Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized, Mr. President, to speak for up to 30 minutes on the continuing resolution when Senator Kerry has completed his comments.

Mr. WYDEN. Would the Senator from Massachusetts yield for me to clarify this?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, both for his focus on bipartisanship with respect to the overall package and for his very thoughtful comments about the assisted suicide issue. I think he has summed it up very well. I feel bad that I had to object to consideration of the tax legislation this morning. I will take just a minute or two to describe why and then go on to talk about the overall issue as it relates to pain relief and what is in the tax bill. I know it is an inconvenience to a number of Senators to have me talk about this subject at length. This is an important time in the year for colleagues. I regret the inconvenience. But I believe what is in the tax bill is going to cause so much pain and suffering to families all across the country, that the interests of those families who are going to suffer if this tax bill as written becomes law have to come first. First and foremost, I want the Senate to understand that before we are done, I am going to speak at length about exactly what the consequences will be for families all across this country, who needlessly are going to suffer great pain that could be averted, if the bill becomes law as written. In addition, while the majority leadership in the Congress is attempting to throw Oregon's vote on assisted suicide into the trash can, Oregonians are holding on to ballots such as this one. They are wondering if this ballot, this sacred vote, really counts.

Mr. WYDEN. In one moment. I am obligated to speak for those Oregonians, each and every one of them, over a million Oregon voters, because I want them to understand that I am going to do everything in my power to make sure the ballot I have in my hand and the ballots they are holding right now actually count. The fact is, the senior Senator from Oklahoma has put into the tax bill legislation that would silence over a million Oregon voices. I am going to be here to make sure those voices are heard. I yield to the Senator from Nevada. I thank him for his thoughtful comments last night on this issue.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is correct. In effect, it would be impossible to carry out the will of Oregon voters on a matter that has historically been left to the States. What is so striking--and I appreciate the Senator's question--is that we constantly have colleagues come to the floor and talk about the importance of States rights and the beauty of the 10th amendment. Then when they don't happen to agree with what a State is doing, I guess the 10th amendment isn't so important anymore. I appreciate the Senator's question.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is absolutely right. People in Nevada should understand that what this legislation does is take away from all States what has historically been their prerogative, which is to determine appropriate medical practice. There is a great body of case law and a variety of legal precedents that establish that right, and folks in Nevada should understand that. I think it is also on point to note that people in Maine are voting right now on this issue. I think it is open to some question as to what will be the effect of that Maine ballot measure right now if the tax legislation were to pass as written and, in effect, throw Oregon folk to the trash can, and it might do the same thing for people in Maine. I thank my colleague for his questions. Mr. President, if the Senate was here today to vote on a stand-alone bill which would lead to unspeakable, avoidable suffering for hundreds of thousands of terminally ill citizens, there is no question in my mind that the Senate would not pass it. So what we have to ask is why has the Senate leadership stuck into this tax bill, legislation that the American Cancer Society and over 50 nationally recognized health organizations believe will cause unnecessary suffering for thousands of terminally ill citizens in each State in our country. What is particularly ironic is that this legislation has not moved forward with any of the traditional procedures of the Senate. It has never been reported out by a committee of jurisdiction. It has never been subject to amendment by the full Senate. There has never been a chance to debate it on the floor of the Senate. The fact is that this legislation, which is one of the central bioethical questions in our society, was stuffed into the tax bill close to midnight the other night, without overcoming even one of the traditional procedures the Senate follows. Now, Senator Kerry noted the name of this bill. It is the so-called ``Pain Relief Promotion Act.'' The fact of the matter is, this legislation is really the ``Pain Promotion Act'' because it is going to have a chilling effect on health care providers all across this country who simply want to practice good pain management. I know my friend from Colorado, who is in the Chair today, also represents a rural State. Let me tell you about the kind of concern I have if the Nickles bill, as written, becomes law. Let us say you have a physician in Colorado or in Iowa or another rural State who is opposed to assisted suicide--and I am opposed to assisted suicide; I have joined colleagues here in voting to ban Federal funding of assisted suicide. But let's say a physician in Colorado, who is opposed to assisted suicide, wants to treat pain aggressively with a suffering patient. If they do, their intent, their mental calculus can later be dissected by law enforcement officials who, if they believe that anti- assisted suicide physician really had a different intent, can prosecute that physician. And the medical providers involved would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, a fine that is upwards of a million dollars and they would lose their DEA registration. The fact is that the undertreatment of pain today is a documented public health crisis. There was just another survey published very recently demonstrating that physicians and health care providers are reluctant to treat pain aggressively because they are very fearful of having their decisions second-guessed by law enforcement. There are a number of us--the American Cancer Society is one--who are opposed to assisted suicide. Yet the American Cancer Society has said that because of the chilling ramifications of pain management, it believes the Nickles legislation included in the tax bill is going to hurt cancer patients nationwide. The American