Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Yes, that is correct. No one is excluded from submitting projects under this bill.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the senior Senator from Montana for his thorough explanation of the provisions he helped craft, which became title III of the bill.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes, that is the correct interpretation of the bill's language and intent. The purpose of S. 1608 is to increase both county funding and county choice. Unlike projects under title II, the role of the Resource Advisory Committees is much more limited under title III and is limited to an advisory role.

Mr. WYDEN. That is correct. It is my intent that a Resource Advisory Committee would review projects in as expeditious a manner as possible, but that in any event, the failure of a Resource Advisory Committee to review a project in a timely manner would not under this bill be grounds for denying a county the ability to move forward with it.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank my colleagues, particularly Chairman Craig, Senator Gordon Smith, who was so extraordinarily helpful, Senator Bingaman, Senator Baucus, Senator Boxer, and many of our colleagues who put in a great many hours on this legislation. Frankly, 18 months ago, they said it could not be done. This legislation 18 months ago was an ideological magnet for those who wanted to debate natural resources policy. Senator Craig and I said this legislation, which funds basic services in rural America for schools, roads, and other essential services, was beyond that kind of discussion. It was too important to try to settle all of the divisive issues about natural resources on this legislation. I am very pleased this bipartisan legislation has been passed because this legislation sends a strong message that it is not right for Federal policies to turn rural communities into economic sacrifice zones. I believe this reinvents the relationship between local communities and the Federal lands that are so important to them. It will ensure that we can provide for the economic livelihood of folks in rural communities, but also it ensures that in the future we are going to focus on watershed restoration and conservation easements and a wide variety of measures that are going to protect ecosystems. I thank my colleague who is on the floor, Chairman Craig. As I said, 18 months ago no one would have thought that we could be here tonight with this extraordinarily important legislation for rural America. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many folks in rural Oregon and other parts of rural America believe the Federal Government has abandoned them. They think Washington, D.C. has reneged on a decades-long commitment to support their schools and roads with revenue from timber harvested on Federal lands. People in timber-dependent rural America think they are being left behind to live in economic sacrifice zones. Policy changes in Washington, DC., affecting logging on national forest 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 1 day a week. Our fellow citizens who live in rural America should not be just an afterthought in our warp-speed world. The legislation before us, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, will renew the compact with timber-dependent communities without compromising our commitment to environmentally sound stewardship of our forests. It will give people in rural counties the financial predictability they need to step into the 21st century. Since 1908, people in rural counties across this country have lived by a compact with the Federal Government. As compensation for paying no property taxes, the Federal Government would give the counties a quarter of the timber revenue. For decades, this arrangement provide adequate funds to sustain schools, roads and other basic county services, like emergency rescue. But when timber harvests began to drop off and timber jobs were lost, little effort was made to help offset the shortfall, and citizens in rural counties felt betrayed by the government in Washington, DC. We are not talking about a few isolated communities in remote areas of America. Timber- dependent communities are found in 709 counties in 42 states. Some 800,000 school children and millions of people live in these counties. Thirty-one of 36 counties in my State of Oregon receive timber payments. Counties in the western part of Oregon have been able to survive because of Spotted Owl safety net payments, but no such safety net exists for those in eastern Oregon. There, Grant County, has lost 90 percent of its timber receipts, from more than $12 million down to $1 million, and the county has turned to such cost-cutting measures as a 4-day school week. Under this legislation, Oregon counties will get a total of $261 million a year--an increase of $115 million, or 79 percent. Of the $261 million, $222 million would be available for schools and roads and $39 million will remain for the counties either to invest in their backyard national forests or in forest-related county services. The purpose of S. 1608 is to help rural communities adapt to changing national forest management policies by creating a funding formula alternative to timber receipts. The legislation will ensure that the future relationship between the people living in the 709 affected rural counties and the Federal Government does not depend on how many trees are cut. Rural communities will be connected to Federal lands through stewardship projects, maintenance of existing forest infrastructure, ecosystem restoration and improvement of land and water quality. Counties will choose how to spend the Federal payment, and projects will be developed by broad-based groups of local citizens. Collaboration with Federal land managers will help ensure projects comply with all existing environmental laws and regulations. The legislation would restore stability to the 25 percent payments compact by ensuring a predictable payment level to forest communities for six years. The amount going toward schools and roads would represent 80-85 percent of the three-year average of the highest payment years from 1985 to the present. Unlike today's system, a county will receive its payment from the general Treasury, regardless of whether a single tree is cut from national forests. Counties will decide for themselves how to invest the remaining 15- to-20 percent of the average amount described above for projects recommended by local community advisory committees if those projects are approved by the appropriate Federal land management agency. Although locally-conceived, every project must comply with all environmental laws and regulations, as well as all applicable forest plans. Counties might also opt to pursue projects related to the forest--rather than in the forest--through Title III. These projects might include fire prevention, the purchase of easements or forest- related after-school programs. In addition, each project must--and I quote from the bill here--``improve the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems, and restore and improve land health and water quality'' on the national forests. County choice is critical to the bill. Counties that opt not to join the program--such as those anticipating higher timber receipts in the immediate future--will continue to receive payments based on the existing formula, and they also have the option of joining the program two years down the road. Counties that opt to join the program will get stable payments based on a new formula. 