II of the bill seek to remove these barriers to participation. The bill would boost the premium coverage from 65 percent to 75 percent, clarify that any TAA worker who had three months coverage prior to losing his job is eligible for the HCTC, allow workers to get less expensive group coverage, give coverage to spouses of Medicare-eligible TAA recipients workers, and require the IRS to expedite refunds of the first month's tax credit.

In closing, I recall that the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors just a few months ago called off-shoring ``just a new way of doing international trade. More things are tradable than were tradable in the past, and that's a good thing. When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically.''

If this is the ``new way of doing international trade,'' the United States needs a new policy to help the nearly 4 million Americans whose information technology and related jobs have been or are expected to be moved overseas. The country needs a tax and trade policy that promotes rather than discourages investment in American workers. The country needs a tax and trade policy that eases rather than increases the pain of worker dislocation and that eliminates the tax breaks that entice U.S. businesses to move overseas. These are the goals of the Keep American Jobs at Home Act, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3305, and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, for a number of months I have been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle--Senator Collins from Maine, Senator Stevens, Senator Warner--to try to get more oversight over the billions of dollars worth of contracts that have been and are being let to rebuild Iraq. I come to the floor today to offer an amendment with my colleague and friend, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. We have discussed this amendment with Senator Levin and Senator Warner.

What Senator Dorgan and I have found is a shocking system of so- called oversight with respect to the use of taxpayers' dollars. With the nation facing rising deficits and scarce federal dollars for our many problems here at home, it is imperative that there be strong oversight over the use of taxpayers' money. What our amendment deals with is literally the outsourcing of the oversight of the billions of dollars worth of contracts to rebuild Iraq. It sounds incredible, but the heart of the problem is, instead of having Federal employees oversee these billions of dollars worth of contracts to rebuild Iraq, the Department of Defense has outsourced the oversight of these huge contracts to private companies. These companies are ``overseeing'' the work of other private companies. If many of these companies didn't already have joint ventures elsewhere or interlocking financial interests or boards of directors, I guess one could plausibly say this would be acceptable. But that has not been the case. Putting these companies in charge of oversight of one another strikes Senator Dorgan and me as simply an invitation to flagrant fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer money.

Senator Dorgan is here as well, and I want to give him ample time to discuss this, but I would like to give a brief example of the kind of problem we seek to address in our legislation. The Parsons Company won two separate Defense Department oversight contracts that totaled nearly $72 million. Under each of those contracts, it overseas the Fluor Company in Iraq. At the same time, Fluor and Parsons have a $2.6 billion joint venture ongoing in Kazakhstan.

The question is, with such a significant shared financial interest, how in the world is anybody in a situation like that going to have a real incentive to take out a sharp pencil and protect the taxpayers.

We are talking about vast sums of money. $18 billion has been allocated by the Congress for reconstruction, and thus far 17 contracts have been let: 10 for reconstruction and 7 for overseeing the reconstruction. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia for his cooperation on this amendment. As I discussed with him, this amendment builds on the work that I was able to do in cooperation with Senator Dorgan and Senator Collins on the issue of no-bid contracts in Iraq. This amendment establishes that oversight and the protection of the taxpayers' interests in these billions of dollars of contracts, is a Government function. It is not something that can be outsourced. This amendment will prohibit companies with interlocking financial interests from ``overseeing'' one another.

We talk often about giving the fox the opportunity to oversee the henhouse. This is a textbook case of just such a situation.

I mentioned to the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Virginia, and the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Michigan, that this boils down to a simple issue of commonsense. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. Senator Dorgan and I are pursuing this as a commonsense issue--oversight should not be outsourced, particularly when the projects to be reviewed involve billions of taxpayer dollars. What's worse--these are cost-plus-plus contracts. The contractors here get any unforeseen costs, plus they are eligible for a bonus. Essentially, these contractors are rewarded if the folks they oversee perform well. But who evaluates how well those folks perform? The oversight contractors. Clearly, there are some perverse incentives at work in these oversight contracts.

We are talking about cost-plus-plus contracts that involve billions of taxpayers' dollars. It seems to me we have to get the oversight back where it belongs, and that is in the hands of the Department of Defense and not in the hands of the private contractors. Oversight is inherently a governmental function because accountability must be first and foremost to taxpayers.

I see my friend and colleague from North Dakota here. I want to yield time to him. But in wrapping up this portion of my remarks, I would like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and to the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner. This amendment, in fact, builds on some of the earlier work we have tried to do in a bipartisan fashion. It essentially comes about because, as Senator Dorgan and I have gone forward to try to make sure taxpayers' interests are protected, we found a massive loophole, a loophole that we think nobody in the Senate confronted in the past, that allows for private companies to oversee other private companies, even when they have what strikes us as very serious potential conflicts of interest.

So we are looking forward, with Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin's cooperation, to have this amendment accepted. I believe it warrants bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I appreciate the Senator's point and the cooperation of the Chairman and Senator Levin.

It is also clear if anyone tries to renew any of the old contracts which we sought to set aside, they would have to meet the new conflict- of-interest standards established in our amendment, is that correct?

I yield the floor and thank the distinguished chairman and Senator Levin.

Mr. President, last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled to uphold the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. This ruling is the latest rebuff to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft's efforts to overturn Oregon law. The ruling makes clear that contrary to Attorney General Ashcroft's viewpoint, the Controlled Substance Act does not override the constitutional right of a state to regulate medical practice, including the choice of the citizenry to determine whether they want to allow physicians to aid terminally ill patients.

Oregon voters first approved a physician-assisted suicide ballot measure in 1994, but the Oregon legislature did not agree with their decision and put the matter on the ballot a second time. In 1997, Oregon voters overwhelmingly voted once more to allow physician- assisted suicide.

Almost immediately, however, federal politicians 3,000 miles away began efforts to deny Oregon citizens their long recognized right to choose their own course. Over the course of several Congresses, the attempts to overturn Oregon law and the wishes of Oregon voters through general legislation also failed.

Having failed in Congress, I predicted in December 2000, that President Bush would instruct his Attorney General to reinterpret federal law in an effort to invalidate the will of Oregon's voters. The recent ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to preserve the Oregon vote is the second setback to the Attorney General's attempts to reinterpret federal law.

Since I was first elected to the United State Senate, I have not wavered in my defense of the choice of the citizens of Oregon. If others see this ruling as an invitation once again to attempt to overturn Oregon law through federal legislation, I will be there again to stand up for my state. Therefore, I want to notify my colleagues that I will be reviewing every piece of legislation that may come before the Senate and will not grant my consent to consider any measure or matter that contains provisions that would overturn the Oregon Death with Dignity Act.

