Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. It has been a great pleasure for me to have a chance to work with him, on a bipartisan basis, for this legislation, and I feel it will be very helpful if he can just take a minute and outline the breadth of support for this legislation. Because, certainly, when we began this discussion, I don't think most Americans could have told you anything about Ed-Flex. We joked most people would think this was the instructor at the Y, the new aerobics instructor. But the fact is that just a few miles from this Senate Chamber, a school is using Ed-Flex and the existing dollars to cut class size in half. That is going on today using existing dollars. Not spending one penny more of Federal funds, we are seeing a school close to the United States Capitol cut class size in half. If you listened to this debate--and I happen to be for the hiring of the additional teachers--you would get the impression that the only way you could cut class size in America was to spend more Federal money. I happen to think we do need to spend some additional dollars, which is why I support the Kennedy and the Murray amendments. I also share the view of the Senator from Tennessee that we can cut class size now, using existing dollars. I think it would be very helpful, given the fact that we are so close now to the agreement--I really commend the minority leader, Senator Daschle, and the majority leader, Senator Lott, because they have gotten us right to the brink of having an agreement so we can go forward with this legislation--if my friend and colleague could just outline for the Senate the breadth of support for this legislation. I appreciate him yielding to me for this time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to follow up briefly on this Ed-Flex issue, first to thank the minority leader, who is clearly making a very strong effort to work this out and be conciliatory. I would also like to thank the majority leader, Senator Lott, who is making such an effort as well. I want to advise our colleagues that we are going to work through the weekend to try to come up with a way that is fair for all concerned. I think Senator Daschle made it clear these Democratic amendments are critical, it is important there is an opportunity they be discussed, and--conciliatory on the part of the leader--that there would be time agreements. I think the majority leader has made a very sensible statement of why this bill is a priority. It is critically important that the more than $11 billion that go out in programs covered by Ed-Flex is spent wisely. What we have found in the 12 States that are now using Ed-Flex is that a few miles from here, just a few miles from here, existing dollars now allocated under title I are being used to cut class size in half to make sure that kids can get the education they need. For those of you who think that the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, is making an important contribution in terms of the extra teachers, I want it clear that I support that. It is needed. But I support just as strongly--and I would say this especially to my Democratic friends--the proposition that we use money that is now allocated wisely. And we are not doing that today. Under current law, for example, poor kids who want to get access to advanced computing aren't able to do it in a lot of instances because these programs put them into a regulatory straitjacket. In a lot of instances, we could boost the test scores up for poor kids. We haven't been able to do that because of some of the bureaucracy associated with these programs. Last night we had a discussion about what these programs mean to parents. I happen to agree with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, the parents don't focus on Ed-Flex in bureaucratic terms. They do focus on results. I can assure you, the parents of those youngsters a few miles from here who have had their class size cut in half as a result of Ed-Flex are very appreciative of that. Because of Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatfield, in 1994 we began this effort to pass Ed-Flex. It is time to expand it. Around this country there has not been one example of an abuse associated with Ed-Flex--not one. But there are plenty of examples of why Ed-Flex is working for poor kids from coast to coast. Go see those kids in the State of Maryland--our friend, Senator Sarbanes, is here-- where they have used those dollars to cut class size. Or come to my home State of Oregon where, because of bureaucratic rules, it was not possible for poor kids to get advanced computing at their schools. I know a number of my colleagues would like to speak, and I want to let them have that opportunity. But just know--because of the very conciliatory offer that has been made by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, this morning, and the majority leader, Senator Lott, I believe is also trying to accommodate both sides--those of us who are sponsoring this legislation are going to work throughout the weekend to see if we can get a sensible time agreement that is fair to both sides. As the Democratic sponsor of Ed-Flex, I want to again state to my colleagues, I think the contribution of our friend from Washington, Senator Murray, is important and the Boxer amendment on afterschool programs is critically important--but it is just as important to show that those $11-plus billion that are now allocated in title I and other programs are being spent wisely. In fact, for those colleagues who share my view that we need more financial assistance in these key areas, I submit the best way to make the case for getting additional funds is to show taxpayers you are spending more wisely the dollars that are allocated at this time. I look forward to some long hours over this weekend, working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Education, in my view, is the premier issue of our time. I think that is why the Members of the Senate feel so strongly about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. This will be only 30 seconds. On page 12, line 12 of the bill, it states, and I quote: The Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory requirement of the program. Point blank. You cannot waive any of the core requirements. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator from Vermont. I could wrap up very briefly, even in, say, 5 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman. Senator Frist has said it very well. Mr. President, and colleagues, all we want to do under Ed-Flex is to make sure that these dollars get into the classroom to help poor kids and not get chewed up by bureaucratic redtape. Ed-Flex is not a block grant program. It is not a voucher kind of scheme. The people who are advocating Ed-Flex in my home State of Oregon do not want a Federal education program to go away. Quite the contrary, they want those programs. They know that we need those dollars to serve low-income students. What we want is, we want some freedom from some of the Federal water torture and bureaucratic redtape that so often keeps us from using those dollars to better serve the poor. I would just hope, Mr. President, and colleagues, that during the course of the afternoon colleagues look at the requirements that protect the poor families and the poor children that cannot be waived under the Ed-Flex statute. Specifically, it is not possible to get a waiver if you are trying to waive the underlying programs of each of the critical services that is made possible under title I. You cannot do it. And as I stated earlier, you can only use those dollars in a low-income school district; you cannot move those dollars out of a low- income school district and take them somewhere else. So there is a reason for the Governors and all of the Democratic Governors supporting this legislation. I happen to have some sympathy for the Senator from Minnesota about the need for additional dollars for a variety of human services. But the best way to win support for that additional funding is to show that you are using existing dollars well and effectively. That is what Ed-Flex does. I am very pleased to have had a chance to team up with Senator Frist of Tennessee who has worked very hard to bring both parties together. And I thank the Senator from Vermont for the time. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am sure that many Americans who are watching this debate hear the words ``Ed-Flex'' and wonder what in the world is the U.S. Senate talking about? My guess is that we probably have some folks thinking that Ed-Flex is the new guy who has been hired to run the aerobics class at the local health club. But since my home State of Oregon was the first to receive an Ed-Flex waiver, I would like to take a few minutes to tell the U.S. Senate why Ed-Flex makes a real difference and especially why it has been a valuable tool to improve the lives of poor children. To begin with, Ed-Flex represents a new approach in Federal-State relations. Right now, there are two schools of thought on the relationship of Washington, DC, to the States. One side says everything ought to be run at the Federal level, because folks locally can't be trusted to meet the needs of low-income people. The other side says the local folks ought to be able to do it all, because everything the Federal Government touches turns to toxic waste. Ed-Flex represents a third-wave approach, and we have pioneered it in a variety of areas, including health, welfare and the environment, and now in education, in addition. We told the Federal Government in each of these areas that we will meet the core requirements of Federal law. The Federal Government ought to hold us accountable, but, at the same time, the Federal Government ought to give us the flexibility to make sure that we can really meet the needs of our citizens--in this case, the poor children--rather than building up bureaucracy. Ed-Flex has been good for students, but especially good for poor students. There are no examples of abuse, Mr. President--not one. We have asked the opponents of this legislation to give us even a scintilla of evidence of an abuse, and they cannot cite one example for a program that has been used in 12 States. But I will tell you there are plenty of examples where this program has worked for poor children. In Maryland, one low-income school used Ed-Flex to reduce class size. Class size dropped under this Ed-Flex program from 25 students to 12. And the last time I looked, a fair number of Members of the U.S. Senate wanted to see class size drop. In our home State, Ed-Flex helps low-income high school students take advanced computer courses at the community college. Before the waiver, Federal rules would only allow high school students to take computer courses offered at the high school. If a student wanted to take an advanced computer course, but the school didn't have the equipment or the people to teach advanced computing, those poor kids were out of luck. But we found a community college that was just a short distance away with an Ed-Flex waiver where we could take the dollars that would have been wasted because there were no facilities at the high school, and the poor kids learned at the community college. No muss, no fuss. But we did what the Federal Government ought to be trying to do, which is to help poor children. In Massachusetts, a school with many low-income kids who are doing poorly in math and reading received title I funds in 1997; but they were denied title I funds the next year because of a technicality. This meant that low-income children who were getting special help with title I funds in 1997 could not get those funds in 1998 for one reason, and that was bureaucratic red tape. But when they got an Ed-Flex waiver, they could use the dollars to serve low-income children and make sure that they could use that help until