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. S. 1608 will strengthen the bond between communities and neighboring Federal forests. The projects that would be authorized by S. 1608 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. When this debate began, the issues were highly polarized. On the one side were those who would punish the Forest Service for not cutting enough trees; on the other were those who, unintentionally, would punish our rural communities and school children by not providing them the funding they so desperately need. After listening to both sides and after many long discussions, Senator Craig and I rejected the extremes and sought out a middle path that would break the gridlock. The legislation we bring to the Senate will establish a foundation to move rural communities beyond this time of crisis, and, with the forest ecosystem restoration projects, put them on a path toward sustainability in this new century. One of my goals for this legislation was to assure the counties have as much choice as possible, and I believe this goal has been met. As I said earlier, first, counties can choose whether they would like to be part of this program and receive a stable payment. If they choose not to be part of the program, they may revisit this decision every 2 years. Second, a county that chooses to be part of the program and receive stable payments must decide the type of projects they want to invest in: projects in the forest, like stream and watershed restoration; or projects related to the forests, such as wildfire prevention or afterschool programs for their children. Also, a county can opt simply to have the money sent back to the U.S. Treasury without pursuing projects. Finally, these choices may be revisited every year. The ecological health of the forests is a key to survival for many of these communities, making forest restoration a cornerstone of the bill. Counties have choices as to how and how much they receive so they are able to determine the best allocation of funds: whether to support forest health, job creation, ecosystem restoration or a combination of these. Whatever the choice, it is an investment in both the future of the forest and the community. This legislation is the product of many months of painstaking work. Since the beginning, it has been a bipartisan effort. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported the legislation by voice vote last April, and through negotiations with many other interested Senators, we have a managers' amendment that represents a further refinement of the bill. I particularly want to thank Senators Craig and Bingaman, the Chair and ranking member of the Energy Committee. Without their dedication and willingness to put long hours into this effort, we would not have such a solid piece of legislation. I would also like to make special note of the help of Senator Baucus in crafting Title III and bringing a strong focus on wildfire prevention. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the staff on S. 1608. In particular, Jose 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, and Jeff Gagne, my Education advisor, also contributed to the effort. Special thanks also goes 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 and Sara Barth with Senator Boxer. 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 urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Amendment No. 4139

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you for your very kind words, Senator Baucus. The compromise legislation before us would not have been achieved without the wise counsel and experience of the senior Senator from Montana, my good friend, Senator Baucus. He has made substantial contributions to this bill, particularly in developing title III and in championing the need for adequate funding for the prevention and fighting of wildfires, like those that have ravaged the West and his own State of Montana this summer.

Mr. WYDEN. Again, let me thank the senior Senator from Montana for his work on title III, and add that I agree with his interpretation of the separation between titles II and III. I would also express my willingness to continue to work with him to assure the effective implementation of this legislation, particularly of titles II and III. This is just one of countless issues that we have grappled with as we have strived to make this bill as fair and responsive as possible to the needs of our rural counties. We have made giant strides in improving this legislation, and I thank all the Members who have been willing to put aside their differences and work in a bipartisan effort to make this possible.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing groundbreaking legislation to make a difference in the way in which dying patients and their families can access hospice care. Ninety percent of Americans do not realize that there is a hospice benefit provided under the Medicare program. Over time, the length of stay in a hospice is decreasing so that patients do not get the full benefit of services that could make them more comfortable at a crucial time in their lives. The issues related to how we die are too important to permit the Medicare Hospice benefit to remain fixed in time. Now is the time to begin to test new ways to design the benefit so that the benefit can remain truly patient-centered at one of the most crucial times in patients' and their families' lives. Just as we push our health care system for medical breakthroughs that will allow more of us to live healthier and longer, we need to drive our health care system to create accessible, positive care for those facing the end of life. My legislation, the Hospice Improvement Act of 2000, would require the Secretary to establish a demonstration program to increase access and use of hospice care for patients at the end-of-life, and to increase the knowledge of hospice among the medical, mental health and patient communities. My legislation stresses the following: Supportive and Comfort Care: To assist families and patients in getting the benefit of hospice care, the Demonstration program will allow for a new supportive and comfort care benefit. This benefit, elected at the option of the patient, will not require the terminally ill to elect hospice care instead of other medical treatment, but will permit a patient to have supportive and comfort care in place while the patient still seeks ``curative treatment.'' This will permit patients and families to learn about hospice without forcing them to make a choice between hospice and other care. Case management would be provided through a hospice provider reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis. Severity Index Instead of a Six-Month Prognosis: To determine whether or not a patient is eligible for the supportive and comfort care option, a severity index will be used instead of the current hospice requirement of a 6 month prognosis. This will permit patients to have access to support services, as