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor this morning to state, in accord with my policy of publicly announcing any hold that I

place on a nominee or a piece of legislation, that I will object to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up the President's nominee, Deborah Majoras, to head the Federal Trade Commission.

Gasoline pricing is, of course, one of the most important consumer protection issues that the Federal Trade Commission is responsible for overseeing. The prices for gasoline, of course, are soaring. For years now, the Federal Trade Commission has been waging a campaign of inaction. In three specific areas--increased oil company mergers, refinery shutdowns, and anti-competitive practices--the Federal Trade Commission has simply been AWOL.

Yesterday, after writing to Ms. Majoras, to make sure she knew specifically of my concerns, I met with the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission. I asked repeatedly if there was even one area--even one area--where she would change existing Federal Trade Commission policy with respect to these practices that are sucking the competitive juices out of gasoline markets across the country. During that conversation not even one example was given of an area that the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission would change in the gasoline pricing area. It is for that reason that I publicly state today that I am placing a hold on this nominee.

To me, it is absolutely unacceptable for a nominee to chair the Federal Trade Commission to not want to make one specific change in gasoline pricing policy. It is certainly unacceptable to me as a Senator from a State where the average price of gas is now $2.25 a gallon, but it ought to be unacceptable to Senators from every area of the country.

Here are three examples of the record at the Federal Trade Commission that I wish to change:

First, since taking office, the Bush administration has allowed 33 oil industry mergers, totaling $19.5 billion to go through. Not only has the administration not tried to block any of these mergers, they simply have taken a pass in every respect. To be fair, the Clinton Administration also sat on its hands allowing 21 oil mergers to go through while challenging only one.

The Bloomberg News service recently reported on this issue. It is my own view that unchecked oil company mergers are a significant factor in the rising price of gasoline in the country. But the Federal Trade Commission, in the face of this huge wave of mergers, has simply been sitting on their hands, and yesterday, the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission gave me no indication there would be a change in the policy of the Federal Trade Commission on the merger issue.

Second, a handful of refiners now control most of the gasoline in our markets. The concentration is especially serious on the west and east coasts. Mr. President, 67 percent of the west coast market and 77 percent of the east coast market is controlled by a handful of refiners--just four companies. Along with this increased concentration of refiners, we have seen a drop in the number of refineries at a critical time when clearly we need more refinery capacity, not less.

Now, I have documented evidence--it is up on my Web site--that refinery shutdowns have been implemented not because of competition but to boost profit. Certainly, in my view, the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission ought to be looking at this issue of refinery capacity. But yet again, the nominee that I met with yesterday was unwilling to state what, if anything, would change with respect to refinery practices.

Third, the Federal Trade Commission has been unwilling to move against anti-competitive practices that the agency has even documented. Here I am talking about redlining, a tool that is used to wall off a community from competition. So, again, as we have seen in the case of oil company mergers, as we have seen in the case of refinery shutdowns, in this third area, anti-competitive practices such as redlining, the Federal Trade Commission is going to stay on the sidelines, apparently, with a new chair.

Most recently, the Federal Trade Commission, through their general counsel, has essentially said that oil companies can price gouge with impunity. It is an extraordinary statement. It was made in the Bloomberg News service, again. But the general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission has basically said oil companies can do whatever they want. They can move unilaterally, raise prices to essentially any level they would want in certain markets.

So this is what I am concerned about: these questions that are specifically under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission with respect to mergers, with respect to refinery shutdowns, with respect to anti-competitive practices, such as redlining.

I had hoped that the nominee to chair the agency would be willing to make changes. I provided the nominee in advance--in advance of our meeting--the key questions that I went through with her. Yet, despite that, and despite the fact that I asked for even one example of a policy she would change at the Federal Trade Commission, I was given nothing to indicate that the nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission would buck the pernicious trend across this country that is draining the competition out of gasoline markets across America.

For example, I asked Ms. Majoras about the Federal Trade Commission's lack of response to letters I have sent to the Chair requesting the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Shell Oil's plan to close a 70,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Bakersfield, CA. The Federal Trade Commission sent me a two-paragraph response saying they would seriously consider it.

This is an enormously important issue for those of us on the west coast. I see my friend from Nevada on the Senate floor, who has been eloquent with respect to trying to stand up for the consumer on the gasoline issue. The Presiding Officer, who I have the privilege of serving with, has been long concerned about gasoline prices. This Bakersfield shutdown will have enormous and negative ramifications for the people on the west coast.

But while I have heard repeatedly from the agency--and I heard yesterday from the nominee that this ``sounds like a serious issue''-- there was no commitment, none, just like the current FTC Chair, to take any specific action. In addition, the nominee pointed out there may even be a potential conflict of interest with respect to the Bakersfield shutdown because of her current law firm responsibilities and the fact that her current firm represents Chevron.

So, Mr. President, I will say, as I have done in the past, that I am going to keep my door open. I am hopeful, in the course of hearings and debates about the future direction of the Federal Trade Commission, that the nominee will shift course from what I heard yesterday. But I will tell you, it is not enough for the agency to continue to say they are ``seriously concerned'' or they are ``monitoring the situation'' or ``they are troubled by the high prices our constituents are paying.'' That is not enough.

When people up and down the west coast of the United States and across the country are getting shellacked by these gasoline prices, in effect, we are seeing consumers clobbered at the pump with dollars from their own pockets, and then taxpayer dollars are used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at record prices when it is essentially filled.

We need some changes, and we need changes at the top with respect to gasoline pricing policy in this country. That means the Federal Trade Commission has to get off the sidelines. They have to zero in on the three specific areas I mentioned this morning: oil company mergers; refinery shutdowns; and anti-competitive practices, such as redlining.

For far too many years, Federal Trade Commission political appointees have sat on their hands while the anti-competitive practices of the oil industry gouge American consumers at the gas pump. I have given Ms. Majoras a number of opportunities to explain to me what she plans to do differently as a Commissioner, and she has made it abundantly clear that she has no specific plan to energize the FTC to begin fighting for consumers. I don't intend to allow yet another FTC Commissioner collect a $145,00 salary to do nothing while unnaturally high gas prices jeopardize American jobs and American families.