they had addressed the mission of the program. Ed-Flex doesn't serve fewer poor kids; it serves more of them, and it serves them better. In the State of Texas, the State has used Ed-Flex, and the achievement scores confirm that Ed-Flex has improved academic performance. After only 2 years under the waiver, statewide results on the Texas assessment of academic skills shows that schools using Ed- Flex are outperforming the districts that aren't. These are poor school districts with low-income children, and reading and math scores are rising using Ed-Flex. At one high-poverty elementary school, student performance improved almost 23 percent over the 1996 math test scores; 82 percent of them passed. The statewide average was only 64 percent. Poor kids did better. Poor kids did better under Ed-Flex. Now, this legislation protects the poor in other important ways. The civil rights laws, the labor laws, safety laws, all of the core Federal protections for the vulnerable, are not touched in any way. The Secretary of Education has complete authority to revoke a waiver if title I requirements are not met. Under current law, a State must have a plan to comply with title I. This legislation requires a plan as well. Let me outline a number of specific protections that pertain to the poor in this legislation. First, under current law, title I funds can only be used in school districts that are for the low-income. Our legislation keeps this requirement. You cannot get an Ed-Flex waiver and move it out of a low-income school district to somewhere else. You have to use those dollars in a low-income school district. They can't be moved elsewhere. Second, not only does the legislation keep the core requirements of title I, it strengthens them. For example, under current law, States are not required to evaluate whether they are meeting title I goals until 2001. Ed-Flex says to the States: Why should you wait for 2 years to show that you are serving the poor and disadvantaged? Develop high standards for serving the poor now, demonstrate that you meet the accountability requirements, and put more education dollars in the classroom to serve poor kids and their families now, rather than waiting until 2001. Now, opponents of Ed-Flex have not been able to offer any examples-- not even one--of how the flexibility waivers have been abused, and that is because the Secretary of Education has watch-dogged these Ed-Flex waivers; and we can cite examples of how it works, and they can't cite any examples of how it has been abused. That is why the Education and Labor Committee in the last Congress approved this legislation by a 17- 1 bipartisan vote. Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the committee, said, Under Ed-Flex, the Secretary of Education allows Massachusetts and other States to waive Federal regulations and statutory requirements that impede State and local efforts to improve learning and teaching. With that flexibility comes stronger accountability to improve student achievement. Since that time, since those eloquent words of Senator Kennedy, in a 17-1 vote in the Labor Committee, after lengthy debate, the sponsors felt that it was important to work with those who have had reservations about this legislation, and we have made six additional changes in the legislation to strengthen a bill that had virtual unanimous bipartisan support. We have strengthened the requirements for public participation so that there is public notice. We put in place a requirement that States include specific, measurable goals, which include student performance, a requirement that the Secretary report to the Congress after 2 years on how Ed-Flex States are doing. The Secretary must include how the waiver is affecting student performance, what Federal and State laws are being waived, and how the waiver is affecting the overall State and local reform efforts. There is a requirement that the Secretary review State content and performance standards twice, once when deciding if the State is eligible to participate and again when deciding whether or not to grant approval for a waiver. This is to make sure that there is no compromising title I. The Secretary of Education reviews twice whether or not to go forward with an Ed-Flex waiver. We have always altered the legislation to ensure that local review cannot be waived under Ed-Flex; that is, any school or school district receiving title I funds is still subject to punishment and still has to answer to a local review board. Those provisions that protect the poor cannot be waived. Mr. President, it is no accident that every Governor, every Democratic Governor, believes this will be a valuable tool to them to make existing programs work better. I think the Senator from Minnesota has made an important point in talking about how additional dollars are needed for some of these key programs to serve the poor. But the best way to generate support for that approach is to show that you are using the dollars that you get today wisely. That is what Ed-Flex allows. It is a fresh, creative approach to Federal-State relations, one that has enormous potential for improving the delivery of services to the poor and all Americans. So I say to the Senate that we have a chance to take a new, creative path with respect to Federal and State relations where one side says all the answers reside in Washington, DC, and the other side says, no, they all reside at the local level. The third path that is being taken by Ed-Flex, that is being taken by my State in health, in welfare, in the environment, says to the Federal Government: At the local level, we will meet the requirements of Federal law, Federal education law. We will be held accountable. But in return for holding us accountable, give us the flexibility so that we can ensure that we come up with solutions that work for Coos Bay, OR, and The Dalles, OR, and you don't take a ``one-size-fits-all'' cookie-cutter approach and say that what is done in the Bronx is what is going to work in rural Oregon. Before I wrap up, I would like to pay a special tribute to our former colleague, Senator Hatfield. I served in the House when Senator Hatfield took the lead in 1994, working with Senator Kennedy and others, to promote this approach. In my view, his record alone, standing for years and years for civil rights laws, for health laws and safety laws, would suggest that there is a commitment by the sponsors of this legislation to ensure that this helps the poor, not hurts the poor. If there was one example, Mr. President, even one, of how an Ed-Flex waiver has harmed the poor, I know I would immediately move to address that and to ensure that our legislation didn't allow it. But we have no examples of how in any of those States the poor have been exploited or taken advantage of. We have plenty of examples of how Ed-Flex has worked in Texas where the scores have gone up, in Maryland where it has reduced class size, in Oregon where poor kids who couldn't get advanced computing under the status quo were able to use Ed-Flex dollars to get those skills that are so critical to a high-skill, high-wage job. So I urge the Senate today to vote for the motion to proceed, vote for the bill, empower the communities across this country to earn the right to use Federal education dollars to serve the vulnerable in our society most effectively. This is not the sole answer to what is needed to improve education, public education, in our country, but it is an important step, because it shows the people of the country that we can use existing Federal funds more effectively, that we can be more innovative in serving poor kids. It seems to me that step does a tremendous amount to lay the foundation to garner public support for areas where we need additional funds. We are going to need additional funds for a number of these key areas that the Senator from Minnesota is right to touch on. But let's show the taxpayer that we are using existing dollars effectively, as we have done in Oregon, as we have done in Texas, as we have done in Massachusetts, in line with objectives that, as far as I can tell, are widely supported on both sides of the aisle. I see the Senator from Tennessee has joined as well, and the Senator from Minnesota was kind enough to give me time from his allocation. I would just wrap up by thanking the Senator from Minnesota and also say that I very much appreciated working with the Senator from Tennessee on this legislation. I think it is clear that the country wants to see the U.S. Senate work in a bipartisan way on this legislation. This bill had exhaustive hearings in the Senate Budget Task Force on Education. It was debated at length in the Education and Labor Committee, where it won on a 17-to-1 vote in the last session of the Senate. Since that time, as I have outlined in my presentation, additional changes have been made to promote accountability. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Yes. I think your amendment is OK.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has given, in my view, a very important address to the U.S. Senate. I want to take a few minutes and try to respond to a number of points. The Senator has made a number of points that I certainly agree with as a Democratic sponsor of this legislation, along with the Republican sponsor, Senator Frist. But there are a number of areas where I think the record indicates that we ought to take another look. For example, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has said that, in some way, the States are being free riders here, that they are asking the Federal Government to waive various regulations, but the States are somehow not willing to do that. As our colleagues will see on page 6, line 7, it is specifically required that the States are willing to do some heavy lifting and also be part of this effort to show that they are going to try to ratchet out of their systems some of the foolish bureaucracy. This ought to be a two-way street and I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right in insisting on that. What is thus required today, the legislation spells out on page 6, line 7, that the States are not going to be able to be free riders. They are going to have to waive some of these mindless regulations as well. I think that is an important point for the U.S. Senate to consider as we go forward. Now, another area that has been raised is this question of smaller class size. I think the Senator from Massachusetts again is absolutely right in saying that we do need additional funds to reduce class size in America. I have, on several occasions, voted for just those kinds of measures to provide additional funds to reduce class size. But I think it is important to note that Ed-Flex, now in 12 States, is helping us to reduce class size using existing law. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct; we do need additional funds to reduce class size, but let us not pass up the opportunity to use existing law, existing Ed-Flex opportunities to reduce class size. For our colleagues who would like to have a good example of how Ed-Flex helps to reduce class size, we can turn to the Phelps Luck elementary school in Howard County, MD. There they put a special priority on reducing class size with their Ed- Flex waiver. They were able to lower the student-teacher ratio from 25- to-1 to 12-to-1. As we go forward with efforts to try to get additional funding that we need to reduce class size in America, which we know is so critical in improving student performance, let us not pass up the opportunities to use the Ed-Flex program to make it possible with existing dollars to reduce class size in America. Third, Mr. President and colleagues, there have been questions raised about whether the dollars are going to get to the neediest children, and particularly with respect to title I, which is one of the seven programs that are eligible for Ed-Flex but certainly is an especially important program to all of us. What we have done--and we have outlined it here--is we have kept in place every single one of the core requirements with respect to title I protecting our neediest kids. It is off the table, folks, in terms of waiving any of those core requirements. You can't do it; it is off the table. And although it is hard for Members of the U.S. Senate to see these charts, we specifically outline the requirements that cannot be waived. In addition, with respect to title I--I think there is some confusion perhaps at this point with respect to how the Ed-Flex funds can be used--under current law, you can only put those dollars into low-income school districts. That is the only place they can go. We keep that requirement. So today, and under this Ed-Flex legislation that is before the U.S. Senate, it is not possible to flex any dollars away from a program to help low-income youngsters and send them packing to another district that will not need them as much. I would like to spend a little bit more time on this question of accountability, because this is an area where the sponsors of the legislation have been very open to trying to address the concerns of those who have begun to look at this program and may not have been familiar with it in the past. But I want to say that we have made six changes in the legislation since it came out of the Senate Labor Committee last year by a 17 to 1 margin. In addition to the public notice and opportunities for citizen comments that the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, touched on, there are requirements for specific measurable goals, which include student performance, which Senator Kennedy is right to focus on. There are reports that would be required for the Congress every 2 years on how the Ed-Flex States are doing. And then I am especially pleased that we have required now that a State review a State content and performance standard twice: First when it is decided that the State is eligible to participate, and again when deciding whether or not to grant approval for the waiver. This makes it clear that a State must be in compliance with title I. If it is not in compliance with title I, it isn't going to get a waiver. If at any point it has been given a waiver and it is not in compliance with title I, the Secretary has the authority to come forward and revoke it. So the accountability provisions have been especially important to the sponsors of this legislation. And this idea that somehow Ed-Flex has relaxed the standard is simply not true on the basis of the clear language of the bill. These requirements are kept in place. We have added six requirements for accountability since the legislation came out of committee. I would like to wrap up by giving the U.S. Senate an example of how I got into this issue, because I think it is important to get beyond some of the rhetorical arguments about this legislation and talk about real people, real people who benefit, especially the low-income kids of our country. We have a high school about an hour from my hometown in Portland. They wanted poor kids to get help with advanced computing. The problem was that the school didn't have the instructors who could teach advanced computing and they didn't have the equipment. So under current law, those youngsters, low-income youngsters, wouldn't have had the opportunity to pick up those skills to put them on the path to high- skill, high-wage jobs. But in this rural district an hour from my home town is a community college just a short distance away that would make it possible, with instructors and equipment, for those poor kids to get help with advanced computing. So instead of students who couldn't get what they needed without additional funds, without additional redtape and bureaucracy, what this town did in rural Oregon was simply say we are going to use the dollars that we aren't equipped for at the local high school to make sure that the kids get advanced computing at a community college just a short distance away. That is what Ed-Flex is all about--taking this regulatory straitjacket off some of the thousands and thousands of school districts across the country. They can't use the money for pork barrel projects. They can't use it to waive standards. They have to comply with accountability. But they can teach advanced computing to poor kids. That is why it is going to make a difference when we extend this to 50 States. I am looking forward to working with our friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Kennedy, who knows so much about this issue, on his amendment with respect to the achievement standards. My understanding is we are getting fairly close on that. I want to make sure, in particular, that we can incorporate what the schools call the student performance standards, so it includes some of the things like dropout rates and issues like that in addition to the tougher test scores. But I think Senator Jeffords spoke for all of us a minute or so ago where I think we are getting close, and I want Senator Kennedy to know that we are going to go forward in good faith and try to work that amendment out. Finally, the last point I want to make deals with the parental involvement issue. We keep in place all requirements for parental involvement--all of it. But it seems to me, Mr. President, and colleagues, that if we are talking about the best way to get folks involved in a convenient, accessible kind of way, it is to have these Ed-Flex programs that empower local communities to set up opportunities for folks to participate. I know that people in rural areas who are 3,000 miles away from Washington, DC, find it a lot harder to come to one of the useful hearings and forums that are held by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I can get to them. I find them very, very useful. But I can tell you that folks in rural Oregon would much rather be empowered to participate at the local level than to try to say we are going to in some way skew more of the parental involvement back to Washington, DC. At the end of the day, what Ed-Flex is all about is a third path with respect to Federal-State relations. We now have two camps on this issue. There is one camp that says only the Federal Government has the answer, that those folks at the local level can't chew gum and walk at the same time, do not trust them, and run these programs at the Federal level. Then there are a group of people 180 degrees the other way. They say that everything the Federal Government touches turns into toxic waste, just give us all the money at the local level, and we can't possibly do any worse with those dollars than the Federal Government does. What Ed-Flex is all about--and in Oregon, particularly with Senator Hatfield's leadership, we have done it in health, in welfare, with the environment--what we have said is that Ed-Flex is a third path. And we have told the Federal Government, in areas where we have received waivers, that we will meet all the requirements of the Federal laws, all of them, and the Federal Government can hold us accountable; but in return for that commitment to comply with all of the Federal laws, give us in Oregon the chance to tailor the approaches that we are using to meet the individual needs of our community. I feel very strongly that poor kids need the funds that are available under title I. I will fight as hard as any Member of the Senate to make sure that there is no compromise there. But I do think that in coming up with approaches to best meet the needs of kids at the local level with respect to title I, what works in rural Oregon is going to be different than what works in the Bronx, and the opportunity to get away from that one-size-fits-all approach while holding communities accountable is what Ed-Flex is all about. So I think this is an important debate. I said earlier most Americans have no idea what Ed-Flex is all about. I bet a lot of people at this point think Ed-Flex is a guy who is teaching aerobics at the local health club. We are going to have to spend some time talking about this issue to show why it is actually beneficial in the real world in terms of serving poor kids and meeting the needs of the communities. I think we can do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we speak, rescue crews are fighting valiantly to contain the damage from the wreck of the tanker New Carissa off of Coos Bay, Oregon three weeks ago. But the clock is ticking, the water is rising, and time is running short. An environmental disaster of truly alarming proportions is staring my state in the face. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil have already leaked out of the wrecked ship and thousands more may be spilled along our precious coastline within days, if not hours. As Oregonians struggle to make the best of a bad situation, it is not too early to start talking about how we prevent the next addition to the legacy of New Carissa. It seems clear to me that we need to look at the pernicious practice of foreign flagging. How many gallons of oil need to spill and how many miles of coastline have to be destroyed before we stop allowing unseaworthy vessels manned by untrained crews into our coastal waters. It seems easier to register a supertanker in some foreign countries than it is to register an automobile in Portland, Oregon. As long as this so-called Flag of Convenience system continues, it's only a matter of time before the next New Carissa runs aground on a local beach. Yet our maritime policy continues to allow it. Grave concerns have also been raised about the amount and quality of information being released to the public about this disaster. People who live in the area simply have not been told what to expect. That is unacceptable. When disaster strikes, government has an ironclad responsibility to give people as much information as possible. Today, I am introducing legislation that focuses on avoiding disasters like the New Carissa. We need to stop playing Russian roulette with our coastal resources and the communities that depend on them. Congressman DeFazio has authored companion legislation in the House of Representatives, which was adopted as an amendment to the Coast Guard Reauthorization Bill. This legislation requires all vessels, foreign and domestic, to notify the Coast Guard when they intend to enter our country's territorial waters, allows the Coast Guard to bar them from entry if there are safety concerns, and gives the Coast Guard the authority to direct the movements of such vessels in our waters in hazardous situations. This bill would have given the Coast Guard the ability to block the New Carissa from allowing its deadly course of sailing so close to shore during a hazardous gale, a practice that local pilots shun. In other words, had this bill been in place, the Coast Guard would have had the ability to stop this tragedy before it occurred, instead of having to clean up after it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as we speak, rescue crews are fighting valiantly to contain the damage from the wreck of the tanker New Carissa off of Coos Bay, Oregon three weeks ago. But the clock is ticking, the water is rising, and time is running short. An environmental disaster of truly alarming proportions is staring my state in the face. Thousands of gallons of fuel oil have already leaked out of the wrecked ship and thousands more may be spilled along our precious coastline within days, if not hours. As Oregonians struggle to make the best of a bad situation, it is not too early to start talking about how we prevent the next addition to the legacy of New Carissa. It seems clear to me that we need to look at the pernicious practice of foreign flagging. How many gallons of oil need to spill and how many miles of coastline have to be destroyed before we stop allowing unseaworthy vessels manned by untrained crews into our coastal waters. It seems easier to register a supertanker in some foreign countries than it is to register an automobile in Portland, Oregon. As long as this so-called Flag of Convenience system continues, it's only a matter of time before the next New Carissa runs aground on a local beach. Yet our maritime policy continues to allow it. Grave concerns have also been raised about the amount and quality of information being released to the public about this disaster. People who live in the area simply have not been told what to expect. That is unacceptable. When disaster strikes, government has an ironclad responsibility to give people as much information as possible. Today, I am introducing legislation that focuses on avoiding disasters like the New Carissa. We need to stop playing Russian roulette with our coastal resources and the communities that depend on them. Congressman DeFazio has authored companion legislation in the House of Representatives, which was adopted as an amendment to the Coast Guard Reauthorization Bill. This legislation requires all vessels, foreign and domestic, to notify the Coast Guard when they intend to enter our country's territorial waters, allows the Coast Guard to bar them from entry if there are safety concerns, and gives the Coast Guard the authority to direct the movements of such vessels in our waters in hazardous situations. This bill would have given the Coast Guard the ability to block the New Carissa from allowing its deadly course of sailing so close to shore during a hazardous gale, a practice that local pilots shun. In other words, had this bill been in place, the Coast Guard would have had the ability to stop this tragedy before it occurred, instead of having to clean up after it. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chief Justice, our leaders, Senators Lott and Daschle, my colleagues, my friends. I doubt that I will ever know what the President of the United States was up to when he lied to Betty Currie about the nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Did the President lie to Ms. Currie because he didn't want her to know the truth about the affair? Did the President lie because he wanted her to defend him to the White House staff? Did the President lie because he wanted her to repeat those lies under oath? I doubt that I am ever going to get the real answer to those questions. But I believe I do know why it has been excruciatingly difficult for the U.S. Senate to get to the bottom of the Currie controversy and several others that we have been wrestling with for weeks now. If I might paraphrase a legal doctrine, this impeachment has become the fruit of a poisonous tree. This impeachment is a deadly plant that has flowered in the toxic soil of partisanship. Given the highly contentious nature of the charges against the President, there is no question in my mind that the congressional leadership should have first established a bipartisan process for investigating the serious allegations. It is my view that had the Founding Fathers decided that the first step in the impeachment process would be taken by the U.S. Senate, I, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle would have produced a truly bipartisan inquiry, and we would have been able to find common ground on several of the key issues. I don't think it would have produced a string of 100-0 votes, but I believe that we would have had a more bipartisan result than what we are going to see at the end of these deliberations. But this process began elsewhere. And I only want to make one comment about the House. In my view, the House didn't even try to locate the common ground. And I use that word ``try'' specifically because it is one thing to work your head off and not be able to bring people together. We have all been there. But that is not what went on in the House. They didn't even try to come together. It has been well documented, for example, that the Speaker of the House and the House minority leader went for months at a time without even talking to each other. I am not going to assign fault to one or the other, but the fact is that by the end of last year, our two major political parties were at war with each other over the allegations against the President. This toxic partisanship is not, in my view, what public service is all about. I am a Democrat, for good reasons; and there are sincere, important differences of philosophy on issues between Senators on the respective sides. But I have always felt doing what is right is more important than adhering to party dogma, and that is what I wanted to do in this matter. The framers of the Constitution tried to give us a heads-up, a warning about how the impeachment process could become unduly partisan. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, said that the types of crimes for which impeachment is the appropriate remedy are ``political.'' And he added, ``the prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly, or inimical, to the accused.'' Thomas Jefferson, after almost having been kept from office in a partisan maneuver to replace him with Aaron Burr, set a deeply moving tone for looking beyond partisan confrontation in his first inaugural address. My colleagues and friends, it doesn't have to be all partisan all the time. There is an alternative to slash-and-burn Government. And it is a topic, I regret to say, that I know a fair amount about. I won a very, very bitter Senate campaign against a man I am proud to call my friend, my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith. Our part of the country had never seen a campaign so relentlessly negative. The whole country was watching the race to succeed Bob Packwood, but our campaign didn't enlighten very many people. It brought out the worst in us. I was so disgusted with it and what I had become, that with only a few short weeks to go in the campaign I got rid of all my ads and basically started over. Shortly after Senator Smith won his election, we got together and talked about how we regretted the bitter nature of the campaign and what we had become. We decided from that point on we would put the greater good, that of the people of Oregon, before any differences we might have. The New York Times has started to call us the ``odd couple''--a Jew from the city, a Mormon from the country. What kind of odds would you have given for that kind of relationship? But it works. The votes that we are going to cast now are in little doubt. So I wish to express my concern that as the Senate completes its work on impeachment that we have the ability to come back and tackle our other constitutional responsibilities in a bipartisan fashion. The public is tired of us being at each other's throats. They are tired of beltway politics that places toxic partisanship over the public interest. Gordon Smith and I found out the hard way, and they are right. Perhaps even at this late hour we can find our way to a little miracle and wrap up this impeachment debate through a bipartisan statement that makes it clear that each of us finds the President's conduct repugnant. If we miss that chance, let's keep looking for every possible opportunity to come together. Senator Frist and I have a bipartisan education bill. No speeches about that now, but every Governor in the country is for it. My point is that this impeachment process has brought us to a critical moment in our history. We can either rise to the occasion by forging new and healthier ways to deal with our differences, or we can sink from the collective weight of a partisan mess that we have all helped to create. In arriving at my decision in this case, I kept coming back to the reality that Congress has not once removed a President, not once in 211 years. The Constitution places the burden for such a grave step very high. Such a showing is not only to protect our Nation from partisan prosecution, but also to impose safeguards that are necessary, given the severity of the potential punishment--a political death penalty, as House Manager Lindsey Graham said. When I say ``punishment,'' I am not only referring to the punishment imposed on the President, but in particular to the destructive impact of such an action to our Nation as a whole. The House managers did not, in my view, prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, they didn't get particularly close. As stated earlier, I do find the President's lying to Betty Currie about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky to be very, very disturbing. The House managers have a hunch that the President's intent was criminal. To borrow from House Manager Graham, they think it is likely he was up to no good. My friends, hunches are not impeachable, nor should they be. If the evidence required to convict a President of the United States in an impeachment trial is allowed to be less than that required in a shoplifting trial, the constitutional foundation for the Presidency will disintegrate before our very eyes. That is something that a few future Presidents in this body ought to consider for just a moment. Today I am going to vote to acquit on both counts. But I don't want that to be my final contribution today. I had a lot of farfetched dreams as a boy, but never once did I dream that I could serve with all of you on the floor of the U.S. Senate. My parents fled Nazi Germany, and not all of my family got out. We lost family in Hitler's brutal Kristallnacht. So you might understand how I grew up revering the greatness of America and the institutions of our democracy. I will tell you, I never, ever believed that some skinny fellow with modest oratorical skills and a face for radio--(laughter)--could have a chance to serve in the United States Senate. What I want to be able to tell my grandchildren is that this was the point in American history where we drew a line in the sand and said ``no more'' to the excessive partisanship. A time when we said ``no more'' to a brand of politics that each of us knows is bringing out the worst in good people. We have good leaders in the U.S. Senate--in Trent Lott, in Tom Daschle--who have shown, in the last month, just how hard they are willing to work to bring us together. My friends, let the toxic partisanship end. Let it end here, and let it end now.