Academy of Family Physicians is another major medical group opposed to assisted suicide and they oppose the Nickles legislation; so is the American Nurses Association, the Oncology Nursing Society, the Indiana State Hospice and Palliative Care Association, and the Texas Medical Association. In sum, there are more than 50 respected health organizations that are opposed to physician- assisted suicide and also oppose the Nickles legislation included in this tax bill. If we do care about humane medical treatment--and I know that every Senator cares about the suffering of those who are vulnerable--I believe when you actually read what is in this tax bill and what Senator Nickles has been able to include, if you wish to join us in alleviating suffering and protecting the poor, elderly, and vulnerable, you have to oppose the Nickles legislation because it hurts the very people that our colleagues care about. I want to raise a troublesome flag now with respect to this bill. To my knowledge, not a single nursing organization in America supports the bill purporting to relieve pain for the dying--not one. But seven nursing organizations, including the American Nurses Association, National Association of Hospice and Palliative Nurses, Pediatric Oncology Nurses, and the American Society of Pain Management Nurses, oppose the alleged pain relief bill included in this tax legislation. Now, you know when a loved one is in a hospital, the physician may have ultimate responsibility for the care, but the nurses are the ones on the front lines coping with pain. Seven major nursing organizations, representing those on the front lines, have come out against the Nickles bill. So the question is, how could all of this happen? I think the Senate may want to reflect on the procedures involved because I think other Senators may find the same sort of absurd process applied in matters that are important to their States. When Senator Nickles introduced the Pain Relief Promotion Act last year, the bill was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. That is because, for obvious reasons, the bill has enormous ramifications for pain and health care. The bill received a hearing in 1999. It wasn't acted on by the committee. Members on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns about the legislation's impact on end-of-life and pain care. Unfortunately, a House bill identical to that legislation was passed by the House and was suddenly referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which didn't have jurisdiction on this critical health issue. The Parliamentarian did something that I believe showed great courage, and I commend him for it. He simply told the news media that a mistake had been made, that the Nickles legislation had been referred to the wrong committee. I thought it was a very courageous, gutsy thing for the Parliamentarian to do. It was the kind of unfortunate accident that can happen. The Judiciary Committee, as one might guess, had a chairman who was sympathetic to the Nickles legislation who pushed and pushed to mark it up before the American Cancer Society made it clear that the Nickles legislation would hurt cancer patients. They got the bill out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 vote. Now you know that the bill is very controversial. That is why it is coming to the floor of the Senate in the form it is. They could not get the Senate to approve this legislation if the traditional procedure of the Senate were followed. In fact, since the Nickles legislation had been introduced with a handful of Democrats who were supportive, several have now indicated their opposition largely for the reasons I have cited--that the Nickles legislation would have a chilling effect on pain management. The reason this bill has been stuffed into the tax legislation is that it cannot go forward on its own. There is too much controversy attached to it, too much uncertainty about its ramifications on pain care for the dying for the leadership to bring it to the floor in the normal way. The fact is that the Senator from Oklahoma doesn't have the votes. At one point, the supporters had 80 votes. It got out of the Judiciary Committee 10-8. I said last summer, let's follow the traditional rules of the Senate. After we had agreed to that, the distinguished Senator from New York, who is very opposed to assisted suicide, saw how much damage this legislation would do for the suffering and said he couldn't support the bill. Senator Nickles saw that support was quickly moving away from him and that he didn't have the votes to pass his legislation following the traditional procedure of the Senate. To compensate for the lack of votes and the inability to follow traditional procedures in the Senate, the senior Senator from Oklahoma has chosen the least democratic method at his disposal to circumvent an honest debate and avoid even a couple of modest amendments. What is striking is the senior Senator from Oklahoma has on various occasions apparently said we shouldn't have extraneous matters brought in that had not been considered separately in a conference report. But he is allowing exactly this to be done with his bill. The senior Senator from Oklahoma is betting that by stuffing his legislation into this conference report, everybody is going to be so resigned to the outcome and so anxious to bring down the gavel and get home that this body is just going to ignore its obligation to the scores and scores of families and suffering patients who are going to be hurt by this legislation. The senior Senator from Oklahoma may be right. I suppose that is the way it often works in the Senate. However, I am going to be asking my colleagues--and will talk more about this subject when we get back on the tax legislation--to step up to the suffering with so much on the line. I want them to know what is at stake. If this legislation is approved, the friends of every Senator, loved ones, and constituents are going to find it impossible to obtain aggressive pain care in their communities. Patients unable to obtain pain care are a fact of life right now, but at least we have some solace in knowing that thousands of brave health professionals are willing to risk their reputations and their careers to prescribe controlled substances to relieve suffering. If the tax legislation goes forward without removing the Nickles bill, the undertreatment of pain, which is already a documented public health crisis, is going to get worse. Our loved ones--yours, mine--and individuals in every community across this country are going to suffer the consequences with this flawed legislation. I hope that before we have a