Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very hopeful that the Senate will not have to get into this cloture matter with respect to the Internet tax bill. The Senator from Florida is one of the Senators that I most respect in this body. I find myself agreeing with him on just about everything that comes before the Senate. As he knows, we have, over many, many months, tried to address the host of legitimate concerns that the States have. We have a number of Governors--the Senator from Florida having served as Governor, as have others here--who know a tremendous amount about this. I have tried to make clear, as the principal sponsor of this legislation, all we are seeking is technological neutrality with respect to the Internet. The Internet would be treated like everything else--nothing favorable, nothing discriminatory. Because many of the Nation's Governors are concerned about other issues, particularly the question of out-of-State sales, this legislation, S. 442, has become a magnet for a variety of other issues. The sponsors, Senator McCain and I, especially have, in my view, done somersaults now to make sure there was a fair evaluation of all the important issues with respect to out-of-State sales. Let me say, in doing that, there have been a number of other Senators--Senator Gregg and Senator Lieberman--who I think have been very fair in an effort to try to get to a compromise on this matter. As the Senator from Florida knows, just a few minutes ago Senator McCain and I were willing to make additional changes in the managers' amendment to ensure that there would be a fair study of both the Internet and commercial activities, which is the precise language that the Governors have sought. I don't think there is anything else that Senator McCain, I, or others can offer at this point to ensure that a fair and objective set of studies and analyses go on by the commission. I hope that if there continues to be opposition to this legislation, that those who oppose the legislation simply say that they are opposed and not, in effect, produce a situation which I think is going to turn what ought to be a bipartisan and thoughtful fight into what will be a very bloody battle. I see my friend from North Dakota here. The Senator from North Dakota has had strong views on this, and over many, many months we have been negotiating on it. He did not come to the floor today to object as a result of that work, nor did Senator Bumpers. I am hopeful that particularly Senators on the Democratic side are not going to force what I think will be a very unfortunate and bloody fight with respect to a bill that has undergone more than 30 separate and important changes since it was originally introduced to accommodate the concerns of the States and localities. Those folks were very, very opposed when this discussion started. They raised legitimate issues. We have sought to deal with them. I am hopeful we will be able to go to a motion to proceed early next week and not have a bitter fight as I think we have over cloture. Let me conclude by way of saying that I and my staff are prepared to continue to work around the clock with the Senator from Florida and others who may have questions about how this legislation will affect the States, but let us go forward in an effort to try to resolve this and not just get to a solution with respect to one section and then say, ``Well, I have another one that we have to deal with,'' which, regrettably, has been the case. I have enormous respect for the Senator from Florida and I think one of the more unpleasant tasks is to have an argument with him. I hope this can be resolved. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chairman. As the Chairman knows, one of my constituents, John Sleavin, lost his brother and nephew and niece under tragic circumstances when their pleasure boat was run down on the high seas by a Korean freighter. The accident was especially tragic because after the collision there was no attempt by the Korean freighter to rescue the family or even to notify the authorities about the collision. Mr. Chairman, you were very gracious to me in allowing my constituent to testify before the Commerce Committee on the need to reform the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) to provide just compensation for victims like my constituent. I believe he provided compelling testimony on the need for reforming DOHSA for maritime accidents. The FAA reauthorization bill reforms DOHSA but only for aviation accidents. I would like to ask the Chairman whether he will commit to work with me to reform DOHSA comprehensively so the reforms cover both aviation and maritime accidents.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I informed the minority leader that I will object to any unanimous consent requests to proceed to S. 2151 or any similar legislation containing provisions that would override Oregon's assisted suicide law. Should S. 2151, the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act come to the floor, I intend to insist that this body clearly hear the arguments against this legislation before voting on it, even if I must filibuster to assure that this occurs. Let me state, as I have done before on this floor, that I have personal reservations about the assisted suicide concept. I voted twice against assisted suicide in my home State, and I joined our colleagues in voting against Federal funding of assisted suicide. I personally believe that nowhere near enough has been done to promote hospice care, pain management, comfort care, and other approaches to deal with the end of life. The people of my State entered into an honest, direct, and exhausting discussion on the issue of assisted suicide--not once, but twice-- through our public referenda process. I am not going to let that vote be set aside without an extended debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate. S. 2151 attempts to override the popular will of the citizens of my State who have made a judgment about what is acceptable medical practice. Medical practice is a matter that has been traditionally left to the States to