It is my intention to continue to object to Senate consideration of the

nominee to head the Federal Trade Commission until that agency is willing to tell the people of our State and the people of this country that there are going to be some changes and there is going to be some competition again in the gasoline markets of our country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Matt Hiester, a legislative fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the purpose of morning business.

Mr. President, I have always believed health care policy needs to be bipartisan, and needs to be ideas driven. So as we talk about health care, I come to the floor to mention an idea our colleague Senator Kerry has talked about which I think is especially promising for small business.

The reality is, a very high percentage of the uninsured work in small businesses. These small businesses are dying to cover their people. The owners of those small businesses do not get up in the morning and say: We want to be rotten to our workers in not giving coverage. They are dying to figure out ways to help their small businesses.

Senator Kerry has come up with an idea that I think is really innovative. He has said, given the fact resources are scarce, that dollars for trying to address the uninsured, the needs of our small businesses, are restricted, we ought to target those dollars where they are needed the most. He has proposed the Federal Government, with

respect to small business, concentrate on instances where there are very large bills, bills above $50,000. He would have the Federal Government step in and pick up about 75 percent of those costs. The premiums that would be charged employers and their workers could be trimmed about 10 percent in this fashion.

We know it has been documented that those who are particularly in need of assistance when they face these very high bills are a very large proportion of the health care costs in America. These health care costs are particularly punitive for the small businesses. Small businesses are always walking on economic tightropes. If one employee at a small business gets sick, this can devastate the entire budget of the company for not just health care coverage but the entire coverage of the business.

I am very pleased Senator Kerry has brought forward this idea. I think it is one that can be supported in a bipartisan way. The Congress, over the years, has tried to look at ways to strengthen the employer-based system of coverage. I think we all understand if you are talking about starting scores of new programs, that would be very difficult at this time. I also do not think it is warranted at a time when we are spending $1.7 trillion on health care. If you divide that up by 270 million Americans, it comes to more than $17,000 for a family of 4. So we are spending a lot of money.

The challenge now is to really zero in on areas where the Government can be best utilized. I think Senator Kerry's proposal with respect to trying to deal with the costs of individuals who work at small businesses with very high bills is particularly appropriate at this time. It is something I think could be built in a bipartisan way.

I will have more to say about this and other proposals in the days ahead. But as we come to the floor and talk--Democrats and Republicans--about health care, I think we ought to make our policies bipartisan. We ought to make them ideas driven. The kind of idea that has been outlined by Senator Kerry with respect to the needs of individuals who work at small businesses with very large bills is the kind of thinking that would make a difference now. It is cost effective. I think it warrants support on a bipartisan basis.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. I know the majority leader wants to come as well. I certainly want to be courteous to him. I will try to finish in less than 15 minutes, but I ask unanimous consent to speak at this time.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss an issue that has enormous importance for the West and other parts of the country, and that is the funding, critically needed funding, to protect our forests.

I believe we are going to have an extraordinarily difficult time in the next few months coping with these forest fires that are causing such devastation in the West. I was part of a coalition, a member of the Budget Committee which saw the Senate accept unanimously by voice vote a measure that would fully fund essentially what we were trying to do, again on a bipartisan basis, in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act.

I come today because I have heard unofficially that possibly the amendment I authored and which was accepted unanimously in this Chamber is not going to make it out of the budget conference. I think this would be a grievous mistake given the reports we are getting now about the prospect of an extraordinarily difficult fire season.

The amendment I authored would increase the budget authority to boost investments in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to benefit our national forests, the environment, local communities, and local economies. My amendment would add $343 million to last year's $417 million for hazardous fuel reduction so as to be able to reach the $716 million authorization in title I of the Healthy Forests legislation.

Now, we have talked a lot during this session about the importance of hazardous fire reduction projects. We have talked about it in the Budget and Appropriations Committees, in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, and my colleagues have heard me repeatedly talk about how important this funding would be. But every year these hazardous fuels projects go underfunded or unfunded, and that means another year with little or no warning thousands of people in fire-prone communities end up tossing everything they can into their cars and fleeing their homes without knowing if anything is going to remain when they return.

The Forest Service's inability to do all of the hazardous fuels reduction projects that needs to get done leads to real-life danger on the ground in these small western communities.

It leads to danger in the backyards of our citizens, in their recreation areas, and the places they gather in their communities.

Two years ago, in July of 2002, the Associated Press reported that 17,000 people faced evacuation in Oregon. Here is just a bit of this report:

Firefighters went door-to-door deciding which homes they

could save (in Cave Junction, Oregon) as an explosive 68,000-

acre wildfire nearby fed off heat, wind and timber.

These folks were evacuated, and a month later they were still evacuated. Another article from one of our publications, the Medford Mail Tribune, noted the very personal nature of the disruption. It said the Josephine County Sheriff's Office was beginning to reunite an estimated 400 evacuated animals, including livestock and even family pets, with evacuated owners.

The Associated Press, that same news outlet, reported just yesterday that an early fire season is expected in eastern Oregon. We are hearing about this all over the West. There are going to be lots of fires. They are going to be very early. They, in my view, are going to cause enormous pain and hardship for our communities.

I implore my colleagues, both in the Senate and in the other body, to protect what we have been able to do in a bipartisan kind of fashion, and that is to properly and fully fund this critical aspect of the Healthy Forests legislation.

For years there has been this budgetary sleight of hand with respect to forest fires, where the Forest Service takes from one account and goes to another. When it is all done, it is clear there are not enough resources, and that is what I tried to change in the Healthy Forests legislation. We had bipartisan support. Senator Domenici, for example, has done yeoman's work on this for years and years. Senator Crapo, another colleague in this body, has been so supportive of this effort.

I will take a few minutes to talk about what I think is ahead and why I hope that if the conference has not fully acted that we can protect that amendment to fully fund the effort to deal with this huge fire risk that we are facing.

Just yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

California's fire season, off to an ominously early start,

could be exacerbated by increasing numbers of dead trees,

frozen funding for fuel-reduction projects and the implacable

expansion of the suburbs into wildlands. Federal officials

moved Wednesday to address one of those concerns, freeing

$240 million for removal of dead trees in San Diego, San

Bernardino and Riverside Counties, after Senator Feinstein

complained about restrictions on the funds. Still, State and

national officials say the trend in recent years of extremely

destructive wildfires in California and throughout the West

is likely to continue this season.

From the CBS Associated Press story entitled ``Early Start For California Fires,'' which came from Corona, CA, on May 5, just days ago:

As acrid smoke for more than 18,000 acres of charred brush

curled skyward, California officials feared the earlier-than-

usual start of the summer wildfires season could make it the

most dangerous ever. Just months after the most devastating

wildfires in State history . . . thousands of acres from San

Diego to Santa Barbara are ablaze. Thousands of

firefighters are on the line, and once again residents are

fleeing advancing flames.