final vote on this issue, each and every one of our colleagues will read the statement of the American Cancer Society on this legislation. They are an organization that opposes assisted suicide, as I do. Yet here is what they say about the Nickles legislation. This is the direct statement of the American Cancer Society about the Nickles legislation. The American Cancer Society states, and I quote: Under the act, all physicians, and particularly physicians who care for those with terminal illnesses, will be made especially vulnerable to having their pain and symptom management treatment decisions questioned by law enforcement officials not qualified to judge medical decision-making. This can result in unnecessary investigation and further disincentive to aggressively treat pain. That is the American Cancer Society describing how the Nickles legislation will have a chilling effect on pain care. I would like to offer a bit of a historical perspective. The nonprescription abuse of opioids and cocaine around the turn of the century and the growing sentiment that doctors at that time were one component of the growing drug problem in America helped contribute to the stigma associated with the use of opioids for pain. According to a seminar on oncology and in an article by Dr. David Wiseman, ``Doctors, Opioids, and the Law: The Effect of Controlled Substances Regulation on Cancer Pain Management,'' when regulations were enacted in 1914 to keep from treating drug addicts with opioids, the stigma attached to those drugs continued to grow, and physicians across the country became more reticent to prescribe those drugs because of their fear of criminal or licensing sanctions against their practice. The undertreatment of pain is due to a variety of complex causes. There certainly are a number of studies that show that the threat of legal sanctions is one of the main roadblocks to humane pain control. And that is before the Nickles legislation in the Senate would direct to Drug Enforcement Administration to have law enforcement agents second-guessing the judgment of doctors. One 1994 California survey showed that 69 percent of physicians cited the potential for disciplinary action as a reason for prescribing opioids conservatively. One-third of the doctors went on to acknowledge that their own patients may be suffering from untreated pain. What we saw last week in Oregon was a brand new study that showed again that physicians are fearful about aggressively treating pain for fear of legal prosecution. It confirmed the 1994 California survey. For that reason, I am happy to yield to my friend and colleague.

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

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague's questions. There are more than 50 major health organizations. The American Cancer Society has stated why they feel this legislation would have a chilling effect on pain management. I want my colleague to know, because time is short, that Senator Nickles, in offering this bill, says doctors don't have anything to worry about with respect to prosecution under the bill--that his legislation says doctors can prescribe drugs which will hasten death if their intent is to treat the pain. So he is talking about ``intent.'' Our colleagues are right to be so concerned about who is going to determine the intent of the physician, who is just trying to help somebody suffering and gives a suffering person critical relief and dignity as they face difficult hours at the end-of-life. The person who is going to decide ``intent'' is not another doctor, not a nurse, not a health professional, not anybody with medical training, but law enforcement officials. A law enforcement official is going to determine that medical provider's' intent. Somebody with no medical training is going to, in effect, have the authority to put medical providers on trial; a trial that could cause a provider to lose their license, serve 20 years in prison, and face upwards of a $1 million fine. It doesn't have to be this way. There are many who oppose assisted suicide, who want to work in a bipartisan way to promote better pain management and reduce the demand for assisted suicide.

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator from Oklahoma is not allowing Members to do that. The Senator from California has made the key point. At the end of the day, I want it understood when the people of Oregon cast a ballot like the one I have in my hand on a matter that has historically been left to the people of my State and to every State, I will do everything I can on the floor of the Senate to protect that vote. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will keep talking if the Senator from Missouri objects. I am sure some of our colleagues have other concerns. I will continue on this question of dissecting medical providers' intent, as the Nickles legislation does, a dissecting exercise that will be done by law enforcement professionals rather than medical providers. Here is what the American Cancer Society had to say about determining ``intent'' under the Nickles legislation. The American Cancer Society says: Unfortunately, intent cannot be easily determined, particularly in the area of medicine, where effective dosage levels for patients may deviate significantly from the norm. The question of deciding intent should remain in the hands of those properly trained to make such decisions--the medical community and State medical boards. What the American Cancer Society is saying, as with these other 50 organizations, they are especially troubled that the Nickles legislation is second-guessing the pain management practices of physicians and providers all across the country. It is especially troublesome because law enforcement officials, rather than health care professionals, are going to be the ones to assess the intent of a medical provider. A medical providers' intentions under any calculus, as the American Cancer Society has noted, cannot be easily determined. To allow law enforcement officials to have this enormous discretion, after the fact, to challenge our medical providers, in my view, is going to significantly compound the undertreatment of pain in America.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hoped we could have worked it out. My time has expired. As the Senator from Oklahoma knows, I have wanted a real debate on this legislation for some time, so I am happy to have the Senator hold forth.