needed, instead of relying on an often inaccurate time-related prognosis. Increase Rural Hospice Access: Permit nurse practitioners and physician assistants to admit patients to hospice if this is within their authority under state practice law. In communities without a qualified social worker, other professionals with skills, knowledge and ability may provide medical social services such as counseling on the effects of illness on the family. Respite Care: Nursing facilities used for respite care would not be required to have skilled nurses on the premises 24 hours a day (because hospice will be caring for the patient) or respite could be provided in the patient's home. Payment Issues: Permit reimbursement for consultations, preadmission informational visits, even if the patient does not elect hospice/ supportive care and provide minimum payment for Medicare hospice services provided under the demonstration program based on the provision of services for a period of 14 days, regardless of length of stay. In addition, the demonstration project could address other payment issues such as offsetting changes in services and oversight and the increased cost of providing services in rural areas and creating a per diem rate of payment for respite care that reflects the range of care needs. In addition to the Demonstration program, the Secretary would be required to establish an education grant program for the purpose of providing information about the Medicare hospice benefit, and the benefits available under the demonstration program. Education grants could be used to provide individual or group education to patients and their families and to the medical and mental health community, and to test messages to improve public knowledge about the Medicare hospice benefit. Let me conclude by saying that in the time left for this Congress, we have a unique opportunity to truly begin to improve care for the dying. There are fewer who are more vulnerable than someone who is dying and having to cope with the physical breakdown of their body and the emotional turmoil that imminent death brings to a family. This legislation provides us an opportunity to begin to remove the barriers to care for those who facing death. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing groundbreaking legislation to make a difference in the way in which dying patients and their families can access hospice care. Ninety percent of Americans do not realize that there is a hospice benefit provided under the Medicare program. Over time, the length of stay in a hospice is decreasing so that patients do not get the full benefit of services that could make them more comfortable at a crucial time in their lives. The issues related to how we die are too important to permit the Medicare Hospice benefit to remain fixed in time. Now is the time to begin to test new ways to design the benefit so that the benefit can remain truly patient-centered at one of the most crucial times in patients' and their families' lives. Just as we push our health care system for medical breakthroughs that will allow more of us to live healthier and longer, we need to drive our health care system to create accessible, positive care for those facing the end of life. My legislation, the Hospice Improvement Act of 2000, would require the Secretary to establish a demonstration program to increase access and use of hospice care for patients at the end-of-life, and to increase the knowledge of hospice among the medical, mental health and patient communities. My legislation stresses the following: Supportive and Comfort Care: To assist families and patients in getting the benefit of hospice care, the Demonstration program will allow for a new supportive and comfort care benefit. This benefit, elected at the option of the patient, will not require the terminally ill to elect hospice care instead of other medical treatment, but will permit a patient to have supportive and comfort care in place while the patient still seeks ``curative treatment.'' This will permit patients and families to learn about hospice without forcing them to make a choice between hospice and other care. Case management would be provided through a hospice provider reimbursed on a fee-for-service basis. Severity Index Instead of a Six-Month Prognosis: To determine whether or not a patient is eligible for the supportive and comfort care option, a severity index will be used instead of the current hospice requirement of a 6 month prognosis. This will permit patients to have access to support services, as needed, instead of relying on an often inaccurate time-related prognosis. Increase Rural Hospice Access: Permit nurse practitioners and physician assistants to admit patients to hospice if this is within their authority under state practice law. In communities without a qualified social worker, other professionals with skills, knowledge and ability may provide medical social services such as counseling on the effects of illness on the family. Respite Care: Nursing facilities used for respite care would not be required to have skilled nurses on the premises 24 hours a day (because hospice will be caring for the patient) or respite could be provided in the patient's home. Payment Issues: Permit reimbursement for consultations, preadmission informational visits, even if the patient does not elect hospice/ supportive care and provide minimum payment for Medicare hospice services provided under the demonstration program based on the provision of services for a period of 14 days, regardless of length of stay. In addition, the demonstration project could address other payment issues such as offsetting changes in services and oversight and the increased cost of providing services in rural areas and creating a per diem rate of payment for respite care that reflects the range of care needs. In addition to the Demonstration program, the Secretary would be required to establish an education grant program for the purpose of providing information about the Medicare hospice benefit, and the benefits available under the demonstration program. Education grants could be used to provide individual or group education to patients and their families and to the medical and mental health community, and to test messages to improve public knowledge about the Medicare hospice benefit. Let me conclude by saying that in the time left for this Congress, we have a unique opportunity to truly begin to improve care for the dying. There are fewer who are more vulnerable than someone who is dying and having to cope with the physical breakdown of their body and the emotional turmoil that imminent death brings to a family. This legislation provides us an opportunity to begin to remove the barriers to care for those who facing death. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish today to draw the Senate's attention to National Assisted Living Week. The National Center for Assisted Living is sponsoring National Assisted Living Week this week to highlight the significance and the hope that this type of service can provide seniors. Assisted living is a long term care alternative for seniors who need more assistance than is available in retirement communities, but do not require the heavy medical and nursing care provided by nursing facilities. Approximately one million of our nation's seniors have chosen the option of assisted living in this country. This demonstrates a tremendous desire by seniors and their families to have the kind of assistance that they need in bathing, taking medications or other activities of daily living in a setting that truly becomes their home. This year's theme of National Assisted Living Week is ``The Art of Life'' and it is intended as recognition of the value of creative expression. I think that it is appropriate because it shows that assisted living is a real option for seniors to continue experiencing ``the art of life'' in living arrangements tailored to meet their needs for socialization, independence and services. Oregon has led our nation in the concept of assisted living. My state spends more state health dollars to provide assisted living services than any other in our nation. Assisted living has taken different directions in different states, and I believe offering these choices for consumers is important to provide security, dignity and independence for seniors. Assisted living will become even more important as an option of seniors and their families as our nation experiences the demographic tsunami of aging baby boomers. It is important for us to continue to support options that allow seniors and their families a choice of settings in order to assure that they get the level of care that they need.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Reform Act of 2000. The Capital Construction Fund (CCF) was originally created by the Merchant Marine Act as a way to encourage the construction and use of American-owned vessels in U.S. waters. For fishermen, the Capital Construction Fund authorizes the accumulation of funds, free from taxes, for the purpose of buying or refitting commercial fishing vessels. The program has been a success in promoting the domestic fishing industry. However, the usefulness of the CCF has not kept up with the times. Today it is actually exacerbating the problems facing U.S. fisheries by forcing fishermen to keep their money in fishing vessels, rather than allowing them to retire from fishing and pursue other interests. Our nation's fisheries are collapsing. Over the past year, fisheries in New England, Alaska and the West Coast have been officially declared disasters by the Secretary of Commerce. Plainly speaking, there are too many boats and not enough fish. Along the West Coast, a mere 200 of the 1400 boats currently fishing could catch the entire allowable harvest of groundfish. That means we could buyout 85 percent of the boats and still not reduce capacity in our fisheries. Since 1995, Congress has appropriated $140 million to buy fishing vessels and permits back from fishermen. Clearly, more needs to be done. This legislation empowers the fisherman to make his own choices to stay or leave the fishery with his own money. In these times when we ought to be reducing the number of boats in our fisheries, it does not make sense for federal policy to encourage fishermen to build more of them. Yet current law prohibits fishermen from getting their own money out of CCF accounts for any purpose other than building boats. If they do, they lose up to 70 percent of their money in taxes and penalties. When fishermen have already been hit with increasingly severe harvest restrictions over the past few years, it is just not fair to hold their own money hostage. That is why I'm introducing a bill that makes it easier for fishermen to withdraw their funds from the Capital Construction Fund if they retire from the fishery. My bill would allow fund holders to roll their funds over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or other retirement fund. It would also allow them to use their own money to participate in buyback programs. This bill also eliminates the tax- penalty for withdrawals for those folks wishing to leave the industry. Mr. President, this bill enjoys wide support from a variety of organizations with an interest in our nation's fisheries. Environmental groups, trawlers, small boat operators and processors alike have expressed their enthusiasm for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the swift adoption of this bill so that our fisherman can start making their own choices about their businesses and lives. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, approximately 3.4 million students entered kindergarten in U.S. public schools last fall, and experts predict wildly different futures for them. Many children do well throughout elementary school, only to slip and fall between the cracks in middle school. This so-called ``achievement gap'' opens wide in middle school and grows throughout high school if nothing is done to stop it. Raising test scores in K-12 education has brought the achievement-gap issue to the forefront of the national education debate and created a new opportunity to support those states that are making a real effort to improve student achievement. But trying to close the gap by simply bumping up test standards only pushes kids out of school rather than across the gap. Few have really looked at the most logical place to begin to close the gap: summer school. Students take their achievement tests in April but have to return to school in the Fall. Summer school is one place to begin helping students close the gap, yet the Federal government does nothing to create and support successful summer academic programs. The legislation I am introducing today, the Student Education Enrichment Development Act, or SEED Act, will leverage summer academic programs to boost student performance. SEED will support all struggling students by providing the first federal funds to backstop state and local efforts to develop, plan, implement, and operate high quality summer academic enrichment programs. The disparity in school performance tied to race and ethnicity, known as the achievement gap, shows up in grades, test scores, course selection, and college completion. To a large extent, these factors predict a student's success in school, whether a student will go to college, and how much money the student will earn when he or she enters the working world. It happens in cities and in suburbs and in rural school districts. The gaps are so pronounced that in 1996, several national tests found African-American and Hispanic 12th graders scoring at roughly the same levels in reading and math as white 8th graders. By 2019, when they are 24 years old, current trends indicate that the white children who are now nearing the end of their first year in school will be twice as likely as their African-American classmates, and three times as likely as Hispanics, to have a college degree. In Oregon last year, only 52 percent of the tenth graders met the state's standard for reading, while only 36 percent met the standard for math. But students in Oregon are actually doing better than the national average. More than two-thirds of American high-school seniors graduated last year without being able to read at a proficient level. Results like these are the reason we need SEED. This week's Time Magazine reports that at least 25 percent of our U.S. school districts are mandating summer school for struggling students--twice that number in poor urban areas. While these programs are helping