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senators Bryan and Snowe in introducing today the Airline Passenger Fairness Act of 1999. The purpose of our legislation is to assure that consumer protections don't end when a passenger pulls into the airport parking lot. Travelers ought to enjoy the same kinds of rights in the air as they do on the ground. But as airline profits have soared in recent years, passenger rights have been left at the gate. We are well aware that legislation cannot resolve every problem air travelers may encounter. Our bill does not impose a federal mandate for fluffier pillows or a Constitutional right to a bigger bag of peanuts, just the right to basic information and the ability for consumers to make decisions for themselves. The Department of Transportation's (DoT) Air Travel Consumer Reports just issued its final tally of consumer complaints for 1998. Consumer complaints about air travel jumped from a total of 7,667 in 1997 to 9,606 last year, an increase of more than 25%. In just three months last year, one airline alone denied boarding to 55,767 passengers. The 10 largest U.S. carriers combined denied boarding to more than 250,300 passengers from July-September 1998. One industry expert estimates that sometimes as many as 130-150% of the seats on a flight are sold. Clearly, all is not well. The price of an airline ticket is one of the great mysteries of modern life. A ticket costs one price when purchased over the phone and another if purchased online, one if purchased in the morning and another three hours later. It practically defies the law of physics. With this bill, we are putting the airlines on notice that business as usual is no longer acceptable for American air travelers. No longer can a passenger be bumped, canceled or overbooked with impunity. Under this bill, consumers will be able to get full information about all the fares on all the flights. Airlines will no longer be able to withhold basic information on air fares, creating confusion and preventing consumers from comparison shopping. It will also make sure that when a consumer pays for a ticket, they can use all or part of it for whatever reason they choose. Airlines will have to inform a ticketed passenger when a flight is overbooked, as well as when the problem is when a flight is canceled, delayed, or diverted. The legislation will work by building on current rules and regulations. Today, the Department of Transportation can investigate ``anti-competitive, unfair or deceptive practices'' by an airline. If the Department finds that an airline has engaged in such practices, DoT can issue civil penalties or take other actions to assure compliance. Our legislation will empower consumers to seek DoT action against carriers that fail to respect the common sense consumer protections spelled out in the bill. To date, DoT has tended to look at this authority primarily on an industry-wide basis, or whether one airline has engaged in an unfair practice against another. Our bill brings this attention down to the consumers' level. It gives the Department the authority to investigate and punish violations of passenger rights. Under our proposal, airlines will no longer be able to deny consumers basic information without paying a price. This bill will also put market forces to work to bring prices down. Today, a traveler cannot get much basic information. Poor information makes for poor decisions; poor decisions prevent the market from operating smoothly and set the stage for higher prices. Just last year, according to one national media report, there were more than a dozen fare hikes, and in late January, the media reported the major U.S. carriers raised leisure fares four percent and business fares two percent. Informed consumers engaging in real comparison shopping will put pressure on the airlines to make fares as low as possible. There's been a lot of talk lately about ``air rage.'' In my view there is no excuse for violent or abusive behavior by anyone. But when people are treated like so many pieces of cargo, it's not surprising that some of them will lash out. One pilot at a major U.S. air carrier said recently: ``What's happening is the industry's own fault. We've got to treat passengers with respect. We've made air travel a very unpleasant experience.'' It's time to make sure air travel works better for everyone. It can if air travelers have the same basic protections as other consumers. The corner grocer cannot sell a customer a product at one price and then sell the next customer in line the same product at a higher price. The neighborhood movie house cannot cancel a show just because only a few people show up. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act will bring similar consumer protections to air travel and ensure that air travelers have the information they need to make informed decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senators Bryan and Snowe in introducing today the Airline Passenger Fairness Act of 1999. The purpose of our legislation is to assure that consumer protections don't end when a passenger pulls into the airport parking lot. Travelers ought to enjoy the same kinds of rights in the air as they do on the ground. But as airline profits have soared in recent years, passenger rights have been left at the gate. We are well aware that legislation cannot resolve every problem air travelers may encounter. Our bill does not impose a federal mandate for fluffier pillows or a Constitutional right to a bigger bag of peanuts, just the right to basic information and the ability for consumers to make decisions for themselves. The Department of Transportation's (DoT) Air Travel Consumer Reports just issued its final tally of consumer complaints for 1998. Consumer complaints about air travel jumped from a total of 7,667 in 1997 to 9,606 last year, an increase of more than 25%. In just three months last year, one airline alone denied boarding to 55,767 passengers. The 10 largest U.S. carriers combined denied boarding to more than 250,300 passengers from July-September 1998. One industry expert estimates that sometimes as many as 130-150% of the seats on a flight are sold. Clearly, all is not well. The price of an airline ticket is one of the great mysteries of modern life. A ticket costs one price when purchased over the phone and another if purchased online, one if purchased in the morning and another three hours later. It practically defies the law of physics. With this bill, we are putting the airlines on notice that business as usual is no longer acceptable for American air travelers. No longer can a passenger be bumped, canceled or overbooked with impunity. Under this bill, consumers will be able to get full information about all the fares on all the flights. Airlines will no longer be able to withhold basic information on air fares, creating confusion and preventing consumers from comparison shopping. It will also make sure that when a consumer pays for a ticket, they can use all or part of it for whatever reason they choose. Airlines will have to inform a ticketed passenger when a flight is overbooked, as well as when the problem is when a flight is canceled, delayed, or diverted. The legislation will work by building on current rules and regulations. Today, the Department of Transportation can investigate ``anti-competitive, unfair or deceptive practices'' by an airline. If the Department finds that an airline has engaged in such practices, DoT can issue civil penalties or take other actions to assure compliance. Our legislation will empower consumers to seek DoT action against carriers that fail to respect the common sense consumer protections spelled out in the bill. To date, DoT has tended to look at this authority primarily on an industry-wide basis, or whether one airline has engaged in an unfair practice against another. Our bill brings this attention down to the consumers' level. It gives the Department the authority to investigate and punish violations of passenger rights. Under our proposal, airlines will no longer be able to deny consumers basic information without paying a price. This bill will also put market forces to work to bring prices down. Today, a traveler cannot get much basic information. Poor information makes for poor decisions; poor decisions prevent the market from operating smoothly and set the stage for higher prices. Just last year, according to one national media report, there were more than a dozen fare hikes, and in late January, the media reported the major U.S. carriers raised leisure fares four percent and business fares two percent. Informed consumers engaging in real comparison shopping will put pressure on the airlines to make fares as low as possible. There's been a lot of talk lately about ``air rage.'' In my view there is no excuse for violent or abusive behavior by anyone. But when people are treated like so many pieces of cargo, it's not surprising that some of them will lash out. One pilot at a major U.S. air carrier said recently: ``What's happening is the industry's own fault. We've got to treat passengers with respect. We've made air travel a very unpleasant experience.'' It's time to make sure air travel works better for everyone. It can if air travelers have the same basic protections as other consumers. The corner grocer cannot sell a customer a product at one price and then sell the next customer in line the same product at a higher price. The neighborhood movie house cannot cancel a show just because only a few people show up. The Airline Passenger Fairness Act will bring similar consumer protections to air travel and ensure that air travelers have the information they need to make informed decisions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my colleague from Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, and I are introducing this legislation today to correct an inequity in the payment formula for Medicare+Choice plans. In states like Oregon, with historically low cost health care systems, these inequities leave many Medicare beneficiaries with few or no choices in their health care services. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained a promise to provide seniors with more choices, but that promise has gone unfulfilled because of these inequities. The legislation that Senator Smith and I are introducing today will fulfill that promise by fully funding what is known as the ``blend'' portion of the formula used to determine payment rates. The legislation brings parity to areas that have been historically efficient in delivering health care services. Under the current system, the Medicare payment formula has not rewarded these areas for their efficiency and low costs. As a result, beneficiaries in these areas have not received the range of benefits available in areas with less efficient and more costly health care systems. This legislation also assures beneficiaries will no longer be penalized because they live in a rural or low-cost area. We must assure that seniors living in Oregon and other low cost areas receive the full promise of Medicare+Choice. With managed care playing a larger role in Medicare, this bill is needed now more than ever. Nearly 100 plans elected to drop out of the Medicare program for 1999. Many of those plans served seniors in low cost and rural areas, leaving too many beneficiaries not only without choice but also out in the cold. Other managed care plans made benefit changes that limit the promise we all had hoped would occur through Medicare+Choice. We need to make sure that all seniors are included in the Medicare+Choice promise and that managed care plans in Oregon, Iowa and other low-cost areas are no longer penalized because of their historic efficiency. Senator Smith and I urge our colleagues to support this bill. I would like to thank Senator Smith and his staff for their assistance, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my colleague from Oregon Senator Gordon Smith, and I are introducing this legislation today to correct an inequity in the payment formula for Medicare+Choice plans. In states like Oregon, with historically low cost health care systems, these inequities leave many Medicare beneficiaries with few or no choices in their health care services. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 contained a promise to provide seniors with more choices, but that promise has gone unfulfilled because of these inequities. The legislation that Senator Smith and I are introducing today will fulfill that promise by fully funding what is known as the ``blend'' portion of the formula used to determine payment rates. The legislation brings parity to areas that have been historically efficient in delivering health care services. Under the current system, the Medicare payment formula has not rewarded these areas for their efficiency and low costs. As a result, beneficiaries in these areas have not received the range of benefits available in areas with less efficient and more costly health care systems. This legislation also assures beneficiaries will no longer be penalized because they live in a rural or low-cost area. We must assure that seniors living in Oregon and other low cost areas receive the full promise of Medicare+Choice. With managed care playing a larger role in Medicare, this bill is needed now more than ever. Nearly 100 plans elected to drop out of the Medicare program for 1999. Many of those plans served seniors in low cost and rural areas, leaving too many beneficiaries not only without choice but also out in the cold. Other managed care plans made benefit changes that limit the promise we all had hoped would occur through Medicare+Choice. We need to make sure that all seniors are included in the Medicare+Choice promise and that managed care plans in Oregon, Iowa and other low-cost areas are no longer penalized because of their historic efficiency. Senator Smith and I urge our colleagues to support this bill. I would like to thank Senator Smith and his staff for their assistance, and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will help the people of the Pacific Northwest address one of the most important natural resource issues in the region: the restoration of our majestic salmon runs. This bill will lend a much-needed hand to Oregonians and other Northwesterners who have been working together to find common sense solutions to preserve this precious natural resource. As many people know, any effort to recover these salmon runs must be both creative and comprehensive, due to the complex nature of the salmon life cycle. Salmon are hatched in fresh water, migrate down streams and rivers to the sea to grow and mature, and then return to the streams of their birth to spawn. This complex life cycle exposes the fish to many hazards which threaten their survival. If we are to achieve our goal of restoring salmon runs to healthy levels, we must identify and address the various causes of salmon mortality. One of the hazards facing salmon and other fish is the diversion of water from streams and rivers to irrigate agricultural crops. Migrating juvenile fish, including endangered salmon and bull trout, are killed when they are diverted from rivers and streams along with water used for irrigation. The common-sense solution to this pervasive problem is to safely screen the points of water diversion: to allow water through while keeping fish out. Despite existing State and Federal programs to assist with the installation of fish screens, unscreened diversions continue to be a significant problem for endangered fish in the Pacific Northwest. My home state of Oregon has identified fish mortality caused by water diversions as a priority problem. One of Oregon's primary goals relating to salmon restoration is to encourage the installation of fish screens and passage devices for water diversions on streams and rivers. Oregon has developed a cooperative program to assist in screening smaller diversions used on family farms. However, the State cannot afford to provide similar assistance for larger sized diversions. That's where the Federal government can help. This bill gives the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers new authority to help irrigators make their water systems safer for fish. Participation by irrigators in the program will be voluntary and will require a sharing of the cost. I believe this legislation will be very effective because irrigators from Oregon and the other Northwest states have told me they want to make their water systems more fish-friendly, but they need help to do so. This bill will give them the help they need and will greatly benefit the current efforts of local irrigation districts and watershed councils to conserve and protect our fish runs. I am pleased that this legislation is cosponsored by Senator Gordon Smith and has support from all the Northwest irrigation groups and literally dozens of Northwest and national conservation and sport fishing groups, including National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Trout, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and Northwest Sportfishing Industries Association. Despite our best efforts to restore these salmon runs, they continue to decline year after year. We need a fresh approach to this problem-- one that involves the participation of the local folks who are affected by conservation efforts. This bill takes that approach. Of course, a fish screen program alone is not the missing clue to solve our salmon problem. But this program, along with others like the Clean Water bill I introduced last session with Senator Burns are pieces of the complete puzzle. Ultimately, it will take the integrated efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon successfully. State, Tribal and local governments, local watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal government will all need to work together. Initiatives like this fish screen bill will help forge the partnerships upon which successful salmon recovery will be based. I urge your support for this legislation, so that the people of the Pacific Northwest can continue their important work to restore this precious natural resource.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will help the people of the Pacific Northwest address one of the most important natural resource issues in the region: the restoration of our majestic salmon runs. This bill will lend a much-needed hand to Oregonians and other Northwesterners who have been working together to find common sense solutions to preserve this precious natural resource. As many people know, any effort to recover these salmon runs must be both creative and comprehensive, due to the complex nature of the salmon life cycle. Salmon are hatched in fresh water, migrate down streams and rivers to the sea to grow and mature, and then return to the streams of their birth to spawn. This complex life cycle exposes the fish to many hazards which threaten their survival. If we are to achieve our goal of restoring salmon runs to healthy levels, we must identify and address the various causes of salmon mortality. One of the hazards facing salmon and other fish is the diversion of water from streams and rivers to irrigate agricultural crops. Migrating juvenile fish, including endangered salmon and bull trout, are killed when they are diverted from rivers and streams along with water used for irrigation. The common-sense solution to this pervasive problem is to safely screen the points of water diversion: to allow water through while keeping fish out. Despite existing State and Federal programs to assist with the installation of fish screens, unscreened diversions continue to be a significant problem for endangered fish in the Pacific Northwest. My home state of Oregon has identified fish mortality caused by water diversions as a priority problem. One of Oregon's primary goals relating to salmon restoration is to encourage the installation of fish screens and passage devices for water diversions on streams and rivers. Oregon has developed a cooperative program to assist in screening smaller diversions used on family farms. However, the State cannot afford to provide similar assistance for larger sized diversions. That's where the Federal government can help. This bill gives the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers new authority to help irrigators make their water systems safer for fish. Participation by irrigators in the program will be voluntary and will require a sharing of the cost. I believe this legislation will be very effective because irrigators from Oregon and the other Northwest states have told me they want to make their water systems more fish-friendly, but they need help to do so. This bill will give them the help they need and will greatly benefit the current efforts of local irrigation districts and watershed councils to conserve and protect our fish runs. I am pleased that this legislation is cosponsored by Senator Gordon Smith and has support from all the Northwest irrigation groups and literally dozens of Northwest and national conservation and sport fishing groups, including National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Oregon Trout, Trout Unlimited, American Rivers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and Northwest Sportfishing Industries Association. Despite our best efforts to restore these salmon runs, they continue to decline year after year. We need a fresh approach to this problem-- one that involves the participation of the local folks who are affected by conservation efforts. This bill takes that approach. Of course, a fish screen program alone is not the missing clue to solve our salmon problem. But this program, along with others like the Clean Water bill I introduced last session with Senator Burns are pieces of the complete puzzle. Ultimately, it will take the integrated efforts of all interests in our region to recover our salmon successfully. State, Tribal and local governments, local watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal government will all need to work together. Initiatives like this fish screen bill will help forge the partnerships upon which successful salmon recovery will be based. I urge your support for this legislation, so that the people of the Pacific Northwest can continue their important work to restore this precious natural resource.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 with my colleague Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee. This bill encourages innovation in our schools by expanding the Ed-Flex demonstration program from a handful of states to all states. Mr. President, education dollars should be spent in the classroom, not the front office. That common-sense philosophy is at the heart of an exciting new education program known as education flexibility, or Ed-Flex. In the raging debate over the federal government's role in education, Ed-Flex defines a third-way approach--allowing local schools to receive federal assistance while being freed from the burden of unnecessary, time-consuming Washington resolutions. Local school boards, principals, teachers, and parents have the flexibility to find creative solutions that make sense in their own communities, and are held accountable for achieving real results. Ed-Flex accomplishes this by giving states the authority to grant waivers from federal regulations to individual schools or local education agencies, in exchange for agreeing to meet specific targets for student improvement. In other words, a school that agrees to meet high standards can receive federal aid without having to worry about complying with the hundreds and hundreds of pages of regulations, and filling out the voluminous forms that usually go along with that assistance. Virtually every school district in the country, for example, employs staff whose job is to make sure that the schools are in compliance with rules for the government's Title I program. Ed-Flex could allow school districts to use fewer compliance officers and hire more teachers instead. Ed-Flex is currently being tried as a pilot program in a dozen states around the country, and the results have been impressive: Oregon community colleges and high schools work together to streamline their vocational education programs. As a result, more students are learning technical skills, such as computer programming, and graduating from high school. The Phelps Luck Elementary School in Howard County, Maryland has used its waiver to provide one-on-one tutoring for reading students who have the greatest need in grades 1-5. They also used their waiver to lower the average student/teacher ratio in mathematics and reading from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1. Achievement scores from Texas, the state which has implemented Ed- Flex most broadly, confirm that Ed-Flex can improve academic performance. After only two years of implementation, preliminary statewide results on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills show that districts with Ed-Flex waivers outperformed districts that didn't take advantage of the program by a full three points in reading and more than two in math. For African-American students, the gains were even greater. At Westlawn Elementary School in LaMarque, Texas, for example, African- American students improved almost 23% over their 1996 math test