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to state my objection to any unanimous consent request for the Senate to proceed to or adopt H.R. 4345 and S. 1508, Alaska Native Claims Technical Amendments of 2000, H.R. 4721, acquisition of certain property in Washington County, Utah, S. 2749, to establish the California Trail Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada, and H.R. 2932, Golden Spike/Crossroads of the West, Utah, unless or until S. 2691 (to provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit, Oregon) is discharged, unamended, from the House of Representatives Resources Committee and passed, unamended, by the House of Representatives. I do so consistent with the commitment I have made to explain publicly any so-called ``holds'' that I may place on legislation. S. 2691 is a bi-partisan bill, authored by myself and Senator Smith of Oregon, and supported by all the members of Oregon's Congressional delegation. It passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as the entire Senate, unanimously. This legislation protects the current and future drinking water source for the City of Portland, home to one in four Oregonians. Despite its broad support, and my personal appeal to the Resources Committee, that Committee has failed to act on it. Oregonians expect their elected representatives will act responsibly to protect Portland's drinking water source. As a result, I cannot agree to H.R. 4345 and S. 1508, H.R. 4721, S. 2749 and H.R. 2932 until S. 2691 clears the House of Representatives unamended.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if the minority leader will yield again briefly, as someone who opposes assisted suicide--and I have talked to almost all of our colleagues--I know there is very strong feeling in the Chamber, just as the minority leader has said in his thoughtful statement. There ought to be a way to oppose assisted suicide without setting in place a Federal law enforcement regime that will harm pain management. I ask the minority leader, as we go forward in this debate, because I intend to talk for a long time about this tomorrow, is it the Senator's desire that at least we could try tomorrow to have a discussion on this extraordinarily important social and ethical question?

Mr. WYDEN. Will the distinguished minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I think Senator Daschle has given an excellent statement tonight and has come back to what I think is the central concern of our time, and that is that the people of this country want to see bipartisan cooperation on all the central matters that are before the country. I want to ask the Senator a question about the process. I will be very brief because I know the Senator from Missouri has been anxious to talk and has been very patient. The tax legislation before us directs Federal law enforcement officials to criminalize the pain management decisions of our health care providers in an effort to throw Oregon's assisted-suicide law into the trash can. More than 50 major health organizations have said that they oppose this effort in this legislation because they believe the bill before us is going to have a chilling effect on pain management. I am going to have a whole lot more to say about this subject tomorrow. Tonight I will be very brief. It seems to me what Senator Daschle is saying tonight--and I am interested in his thoughts--is that on an issue such as this, one of the most important bioethical decisions of our time, what the Senate ought to do is have a real debate, a real discussion, a chance to work in a bipartisan way rather than proceeding as we are now to establish new rules on one of the most sensitive, ethical, and social issues of our time without any opportunity to review it or modify it. Is the Senator from South Dakota just saying he wants Government to operate in a fashion along the lines of what the American people expect on these central and very difficult issues?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be the original cosponsor of the Savage Rapids Dam Act of 2000, introduced by my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. This legislation is another good example of the Oregon way: bringing together varied interests to get win-win results for all stakeholders. Born out of controversy concerning the detrimental effects of the Savage Rapids Dam on fish passage and survival, this legislation is now supported by the Grants Pass Irrigation District, Waterwatch, Oregon's Governor Kitzhaber, Trout Unlimited, and various Oregon river guide and sport fishing concerns. The winners under this legislation are Oregon's environmental and agricultural interests. The legislation begins the important process of restoring salmon habitat on the Rogue River, while retaining access to necessary irrigation water from the Rogue River for the Grants Pass Irrigation District. The legislation authorizes the acquisition by the Secretary of Interior of the Savage Rapids Dam for the purpose of removing the Dam to promote the recovery of coastal salmon. But prior to that acquisition, the legislation directs the Secretary of Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to design and install modern electric irrigation pumps for the Grants Pass Irrigation District so they may continue to access Rogue River water for crop irrigation, as they have done since 1921. This legislation is good for irrigators: by maintaining water accessibility, it will help sustain local agricultural businesses. It is good for fish because it takes important steps toward habitat restoration by authorizing Dam removal as well as the monitoring, mitigation, and restoration activities necessary to restore the fish population in on the Rogue River. I look forward to continuing to improve the legislation with my colleagues in the Senate and the stakeholders at home. As I work over the recess and on into the next Congress on this issue, I know, eventually, we will have another win for the Oregon way.