some students, the results should be better. Only 40 percent of New York students who failed state exams and completed summer school passed on the state exam on their second attempt. In the Pacific Northwest, Seattle canceled its summer program after students made only meager academic gains. I ask unanimous consent that the article from Time magazine be included in the record at the conclusion of my statement. Schools should strive to meet higher standards, and we should have high expectations for every child. But our kids should not be punished because our education system has failed them. It's time to make sure every child learns and succeeds. According to a recent study, more than half of our teachers promoted unprepared students because the current system does not provide adequate options. High-quality summer academic programs would give struggling students a chance to succeed in a system that has failed them and help reverse the trend of poor student performance by preparing students to succeed where they have previously failed. Over the past years, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about education, but empty promises won't help our kids learn. Our children deserve more. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Landrieu, Breaux and Bayh in introducing the bill today, and ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Capital Construction Fund Reform Act of 2000. The Capital Construction Fund (CCF) was originally created by the Merchant Marine Act as a way to encourage the construction and use of American-owned vessels in U.S. waters. For fishermen, the Capital Construction Fund authorizes the accumulation of funds, free from taxes, for the purpose of buying or refitting commercial fishing vessels. The program has been a success in promoting the domestic fishing industry. However, the usefulness of the CCF has not kept up with the times. Today it is actually exacerbating the problems facing U.S. fisheries by forcing fishermen to keep their money in fishing vessels, rather than allowing them to retire from fishing and pursue other interests. Our nation's fisheries are collapsing. Over the past year, fisheries in New England, Alaska and the West Coast have been officially declared disasters by the Secretary of Commerce. Plainly speaking, there are too many boats and not enough fish. Along the West Coast, a mere 200 of the 1400 boats currently fishing could catch the entire allowable harvest of groundfish. That means we could buyout 85 percent of the boats and still not reduce capacity in our fisheries. Since 1995, Congress has appropriated $140 million to buy fishing vessels and permits back from fishermen. Clearly, more needs to be done. This legislation empowers the fisherman to make his own choices to stay or leave the fishery with his own money. In these times when we ought to be reducing the number of boats in our fisheries, it does not make sense for federal policy to encourage fishermen to build more of them. Yet current law prohibits fishermen from getting their own money out of CCF accounts for any purpose other than building boats. If they do, they lose up to 70 percent of their money in taxes and penalties. When fishermen have already been hit with increasingly severe harvest restrictions over the past few years, it is just not fair to hold their own money hostage. That is why I'm introducing a bill that makes it easier for fishermen to withdraw their funds from the Capital Construction Fund if they retire from the fishery. My bill would allow fund holders to roll their funds over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or other retirement fund. It would also allow them to use their own money to participate in buyback programs. This bill also eliminates the tax- penalty for withdrawals for those folks wishing to leave the industry. Mr. President, this bill enjoys wide support from a variety of organizations with an interest in our nation's fisheries. Environmental groups, trawlers, small boat operators and processors alike have expressed their enthusiasm for this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the swift adoption of this bill so that our fisherman can start making their own choices about their businesses and lives. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

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

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to explain to my colleagues the reasons for my objection to a unanimous consent request for the Senate to adopt legislation to make the Visa Waiver Pilot Program permanent, H.R. 3767. I do so consistent with the commitment I have made to explain publicly any so-called ``holds'' that I may place on legislation. I regret that I am compelled to object to this measure at this point but I do so for reasons similar to those given previously. I believe the Senate should not allow the security of millions of rural Americans to be ignored while we press ahead with legislation to take care of immigration matters. Since April, a prominent Senate Republican leader has had a de facto hold on a bipartisan bill of critical importance to the security of those who live in rural counties, S. 1608, The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. But time is running out. It is the end of July; there are fewer than 26 legislative days left. People in rural counties across America who have strained under dwindling Federal resource funds need this legislation. They should not be made to wait. S. 1608 addresses the problems 709 rural counties in 42 states face in trying to fund schools, roads and other basic county services with drastically declining Federal timber payments. These problems affect some 800,000 school children and millions of people. For example, Grant County in eastern Oregon has lost 90 percent of its timber receipts, forcing it to turn to a four-day school week as a cost-saving measure. This bipartisan bill provides a balanced solution to the problem. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported it by voice vote, and it is supported by hundreds of counties, labor organizations, education groups, and the National Association of Counties. I regret having to take this action but am compelled at this point in the legislative year to seek every opportunity to move this critically important legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask consent that on or before September 15, 2000, the majority leader, after notification with the minority leader, will turn to Calendar No. 520, S. 1608, and it be considered under the following agreement: That there be 2 hours equally divided for general debate on the bill; that there be a managers' amendment in the nature of a substitute; that there be up to two amendments for each leader, with one amendment of the minority leader to be offered by Senator Boxer; that they be first- degree amendments, relevant to the text of S. 1608, and limited to 1 hour each, to be equally divided in the usual form. That following the disposition of the above described amendments, the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to third reading and a vote on passage of S. 1608, as amended, if amended, without intervening action, motion, or debate. I further ask consent that it be in order for either leader to vitiate the above agreement no later than 12 noon on Wednesday, September 6, 2000.