regulate. However, in overriding the will of the Oregon voters, S. 2151 strikes at the people across this country who are terminally ill and the millions of individuals who suffer in great pain daily. Almost all of our States have laws in effect, or about to go into effect, with respect to physician-assisted suicide. All of our States have laws that regulate medical practice, including the use of controlled substances. The underlying message of S. 2151 is that the U.S. Congress knows better than voters in Coos Bay, Bend, and La Grande, OR. Does this Congress, meeting here in Washington, DC, believe it is better equipped than the citizens of my State to make moral decisions about acceptable medical practice in Oregon? This Senator is not going to sit by while there is an abbreviated debate that cuts off the rights of Oregonians. I want the Senate to understand that today. S. 2151 would amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow the Drug Enforcement Agency to deny DEA registration of providers determined to have assisted in causing or participating in a physician-assisted suicide. The advocates of this legislation say that good physicians would have no problem with this legislation. The record shows otherwise. The record shows that more than 50 medical groups, including physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and hospice programs--a variety of medical groups--believe this legislation would have a chilling effect on pain management programs, on hospice care services, and on comfort care. I want my colleagues to understand that. More than 50 medical groups in our country believe this legislation will have a chilling effect on our ability to make sure that our citizens can get good pain management services, hospice programs and comfort care. What is especially striking is that even Americans who are opposed to Oregon's law and are opposed to assisted suicide do not want to see the U.S. Congress overturn this law. Pain management, palliative care, and hospice services are still evolving fields. Not enough has been done to comfort patients in these tragic situations, and Americans know that in the current regulatory environment there can be a chilling effect on the pain management services by laws such as the one proposed in S. 2151. This legislation also runs counter to the recent Supreme Court decision on physician-assisted suicide that encourages the States to continue to debate this question. Mr. President, this bill is not going to stop assisted suicide. What it is going to do is set up new roadblocks to ensuring that there are good pain management programs in our country. This bill is going to harm pain management for millions of Americans, turn the resources of the Drug Enforcement Agency from looking at drug diversion and drug trafficking to reviewing the intent of physicians and pharmacists as they try to alleviate the pain of their patients. That is not what the DEA was set up to do. It was not set up to deal with overseeing hospice programs, and the like. If Congress tramples on the twice-expressed popular will of the people of Oregon, it is going to feed the fires of cynicism and frustration about Government across our land. Mr. President, I will conclude with this. We all know that so often in coffee shops, churches, grange halls and senior centers, we hear Americans say: You know, our vote doesn't matter. After we vote, those politicians are going to say we really don't get it, the citizens don't understand. So we will just vote again; we will just vote, vote and vote until we set aside what their judgment has been. I am here to say that I don't think the U.S. Congress knows better than those voters in Coos Bay and Bend and La Grande. I don't think the U.S. Congress, meeting here in Washington, DC, is better equipped than the citizens of my State to make a moral decision about what is acceptable medical practice in Oregon. This Congress should not try to settle this issue in a hasty debate in the last hours of the U.S. Congress. I have informed the minority leader that I will have a hold on this legislation. Senator Grassley and I have, for some time, been encouraging Senators to announce publicly their intentions with respect to holds. I have done that in a letter to Senator Daschle. I will make that letter a part of the Record. I am going to insist on my rights as a Senator, representing thousands and thousands of Oregonians who have weighed in on this issue, that this Senate is going to have a real debate on this legislation before there is a vote on it. I am going to assure that there is such a debate, even if I must filibuster to assure that this occurs. I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Senator Daschle be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be brief. First, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for all the work he has done over the last few months on the Internet tax freedom bill. We are going to get there to no small degree because the Senator from North Dakota has worked so closely with us. I thank him for it. In the last few minutes, we have talked about two extremely important subjects: the question of a Patients' Bill of Rights and the Internet tax freedom bill. Both of these bills are extremely important to me. In fact, shortly after I came to the U.S. Senate in 1996, I offered one of the key provisions in the Patients' Bill of Rights with Senator Kennedy. It was legislation to ban these gag clauses, these ridiculous provisions in managed care agreements that literally keep physicians from telling their patients about all their health care options. These gag clauses are unconscionable. We received over 50 votes the first time we brought it to the floor of the U.S. Senate, at a time when people knew very little about the subject. I feel very strongly about the Patients' Bill of Rights and, hopefully, we can get an agreement, and I do think we can get an agreement that is bipartisan. I also want to say, Mr. President, how strongly I feel about passing the Internet tax freedom legislation as well. It is time for the U.S. Senate to begin to write the rules for