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my friend and colleague, Senator Smith, has said it extremely well, and I know our colleague Senator Reed is waiting to speak, so I, too, will be very brief. My view is that this Steens legislation is a monumental wilderness triumph. This legislation creates for the first time in statute cow- free wilderness. In the past, wilderness designations allowed the continuation of historic grazing practices, but because the ranchers in the Steens recognize the delicate nature of this ecosystem and because they were willing to work with Democrats and Republicans in our congressional delegation, Congressman Greg Walden, Congressman Peter DeFazio, and so many of our colleagues, we were able to build a coalition for a truly historic approach to protecting our wilderness. We were able to find acceptable alternative grazing sites. Almost 100,000 acres of the total wilderness designation is now going to be by law cow free. In my view, this is just an example, a precedent of how communities can work together to protect our treasures. All across this country when there are debates about national monuments, the sides go into opposing and what amounts to warring camps, the decibel level gets very high, and there is an awful lot of finger pointing and accusations. In Oregon, we did it differently. We came up with an Oregon solution. Like Senator Smith, I am very proud of what we have been able to achieve. This is a model that our delegation is going to use to tackle other critical natural resource questions and, frankly, we are especially proud tonight because we think that with our Steens bill, we set a model for other communities across this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to Jim Hurd, the founding CEO of Planar Systems, who passed away this summer after a year-long battle with leukemia. Jim was a pioneering technical and business leader in the U.S. flat panel industry, and led Planar Systems of Beaverton, Oregon to become one of the largest flat panel display companies in the U.S. and Europe. Jim was actively involved at the national level in helping to shape federal policy on flat panel displays, and worked on the national flat panel initiative and in the formation of consortia to address critical issues for the flat panel display industry. Mr. Hurd was a leader in Oregon's business community, serving as the Chair of the Oregon Council of the American Electronics Association. During his term in 1992, he helped develop the Oregon technical benchmark annual survey and conference. He was also active in supporting technical education efforts in Oregon, and was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Oregon Graduate Institute. For services to the industry and community, the American Electronics Association awarded Jim Oregon's technology executive of the year award in 1993. A native of the Pacific Northeast, Jim was born in 1948 in Spokane, and grew up in Kennewick, Washington. He received his bachelors's degree in physics from Lewis & Clark College in Portland in 1970, where he met his wife Alice. Jim joined Tektronics Corporation soon after graduation. In 1983, Jim left Tektronics to co-found Planar Systems with Chris King and John Laney. Today, Planer employs over 850 people in the United States. Jim also lent his wisdom to help other start-up companies achieve success by serving on the Board of the Oregon Resource and Technology Development Fund, a state-sponsored venture capital fund. Jim had a rare ability to balance his successful professional life with an active private life that included mountain climbing, running, bicycling, tennis, scuba diving and a love for auto racing. He was a wonderful husband to Alice and a terrific father to his sons, Owen and Peter. Mr. Hurd will be missed by all of us who knew him.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on October 4, 2000, I did not correctly state the American Cancer Society's position on S. 1272, when I stated that they ``. . . strongly opposed . . . the Pain Relief Promotion Act.'' Their actual position, taken directly from their recent statement on the legislation, is as follows: . . . The American Cancer Society appreciates the commitment shown by the sponsors of the legislation to address these issues, but unfortunately is unable to support this legislation as written . . . Careful analysis of the House-passed measure and a substitute version of the Senate bill . . . have serious potential to exacerbate the current problem of under treatment of pain. While there are provisions to proactively address pain and symptom management, the Society maintains that any benefit from such provisions would not outweigh the potential threat posed by the changes to CSA. Furthermore, neither section of the bill comprehensively addresses the needs of providers, patients, and families for ongoing support and education to counter the current problem of under-treatment of pain--a problem that often leads to requests for physician-assisted suicide . . . Under the Act, all physicians and particularly physicians who care for those with terminal illnesses will be made especially vulnerable to having their pain and symptom management treatment decisions questioned by law enforcement officials not qualified to judge medical decision-making. This can result in unnecessary investigation, and further disincentives to aggressively treat pain. Unfortunately, `intent' cannot be easily determined, particularly in the area of medicine where effective dosage levels for patients may deviate significantly from the norm. The question of deciding intent should remain in the hands of those properly trained to make such decisions--the medical community and state medical boards. The Pain Relief Promotion Act seeks to hold harmless any physician who treats a patient's pain even if death occurs, and the measure attempts to create a `safe harbor' provision in an effort to shield physicians whose use of federally-controlled drugs unintentionally hasten or cause death. However, this provision does not change the fact that the DEA would now explicitly be charged with overseeing the medical use of controlled substances, resulting in a negative impact on cancer pain treatment. . . The American Cancer Society statement concluded with the following observation: The American Cancer Society has engaged in a deliberative process to evaluate the impact of the Pain Relief Promotion Act on our Quality of Life goals for all people living with cancer. Its analysis included a review of existing Society policies on pain and symptom management and opposition to physician assisted suicide. We have concluded that as written, the Pain Relief Promotion Act would ban the use of federally controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide at the expense of controlling pain and advancing symptom management. These issues are both critically important, but are separate issues. While the Society strongly opposes all patient deaths stemming from assisted suicides, we must give heavier weight to the more than 1500 individuals who die of cancer every day in this country--more than half of whom die in pain unnecessarily. Moreover, the American Cancer Society believes that the best approach to help cancer patients and reduce and prevent assisted suicide is through the adoption of proactive policies and the provision of resources to prevent and ameliorate pain and suffering in people with cancer, especially for those at the end-of-life. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify the position of the American Cancer Society on S. 1272.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, twenty-two days ago I was here on the Senate floor helping to secure the support of 100 Senators in passing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. It was a good day for rural Americans when the Senate adopted S. 1608 unanimously. Today is even better for rural Americans. A few minutes ago, the Senate passed legislation that now reflects an agreement among all stakeholders--the schools, the counties, the House and Senate and the Administration--that assures House and Senate passage and the President's signature. This bill is the winning formula for everyone concerned about rural communities. The bill the Senate has passed is fundamentally unchanged from S. 1608. The basics are the same: the purposes, the funding formula, and the flexibility for counties to choose how to spend a portion of the payment. The bill will provide stable payments for education and roads in more than 750 timber-dependent counties across this country and real opportunities for environmental restoration on our national forests. The bill will make sure our rural communities do not become economic sacrifice zones. It will help people in forest communities adapt to changing national forest management policies by creating a funding formula alternative to timber receipts. Policy changes in Washington, D.C. affecting logging on national forests across this country have caused timber receipts to fall an average of 70 percent over the last 15 years, and by as much as 90 percent in some areas. As timber receipts disappeared, roads fell deeper into disrepair, school programs were cut to the bone, and some schools even had to close their doors at least one day a week. This legislation will give rural communities a more predictable payment formula than the current roller coaster system based on timber receipts. The amount going toward schools and roads would represent 80- 85 percent of the three-year average of the highest payment years from fiscal years 1986 to 1999. The amount would be calculated on a state- by-state, three-high-year basis, but would be distributed among the counties on a county-by-county, three-high-year calculation. Unlike today's system, a county will receive its payment from the General Treasury, regardless of whether a single tree is cut on the national forests. The bill before us today retains and improves upon a key element of S. 1608: that counties decide for themselves, in conjunction with other stakeholders, how they want to invest the remaining 15-to-20 percent of the average payment. This bill clarifies and underscores county flexibility to use the funds other than those designated for schools and roads in any combination a county chooses for: fire prevention and fighting wildfires; forest-related education; easement purchases; emergency services reimbursement; stewardship projects; maintenance of existing forest infrastructure; ecosystem restoration; and improvement of land and water quality on national forest lands. There is no doubt about it. This legislation will change the traditional dynamic between logging and Federal payments to schools and counties. But altering the link between timber harvest and county payments does not mean we seek to sever the ties between people and land. This bill will strengthen the bond between communities and neighboring Federal forests. The authorized projects are a way for the Federal government to recognize--without relaxing or compromising our environmental commitments--that timber towns grow not just trees, but people, too. S. 1608 is supported by thousands of groups, hundreds of counties, labor organizations and school groups including the National Education Association, National Association of Counties, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the AFL-CIO. I particularly want to thank Senator Craig, Chairman of the Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, for helping to bring us to where we are today. He has been tireless in his efforts. I also want to recognize the outstanding commitment of Senator Bingaman, the ranking member on the Energy Committee, and the incredible work of Senator Baucus, who brought additional attention to non-federal land county projects, including wildfire prevention. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the staff on this legislation. In particular, Josh Kardon, my Chief of Staff, and Sarah Bittleman, my Natural Resources Counsel, have done yeoman's work on this legislation. Carole Grunberg, my Legislative Director, was always there with support and encouragement. And Jeff Gagne, my Education advisor, also contributed to the effort by figuring out the maze of Oregon education spending. Special thanks also goes to David Dye, Counsel to the Senate Energy Committee and to Mark Rey of the Energy Committee staff, whose steady hand and creativity helped resolve so many problems successfully; to Bob Simon and Kira Finkler, of the Energy Committee Democratic staff; and to Brian Kuehl with Senator Baucus, Sara Barth with Senator Boxer, and Peter Hanson with Senator Daschle.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Five minutes will be plenty.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight to discuss the possibility that there will be an effort very shortly to override Oregon's assisted suicide law as part of a package that includes legislation that is extremely important to the country, such as legislation that would protect women from domestic violence, such as legislation that would also deal with sex trafficking--an extraordinary scourge that victimizes women and children. I think it would be extremely unfortunate to victimize the victims in that way. It is clearly not in the public interest. Oregon's assisted suicide law involves a very controversial matter. I happen to be against assisted suicide, against the Oregon law, but the bill that cleared the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 vote, a very narrow vote, is strongly opposed by the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society believes that legislation will harm those in pain. I am very hopeful that rather than tie this assisted suicide legislation to vitally needed legislation that would protect the victims of domestic violence and women and children from sex trafficking, the Senate would adhere to the agreement that was entered into in August. In August, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate made it very clear, and I specifically addressed this on the floor of the Senate, that I was open to a fair fight, to an open debate