The same day, the Associated Press said:

It's like gasoline. More than 1,000 people were evacuated

in the northeastern Lake Elsinore area as the Cerrito Fire

was whipped up by winds.

Tuesday, the Los Angeles Daily News:

It was the explosive end to the State's worst fire season,

from which the region still hasn't recovered. And this year,

authorities say, could be worse. Much, much worse.

To those thousands of folks across the country, particularly those whom I represent in Oregon who have been pounded by these devastating fires year after year, the bickering and the back and forth in Congress on fully funding forest health, this is not a theoretical thing to those Oregonians. It is not some kind of policy discussion. It is a danger to their families, a danger to their communities, every single day.

By working in a bipartisan fashion, after more than 25 years the Congress came together, passed a landmark

piece of wildfire legislation, which was signed into law by the President on December 3 of last year. It is going to protect communities from catastrophic forest fires, preserve old-growth trees, restore unhealthy forests, and protect the involvement of our communities in discussing these issues.

I was very pleased that because of the bipartisan cooperation, we were able to get the Senate to pass a balanced practical approach to Healthy Forests legislation, and it authorized the $760 million that is essential for hazardous fuels reduction projects, and it made possible my budget amendment that would have provided the funding room necessary for the landmark legislation.

Without the help of the budget amendment that was adopted earlier, the issue that is now being debated in Congress, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act is not going to be able to live up to the full promise that folks in Cave Junction, OR, or Corona, CA, are counting on. The amendment in the budget resolution will take us a step closer to fulfilling the vision that people have in the rural West of this law. They deserve an approach and critical response from the Federal Government, starting now with the prospect of a devastating fire season.

This body agreed that hazardous fuels reduction projects, the National Fire Plan, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act should be given complete and bipartisan support. I am hopeful that the budget conferees will see the importance of keeping intact the unanimously accepted Senate position to fight these fires with the resources necessary.

It is critical that we not disappoint people in these small rural communities across the West. They are counting on the Congress to ensure that they have the resources that are going to be essential to save their homes and safeguard their lives.

I do not want to see these families evacuated again this year and next year because the Congress did not do its job.

I urge our colleagues, at a time when we are about to go to the budget conference, to support the effort to fully fund forest fires, to promote the healthy forest effort that we enacted on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act,'' together with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. This bill would extend the successful model of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provision--which requires candidates for Federal office to take explicit personal responsibility for TV and radio ads--to additional types of media, including the Internet, that today aren't covered.

Although the elections of 2004 are still months away, the onslaught of political advertising has already begun. As the election nears, with each passing day, political ads become more and more prevalent.

But something is different this year. Two things, actually.

First, as anyone who watches television has probably noticed, this year political ads feature a personal statement by the candidate saying ``I'm so-and-so and I approved this message.'' The candidates are taking full personal responsibility, clearly and publicly, for the advertisements put out by their campaigns.

This is the direct result of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions included in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. As the author of the original ``Stand By Your Ad'' amendment, together with my good friend Senator Collins, I'm proud of the effect our new requirement is having on the tone of radio and TV campaign ads. Already, in the first election cycle where it applies, it's making a real difference.

The reason is simple. The public is turned off by aggressively negative attack ads--and candidates know it. So when candidates have to associate themselves in a personal manner with their ads, they are going to be extra careful about the tone. A nasty or controversial attack can backfire, leading to negative perceptions of the candidate who approved it.

In short, candidates are thinking twice about the tone of the ads they put on the air. Representatives of national, non-partisan campaign reform groups such as Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics have all been quoted in the press as saying that there has been a noticeable shift away from the overly negative attack ads of the past.

The second change this year is that Internet communications are coming into their own as a vehicle for political advertising. Americans are spending more time online--plus many now have Internet connections and computing power that enables them to view video that matches the quality of television. Political campaigns have taken note, and have made major strides in tapping into the tremendous potential of the Internet for reaching large numbers of people at low cost.

According to press reports, the Presidential campaigns already have e-mailed links to campaign videos to literally millions of people. These Internet-based communications can spread like wildfire, because each recipient can easily forward them to others. Moreoever, Web videos often attract attention from the news media, so the message sometimes ends up getting carried on television as well.

Political messages are also starting to appear on websites that carry banner or pop-up ads. It has been estimated that politicians will spend an estimated $25 million this year on online ads.

The rise of Internet-based ads is not just a flash in the pan--it's a trend that is sure to continue.

I have a long history of supporting the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet-based innovation. In politics as in so many other areas, the Internet brings exciting opportunities--in this case, to create new avenues for democratic dialogue and engagement in the political process.

But I don't believe that the Internet should be allowed to become a vehicle for political candidates to sidestep existing campaign rules and engage in mudslinging without accountability.

The problem is, the scope of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions is limited. They only apply to television and radio ads. Internet communications are not covered. Nor are communications such as newspaper ads or mass mailings.

Already, there are clear signs that highly negative ads are migrating to the Internet--in part because the ``Stand By Your Ad'' requirements don't apply there. Here are a few recent press headlines:

``Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web.''

``Presidential Ad War Hits the Web--Harsh Attacks Leveled Online, Where TV Rules Don't Apply.''

``Political Smears Thrive Online.''

The ads these articles talk about aren't just ordinary text messages sent through e-mail or posted on a website.

Often, they are full, professionally produced videos, equal in quality to anything you might see on TV--and therefore packing the same emotional impact as a well crafted TV ad. But instead of using broadcast, satellite, or cable, they are e-mailed to thousands or even millions of Internet users.

So today, I am introducing the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act.'' You could also call it ``Stand By Your Ad II.'' The basic idea is that what works for TV and radio should work for other types of communications as well. Candidates wishing to distribute negative campaign materials via the Internet or the mail should be held just as accountable as they are now for ads they put on the air.

Specifically, the bill would require that campaign communications such as audio or video ads transmitted over the Internet, newspaper ads, brochures, bulk mailings, bulk e-mail, and prerecorded telephone calls--if they mention another candidate for the same office--must carry a ``Stand By Your Ad'' disclaimer stating that the candidate personally approved the message. For Internet audio or video and prerecorded phone calls, the requirements would be identical to those that now apply to radio or television. For printed materials, whether paper or electronic, a picture of the candidate would be required to accompany the statement.