the digital economy. The Internet is clearly going to be the business infrastructure in the 21st century. Usage is doubling every 60 days, or thereabouts, and it is clear we don't have any ground rules to address the critical issues that involve electronic commerce. If somebody in Iowa, for example, wants to order fruit from Harry and David's in Medford, OR, ship it to their cousin in Florida, pay for it with a bank card in New York and do it through America Online in Virginia, what are going to be the ground rules with respect to taxes? What the Internet cannot afford is the development of a crazy quilt of discriminatory taxes with respect to this burgeoning area of our economy. That is why it is so important that the Senate move on this legislation. I will close by saying a word about the manager of the legislation, the Senator from Arizona. Throughout these many months, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from Arizona, and his staff have worked very closely with me and have worked very closely with a host of Members of the U.S. Senate. There have been more than 30 separate changes made in the Internet tax freedom bill from the time it was originally introduced on a bipartisan basis. I want it understood that a bipartisan effort under the leadership of Chairman McCain has been made for many, many months now, involving Senator Stevens originally, with respect to the Universal Service Fund. Senator Dorgan has had a variety of issues with respect to treatment of the States. Senator Bumpers has had enormous contributions and questions that we felt had to be addressed, as well as Senators Gregg and Enzi. I am very hopeful that very shortly this week this legislation is going to be brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate, and I am very hopeful that it can be brought to the floor in a way that will also allow for the important Patients' Bill of Rights legislation to go forward. I have spent a considerable amount of my time since coming to the U.S. Senate on both of these issues, working on both of them in a bipartisan fashion. I think both of them are now ready for consideration on the floor of the Senate. I see the chairman of the Commerce Committee is here now and has another important bill to bring up. I will close by, again, expressing my appreciation to him for all the time that he has put in to try to get the Internet tax freedom legislation specifically before the Senate. I believe we are ready now, and certainly those Senators who have brought amendments to the chairman and myself have a right to be heard and they should be heard. I believe we are ready for an agreement that will protect the rights of every Member of the U.S. Senate and, at the same time, allow the Senate to go forward and take the first steps--it is going to be a long journey--it is time to take the first steps to writing some of the essential rules for the digital economy, the Internet, which is going to so dominate our lives in the next century. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, earlier today, I called in a hold on the nomination of Amy Rosen to the Amtrak Reform Board. Consistent with my policy of publicly disclosing holds, I am including the following statement in the Congressional Record, stating my reasons for placing a hold on this nomination: I am placing a hold on the nomination of Amy Rosen to the Amtrak Reform Board because of her role as an Amtrak Board member in voting to terminate Amtrak's Pioneer route. A subsequent GAO report indicates that at the time Ms. Rosen approved terminating the Pioneer, other Amtrak routes that were even less profitable than the Pioneer were kept in service. Before I will allow Ms. Rosen's nomination to move forward, I am seeking certain assurances from Ms. Rosen that if confirmed as a member of the Amtrak Reform Board, she will insist that Amtrak make decisions about passenger rail service on the basis of objective financial criteria. Subsequent to calling in my hold on Ms. Rosen's nomination, I and my staff had conversations with her to discuss my concerns. During those conversations, I received assurances from Ms. Rosen that as an Amtrak Board member, she would insist that decisions about Amtrak routes and services would be made on the basis of objective financial criteria and that she would work with me and other Members of Congress to address the needs of rural communities for passenger rail service. As a result of these conversations, I am withdrawing my hold on Amy Rosen's nomination to the Amtrak Reform Board.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am today, along with Congressman Blumenauer in the U.S. House, introducing legislation to make sure that in the next century the children of Portland can go to their kitchen faucet and take a glass of drinking water that is as safe and pure as any that the pioneers found when they got here. Why protect the Little Sandy? The answer is as clear as the water in that stream. Essentially, what we are proposing is to finish the job begun two years ago with passage of the Oregon Resources and Conservation Act of 1996, which brought statutory protection to the Bull Run Watershed. Portland's city fathers acted in 1890 to protect Bull Run, and it is fitting that we continue that effort today. More than one-third of the Little Sandy watershed has already been logged; clearly, this drainage has already been pushed, and pushed hard, in terms of past timber harvest. The protection our bill would offer will not only affect clean drinking water, but salmon recovery as well. I am hopeful that this legislation will become an important part of our region's approach to restoring steelhead habitat. Finally, I want to commend the leadership of Mayor Vera Katz, Commissioner Erik Sten, and former Commissioner Mike Lindberg, whose vision for Portland's future laid the foundation for the introduction of this bill. I first introduced legislation to protect the Little Sandy when I was in the House. In passing the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996, I made a compromise with Senator Hatfield in which we would designate the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit as a protected area that is off limits to commercial timber harvest, and designate the Little Sandy as a study area. I am now asking the Congress to approve the addition of the Little Sandy study area to the Bull Run Management Unit, and to be subject to the management prescriptions which were established under the ORCA governing the Bull Run. 