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, approximately 3.4 million students entered kindergarten in U.S. public schools last fall, and experts predict wildly different futures for them. Many children do well throughout elementary school, only to slip and fall between the cracks in middle school. This so-called ``achievement gap'' opens wide in middle school and grows throughout high school if nothing is done to stop it. Raising test scores in K-12 education has brought the achievement-gap issue to the forefront of the national education debate and created a new opportunity to support those states that are making a real effort to improve student achievement. But trying to close the gap by simply bumping up test standards only pushes kids out of school rather than across the gap. Few have really looked at the most logical place to begin to close the gap: summer school. Students take their achievement tests in April but have to return to school in the Fall. Summer school is one place to begin helping students close the gap, yet the Federal government does nothing to create and support successful summer academic programs. The legislation I am introducing today, the Student Education Enrichment Development Act, or SEED Act, will leverage summer academic programs to boost student performance. SEED will support all struggling students by providing the first federal funds to backstop state and local efforts to develop, plan, implement, and operate high quality summer academic enrichment programs. The disparity in school performance tied to race and ethnicity, known as the achievement gap, shows up in grades, test scores, course selection, and college completion. To a large extent, these factors predict a student's success in school, whether a student will go to college, and how much money the student will earn when he or she enters the working world. It happens in cities and in suburbs and in rural school districts. The gaps are so pronounced that in 1996, several national tests found African-American and Hispanic 12th graders scoring at roughly the same levels in reading and math as white 8th graders. By 2019, when they are 24 years old, current trends indicate that the white children who are now nearing the end of their first year in school will be twice as likely as their African-American classmates, and three times as likely as Hispanics, to have a college degree. In Oregon last year, only 52 percent of the tenth graders met the state's standard for reading, while only 36 percent met the standard for math. But students in Oregon are actually doing better than the national average. More than two-thirds of American high-school seniors graduated last year without being able to read at a proficient level. Results like these are the reason we need SEED. This week's Time Magazine reports that at least 25 percent of our U.S. school districts are mandating summer school for struggling students--twice that number in poor urban areas. While these programs are helping some students, the results should be better. Only 40 percent of New York students who failed state exams and completed summer school passed on the state exam on their second attempt. In the Pacific Northwest, Seattle canceled its summer program after students made only meager academic gains. I ask unanimous consent that the article from Time magazine be included in the record at the conclusion of my statement. Schools should strive to meet higher standards, and we should have high expectations for every child. But our kids should not be punished because our education system has failed them. It's time to make sure every child learns and succeeds. According to a recent study, more than half of our teachers promoted unprepared students because the current system does not provide adequate options. High-quality summer academic programs would give struggling students a chance to succeed in a system that has failed them and help reverse the trend of poor student performance by preparing students to succeed where they have previously failed. Over the past years, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about education, but empty promises won't help our kids learn. Our children deserve more. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Landrieu, Breaux and Bayh in introducing the bill today, and ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. $445.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for the opportunity to be involved in this issue. I think the chairman has said it very well. In effect, what he has done is make the case for why the bill we are proposing is absolutely essential to modernize the Medicare program. If there is one principle that Medicare is going to have to stand for in the 21st century, it is that we must change this system which now literally rewards waste and penalizes frugality. Medicare has an HMO reimbursement system today which is, even by beltway standards, perverse. It sends the message if you are really inefficient, if you have not taken the steps that Colorado and Oregon and other States have taken, don't worry about it, don't go out and make the tough choices about introducing competition to your community. The Federal Government will just keep sending you big checks. I think it is absolutely key, especially given the fact that close to a million seniors are going to lose their HMO coverage this year--close to a million seniors will lose their coverage this year--that we pass this bipartisan legislation. I think the chairman is right. I think by the end of the next couple of days, we will have many other colleagues from both political parties here. I see my friend, Senator Smith of Oregon, has come into the Chamber. He and I have worked on this issue since he has come to the Senate as part of our bipartisan agenda for Oregon. I am going to talk for a few minutes to try to elaborate on some of the themes Chairman Domenici has so eloquently addressed. As we have seen in Oregon and New Mexico and so many other States, the present HMO reimbursement system is literally driving HMO plans out of the program and leaving seniors across this country petrified about their future health care in their communities. What senior after senior asks at this point is how can it be that since they pay the same amount for hospitalization and outpatient services, if they live in Pendleton or they live in Portland, they pay the same amount for outpatient and hospitalization services as seniors in other parts of the country yet the Federal Government does not send an equal payment to folks in Pendleton and Portland? As Chairman Domenici has very specifically and eloquently described, they send dramatically different payments to communities across this country. So you can have communities, for example, on the east coast, that literally get twice the reimbursement of communities in Oregon and New Mexico. We hear about it very bluntly from our constituents. You can have a senior in Pendleton or Coos Bay call up their cousin in one of the cities back East and ask their cousin about Medicare, how it is going. The senior back East says: You know, it goes great. I get prescription drugs for only a few dollars a month. I also get dental coverage. I get free hearing aids. How is it going for you there in Coos Bay or Pendleton or Albuquerque, NM? How is Medicare going for you? That senior in Albuquerque or Pendleton or Portland wants to throw the telephone through the living room window because they don't get that prescription drug coverage, hearing aids, or dental coverage because the reimbursement is as low as Chairman Domenici has described. The Congress was supposed to have begun, several years ago, a bipartisan effort to change this. The system was called a blended rate. In effect, over the next few years, we would move to a national system, so instead of driving some of these high-cost areas down precipitously, we would move low-cost areas up over the next few years. Unfortunately, that system has been delayed. It has been delayed, in my view, in a fashion that has made for many plans saying they can no longer afford to stay in business; certainly no longer afford to offer some of those benefits such as prescription drugs, which are so important to seniors. That is why Chairman Domenici and I and Senator Grassley and Senator Kerrey and I know many of our colleagues are going to join in a bipartisan effort, first, to establish a minimum payment floor for urban counties; second, to boost the rural counties where, again, these programs have barely been able to survive as a result of low reimbursement rates; and, third, to address the concerns with respect to wages that Senator Grassley has so eloquently described. But I am of the view that if this Congress is to modernize the Medicare program, the essence of such a modernization effort is to create more options and more choices. That will not be possible if you perpetuate an HMO reimbursement system that day after day after day penalizes frugality and rewards waste. For those who really want to get into the details of this subject, the system is known as the AAPCC, the average adjusted per capita cost. The way it has worked, the HMOs are reimbursed by the Federal Government through a system that historically has looked at average local costs of various procedures, such as a heart bypass in Pendleton or cataract operation in Portland--and then you calculate a formula for reimbursing these HMOs, using a percentage of the fee-for-service costs for health care in the area. But at the end of the day, the message is, if you are wasteful, don't worry about it. If you are inefficient, the Federal Government is going to say maybe that is not ideal, but we will just send you a check to reflect the fact that you are not taking steps to hold down your costs and we are not going to give you any consequences as a result. That makes no sense to Senator Domenici and me and our cosponsors. I know it makes no sense to the Presiding Officer because he and I have talked about this innumerable times. We tried to boost reimbursement rates for the people of Oregon. We have to change the Medicare program to eliminate the discrimination against communities that control costs while offering good quality care. Our bipartisan legislation is not just a one-time infusion of money. We structured it so that money becomes part of a base for future increases, which in my view helps to jump-start what Congress intended several years ago by passing legislation to promote a nationwide blended rate. We all understand that at present, as we look to the last days of the session, with the budget surplus, it is going to be possible to use a portion of that surplus, after we have helped pay down the debt, after hopefully there is a targeted tax cut; at that point, we will have some dollars to take the steps to better meet the health care needs of older people and also jump start the modernization of the Medicare program. Our legislation, I hope, will be part of that effort. I think Chairman Domenici and Senator Grassley, among our cosponsors, are very likely to be in the room at the end of the day when that legislation is being offered. I and others are going to do our best to support those efforts in the Budget Committee. I know the Presiding Officer and I have used every opportunity to raise these issues, and we are going to continue to do so. Our State has been a pioneer in the health care reform area. We are proud of the fact that we are the first State in the country to have made tough choices about health care priorities through the Oregon health plan. We are proud of the fact that we have been able to introduce more choices and more competition to the health care system and, as a result, seniors in our State are able to get more for their health care dollar. It is not right for older people in Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, and in other States where they have done the heavy lifting and they have taken steps to hold down their costs, to be discriminated against by the Federal Government. This bipartisan legislation, in my view, is going to help keep HMOs that are currently in the program in the program, and it will begin the process of bringing back to Medicare some of those we have lost because they have been discriminated against in the past with respect to reimbursement and they could not keep their doors open. We will be talking about this legislation frequently in the last few days of this Congress and in the fall, and I believe passing this legislation, as we look at that final budget bill that is sure to be part of our fall debates, that this is one of the best ways we can target dollars that need to be spent carefully so as to maximize the values of what we are getting in health care for older people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. $445.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for the opportunity to be involved in this issue. I think the chairman has said it very well. In effect, what he has done is make the case for why the bill we are proposing is absolutely essential to modernize the Medicare program. If there is one principle that Medicare is going to have to stand for in the 21st century, it is that we must change this system which now literally rewards waste and penalizes frugality. Medicare has an HMO reimbursement system today which is, even by beltway standards, perverse. It sends the message if you are really inefficient, if you have not taken the steps that Colorado and Oregon and other States have taken, don't worry about it, don't go out and make the tough choices about introducing competition to your community. The Federal Government will just keep sending you big checks. I think it is absolutely key, especially given the fact that close to a million seniors are going to lose their HMO coverage this year--close to a million seniors will lose their coverage this year--that we pass this bipartisan legislation. I think the chairman is right. I think by the end of the next couple of days, we will have many other colleagues from both political parties here. I see my friend, Senator Smith of Oregon, has come into the Chamber. He and I have worked on this issue since he has come to the Senate as part of our bipartisan agenda for Oregon. I am going to talk for a few minutes to try to elaborate on some of the themes Chairman Domenici has so eloquently addressed. As we have seen in Oregon and New Mexico and so many other States, the present HMO reimbursement system is literally