scores, after the school put an Ed-Flex waiver into practice. Ed-Flex will help schools raise achievement levels by giving them a powerful weapon to cut through the red tape that sometimes keeps teachers and principals tied up in knots. This frees them up to focus full time on giving children the best possible education. The Ohio Department of Education wrote in an annual report that Ed-Flex helps create an environment which ``encourages creativity, thoughtful planning, and innovation.'' And in Oregon, the nation's first Ed-Flex state, the program has brought ``greater flexibility and better coordination to federal education programs.'' At the heart of all this innovation is accountability. Schools need to demonstrate that what they are doing produces results. If it doesn't, Ed-Flex provides an opportunity to move on to something else that might be more effective. Parents and taxpayers should rightfully demand that schools be responsible for meeting the goals that are set for them. Last year, Senator Frist and I introduced legislation to expand Ed- Flex nationwide, and broaden its use in the states where it's already in place. With the support of a bipartisan group of 21 cosponsors, the bill passed almost unanimously through the Senate Labor Committee. In the House, Representatives Castle and Roemer introduced a companion bill with 25 cosponsors. Unfortunately, the bills fell victim to legislative gridlock at the end of the 105th Congress. But today, at the beginning of the 106th Congress, we are reintroducing the bill with an eye toward its passage. The National Governors' Association has made expansion of Ed-Flex a top priority, and both President Clinton and Education Secretary Riley have announced their support for Ed-Flex. The time for action is near. Every hour school officials spend filling out a government form is an hour that could be spent giving special attention to a child. Every dollar spent on complying with unproductive mandates from Washington, DC, is a dollar that could be spent on something that works. With a good education more important than ever, and confidence in our schools at an all-time low, it's time to try something different. Flexibility and accountability can be the key to a brighter future. Congress should expand Ed-Flex, and allow a flurry of creativity across our entire country to give our children a brighter future.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce a measure to bring critically needed relief to Marina Khalina and her son, Albert Miftakhov, who suffers from cerebral palsy. Marina and Albert are Russian immigrants who have made a new home for themselves in the state of Oregon. They love their new life in America, but they face deportation unless Congress steps in and helps them become citizens of this country. Marina and Albert have been valuable members of their community in Oregon and would make model citizens. They are both people of exceptional moral character. Neither has been arrested or convicted of any crime. Although Albert often has had to miss school for medical operations, therapy, and other treatments, he consistently has been a good student. Marina has worked tirelessly in the United States to support her family and to cover her son's staggering medical costs, which will include additional surgery in the future. Through hard work, determination, and courage, Marina has made sure that Albert receives the medical care he requires. Forcibly removing them and sending them back to Russia would result in extreme hardship for both of them and would make it virtually impossible for Albert to receive proper medical attention. Albert would be unable to lead a normal life due to the current inability of Russian society to understand and accommodate disabled persons. Even the most basic medical treatment, surgical intervention and physical therapy would be either unavailable or extremely difficult to obtain in Russia. Although life has not been easy for Marina and Albert, they have both shown bravery in the face of adversity. This bill will allow Marina and Albert to stay in the United States so that Albert can receive the care he needs to lead a normal life. I urge you to support this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, twenty-five years after enactment of the Clean Water Act, we still have not achieved the law's original goal that all our nation's lakes, rivers and streams would be safe for fishing and swimming. After 25 years, it's time for the next generation of strategies to solve our remaining water quality problems. We need to give States new tools to overcome the new water quality challenges they are now facing. The money that has been invested in controlling water pollution from factories and upgrading sewage treatment plants has gone a long way to controlling these urban pollution sources. In most cases, the remaining water quality problems are no longer caused by pollution spewing out of factory pipes. Instead, they are caused by runoff from a myriad of sources ranging from farm fields to city streets and parking lots. In my home State of Oregon, more than half of our streams don't fully meet water quality standards. And the largest problems are contamination form runoff and meeting the standards for water temperatures. In many cases, conventional approaches will not solve these problems. But we can achieve water temperature standards and obtain other water quality benefits by enhancing stream flows and improving runoff controls. A major problem for many streams in Oregon and in many other areas of the Western United States is that water supplies are fully appropriated or over-appropriated. There is currently no extra water to spare for increased stream flows. We can't create new water to fill the gap. But we can make more water available for this use through increased water conservation and more efficient use of existing water supplies. The key to achieving this would be to create incentives to reduce wasteful water use. In the Western United States, irrigated agriculture is the single largest user of water. Studies indicate that substantial quantities of water diverted for irrigation do not make it to the fields, with a significant portion lost to evaporation or leakage fro irrigation canals. In Oregon and other States that recognize rights to conserved water for those who conserve it, irrigators and other water users could gain rights to use conserved water while also increasing the amount of water available for other uses by implementing conservation and efficiency measures to reduce water loss. The Federal government can play a role in helping meet our nation's changing water needs. In many Western States, supply problems can be addressed by providing financial incentives to help water users implement cost effective water conservation and efficiency measures consistent with State water law. And, we can improve water quality throughout the nation by giving greater flexibility to States to use Clean Water Act funds to control polluted runoff, if that's where the money is needed most. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Burns, in introducing legislation to authorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program to provide loans to water users to fund conservation measures or runoff controls. States would be authorized, but not required, to use their SRF funds for these purposes. Participation by water users, farmers, ranchers and other eligible loan recipients would also be entirely voluntary. The conservation program would be structured to allow participating users to receive a share of the water saved through conservation or more efficient use, which they could use in accordance with State law. This type of approach would create a win/win situation with more water available for both the conservers and for instream flows. And, by using the SRF program, the Federal seed money would be repaid over time and gradually become available to fund conservation or other measures to solve water quality problems in other areas. My proposal has the support of the Farm Bureau, Oregon water users, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Oregon Water Trust. I urge my colleagues to support giving States greater flexibility to use their Clean Water funds for water conservation or runoff control when the State decides that is the best way to solve water quality problems and the water users voluntarily agree to participate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Congress passed a version of the Dungeness Crab Conservation and Management Act, a bipartisan bill which I cosponsored along with Senators Murray, Gorton, and Smith. I would like to particularly commend Senator Murray for her strong leadership on this issue. She introduced the bill earlier this year and worked hard to secure its passage in this Congress. Dungeness crab is integral to the economies of Oregon's coastal communities. The fishery is successfully managed, from both an environmental and an economic standpoint, by the States of Oregon, Washington, and California. Under existing law, the Federal government would have taken control of the management of Dungeness crab next year, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our legislation prevents this from happening. This is a common sense approach: it extends the existing authority for the States to manage Dungeness crab in Federal waters and eliminates the need to develop a costly Federal fishery managment plan. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, enacted in 1976, established regional Fishery Management Councils to develop Federal management plans for fisheries in need of conservation and management in Federal waters. However, in order to meet regional needs, the interpretation of this provision has traditionally been flexible, allowing states to manage some fisheries in Federal waters. An example of this flexibility is state management of the West Coast Dungeness crab fishery. Since the 1960's, the States of Oregon, Washington and California have managed the Dungeness crab fishery in Federal waters. The three states and the concerned Indian tribes have worked together to make sure fishermen from each state are treated fairly and the fishery remains biologically sound. West Coast fishermen, scientists, fishery managers, and conservation groups all agree that state management has been a success story. From a conservation standpoint, state management of Dungeness crab is effective. The crabs are harvested in a way that ensures healthy populations for the future. In addition, the problem of bycatch, or incidental catch of other fish species, is almost non-existent in the crab fishery. Under the Magnuson Act, the authority for state management of Dungeness crab expires next year. The expiration of state authority would have required the Pacific Fishery Management Council to develop a Federal fishery management plan in 1999. Developing this plan would have consumed scant Council resources and staff time. As many folks in Oregon know, management of West Coast groundfish and salmon species presents huge challenges to fishery managers. The Council shouldn't be forced to divert critical resources from groundfish and salmon in order to manage a species like crab, which is doing fine under the existing states' plan. With the passage of this legislation today, the Council can continue to focus its resources on the fisheries that need special attention. This bill makes common sense by taking advantage of the unique situation presented by the Dungeness crab fishery. Essentially, Congress is agreeing with what many folks have said of this fishery: ``if it's not broken, don't fix it.'' I am glad Congress could work together in a bipartisan fashion to pass this common-sense legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, I take the floor this afternoon because it is my understanding that democracy in Oregon