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 today, along with Congressman Blumenauer in the U.S. House, introducing legislation to make sure that in the next century the children of Portland can go to their kitchen faucet and take a glass of drinking water that is as safe and pure as any that the pioneers found when they got here. Why protect the Little Sandy? The answer is as clear as the water in that stream. Essentially, what we are proposing is to finish the job begun two years ago with passage of the Oregon Resources and Conservation Act of 1996, which brought statutory protection to the Bull Run Watershed. Portland's city fathers acted in 1890 to protect Bull Run, and it is fitting that we continue that effort today. More than one-third of the Little Sandy watershed has already been logged; clearly, this drainage has already been pushed, and pushed hard, in terms of past timber harvest. The protection our bill would offer will not only affect clean drinking water, but salmon recovery as well. I am hopeful that this legislation will become an important part of our region's approach to restoring steelhead habitat. Finally, I want to commend the leadership of Mayor Vera Katz, Commissioner Erik Sten, and former Commissioner Mike Lindberg, whose vision for Portland's future laid the foundation for the introduction of this bill. I first introduced legislation to protect the Little Sandy when I was in the House. In passing the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996, I made a compromise with Senator Hatfield in which we would designate the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit as a protected area that is off limits to commercial timber harvest, and designate the Little Sandy as a study area. I am now asking the Congress to approve the addition of the Little Sandy study area to the Bull Run Management Unit, and to be subject to the management prescriptions which were established under the ORCA governing the Bull Run. 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 be joined by Senators Daschle, Smith of Oregon, Baucus, Burns, Johnson, and Craig, in introducing legislation making an important adjustment to the way the Government manages rights-of-way over federal lands. The provisions in this bill address the situation involving liability standards for electric utilities that utilize federal rights-of-ways to provide electricity to rural communities. I am pleased to be working on this issue with my good friends and colleagues from Oregon, Bob Smith and Peter DeFazio. Chairman Smith has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives, which received a hearing in the House Resources Committee earlier this year. During that hearing, one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Kopacz of Midstate Electric in LaPine, Oregon testified on the need to reform the current federal policy of requiring strict liability for fires that occur in right-of-ways. Under strict liability, the holder of a right of way is responsible for all injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression costs, caused by the holder of the right of way without regard to the holder's negligence. The problem that this legislation addresses is best illustrated by the experience of the Midstate Electric Cooperative of LaPine, Oregon. As a matter of prudent maintenance, Midstate trims or removes trees on right-of-ways that pose a risk of falling onto electric lines. On federal rights-of-way, the cooperative consults with the appropriate land management agency--which of course must approve these management actions. After proposing the removal of a number of trees on a Forest Service right-of-way in 1984, Midstate was told by the agency that it could cut some down, but had to leave other specified trees standing. Of course the predictable happened--one of the trees that Midstate had proposed cutting, which the Forest Service had refused to allow to be removed, fell into a power line and started a fire. In the end it cost more than $326,850 to put that fire out--and Midstate Electric got the bill. Since the fire resulted from a management decision of the Forest Service, Midstate went to court in an attempt to appropriately assign the financial liability of fighting the fire. Midstate lost the court action because of a ruling which interpreted right-of-way contracts as holding the co-op and other right-of-way lessees to a strict liability standard. The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act provided federal agencies with the authority to impose strict liability for costs associated with hazards on federal lands. Prior to 1976, agencies recovered costs associated with hazards, such as costs required to put out a fire, on the basis of normal negligence. This bill would replace that strict liability standard in favor of a normal negligence standard that is routinely used in private right-of- way contracts. The new standard will say: if you caused it, you are responsible for it. Rural electric cooperatives, investor-owned utilities and municipalities are not looking to pass the buck to the American taxpayer. If they are negligent in maintaining federal rights- of-way, they should bear the responsibility. However, by enforcing any standard more rigid than that, the land management agencies are purposefully transferring cost to private citizens. The minimum impact of the current strict liability policy is higher electric rates for those rural communities who live in close proximity to public lands. The possibility exists, however, of even more punitive impacts in the form of the loss of insurance coverage for entities with federal rights-of-way liability. In my judgement, this legislation restores an appropriate balance to the