I believe that forcing candidates to take personal responsibility also forces them to think long and hard about releasing the types of aggressive negative attacks that have been growing all too common during election seasons. This is important, because when people get turned off by the electoral process, voting and public involvement suffer. Decreasing the amount of negativity in our political campaigns may help reduce some of the cynicism about politics, and bring more people back into the process.

I say to my colleagues, Stand By Your Ad is working. So let's take the next step and extend this success to campaign communications generally. Let's build on the good work we've already done in getting candidates to take responsibility for what they say.

And yes, I'm Ron Wyden, and I stand by this statement.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act,'' together with my colleague from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham. This bill would extend the successful model of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provision--which requires candidates for Federal office to take explicit personal responsibility for TV and radio ads--to additional types of media, including the Internet, that today aren't covered.

Although the elections of 2004 are still months away, the onslaught of political advertising has already begun. As the election nears, with each passing day, political ads become more and more prevalent.

But something is different this year. Two things, actually.

First, as anyone who watches television has probably noticed, this year political ads feature a personal statement by the candidate saying ``I'm so-and-so and I approved this message.'' The candidates are taking full personal responsibility, clearly and publicly, for the advertisements put out by their campaigns.

This is the direct result of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions included in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. As the author of the original ``Stand By Your Ad'' amendment, together with my good friend Senator Collins, I'm proud of the effect our new requirement is having on the tone of radio and TV campaign ads. Already, in the first election cycle where it applies, it's making a real difference.

The reason is simple. The public is turned off by aggressively negative attack ads--and candidates know it. So when candidates have to associate themselves in a personal manner with their ads, they are going to be extra careful about the tone. A nasty or controversial attack can backfire, leading to negative perceptions of the candidate who approved it.

In short, candidates are thinking twice about the tone of the ads they put on the air. Representatives of national, non-partisan campaign reform groups such as Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics have all been quoted in the press as saying that there has been a noticeable shift away from the overly negative attack ads of the past.

The second change this year is that Internet communications are coming into their own as a vehicle for political advertising. Americans are spending more time online--plus many now have Internet connections and computing power that enables them to view video that matches the quality of television. Political campaigns have taken note, and have made major strides in tapping into the tremendous potential of the Internet for reaching large numbers of people at low cost.

According to press reports, the Presidential campaigns already have e-mailed links to campaign videos to literally millions of people. These Internet-based communications can spread like wildfire, because each recipient can easily forward them to others. Moreoever, Web videos often attract attention from the news media, so the message sometimes ends up getting carried on television as well.

Political messages are also starting to appear on websites that carry banner or pop-up ads. It has been estimated that politicians will spend an estimated $25 million this year on online ads.

The rise of Internet-based ads is not just a flash in the pan--it's a trend that is sure to continue.

I have a long history of supporting the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet-based innovation. In politics as in so many other areas, the Internet brings exciting opportunities--in this case, to create new avenues for democratic dialogue and engagement in the political process.

But I don't believe that the Internet should be allowed to become a vehicle for political candidates to sidestep existing campaign rules and engage in mudslinging without accountability.

The problem is, the scope of the ``Stand By Your Ad'' provisions is limited. They only apply to television and radio ads. Internet communications are not covered. Nor are communications such as newspaper ads or mass mailings.

Already, there are clear signs that highly negative ads are migrating to the Internet--in part because the ``Stand By Your Ad'' requirements don't apply there. Here are a few recent press headlines:

``Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web.''

``Presidential Ad War Hits the Web--Harsh Attacks Leveled Online, Where TV Rules Don't Apply.''

``Political Smears Thrive Online.''

The ads these articles talk about aren't just ordinary text messages sent through e-mail or posted on a website.

Often, they are full, professionally produced videos, equal in quality to anything you might see on TV--and therefore packing the same emotional impact as a well crafted TV ad. But instead of using broadcast, satellite, or cable, they are e-mailed to thousands or even millions of Internet users.

So today, I am introducing the ``Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act.'' You could also call it ``Stand By Your Ad II.'' The basic idea is that what works for TV and radio should work for other types of communications as well. Candidates wishing to distribute negative campaign materials via the Internet or the mail should be held just as accountable as they are now for ads they put on the air.

Specifically, the bill would require that campaign communications such as audio or video ads transmitted over the Internet, newspaper ads, brochures, bulk mailings, bulk e-mail, and prerecorded telephone calls--if they mention another candidate for the same office--must carry a ``Stand By Your Ad'' disclaimer stating that the candidate personally approved the message. For Internet audio or video and prerecorded phone calls, the requirements would be identical to those that now apply to radio or television. For printed materials, whether paper or electronic, a picture of the candidate would be required to accompany the statement.

I believe that forcing candidates to take personal responsibility also forces them to think long and hard about releasing the types of aggressive negative attacks that have been growing all too common during election seasons. This is important, because when people get turned off by the electoral process, voting and public involvement suffer. Decreasing the amount of negativity in our political campaigns may help reduce some of the cynicism about politics, and bring more people back into the process.

I say to my colleagues, Stand By Your Ad is working. So let's take the next step and extend this success to campaign communications generally. Let's build on the good work we've already done in getting candidates to take responsibility for what they say.

And yes, I'm Ron Wyden, and I stand by this statement.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at a time when there are record gasoline prices for the American consumer and record oil company profits, the Bush administration is filling our Strategic Petroleum Reserve at 2\1/ 2\ times the average fill rate. Over the last 2 years, the average fill rate has been about 120,000 barrels a day. Recently, it has been hovering around 300,000 barrels a day. Using the figures provided by the administration's Energy Information Administration Office, these policies would raise the price of oil per barrel about $1.50.

I come to the Senate today to say I believe the Bush administration's policies with respect to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are hitting the American people with a double whammy. For the American people, more of their tax dollars are now being spent for filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and more of their take-home dollars are being spent on gasoline at the pump.

I come today to say if the Bush administration is not willing to at least reduce the fill rate of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, I ask the Bush administration to stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with a firehose. It is that simple.

Over the course of the year, the administration may say, we reach an average fill rate of 120,000 barrels a day. There is a great amount of oil in some months and no oil in other months.

To that, I say the months before the peak driving season, when gasoline is already at record prices, are not the months to go whole hog in filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is not the time to pour in the maximum amount of oil. One reason is because oil prices are already so high that American taxpayers are spending top dollar for the oil being put into the reserve. Anyone who has ever had to run their own family finances knows when prices are high, sometimes you wait until the price comes down to buy what you want.

There is another, more compelling reason to slow the rate of fill in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It is because this administration's policy is actually contributing to the high gas prices shellacking working Americans' pocketbooks every day from coast to coast.

I am of the view the American consumer is about to get hit by a perfect storm with respect to these gasoline prices. The combination of OPEC cutbacks, the fact the Federal Trade Commission--the agency that is supposed to protect our consumers--is sitting on its hands, the fact you actually get a tax break for closing a profitable oil refinery, these Strategic Petroleum Reserve policies, is going to create a perfect storm that is going to be devastating for American consumers across our country.

I know my colleagues are here and want to talk about this issue, as well, so I will abbreviate my statement.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly outline this bipartisan amendment. This is cosponsored by my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Coleman. We are joined by Senator Snowe and Senator Brownback, and on our side by the distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Senator Rockefeller. There is a strong bipartisan coalition for this amendment because the fact is under our trade adjustment laws, millions of our workers have been left behind.

This law has been of great benefit to those in the manufacturing sector for more than three decades, but for millions of our workers who work in the service sector, who work, for example, in the high- technology sector, the safety net the Trade Adjustment Act provides has not been there. So all of the benefits offered by the trade adjustment legislation in terms of help with retraining, assistance with health care, a bit of income to get by--all of the services that make it possible for one to use this critical law as a trampoline to get back into the private sector economy have not been available in the service sector and in the high-technology sector, and that is what our bipartisan amendment would change.

In the last few hours apparently there has been one letter from an insurance company that has been offered up as an argument against this. It states that in some way our legislation would damage the opportunity for private insurance companies to deliver health benefits under this legislation. Senator Coleman and I would never support something like that, and I wish to outline exactly why our amendment does not damage the opportunity for private insurance companies to deliver health care under our proposal.

Our amendment states that all current private sector health care delivery systems would be continued in every State in America. So let me start with that.

Under our bipartisan amendment, in every State in America the private sector options that are offered now could be continued.

We do state in our proposal that if there is discrimination, say, on the basis of genetic history or disability or other concrete examples of discrimination, then the Office of Personnel Management would be given the discretion--not required but they would be

given the discretion--to step in and ensure that there is an affordable alternative.

Second, we protect the option of private health insurers participating in the system by stipulating that our amendment will not override State decisionmaking. This is very important because, again, in every State in our country, State insurance law allows for private insurers to be involved in the health care delivery system.

Third, apparently there was a concern raised that in some way this amendment would encourage adverse selection and then there would be a disproportionate number of those who are needy and ailing going to private insurers.

The fact is that the bipartisan amendment will reduce adverse selection. It will reduce adverse selection by increasing the subsidy that is available for health care in America. It will expand outreach, which will be beneficial, and make it easier for people to sign up. So the prospect that this will encourage adverse selection and damage private insurers is also incorrect.

So I want to be clear because there was one letter that was brought up recently in the last few hours opposing all of the good bipartisan work that has been done on this for months and months, and I wanted to set the record clear that for the three reasons I have outlined our bipartisan legislation will do no damage to the important private sector health delivery options that are available now in every State in America and will be continued under our legislation.

I believe I will have a bit more time later. I think Senator Coleman did an incredibly good job yesterday of outlining the case for why it is so important to help these workers. I know in my home State, folks do not understand why if one is hurting in Beaverton, OR, or they have lost their job as a result of trade they cannot be in a position to compete against somebody in Bangalore. That is what this issue is all about.

I see our friend, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, is in the Chamber. He has done such good work over the years with respect to the training and other programs that are essential. With this legislation that has been produced by a bipartisan group, including Senators Coleman, Brownback, Snowe, Rockefeller, and Baucus, we are giving a chance to that great bulk of workers in the service sector and in the high-technology sector to have a chance to use this program as a trampoline to get back into the economy. They are not going to get that chance under other programs. There is no other program that gives that same kind of opportunity to folks who are hurting in this way. We have done it in a bipartisan way. We have done it in a cost-effective way. We have done it in a fashion so as to not damage the right of private health insurers in every State in the country to deliver the benefit.

I will have a bit more to say as we get into the debate, but I also conclude this portion by thanking my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He has been a great champion of a bipartisan effort.

I yield the floor.

I yield time to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, how much additional time, if any, do I have?

I ask unanimous consent for up to 5 additional minutes. I ask that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, would also have that additional time if my unanimous consent request was agreed to. We have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. I ask that I have up to 5 additional minutes and that the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee would also have up to 5 additional minutes.

Mr. President, how much additional time do I have remaining?

I yield 2 minutes at this time to Senator Coleman.

I have enormous respect for the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I will take a minute or two to touch on the issue being raised.

The distinguished chairman of the committee has repeatedly said: The program would be stretched too far; the program is already at its limits; when would enough be enough?

I say to my distinguished friend, when we are only covering 5 percent of the people eligible for the health care benefit, we have to do better. By any calculation, that is not something that reflects well on our bipartisan desires.

The chairman of the committee knows I have been supportive of these trade agreements the Senator from Iowa and the distinguished Senator from Montana have championed. They have opened up the opportunity for U.S. companies to set up shops overseas and generate jobs and investment.

Senator Coleman and I want to open up the trade adjustment program so when our U.S. workers are hurt, they are not left behind. Senator Coleman and I have said this is a question of bringing the law in line with the times. It made sense more than three decades ago when it focused on manufacturing.

The chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, has hit the key question: When is enough enough? We believe, on a bipartisan basis, it is not enough when you are covering only 5 percent of the workers for health care and you are leaving four-fifths of the economy, people in the service sector and the high-technology sector, behind.

There is a reason why business and labor have come together to support our amendment. This amendment is supported by the Business Roundtable. It is supported by the Technology Industry Association. The two key business groups, the Business Roundtable, the Technology Industry Association, and the labor sector, have come together because they have seen a bipartisan effort that has gone on for months, led by the distinguished Senator from Montana and the Senator from Minnesota, to bring the Senate together.

If Members vote against this amendment, I believe it is a vote that will continue discrimination under law against those who work in the high-technology and service sector. It will keep the door closed to millions of our workers in the technology and service sector. I know no Senator intends that, but that will be the practical effect.

We will have only one vote in this session of the Senate as to whether we will have a chance to stand up for these workers who have been hammered as a result of unfair trading practices or simply competition, when we pay $40 or $50 an hour and competitors overseas pay vastly less.