driving HMO plans out of the program and leaving seniors across this country petrified about their future health care in their communities. What senior after senior asks at this point is how can it be that since they pay the same amount for hospitalization and outpatient services, if they live in Pendleton or they live in Portland, they pay the same amount for outpatient and hospitalization services as seniors in other parts of the country yet the Federal Government does not send an equal payment to folks in Pendleton and Portland? As Chairman Domenici has very specifically and eloquently described, they send dramatically different payments to communities across this country. So you can have communities, for example, on the east coast, that literally get twice the reimbursement of communities in Oregon and New Mexico. We hear about it very bluntly from our constituents. You can have a senior in Pendleton or Coos Bay call up their cousin in one of the cities back East and ask their cousin about Medicare, how it is going. The senior back East says: You know, it goes great. I get prescription drugs for only a few dollars a month. I also get dental coverage. I get free hearing aids. How is it going for you there in Coos Bay or Pendleton or Albuquerque, NM? How is Medicare going for you? That senior in Albuquerque or Pendleton or Portland wants to throw the telephone through the living room window because they don't get that prescription drug coverage, hearing aids, or dental coverage because the reimbursement is as low as Chairman Domenici has described. The Congress was supposed to have begun, several years ago, a bipartisan effort to change this. The system was called a blended rate. In effect, over the next few years, we would move to a national system, so instead of driving some of these high-cost areas down precipitously, we would move low-cost areas up over the next few years. Unfortunately, that system has been delayed. It has been delayed, in my view, in a fashion that has made for many plans saying they can no longer afford to stay in business; certainly no longer afford to offer some of those benefits such as prescription drugs, which are so important to seniors. That is why Chairman Domenici and I and Senator Grassley and Senator Kerrey and I know many of our colleagues are going to join in a bipartisan effort, first, to establish a minimum payment floor for urban counties; second, to boost the rural counties where, again, these programs have barely been able to survive as a result of low reimbursement rates; and, third, to address the concerns with respect to wages that Senator Grassley has so eloquently described. But I am of the view that if this Congress is to modernize the Medicare program, the essence of such a modernization effort is to create more options and more choices. That will not be possible if you perpetuate an HMO reimbursement system that day after day after day penalizes frugality and rewards waste. For those who really want to get into the details of this subject, the system is known as the AAPCC, the average adjusted per capita cost. The way it has worked, the HMOs are reimbursed by the Federal Government through a system that historically has looked at average local costs of various procedures, such as a heart bypass in Pendleton or cataract operation in Portland--and then you calculate a formula for reimbursing these HMOs, using a percentage of the fee-for-service costs for health care in the area. But at the end of the day, the message is, if you are wasteful, don't worry about it. If you are inefficient, the Federal Government is going to say maybe that is not ideal, but we will just send you a check to reflect the fact that you are not taking steps to hold down your costs and we are not going to give you any consequences as a result. That makes no sense to Senator Domenici and me and our cosponsors. I know it makes no sense to the Presiding Officer because he and I have talked about this innumerable times. We tried to boost reimbursement rates for the people of Oregon. We have to change the Medicare program to eliminate the discrimination against communities that control costs while offering good quality care. Our bipartisan legislation is not just a one-time infusion of money. We structured it so that money becomes part of a base for future increases, which in my view helps to jump-start what Congress intended several years ago by passing legislation to promote a nationwide blended rate. We all understand that at present, as we look to the last days of the session, with the budget surplus, it is going to be possible to use a portion of that surplus, after we have helped pay down the debt, after hopefully there is a targeted tax cut; at that point, we will have some dollars to take the steps to better meet the health care needs of older people and also jump start the modernization of the Medicare program. Our legislation, I hope, will be part of that effort. I think Chairman Domenici and Senator Grassley, among our cosponsors, are very likely to be in the room at the end of the day when that legislation is being offered. I and others are going to do our best to support those efforts in the Budget Committee. I know the Presiding Officer and I have used every opportunity to raise these issues, and we are going to continue to do so. Our State has been a pioneer in the health care reform area. We are proud of the fact that we are the first State in the country to have made tough choices about health care priorities through the Oregon health plan. We are proud of the fact that we have been able to introduce more choices and more competition to the health care system and, as a result, seniors in our State are able to get more for their health care dollar. It is not right for older people in Oregon, New Mexico, Iowa, and in other States where they have done the heavy lifting and they have taken steps to hold down their costs, to be discriminated against by the Federal Government. This bipartisan legislation, in my view, is going to help keep HMOs that are currently in the program in the program, and it will begin the process of bringing back to Medicare some of those we have lost because they have been discriminated against in the past with respect to reimbursement and they could not keep their doors open. We will be talking about this legislation frequently in the last few days of this Congress and in the fall, and I believe passing this legislation, as we look at that final budget bill that is sure to be part of our fall debates, that this is one of the best ways we can target dollars that need to be spent carefully so as to maximize the values of what we are getting in health care for older people. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of those who lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago today. July 26: Frederick Branch, 17, Memphis, TN; Kenny Curry, 30, Chicago, IL; Mendell Jones, 17, Baltimore, MD; Eduardo Lezcano, 36, Miami-Dade County, FL; Andre Moore, 21, Baltimore, MD; Kenneth Plaster, 52, Houston, TX; Mark Pringle, 18, Baltimore, MD; Carlton Valentine, 33, Baltimore, MD; Unidentified male, Detroit, MI. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Jim Worth of my office to be granted the privilege of the floor for the rest of the week.