shared responsibility of both the land manager and the utility in reducing the natural hazards along a right of way. As we saw in the Midstate case, because the Forest Service bears no exposure to costs associated with fire and risk prevention, the Forest Service simply did not allow the full use of measures to reduce those risks. This legislation will not only benefit the state of Oregon. Utilities all through the United States have rights-of-way permits with our land management agencies. This proposal is of interest in states such as California, Idaho, Florida, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming and Pennsylvania. I believe my proposal is fair and balanced legislation that protects our rural communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to perfect this legislation in the waning days of the 105th Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Daschle, Smith of Oregon, Baucus, Burns, Johnson, and Craig, in introducing legislation making an important adjustment to the way the Government manages rights-of-way over federal lands. The provisions in this bill address the situation involving liability standards for electric utilities that utilize federal rights-of-ways to provide electricity to rural communities. I am pleased to be working on this issue with my good friends and colleagues from Oregon, Bob Smith and Peter DeFazio. Chairman Smith has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives, which received a hearing in the House Resources Committee earlier this year. During that hearing, one of my constituents, Mr. Bill Kopacz of Midstate Electric in LaPine, Oregon testified on the need to reform the current federal policy of requiring strict liability for fires that occur in right-of-ways. Under strict liability, the holder of a right of way is responsible for all injury, loss, or damage, including fire suppression costs, caused by the holder of the right of way without regard to the holder's negligence. The problem that this legislation addresses is best illustrated by the experience of the Midstate Electric Cooperative of LaPine, Oregon. As a matter of prudent maintenance, Midstate trims or removes trees on right-of-ways that pose a risk of falling onto electric lines. On federal rights-of-way, the cooperative consults with the appropriate land management agency--which of course must approve these management actions. After proposing the removal of a number of trees on a Forest Service right-of-way in 1984, Midstate was told by the agency that it could cut some down, but had to leave other specified trees standing. Of course the predictable happened--one of the trees that Midstate had proposed cutting, which the Forest Service had refused to allow to be removed, fell into a power line and started a fire. In the end it cost more than $326,850 to put that fire out--and Midstate Electric got the bill. Since the fire resulted from a management decision of the Forest Service, Midstate went to court in an attempt to appropriately assign the financial liability of fighting the fire. Midstate lost the court action because of a ruling which interpreted right-of-way contracts as holding the co-op and other right-of-way lessees to a strict liability standard. The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act provided federal agencies with the authority to impose strict liability for costs associated with hazards on federal lands. Prior to 1976, agencies recovered costs associated with hazards, such as costs required to put out a fire, on the basis of normal negligence. This bill would replace that strict liability standard in favor of a normal negligence standard that is routinely used in private right-of- way contracts. The new standard will say: if you caused it, you are responsible for it. Rural electric cooperatives, investor-owned utilities and municipalities are not looking to pass the buck to the American taxpayer. If they are negligent in maintaining federal rights- of-way, they should bear the responsibility. However, by enforcing any standard more rigid than that, the land management agencies are purposefully transferring cost to private citizens. The minimum impact of the current strict liability policy is higher electric rates for those rural communities who live in close proximity to public lands. The possibility exists, however, of even more punitive impacts in the form of the loss of insurance coverage for entities with federal rights-of-way liability. In my judgement, this legislation restores an appropriate balance to the shared responsibility of both the land manager and the utility in reducing the natural hazards along a right of way. As we saw in the Midstate case, because the Forest Service bears no exposure to costs associated with fire and risk prevention, the Forest Service simply did not allow the full use of measures to reduce those risks. This legislation will not only benefit the state of Oregon. Utilities all through the United States have rights-of-way permits with our land management agencies. This proposal is of interest in states such as California, Idaho, Florida, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming and Pennsylvania. I believe my proposal is fair and balanced legislation that protects our rural communities. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration to perfect this legislation in the waning days of the 105th Congress.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thanked the Chairman for helping us in the Northwest to address a serious, growing problem with a tremendous overpopulation of geese in the Pacific Northwest. During the course of the past year the Oregon and Washington Farm Bureaus, the Alaska Waterfowl Conservation Committee, and state and federal wildlife agencies have worked together on a plan to address this growing problem, and I appreciate the Chairman's help in funding this proposal. Mr. President, the Oregon and Washington Farm Bureaus have provided critical leadership in helping us obtain these funds, and I wonder if the Chairman of the Subcommittee would engage in a colloquy about how these funds are to be spent.