I am very hopeful the bipartisan efforts that have been made will not be in vain. The distinguished Senator from Iowa has put his hand on the key question: When is enough enough? We respectfully say, if we are only covering 5 percent of the workers and leaving four-fifths of the economy behind and the support of the Business Roundtable and the Technology Industry Association, it is not enough. We can do better.

The distinguished Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, and the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, know I have been very supportive of their policies in the past and expect to be in the future, particularly with respect to these trade agreements. When the trade agreements open up the opportunities for our companies, we have to open up the opportunity for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program to help our workers when they have been left behind.

This will be the one chance to stand up for millions of workers in the high-tech and service sector. I hope our colleagues will support this bipartisan amendment.

I yield the floor.

Same as current law.

That is current law.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I will let the Senator from Montana ask a question, and then I have a minute.

Mr. President, to respond very briefly, we pay for it as essentially outlined in the President's budget. According to OMB and the Treasury Department, we would close the loophole that would save taxpayers approximately $5.7 trillion over 10 years. That is the way we pay for the program. The people who are going to be eligible for the program are going to get the same opportunities as those in the manufacturing sector, the same number of weeks.

The Senator from Oklahoma has talked about unemployment compensation. This is about retraining people. This is about health care benefits.

If you think we are doing enough today when 5 percent of the people get access to the health care program, then I guess that is a rationale for voting against this amendment. I would hope the bipartisan work that has been done on this legislation by myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Brownback, Senator Snowe, and Senator Baucus would warrant the support of our colleagues.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 505(b) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, I move to waive section 505 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, Senator Dayton, Senator Brownback, Senator Dodd, and Senator Snowe.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Montana on the floor, and the Senator from Massachusetts,

both of whom have done so much for working families, as has the Senator from Maine.

I bring this bipartisan amendment to the floor tonight because I think it illustrates a point Senator Lott expressed earlier when he talked about updating our laws to make sure they are fair and practical for the times.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, which this amendment speaks to, has been a great asset to folks who have been laid off in the manufacturing sector. It was written more than three decades ago. Of course, that was the key sector in our economy and still is tremendously important today, but the fact is, the trade adjustment law today doesn't apply to about four-fifths of our workers, the folks who have been laid off in the service sector and in the high-technology sector. So what we have is millions of unemployed workers in the service sector and in the high-tech sector who are walking on an economic tightrope every single day, balancing their food costs against their fuel costs, and their fuel costs against the skyrocketing medical bills, as Senator Kennedy has pointed out.

What this bipartisan amendment seeks to do is establish parity between folks in the service and technology sector and those in the manufacturing sector. So people who lose their jobs when their employer closes or lays them off because of import competition, people in the public and private sector who lose their jobs when their facility moves overseas, and secondary service workers who provide services to a primary firm where workers are eligible for trade adjustment and whose closure causes the layoff or closure at the secondary firm--when those people are in the high-tech and service sector of our economy, under our bipartisan amendment those people would be able to get benefits under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act.

In effect, this bipartisan coalition wants to persuade the Senate to support it. It is a proposition that no matter where an American works, if you lose your job because of imports, because your job moves offshore, you ought to be able to get retraining, income support, and help with your health insurance.

Workers in the high-tech sector in my home State and across the country have taken a pounding in recent years. The American Electronics Association reported recently the tech sector lost 775,000 jobs in 2001 to 2003 and another 3.3 million jobs could be lost in the next decade. A Deloitte & Touche survey of telecommunication companies forecasts that well over 275,000 jobs, or 5 percent of the total workforce, will move offshore in the next 4 years and more than half of all Fortune 500 companies are outsourcing software development or expanding their own operations overseas.

The fact is when you have a software developer earning $6 an hour in Bangalore, India, and 10 times that amount in Beaverton, OR, every single day this critical sector of our economy--services and high technology--faces extraordinarily tough competition. When the starting salary of a software engineer in India is $5,000 and top level IT professionals earn $20,000 there, you can be sure the competition is intense. The question is, Who is going to stand up for these American workers in the high-technology and service sector that plays such a critical role in our economy?

Some argue increased trade is an overall plus to the United States because it lowers prices for consumers. There is no doubt about that. That is why I have consistently supported trade. But there are negative effects on some of our workers.

Exports of high-tech products from my home State jumped 18 percent from 2001 to 2002, but in the technology industry jobs fell 11 percent. The Oregon Employment Department reports in the 2001 to 2003 period, 3,300 computer systems and design jobs were lost, 5,300 professional and technical service jobs have been lost, and 1,400 architectural and engineering service jobs were lost. Many of these have been lost due to trade.

I say it is time to update--as Senator Lott has said--this critical law, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, so millions of workers in the high-tech and services sector are not left without a safety net. They have a safety net in the trade adjustment law if they are in the manufacturing sector, and that has been a great benefit to those families. But for four-fifths of our workers, those in the high-tech and service sector, that safety net has not been there. This bipartisan amendment will restore it.

High-tech workers, as we know, have been the envy of the American workforce. Certainly during the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, they were responsible for a tremendous amount of economic growth. The ingenuity of these programmers, engineers, and designers helped drive our economy into the 21st century. The creativity of these workers generated an exceptional wave of economic prosperity. Trade agreements on services and intellectual property helped carry the fruit of these dedicated workers around the globe.

Globalization of technology is unquestionably globalizing the technology workforce. Geography is increasingly less important in determining where a job can be done. Globalization of information technology hardware production from 1995 to 2002 cut information technology hardware costs 10 to 30 percent, translating into higher productivity growth and adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. gross domestic product. Information technology became affordable to business sectors previously bypassed by the productivity boom, small-sized and mid-sized companies, health care and construction.

But as information technology hardware prices decline, the importance of information technology services and software increased, to almost 70 percent of information technology spending in 2001. One economist found offshoring reportedly saved most information technology organizations on the order of from 15 to 25 percent in the first year. With growth in software and services outpacing hardware spending by almost two to one, the demand for cheaper information technology services has lent strength to this ``offshoring tsunami'' and hammered many of our information technology workers in the process.

Certainly no one could have anticipated the shocking speed or scale of globalization in information technology. The American Electronics Association 2003 Cyberstates report found unemployment among computer programmers jumped from 4.5 percent in 2001 to 6.2 percent in 2003; that high-tech employment fell by 540,000 jobs to 6 million in 2002; and that a further loss of 234,000 jobs was expected in 2003.

Hardly a day goes by without a front-page story in virtually hundreds of communities across the country about an American programmer on his or her way out having to train a foreign worker who will replace them. It is a very rich irony that some of the same workers who launched the technology revolution have in fact become its victims.

The average American may think the Federal Government is helping technology and service workers displaced by trade, but it is not. That is because a law written in 1962, when so many of our workers were in the manufacturing sector, has not been updated. Now we have tens of thousands who have lost jobs in the services sector and the technology sector who are not eligible for the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The bipartisan amendment I offer today will open the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act door to these and other displaced services and technology sector workers.

The act is a lifeline for millions of these workers. It provides retraining, income support, a health insurance tax credit, and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to trade. It can also help secondary workers who supply parts and services who may lose their jobs when the facility or service shuts down due to import competition. This is exactly the type of help trade-displaced services workers need.

A self-described ``newly unemployed software engineer'' from Hillsboro, OR wrote in December: ``My job was moved to India where the company can pay Indians a fifth of what they pay Americans.''

Another wrote: ``As a 50-year-old high-tech manufacturing engineer with 26 years of experience, I was laid off in December 2002. I am sure the new factory the company is building in China will prevent my ever returning to the company. I can't even get hired into an

entry-level position anywhere because I am over-qualified.''

These unemployed Oregonians--and there are thousands of others who are employed in the information technology sector and the service sector who have lost their jobs--deserve to have this law, as our friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott said, updated so they can get benefits in the safety net the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act offers. I have heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts champion this.

It is in effect a trampoline that allows individuals in our country who have been laid off through no fault of their own to get the training and the assistance and the kind of health care to in effect bounce back in our economy.

It seems to me workers reeling from the offshoring of service sector jobs cannot afford to wait for the higher skilled jobs that economists keep promising them are just around the corner. Higher value, higher paid systems integration jobs may come along, but I am telling you in my home State--and I think in communities across the country--a lot of unemployed information technology professionals think they are more likely to see Elvis than a sudden proliferation of help-wanted ads for new, highly skilled information technology jobs.

When a worker is displaced by trade, it should be irrelevant whether the person worked in services or technology or manufacturing. Every worker displaced by trade should be eligible for this very same benefit. This bipartisan amendment ensures that will be the case.

I again thank the distinguished Senator from Montana, my friend Senator Baucus. He has been so helpful to me on this and so many other matters during my service in the Senate.

I also thank the Senator from Minnesota who will be joining us. He has worked with the distinguished Senator from Montana and me on this bipartisan amendment.

The Senator from Minnesota has joined us. But we have colleagues who come from every part of the country who have joined us. Senator Brownback has joined us, Senator Snowe has joined us, Senator Dodd has joined us, and Senator Coleman, Senator Baucus, and Senator Rockefeller. * * * very hopeful that the Senate will resoundingly support this bipartisan amendment. This is about updating a law that is now more than three decades old, a law that does not cover services and high technology, to the detriment of millions of workers. We have a bipartisan proposal that allows that. I thank my good friend from Montana.

Mr. President, I see my colleagues still in the Chamber. I thank the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Minnesota, especially as the Senator from Montana touched on the issue of health insurance costs for people who have been laid off in high-tech and the manufacturing sector. As we heard earlier, these are folks who are getting hit by a wrecking ball with respect to health care. They literally have nowhere to turn. Many of them are not old enough for Medicare, not poor enough for Medicaid. They don't fit into a lot of the categories--these boxes by which you get health care in our country.

So what we did in these bipartisan negotiations--and the Senator from Minnesota was particularly helpful, but I also commend the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who is very much involved in this effort to get a bipartisan agreement with respect to a 75-percent allocation of the coverage--we were able to add critical benefits for spouses, which is something that was so important to help people where there was an interruption in coverage.

So what the Senator from Montana has outlined with respect to health care issues was exactly, in my view, how the Senate ought to move to deal with a very real problem but to do it in a bipartisan way. As we began those discussions, we had some folks who wanted to go even higher than the number we set out. Some people said you cannot go there at all because of the deficit.

But we made the judgment on a bipartisan basis that you could not afford not to cover these people because if, for example, as has been documented in the Finance Committee, these people cannot get coverage on an outpatient basis, what will happen again and again is they will face the need to have more extensive and much more expensive medical services. I was very glad the Senator from Montana brought up the bipartisan agreement as it related to the health care issue.

The Senator from Minnesota and the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, were especially helpful in the efforts led by the distinguished Senator from Montana.

The Senator from Montana is absolutely right. A lot of Senators have been at this issue for many of years. Senator Bingaman's contribution with respect to community services in the health care area is very important. I heard my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, talk about the health care needs of folks laid off in the high-tech and service areas. He has been supportive as well.

The Senator from Montana is absolutely right. There have been a lot of Senators who have been at it with respect to this issue. It is a bipartisan proposal, but right at the heart of that is dealing with the health care issue. Health care, as we all know, has been the toughest issue for the Senate to deal with for some time. This is an area where there has been a real breakthrough with respect to health care. It had to be bipartisan--the Senator from Montana is right--or a lot of Senators would not be involved.

The Senator is right. In addition to the bipartisan support in the Senate, there has been very significant bipartisan support in the business community. There are an awful lot of business leaders who have been looking for these kinds of ideas that the Senator from Minnesota has really touched on. This is a question of updating our law. I don't think anybody got up in the morning years ago and said: Let's be rotten to service workers. That was not what happened at all. I think people just did not really see what a critical role service and high technology were going to play in the economy. The business organizations that the Senator from Minnesota has mentioned do. They get it. They understand it is absolutely critical to not leave something like four-fifths of the workers behind.

I join with the Senator from Minnesota and commend him and thank him for his support.

The Senator is right. I think it is fair to say that the certification process today for the workers is almost a kind of bureaucratic water torture. It involves essentially a different process with different countries.

What we tried to do in our bipartisan discussions is to try to streamline the process, make it worker friendly. I think this is really going to expedite the processing, expedite the certification.

Obviously when these families are hurting--and we are talking about people who have been laid off after years and years of employment--they are on this economic tightrope trying to figure out how to balance and pay for essentials. The last thing they need to do is jump through hoop after bureaucratic hoop to get these benefits. The Senator from Minnesota is right, that is a significant improvement as well.

Nobody knows more about this subject than the Senator from Montana because he and his staff have worked on this issue at length. Streamlining is very helpful.

Mr. President, at one time I had the floor. I yield at this point and again hope the Senate will support the bipartisan initiative that has involved many months of work and is critically needed in the economic challenges we face today.

I yield the floor.