on the assisted suicide question. In fact, I made it very clear that while I intend to use every opportunity to speak on the floor of the Senate and make sure the Members understand, for example, that the American Cancer Society believes this legislation will harm those in pain, I was willing to accept the will of the Senate on any cloture vote that might be scheduled. That was the agreement entered into in August. It provided for a fair fight on this issue. Tonight we are told that there may be the possibility, as I have touched on, of an effort to override Oregon's assisted suicide law. By the way, Oregon is the only State in the country that has such legislation. It would be linked to the other desperately needed measures, such as the legislation to protect women victimized by domestic violence. I hope that will not be the case. I would have to oppose very strongly that kind of effort. It seems to me it is not in the public interest, and it is particularly regrettable since it runs contrary to the spirit of what was agreed to in August: That there would be an opportunity for both sides on the floor of the Senate to have this debate about assisted suicide; I would have a chance to address the issue in some detail, but if there were an effort to file cloture, I would accept the will of the Senate on that measure. In addition, we just learned in the last few minutes there is a possibility schoolchildren in 700 rural school districts around the country could also be held hostage because, again, there may be an objection to the county payments bill legislation authored by Senator Craig of Idaho and myself--again, bipartisan. There may be an objection to that bill, again, on the grounds that somehow it should be examined some more and possibly linked again to the assisted suicide question. I think, again, these issues ought to be considered on the merits. The county payments legislation passed this body by unanimous consent; 100 Senators agreed to make sure that these schoolchildren in 700 rural school districts got a fair shake. We have been working with the House. We have now come up with an agreement among the House, the Senate, and the White House. I think we can pass it 100-0 in the Senate. But we are told someone is going to object to the county payments legislation for the unrelated reason that they are not able to work out an arrangement that allows them to throw the Oregon assisted suicide law in the trash can on an arbitrary basis. What the Senate worked out in August was fair to all sides. It ensured that we have a chance to discuss the matter of assisted suicide. It is a controversial question. I personally am against assisted suicide. I voted against the Oregon law twice. I voted against Federal funding for assisted suicide. But I oppose the legislation being advanced here to overturn Oregon's law for the same reasons that the American Cancer Society does. It will hurt patients in pain. I felt compelled to come to the floor of the Senate and express my concern. I think it is not in the public interest to link desperately needed legislation such as the bill to protect the victims of domestic violence to the assisted suicide law. It is not appropriate to hold hostage the victims of sex trafficking to the Oregon assisted suicide law. I hope we will not see what has been raised as a possibility in the last few minutes, and that is to hold up the county payments legislation--which has been agreed to by the House and the Senate negotiators and those at the White House--that would provide a lifeline to 700 rural school districts all across the country. I hope that bill and the other vitally needed legislation will not be held up because a Senator decides he or she wants to throw the assisted suicide override into unrelated legislation that this country needs so greatly. I made it clear last August I was open to being fair to both sides. That is why we entered into an agreement for a fair fight. I said I would respect the will of the Senate on a cloture vote if it came to that. I think we ought to adhere to that August agreement and not link this matter of throwing Oregon's law into the trash can by tucking it into unrelated legislation. Frankly, those who are trying to tuck this override of Oregon's assisted suicide law into other legislation--such as the bill that would protect the victims of domestic violence--are doing a tremendous disservice to the women victimized by domestic violence, to the victims of sex trafficking, to the schoolchildren who desperately need that county payments legislation. These bills ought to be considered on their merits. That was agreed to back in August with respect to the assisted suicide legislation. I will do everything in my power to insist the Senate adhere to what was agreed on last August. I thank my colleague and friend from Illinois for his thoughtfulness.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, with my friend and colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act of 2000. I am also pleased that Congressman David Wu, representing Fort Clatsop and Clatsop County in the United States House of Representatives, is introducing companion legislation in the House. The Fort Clatsop Memorial marks the spot where Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and the Corps of Discovery spent 106 days during the winter of 1805. The bicentennial of their historic journey is fast approaching and it is estimated that over a quarter-million people will visit the Memorial during the bicentennial years of 2003 through 2006. Despite this anticipated influx of visitors, the Memorial is still legally limited to no more than 130 acres. This legislation would authorize the boundary expansion of the Memorial to no more than 1500 acres so as to help accommodate the large number of expected visitors. Since the 1980s, the U.S. Park Service in Astoria, Oregon has been trying to negotiate a land purchase with Williamette Industries to acquire approximately 928 acres for the expansion of the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial. These acres are integral to the interpretation and enjoyment of the Memorial's historic site. Over the past 13 months the Park Service and Willamette Industries negotiated and, recently, reached an agreement that will lead to the Park Service acquiring this property. Before that can happen, however, this legislation, authorizing the expansion of the park boundary, will allow the Park Service to acquire the Willamette land administratively. The bill also authorizes a study of the national significance of Station Camp, another Lewis and Clark stopping point in 1805, located in Washington State. The Park Service has targeted the expansion of the Fort Clatsop Memorial as one of its highest priorities. The Clatsop County Commission supports this legislation, as do the local landowners in and around the Memorial. In addition, I have heard from the National Parks and Conservation Association [NPCA], the Trust for Public Lands and the Conservation Fund, all of whom support efforts to expand the Ft. Clatsop Memorial. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation pass because the protection of this important American historic area will enable us to illustrate the story of Oregon and America's western expansion for all who visit this special place. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join my friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, in the introduction of the Steens Mountain Wilderness Act of 2000. Located in southeastern Oregon, Steens Mountain is, in the words of Oregon environmentalist, Andy Kerr, ``an ecological island in the sky.'' Rising a mile above the desert floor, Steens Mountain actually creates its own weather patterns. Though we from Oregon are blessed to have it located within our state boundary, it is truly a National natural treasure. Some have wondered why any legislative action at all is needed to protect the Steens. They say the Steens has been there a long time and is doing just fine. Why not just leave it alone? There are three reasons why inaction at this time is an unacceptable choice. First, there are many landowners today in the Steens with a commitment to protect this ecological treasure. There is no assurance that this will always be the case. Second, our federal land agencies are now committed to protecting the natural ecology of the Steens. There is no assurance that this will always be the case. Third, the Steens includes many wilderness study areas. We now have the opportunity to begin resolving the status of these lands that have been in limbo for twenty years. There is no assurance that Oregon's future elected officials, working with all concerned parties, will ever again have such a unique opportunity to address this contentious issue. The fact of the matter is that protecting the ecological health of the Steens isn't going to happen by osmosis. It has taken the hard work of the Oregon Congressional delegation, Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary Babbitt and numerous staff and private citizens of Oregon to get this legislation where it is today. It will take a bit more hard work to get a Senate-passed bill. It is my task, as a United States Senator, to move this legislation forward through the committee hearing and Senate floor processes. In that context, this bill will most likely have to be fine-tuned to accommodate additional concerns. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to see that this bill is passed before the lights go down on the 106th Congress. But one major aspect of this bill can never change: the protections for the ecological treasure that is the Steens will be put in place while we also preserve the important historical ranching culture that thrives there. There have been issues raised about the valuation of the land exchanges that make the adoption of over 170,000 acres of wilderness possible in this bill. Let me make it perfectly clear that this bill should stand or fall on whether there is significant public value at the end of the day. I believe the Senate will find that the expenditures authorized by this legislation purchase the sum of a greater public value than can be accounted for by its individual parts. I will continue to work to assure that this legislation achieves the greatest environmental good possible.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I join my friend from Oregon, Senator Smith, in the introduction of the Steens Mountain Wilderness Act of 2000. Located in southeastern Oregon, Steens Mountain is, in the words of Oregon environmentalist, Andy Kerr, ``an ecological island in the sky.'' Rising a mile above the desert floor, Steens Mountain actually creates its own weather patterns. Though we from Oregon are blessed to have it located within our state boundary, it is truly a National natural treasure. Some have wondered why any legislative action at all is needed to protect the Steens. They say the Steens has been there a long time and is doing just fine. Why not just leave it alone? There are three reasons why inaction at this time is an unacceptable choice. First, there are many landowners today in the Steens with a commitment to protect this ecological treasure. There is no assurance that this will always be the case. Second, our federal land agencies are now committed to protecting the natural ecology of the Steens. There is no assurance that this will always be the case. Third, the Steens includes many wilderness study areas. We now have the opportunity to begin resolving the status of these lands that have been in limbo for twenty years. There is no assurance that Oregon's future elected officials, working with all concerned parties, will ever again have such a unique opportunity to address this contentious issue. The fact of the matter is that protecting the ecological health of the Steens isn't going to happen by osmosis. It has taken the hard work of the Oregon Congressional delegation, Governor Kitzhaber, Secretary Babbitt and numerous staff and private citizens of Oregon to get this legislation where it is today. It will take a bit more hard work to get a Senate-passed bill. It is my task, as a United States Senator, to move this legislation forward through the committee hearing and Senate floor processes. In that context, this bill will most likely have to be fine-tuned to accommodate additional concerns. I look forward to working with all my colleagues to see that this bill is passed before the lights go down on the 106th Congress. But one major aspect of this bill can never change: the protections for the ecological treasure that is the Steens will be put in place while we also preserve the important historical ranching culture that thrives there. There have been issues raised about the valuation of the land exchanges that make the adoption of over 170,000 acres of wilderness possible in this bill. Let me make it perfectly clear that this bill should stand or fall on whether there is significant public value at the end of the day. I believe the Senate will find that the expenditures authorized by this legislation purchase the sum of a greater public value than can be accounted for by its individual parts. I will continue to work to assure that this legislation achieves the greatest environmental good possible.