Mr. WYDEN. Is it the Chairman's understanding that at least $152,000 would be directed to fund a study of the economic impact of goose grazing and to develop the most effective methods for reducing damage by Canada Geese; and that the remaining funds will be used to assess, monitor, and reduce depredation by Canadian Geese of agricultural crops in Washington State and Oregon?

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes on the legislation before us.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my desire to work further with the Chair of the subcommittee and ranking minority member on a particularly important provision affecting our YMCAs, our YWCAs and other charitable organizations that do so much good work throughout the country. Throughout the recess, I heard continually from constituents who enjoy these important organizations in Oregon that they are concerned about a provision in the committee report accompanying this legislation that deals with the tax-exempt status of these organizations. I would say that I am of the view that these nongovernmental groups can provide critically needed services in our country, particularly as it relates to juveniles: preventing crime, drug use and unwholesome activities in which some kids do get caught up. As many in this body know, Senator Smith and I have talked at some length about approaches to deal with the tragedy that we saw at Thurston High School earlier this year, when a young person entered the school with a gun. A number of our young constituents were killed and injured. It seems to me one of the very best antidotes to this kind of juvenile violence is the important work done in afterschool programs by these organizations. I am concerned that a provision in this legislation could curtail some of the important activities that the Y's and Jewish Community Centers and other important organizations provide. What has transpired is that in 1984 the Internal Revenue Service issued a technical ruling making it clear that fitness activities provided by these and other organizations remain charitable as long as the entity, the nonprofit, serves a broad segment of the community. These organizations, the YMCAs, the YWCAs, the Jewish Community Centers across our country do provide critically needed services, particularly to low-income individuals. They have philanthropic missions related to health and education, community welfare. My concern is a provision relating to the tax-exempt status of these organizations, in effect, could prompt a review that would have a chilling effect over the entire range of work done by these organizations. I have organized a letter with nine Members of this body, a bipartisan letter--Senator Mack, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Roberts, Senator Grassley, Senator Murray, Senator Durbin, Senator Kennedy, Senator Mikulski and myself, to make it clear to the managers of this legislation that we want to work with them on a bipartisan basis to make sure that the important work done by these community organizations is not in jeopardy. It seems to me, as we look to the 21st century, trying to make sure the budget is balanced, still meeting the needs of our communities and particularly the young people, that these are the very programs that are most likely to make a difference. I had thought the question of the tax status of these groups was settled law in 1984. I note I am unaware of any abuses since 1984 or of any violations by the ``Y's'' with respect to this charitable exemption, and it is for that reason that I do ask this afternoon to work further with both the majority and the minority to make sure the tax status of these groups is protected and the important work they are doing continues to go forward and, in fact, expands in the years ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter I referred to be printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague for his patience. It has been mentioned that this is in some way a bracero program. My friends, this is not. Under the Bracero Program, for example, there was no right of first refusal for U.S. workers to available jobs in our country. That is what is different here--U.S. workers first, first dibs on any available position. Point No. 2: There has been discussion that this amendment would in some way increase illegal immigration. Right now, of the 1.6 million farm workers, perhaps a million of them are illegal. What we are advocating is an above-ground system that guarantees fundamental protections to legal workers. Some of our opponents, it seems to me, prefer an underground system that is going to keep thousands of those workers hidden in the back of a U-Haul trailer or the trunk of a car. That is not humane. We don't want those workers in the back of a U-Haul or in the trunk of a car. We want them participating in a legal, humane system that rewards both the workers and the growers. That is why this proposal makes sense. I hope it will receive strong support from our colleagues. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Subcommittee Chairman for including $50,000 in the Committee Appropriations report for a potential loan to fund an innovative fishing capacity reduction program on the Pacific Coast. The program, if it receives the approval of fishermen on the West Coast, would be the first capacity reduction program to be ultimately funded by the fishing industry itself. To comply with the requirements of section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 661c), an appropriation is required to cover the potential cost to the government for a debt obligation. My request assumed that the maximum potential cost to the government likely to be determined for the loan would be one percent, which would allow a loan of $5 million based on the $50,000 appropriated by the Committee. It is my understanding that if the Secretary of Commerce finds that the potential default rate for the loan is less than one percent, the loan amount would be accordingly higher than the $5,000,000 authorized by the report. For example, if the potential default rate for a future Pacific Coast buyback is determined to be one-half of one percent, the loan could be as high as $10,000,000 based on the appropriated $50,000. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. WYDEN. Further, I would like to clarify to the Chairman in my request, I was seeking credit authority for a maximum loan of $35 million. Is it the Chairman's understanding that if the Secretary of Commerce finds there is a potential default rate low enough for a loan of $35 million, that a loan of $35 million could be made?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chairman for this clarification and his recognition of the opportunity presented by the Pacific Coast plan. national oceanic and atmospheric administration (noaa) weather radio coverage in south dakota

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I hope this amendment is just the beginning of the debate on agricultural labor. But I believe that the legislation before the Senate is based on three principles that can last well into the 21st century and be in the interests of both farm workers and farm employers. The first principle on which this amendment is based is that the U.S. worker must come first--that U.S. workers, for example, when they participate in the registry, will have the right of first refusal to any available farm job in our country, and that the Federal Government is required to notify those workers about available positions. Second, this amendment brings before the Senate specific changes proposed over the years by the Farm Worker Justice Fund to improve working conditions for the farm workers in our country. Third, it will replace the current dysfunctional system for administering this program with one that is modern and is based on the use of computer technology. At every step along the way, this package tries to address specific concerns raised by worker advocates, as well as those advocating for the growers. My colleague, Senator Smith, talked about the registry. If a U.S. worker participates in the registry, that worker is entitled to benefits that U.S. workers are not entitled to today, such as housing and transportation. And the registry also seeks to address the concerns of growers, specifically, by saying that when a grower utilizes this registry, the grower can then be certain that there is a presumption that their workers are legal. The last point I would like to raise, because I know many of my colleagues want to speak and have important questions, deals with exactly the number of people involved in farm labor in our country. This is the centerpiece of the question. We have heard a lot of talk on the floor of the Senate about a guest worker program. There are very few legal guest workers. There are 1.6 million farm workers in our country and perhaps 25,000 guest workers who are here legally under the current program. The 1.6 million farm workers, who work on those farms, have virtually no legal entitlements other than to the minimum wage. So what this legislation does is it potentially extends basic worker protections to a far greater share of that 1.6 million pool of workers, save 25,000. It will create a circumstance in which hundreds of thousands more farm workers get access to housing and transportation and other benefits that they do not have today. I know this is a new concept, but it is an important one because what this amendment seeks to do is to change the nature of the system so we can make sure the bulk of our workers are legal in America. The General Accounting Office made the judgment that there was no shortage of workers in America, but they concluded that way because they counted illegal workers. Right now, any grower can tell you that their workers may appear to be legal, but that the Social Security Administration often rejects more than half of the Social Security numbers filed. So what we have is a situation with growers caught between being penalized because they cannot find legal workers or being felons because their workers are not legal. I believe workers deserve better and growers deserve better. That is what this amendment does. I appreciate Senator Smith giving me this time from the allotment that he has. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy to clarify the funding provided for Portland Light Rail. The Committee Report on the Transportation Appropriations Bill has a single line item for the Portland Westside and South-North Light Rail projects. However, the Committee report description is ambiguous as to how the funding provided may be used. The description reads: Portland Westside and south-north LRT projects.--The Committee recommends $26,700,000 for the Portland Westside LRT project. . . . The report then goes on to describe both projects. It is the Committee's intention to provide this funding for both the Westside and south-north project?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member for their assistance in providing funding for both of these important transit projects. chehalis I-5 Flood Control Project

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chairman for this clarification. I would also ask whether the Committee intends to allow the $26.7 million amount provided for Portland light rail to be utilized either for completion of the Westside project or final design and right-of-way acquisition for the south-north project?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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