has won at least a temporary victory. I have been informed that there will be nothing attached to the comprehensive spending bill that would override Oregon's assisted suicide law. While I intend to be very vigilant to monitor any further discussions that take place on this matter, I come today to talk about why this issue is so important not just to my constituents but to all Americans. And I also thank the participants in the budget negotiations for their willingness to leave out this matter that is so complicated and controversial. I had informed the leadership of both political parties that I was prepared to speak at considerable length if there had been an effort as part of the final budget bill to toss Oregon's ballot measure on assisted suicide into the trash can. I was prepared to do this in spite of the fact that I have personal reservations about assisted suicide. I was prepared to do this because I believe that nothing is more important than the people's right to govern themselves. When the people of our States have made difficult decisions, difficult moral decisions about matters that have historically been within the purview of the State governments, it is out and out wrong for the Congress to butt in and override those decisions of voters in the States. The voters of my State have spoken clearly. In two separate referendums, the verdict was clear: Physician-assisted suicide should, under limited circumstances, be legal in the State of Oregon. If the Congress of the United States, meeting 3,000 miles away, had tossed those decisions aside, in a last-minute backroom deal, it would have been a great insult to the people of Oregon and in my view would have contributed mightily to skepticism and cynicism about Government. It would have been a mistake because there were many questions raised about the measure drafted by the Senator from Oklahoma who, it seems to me, is very sincere about his interest in this subject. In addition to overriding the popular will of the people of my State, his measure would have also set back considerably the cause of better pain management for patients in end-of-life care. That would have had serious consequences for the treatment of patients in severe pain across this country. His measure would have great implications not just for the people of Oregon, but for the people of all our States. More than 55 groups representing the medical community, many of whom oppose physician-assisted suicide, joined together in an unprecedented coalition to oppose the legislation of the Senator from Oklahoma because of their fear that doctors and other medical providers would be hampered. They feared that the cause of providing pain care to their patients would be set back by the way the legislation by the Senator from Oklahoma was written. I thank all of these groups for their commitment to humane care and for their hard work on this issue. The key groups that led the coalition were: The Americans for Better Care of the Dying, the American Geriatrics Society, the American Pharmaceutical Association, the National Hospice Organization, the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, and the American Medical Association. One of the reasons that so many of these groups worked so hard with respect to keeping out of the spending bill legislation that would overturn Oregon's law was their sincere belief that the legislation by Senator Nickles would have harmed the effort to promote good pain management. The Nickles legislation would have given the Drug Enforcement Administration new authority to look at every prescription of a controlled substance to determine for what it was intended. In addition, doctors and pharmacists under this legislation have had to be mind readers about what their patients were going to do with one of the drugs that was used under the Controlled Substances Act. Was the patient going to take a medication as prescribed for pain management, or would they have sought to use it to kill themselves? There is ample scientific evidence that pain management is not performed as well as it might be at this time. And to add further complexities and a broader role for an agency like the Drug Enforcement Administration to step into an area where it has never been before would have, in my view, added additional barriers and complexities to the effort to promote hospice care, palliative care, comfort care, and advance the science of pain management. Recently, the findings of a study in Oregon done in 1997 were published that show that families reported relatively constant levels of moderate to severe pain during their loved one's final week of life. During the final months in 1997, families reported higher rates of moderate to severe pain for those dying in acute care hospitals. There was one exception, which was when a loved one died in an acute care hospital in late 1997. An important study showed a statewide trend indicating that there were in so many cases moderate to severe pain for these individuals in the last week of life who would have required a physician and others to step in and advocate for those patients. I have received many letters and a great deal of e-mail from chronic pain patients. These stories are heartbreaking. They point out that it could be any one of us or any one of our loved ones or constituents who finds themselves in chronic, excruciating pain as a result of an accident or through the development of some painful, chronic disease. Unfortunately, pain patients in the current regulatory environment feel in many instances--and they have told me--as if they are treated like junkies, and that their providers are extremely nervous about how to use pain management in a climate where, had the Nickles legislation been adopted, certainly you would have had the Federal Government looking over the shoulders of doctors and pharmacists with respect to their motivation in prescribing drugs for those who are suffering these acute health and chronic ailments. We need to do a great deal more. We can do it on a bipartisan basis to advance the cause of pain management. I have had a number of discussions on this matter with Senator Mack, who has done, in my view, excellent work on a number of health issues. Senator Smith of my State is greatly interested in these matters. I believe we ought to work together so that early next year we can bring before the health committees--and I see our friend from the State of Texas, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health Care, is here; he has a great interest in these issues --a bipartisan package to promote good pain management before the Senate next year. We do need to do more to help the dying and those who suffer from chronic pain. I believe that the mere threat of legislation would put the Drug Enforcement Administration into such an intrusive role that physicians, pharmacists, and other health providers would be reluctant to use these medications and future medications that promote pain management, comfort care, and hospice care. The mere threat of this legislation would be a real setback to the kind of health care services that the vast majority of Americans want to see expanded. Certainly Americans can have differences of opinion on the issue of assisted suicide. I voted against our ballot measure once. I voted for the repeal of it the second time. I voted against Federal funding of assisted suicide. My reservations with respect to this topic are clear. But I think it is wrong for the Federal Government to butt in and override the voters of my State, on a matter that has historically been left to the States. It is especially wrong to do it in a way that is going to allow the Federal Government, particularly through the Drug Enforcement Administration, to play such an intrusive role that doctors, pharmacists, and other health providers will feel uncomfortable and reluctant to assist their patients who are suffering chronic and extraordinary pain. We have heard reports in Oregon from hospices where doctors have been reluctant to prescribe needed amounts of pain medication because they were frightened about the implications of being visited by a Government agency that would second-guess them. I am very pleased that the Nickles legislation will not be included in the comprehensive spending bill. I intend to remain vigilant throughout the remaining hours of the negotiations. I wanted to come to the floor this afternoon to talk about why this issue is so important not to just the people of my State, but to the people of this country. Finally, I am under no illusion that there will not be further discussions on the floor of the U.S. Senate about this topic. I know that the Senator from Oklahoma feels very strongly and sincerely about this issue. I know that there will be an effort to bring forward that proposal, and others like it, next year. I am aware that there are a number of Members of the U.S. Senate who would be willing to see Oregon's law set aside. I ask all of my colleagues to think just for a few moments over the next few months about their reaction if their State passed a law on a matter that the States have historically led on, and then a Member of the U.S. Senate sought to step in and lay that aside. That is, in effect, what some in the U.S. Senate are trying to tell the people of Oregon. I think that is a mistake. I think that Senators who would be willing to toss aside a vote of the people of Oregon ought to think about the implications of the precedent they will be setting that will have their voters and the popular will of their States set aside if this Senate, in the future, tosses aside the Oregon law. There is a better way. The better way is the approach that Senator Mack, Senator Smith and Members of the House, such as Congresswoman Darlene Hooley, and I are talking about. The better way is to say that there will be differences of opinion in our country about assisted suicide, but let us come together on that broad swath of policy that we all can agree on--which is to promote better hospice care, pain management, and comfort care in the use of advanced directives. Many of these services in many of our communities are utilized very rarely. So there is much we can do that will bring our citizens together, that will help us improve the conditions of our patients, reduce their suffering, without setting a dangerous precedent of overriding a law passed by the voters of my State that could redound to the detriment of other States and our citizens. Mr. President, I thank the negotiators who are dealing with the omnibus appropriations bill. I am pleased that it was not necessary for me to speak at length on the omnibus appropriations bill. Our voice will be heard when we are challenged in Oregon. We will be heard each time our rights are challenged. I will conclude my remarks. I see the Senator from Oklahoma here. He has been very gracious to this Senator in terms of discussing this matter and keeping me apprised of his intentions. We do have a difference of opinion on this issue and, at the same time, he has made it clear that he wants to work with this Senator, Senator Mack, and others, on a variety of issues that we can agree on relating to pain management. I know that we will be back on this Senate floor debating this topic in the future. But I want the Senator from Oklahoma to know that not only do I appreciate his courtesy in keeping me apprised of his intentions, but of my desire to work with him on a variety of issues relating to this topic where I think we can agree. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I would, at the appropriate time, ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes. I certainly understand there were Senators here before me, and I am happy to wait until after the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Delaware are finished.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator.