Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I offer a bipartisan amendment that has been authored by Senator Smith of my State and myself and a number of other Senators.

Mr. WYDEN. I certainly am. The chairman of the subcommittee has been very gracious. I do not anticipate going more than 15 minutes myself, and I think Senator Smith will be coming shortly. I know he would probably want 15 minutes or less, as well.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I now send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, Senator Smith and I, having visited with our constituents at home and in Springfield, OR, after the terrible tragedy at Thurston High School, believe it is absolutely critical that concrete steps be taken between now and the beginning of the school year to increase the safety for our young people in schools across the land. We believe this legislation, which has now been agreed to by both the majority and the minority, can be the first concrete step that will be taken to ensure that this fall our young people and their families can have an added measure of safety when they attend our Nation's schools. We believe that when a young person brings a gun to school, that ought to set off a five-alarm warning that there are problems for our society. Our colleagues on several occasions have mentioned today that in a number of States it has been documented that in several hundred instances a year young people bring a gun to school, disciplinary action is taken, but then it is essentially at the discretion of law enforcement officials and others as to what additional steps will be taken. Law enforcement officials across our State and across the country have made it very clear that they don't believe it is appropriate to put that discretion in their hands. They would like to make sure that government sets out a policy that would stipulate that when a young person brings a gun to school, that that young person will be detained for an adequate period of time to have a mental health assessment, to have law enforcement officials involved, to have health policymakers participate in what action should then be taken to best promote safety in our society. If my home State of Oregon had this policy in effect at the time of the tragedy at Thurston High School, Kip Kinkel, who is alleged to have perpetrated these crimes, would have been before a judge and held, and, in my view, unquestionably, would have been detained rather than sent home, where he allegedly killed his parents and then came back, literally, within a relatively short time, and shot and injured more than 20 young people at Thurston High School in Springfield. What our legislation does is ensure that States that have put in place a policy of detaining a student caught with bringing a gun--that States with that policy would be accorded a priority for title V funding, the prevention and delinquency funding program, under this legislation. That way, we would ensure that, on an ongoing basis, every State in our country would have an incentive to ensure that when young people bring guns to school, as was done in the case of the Springfield tragedy, rather than simply leave to fate what happens next, there would be a finding of what was the most appropriate step to take to ensure the safety of the community. Mr. President, I think we all agree that our schools ought to be places of learning, not of tragedy and violence. One lesson that has been learned from the tragic shootings in Oregon and Arkansas and other States is that clearly there is something wrong today with the policies for dealing with young people and guns. The policies today aren't working. Young people are falling through the cracks, and some of them are shooting other children. Bringing a gun to school ought to be a warning signal, an early sign, that there is a serious potential threat for our society. When that act takes place, it is important to get the student out of the classroom, off the streets, and in front of a professional who can make a determination of how much of a threat that student is to the community. I think most legislators would agree we don't have all the answers, but we do know that keeping an angry student with a gun out of the classroom and off the schoolyard ought to be part of the solution. That is why the amendment that I sponsor today, with Senator Gordon Smith of my home State, focuses on two tracks. First, Senator Smith and I seek to remove the threat of violence from our schools as soon as it is identified. Second, we help our communities find the resources they need to identify and serve at-risk students so it is possible to prevent a potential health and safety problem from becoming the sort of tragedy that was seen at Thurston High School. This amendment provides concrete incentives to States to immediately remove any student who brings a gun to school and to get that student before a judge and other qualified professionals. If the judge determines that student is a threat to the community or to the individual themselves, the State must hold that student for a period of time that would allow for an appropriate placement that protects our society. If a State has in place this sort of policy to protect the community, families, and students, our legislation will give that State priority when it comes to funding juvenile justice grants. That means they will be in a position to devote more resources to make sure that at-risk students don't follow that path of crime and delinquency, and it will be possible with these grants to target high-risk young people for aggressive and early intervention so these young people can be reached with appropriate treatment before they fall through the cracks. What has been learned in Springfield and the other communities across this country is that expelling a student for bringing a gun to school may adequately punish the student's behavior, but it is not enough to protect the community and our society. It is important to ensure that the appropriate steps are taken at that time--at that time when the student is apprehended by school officials, so that that student has every opportunity to work through potential problems they may be having at home, or with their peers, and our society can find a balance between preventing these crimes from occurring and punishing them when they actually take place. There isn't a Member of this U.S. Senate who is not deeply concerned about this set of incidents across our country--literally across our Nation--where young people have been taken from us by school violence. In Springfield, OR, where Senator Smith and I visited with the President--who deserves great credit, in my view, for supporting our bipartisan legislation--the community promised Senator Smith and I that they wanted to let the violence end here. It is our hope that this legislation will give States the incentive they need to enact tough detention statutes to ensure that what happened in Thurston doesn't happen across this country. My friend and colleague, Senator Smith, is here and I want to yield the floor in just a moment. I want to thank him for the bipartisan effort that has been made on this legislation and on so many other issues that have been important to the people of Oregon. The people of Oregon and the people of our country do not see these as bipartisan issues. There is not a Democratic approach to preventing school violence and a Republican approach to preventing school violence. I tell our colleagues that the approach Senator Smith and I bring before the U.S. Senate tonight has been supported by those who oppose gun control and those who are for gun control because they see this as commonsense Government that will be good for our students and our families. I will close by saying that when the Senate acts tonight, this can be the first concrete step that actually protects students and families when school starts this fall. So we are very grateful to our colleagues for helping us, including our friends Senator Hollings, Senator Gregg, and Senator Leahy, who is not on the floor, and Senator Hatch has been so helpful. Senator Sessions has added an innovative approach with respect to establishing a court supervisory initiative to addressing unlawful juvenile gun use. This is a bipartisan step forward in making our schools safe across this land. I yield the floor at this time. Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in the nineteenth century, Merriwether Lewis and William Clark explored the western reaches of our expanding country. As they explored my home region of the Pacific Northwest, Lewis and Clark cataloged the mineral and natural resources of the land. In particular, they spoke of a mighty river known to the local inhabitants as Nch'i Wana, the Great River. We know it today as the Columbia River and its importance as a reliable source of water and power to the people of the Pacific Northwest is undeniable. When Twentieth Century American explorers embarked on a similar journey to explore the Moon, one of their earliest actions was to bend down to the surface and pick up a rock. That simple movement framed an ancient reflex that underscores the basic imperative to explore our surroundings. Today, I want to recognize the important role played by the earth sciences in expanding our economy, supporting our national goals, and increasing our knowledge of the larger world. Modern geophysical research reveals that ours is a dynamic planet. On the Earth's surface, great tectonic plates shift continental positions with terrific force. On the ocean's surface, microscopic plants and animals help regulate global atmospheric gases and serve as the foundation of our planet's food web. In the deep ocean abyss, mysterious and wondrous animal communities thrive in endless darkness by deriving life-sustaining nutrients from active volcanic vents. Earth science is a global science that speaks a global language and unites people by promoting sustainable development. The study of earth science provides the skills necessary for locating and utilizing natural resources, understanding natural processes that often conflict with human designs, and comprehending our natural heritage through the unusual perspective of geologic time. The unique panorama of geologic time allows us to observe the full range of natural processes on Earth and aids in developing a comprehensive view of the natural world beyond a perspective limited only to that of human influence. In my home state of Oregon, we celebrate the land and respect the power of nature. We have learned to protect our citizens and expand our economy by working with nature and prudently mitigating natural hazards. In consideration of the importance of the earth sciences in the daily lives of all Americans, I submit, for the Record, the resolution issued by the Association of American State Geologists. The resolution follows: Whereas the earth sciences are fundamental to society; and Whereas the earth sciences are integral to finding, developing, and conserving mineral, energy, and water resources needed for society; and Whereas the earth sciences promote public safety by preparing for and mitigating natural hazards such as floods, landslides, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sinkholes, and coastal erosion; and Whereas the earth sciences are crucial to environmental and ecological issues ranging from climate change and water and air quality to waste disposal; and Whereas geological factors of resources, hazards, and environment are vital to land management and land use decisions at local, state, regional, national, and international levels; and Whereas the earth sciences contribute critical information that enhances our understanding of Nature, Therefore, be it resolved that the second full week of October henceforth be designated as Earth Science Week.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Delaware, who spent about 2\1/2\ hours with a group of us this morning, working to make sure that this legislation got to the floor today. I also want to thank our colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, who was equally helpful in our effort to make sure that this bipartisan legislative effort didn't blow up at the last minute. I want to assure my colleagues that it was very close to going by the boards this morning. Mr. President, the wheat farmers of the Pacific Northwest are 6 days away from a disaster. On July 15, Pakistan is going to initiate a process to purchase 350,000 metric tons of white wheat for August 1 to 20 shipment. Without access to the Government credit guarantees that we are talking about here, U.S. producers are not going to sell a kernel of wheat to Pakistan. The USDA estimates that Pakistan is going to import just under a million metric tons this year. Now, our prices are at a low. This year's crop is going to be one of the best ever. But the fact is, farmers across this country are staring an economic train wreck in the eye. We have a storage and transportation bottleneck with the imminent wheat harvest. We have a fair amount of the old crop still in the bins. We are facing the prospect of storing a great deal of wheat on the ground this year. Making a sale to Pakistan in the key August shipping period would be an enormous help in dealing with these logistical challenges. A sale might mean the difference between two or three turns of a river barge fleet versus only one turn in August. Let me touch briefly on what it means to just one county, Umatilla, which I am very pleased that my colleague, Senator Smith, who has worked so effectively with all of us on a bipartisan basis, calls home, and wheat growers there produce nearly one-third of all the wheat produced in our State. The economy of that county depends on both the direct sales of wheat and on all of the related jobs through suppliers, equipment, fertilizers, warehousing, shipping, and all of the economic base of our regional economy. The fact is, Mr. President, and colleagues, unilateral sanctions simply do not work. They end up inflicting harm on U.S. producers and shippers. They don't target those specific leaders who are engaged in the most reprehensible activity. They hand market share to our competitors and then put the typical citizen in these countries in a position where they will not be able to secure the humanitarian help they need to survive. Each of these outcomes is not, obviously, a growth of U.S. foreign policy. I am of the view that we do a lot of things well in our country. But I think what we do best is we grow things, and, at a critical time when we are seeing the United States in a position to play this leadership role in the global economy, it would be a tragedy to make the mistake of not passing this legislation, which, as far as I can tell, has kept about 15 Members of the U.S. Senate on the floor simply to speak for how important this legislation is. We are, in the Pacific Northwest, 6 days away from a disaster. So it is critical now at the 11th hour that this legislation pass. I am pleased to have been a part of this bipartisan group that has worked on this legislation over the last few weeks. Again, I want to express my thanks to Senator McConnell of Kentucky, and Senator Biden, for their patience through that 2\1/2\-hour exercise this morning that had Sandy Berger of the White House and others involved, because had not Senator McConnell and Senator Biden been so patient this morning, we might not have this bipartisan legislation on the floor this afternoon, and our wheat farmers would not have had the help they need. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Mr. President, every Member of this body has watched horrified these last few months at the outbreak of gun violence that has struck America's schools. Now, with the new school year just a few weeks away, it is time for this body to respond to America's parents who are frightened for their youngsters and are asking, what can be done to protect their children when they are at school? Frankly, a lot of those parents don't believe that this Congress will produce very much. They know there has been considerable acrimony about the whole debate over guns in America. Certainly there are many areas where reasonable people can differ. There are constitutional protections with respect to the right to bear arms, and at the same time we are also concerned about the safety of those youngsters when they are away at school. Senator Gordon Smith, my colleague from Oregon, and I believe it is time to set politics aside with respect to this issue of gun violence in our schools. That is why we have teamed up on important legislation which we believe ought to be enacted by the time school starts in the fall. We don't think this is the complete answer to this scourge of school violence, gun violence, that our youngsters face, but we think it can make a real difference. We propose this legislation after the tragedy in Springfield, OR. As the Presiding Officer of this body knows, there has been a rash of these violent incidents at our schools. The problems have literally been seen in schools from coast to coast. Senator Smith and I have introduced legislation which I believe would lay out the beginnings of a rational policy to control school violence in America. What we have proposed--we did it after consulting with families, law enforcement officials, educators, people who are for gun control, people who are against gun control--we have proposed legislation which would stipulate that when a young person brings a gun to school, that would, in effect, be a five-alarm warning to society. It would make it very clear that at that point there is a real threat to young people, to teachers, and our society. And young people who bring a gun to school, under our legislation, would be detained for up to 72 hours for a comprehensive evaluation, from the standpoint of mental health considerations, law enforcement issues, family questions, the whole gamut of concerns that ought to be looked at when a young person brings a gun to school. The alleged killer at Thurston High School, in Springfield, OR, was apprehended at school with a gun the day before he shot more than 20 of his classmates. That day, the police made a decision which is duplicated each day across our Nation, a decision that seemed reasonable at the time. The youngster was released to his parents, parents who were themselves teachers and who were known to be concerned and involved in the lives of their children. Currently, many police departments across America have complete discretion to treat young people caught with a gun at school in the manner they deem appropriate. As Springfield's own police chief has argued, the evaluation that needs to occur in these situations is beyond the means and capacity of most police forces across our country. So Senator Smith and I have introduced legislation which would provide an incentive for each State to enact a law requiring a mandatory 72-hour detention for any child caught with a gun at school. If a State passes such a law, it will be eligible for an additional 25 percent in funding under the Juvenile Justice Act. The cost of this legislation is small, perhaps $25 million a year, and certainly modest when you look at the State's overall requirements in the effort to prevent school violence. Now, Mr. President, we are not suggesting that this is all that needs to be done. Certainly, though, our first responsibility when a child brings a gun to school is to protect all of the kids who come to that school armed only with their books and their calculators. Children caught with a gun at school ought to be detained for a sufficient period to protect the other children and to evaluate the degree to which they are a threat to themselves and those around them. I believe this legislation can win the support of every Member of this body, be enacted in time for the opening of the fall school year and should be acted on as soon as possible. Mr. President, Bill Clinton has spoken favorably of this legislation during his visit to Springfield, OR. The Nation's mayors--Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives--have spoken favorably of this legislation. I am very hopeful that even though this body has an extremely busy schedule in the weeks ahead, there will be time, on a bipartisan basis, to ensure that this legislation moves forward. According to Larry Bentz, principal of Thurston High School in Springfield, OR, the Thurston High community is slowly returning to some semblance of normalcy. The kids are engaged in the traditions of summer--swimming, playing basketball, summer jobs. With the memories of the brutal shooting at the high school seared into their memories, the parents are trying to push ahead and return to family routines and responsibilities. But they want to make sure that this body, and elected officials everywhere, don't forget about the gun violence that has shattered young lives and families in Springfield, OR--and, in fact, in five States over the last school year. Senator Smith and I urge that this body not let that happen. We ought to listen and learn from the lessons of Springfield and commit to doing our part to end school gun violence now as the schools look to opening their doors for a new school year. Now, the Thurston community is still processing the tragedy at Thurston High. They are debating a variety of approaches and ideas for reducing school violence. Senator Smith and I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but we know there are some practical steps that the U.S. Senate can take, and take promptly, to make our schools safer in America. There are other steps that need to be taken, Mr. President. We have to make certain that communities have the resources to evaluate kids in trouble. I heard again and again, as I visited with families in Springfield, from hard-working, middle-class families, that they simply could not get any help until their youngster was violent. That is just not acceptable in America, Mr. President. It is not right to say that there will be no response until a young person is actually violent. We have to get there early. We have to get there with preventive strategies. Senator Smith and I hope to be back before the U.S. Senate with other constructive approaches in the days ahead. But let us make a strong beginning, Mr. President. Let us make a strong effort in the U.S. Senate to take the first step to averting further school tragedies. In Oregon alone, young people were apprehended with guns at school 100 times in the last school year--and those were simply the ones who were caught. So as our country goes about the business of the pleasures of summer, and as the U.S. Senate deals with what we know is going to be a very hectic schedule over the next few weeks, let's not forget about what happened in Springfield, OR, in Kentucky, in Arkansas and in Mississippi. Let us remember that our young people will be back in school in just a few weeks. Let us do our part to make sure that school violence ends here. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for nearly two years, my home state has suffered through an agonizing process, trying to find out what happened aboard King-56, an Air Force Reserves C-130 that crashed off of the California coast, killing 10 of the 11 Oregon airmen on board in November, 1996. The families of those victims have worked tirelessly to find out the truth, both for their own peace-of-mind and so that corrections could be made, if necessary, to protect other American servicepeople. It should not have been nearly as hard as it has been to get this information. Drawing from this experience, my Oregon colleague Senator Smith and I have joined together to put forward this proposal to try to change the procedures that the Air Force uses for investigating crashes of this sort, so that others will be spared the suffering that Oregonians have had to ensure. At the outset, let me acknowledge the hard work of the Air Force since reopening the King-56 investigation late last year. For many months now, a Broad Area Review, or simply BAR, to use the military acronym, has been both investigating the cause of the King-56 crash and the safety of the entire C-130 fleet. The BAR, after thoroughly re- checking all available material, and having the help of an experienced NTSB crash investigator, was able to narrow down the list of possible causes of the crash to about two dozen, and determined that the only way to pinpoint the cause would be to recover additional King-56 wreckage. The Air Force candidly admitted that they were mistaken not to have collected all the wreckage in the first place, and that they would do everything they could this time to get it right. They are out in the ocean right now trying to salvage everything they can. I know that the families are eagerly awaiting the results of the new salvage operation, and, hopefully, the Air Force will soon learn the exact cause of the crash, and give the families some sense of closure. Finding the exact cause of the King-56 crash has another, very important purpose. Crews flying other C-130's have frequently reported problems similar to what the Oregon reservists encountered on their airplanes. The BAR has been able to apply the lessons learned from the King-56 crash to the entire fleet. For example, a major problem the BAR turned up was the near total inconsistency in emergency procedures manuals issued to crews. The Air Force identified this problem, standardized and rewrote the manuals, and issued them to all C-130 crews. And thank goodness they did. Because earlier this year a C-130 took off from McChord Air Force Base in Washington state and experienced an engine problem known as ``four-engine rollback,'' or loss of power to the engines. The C-130 that went down off the California coast also had simultaneous failure of all four engines. In that instance the emergency manual listed as an option ditching the plane in the ocean, which turned out to be a tragic error, and only one crewman survived. However, the C-130 that took off from McChord had a newly revised emergency manual on board written after the BAR review. They were able to bring their plane under control and land it safely. So I am pleased the Air Force found and fixed such problems, making these planes safer. Although this is welcome progress, nagging questions keep coming to mind. Why did the original investigation not make as much progress in finding the cause of the accident? Why did the Air Force turn up the numerous flaws and problems in safety procedures in the C-130 fleet only after two Senators stepped in to get them to conduct a more thorough review? The plain fact is that the problems with the original investigation were not an isolated incident. The failure of the original investigation was a symptom of the shortcomings of current investigation procedures and guidelines in general. We need an aviation accident investigation process that would have gotten it right the first time around. Reports indicate that Pentagon crash investigators are undertrained and under funded. I question whether the current system of conducting two separate investigations, one public, the other secret, is the best system possible for finding the causes of accidents and applying the lessons learned. So what the Wyden/Smith amendment does is simple and straightforward. It establishes a Pentagon task force to review procedures the Department of Defense employs to conduct aircraft accident investigations and to develop solutions for improving the overall process. I give the Pentagon credit for their renewed diligence on the King-56 investigation and their review of the C-130 fleet. It is my hope--and expectation--that they apply this diligence to coming up with ways to improve the overall process, and make the planes our men and women in uniform fly every day safer. Our amendment also touches on how families are notified of such terrible accidents and of the care and support they receive. The reason the Oregon families first came to Senator Smith and me was because, after losing their loved ones, the Air Force treated them miserably, there's no better way to put it. Not only did the Air Force not provide the families with the support, guidance, and comfort that they deserved, but they refused to provide the answer that would have surely been at the top of any of our minds had we lost a loved one: how could this possibly have happened? Their treatment was far inferior to the way Congress recently mandated families be treated in civilian aviation accidents. What the families of King-56 got was a totally inconclusive investigation report. When they wanted more information, especially what was contained in the separate, secret safety report, the Air Force refused outright. Senator Smith and I tried to help them obtain the answers they needed, but we, too, were met with more stonewalling. After we brought significant pressure to bear, the Air Force decided to reopen the probe. Since then they have done a better job of keeping the families fully informed of the progress of their investigation. The King-56 episode turned up a number of basic problems with the way the Pentagon notifies families in such terrible cases. Working closely with the families, Senator Smith and I passed amendments to last year's defense bill that have led to improvements in family notification procedures. For example, earlier this year the Air Force issued instructions to improve the flow of information to families, to enhance the role of family liaison officers, and to establish an Office of Family Assistance. DoD efforts to improve family notification are still ongoing, and I intend to watch their progress closely in case further action is needed in Congress. Although I welcome this progress, one basic issue has been left out of the mix, namely, the problem of providing families with maximum information not only after an investigation has been concluded, but, more importantly, while the investigation is taking place in the weeks and months after an accident. The Air Force has proposed to do a better job of informing families about how investigations are conducted and even why they can't have any information immediately. While attempts to provide better information are helpful, current efforts just don't get at one of the biggest headaches the Oregon families encountered: knowing what the investigators know. The Wyden/Smith amendment, in addition to requiring DoD to come up with improvements in accident investigations, gets at this problem. We require the Pentagon to provide next of kin with regular and timely interim reports on the progress of both legal and safety investigations, providing them with the best possible information during what must be a most agonizing ordeal. Better information about ongoing investigations is just one part of what families need, and it is my hope that future families will not have to endure what the Oregon families were forced to. Again, I think the DoD learned its lesson about how to treat families, especially after the DoD Inspector General scrutinized it as a result of our amendment last year, and they are actively working on solutions. But the specific need for interim reports needs to be addressed as well. I'd like to thank the Air Force again for their diligence in reopening the King-56 crash investigation and helping the families reach closure on this terrible episode. I am pleased by the progress the Pentagon has made in improving C-130 fleet safety, and by the measures they've taken to treat families better in the future. It's time to apply the lessons learned from King-56 to all accident investigations, and I look forward to working with the Pentagon in the future to make sure our men and women in uniform fly the safest airplanes possible, and that their families receive the best possible care and attention, in good times as well as the bad.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, fewer than 50 legislative days remain in the session. Dozens of nominations are pending and more than 400 items are on the calender. Being an election year, this is a recipe for an explosion of an extraordinarily powerful Senate practice. . . the use of secret holds. On Monday evening, Senator Grassley and I came to the floor to put members on notice that we would be offering the same amendment we offered last year on anonymous holds. We discussed the Century-old Senate tradition of members being granted the courtesy of ``holding'' a debate until they are available to participate. We believe this venerable Senate practice should continue. As a public institution, however, we believe the use of holds should occur in the full light of day. We believe in the not-so-radical notion that the public's business should be done in public. The amendment we are offering is identical to an amendment that the Senate adopted last Fall. The amendment would eliminate the secrecy of the Senate's holds procedure. It would simply require that any Senator who notifies leadership of an intent to object to a motion to proceed make that objection public within 48 hours. Last fall, the Senate adopted an identical amendment by voice vote. No Senator spoke out against it. We had discussed this idea for more than a year. But in the closing hours of the last session, our amendment was dropped from the D.C. Appropriations bill. At that time I vowed to stay at it until it's done. Today, as time is running out on the session, we are sure to face the same situation again of a proliferation of anonymous holds. They will threaten the Senate with legislative gridlock. When the Senate dropped our amendment last Fall, there were at least 42 holds in play, and even the Minority Leader had to admit to reporters that he didn't know who had placed them. ``If you don't have hold, you ought to feel lonesome,'' Senator Daschle said. Over the past eight months, we have been working in a bipartisan manner to lift the secrecy that so often surrounds the use of holds. We have worked with the Leader's Bipartisan Task Force on Senate Reform. In February, nine Senators joined Senator Grassley and me in a bipartisan letter to the Senate leadership asking that they work with us to change the Standing Orders of the Senate to eliminate anonymous holds. We made it clear we are not out to scrap the Senate's holds procedure, but to scrap the secrecy surrounding it. In May, the Bipartisan Task Force on Senate Reform, chaired by Senator Bennett, reviewed this idea and discussed it with the floor staff of both parties. The members expressed great interest in it, but it was clear from our discussions that certain members in key positions would not look favorably on the task force moving forward with the idea. The right of every member of this body to prevent debate on a motion or bill is a very powerful tool. But this right can be found nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in our Federal statutes and nowhere in the Senate's rules. In fact, it is not a Senate rule or standing order. It is not a right. It is a practice, or a custom that we have come to view as a right. Let me be clear: our amendment does not challenge or affect in any way the ability of each Senator to place a hold. Our amendment would preserve that ability. What we are challenging is the way in which Senators use this extraordinary power. Such extraordinary power should be exercised in public. The use of secret holds leads to a curious game of procedural ``hide and seek.'' Senator A, for example, blocks Senator B's bill with a hold, so B sets off to buttonhole all 99 other Senators, trying to find out who is responsible. If the Senator does find out, it is possible B will place a hold on A's bills in retaliation. Sometimes it becomes even more complex, with ``revolving holds,'' where the group of objecting Senators simply rotates the hold, always one step ahead of the Senator chasing down the hold to try to move a bill. Another session should not become bogged down with burdensome, anonymous holds. The Senate is a public institution. Our offices are open to the public, we conduct our hearings in public, our debate takes place in public and each time we answer the roll call, everyone knows how each Senator voted. But many of our holds are not public. We believe the public's business should be conducted in public. At a time when the American people are increasingly cynical and skeptical about government, there should no longer be any room for the kind of closed-door dealings represented by the secret hold. The secret hold cheapens the currency of democracy. We should open the door on this closet filibuster. Mr. President, our amendment provides that every Senator may continue to place a hold on a measure or matter, and simply requires that the Senator announce the hold publicly within 48 hours. Our amendment enables the Senate both to maintain its proud traditions and to have openness and accountability.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last year's balanced budget agreement contained provisions to make Medicare more efficient by moving away from wasteful practices that the private sector long ago consigned to history, while offering seniors in Oregon and other states more and better choices for their health care service. The bipartisan bill Senator Smith and I are introducing today will make sure that those provisions are implemented in a way that will indeed bring about the full potential of these reforms. The Medicare+Choice Payment Equity Act of 1998 will finish what we started with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 by creating payment equity under Medicare's formula for paying for managed care services . Without equity in payment, beneficiaries in Oregon could be penalized because they may never get the same kinds of services in their Medicare managed care package that are available in other areas of the country with less efficient health care systems. For states like Oregon with cost efficient health care systems, the Medicare formula resulted in lower payment. While we made progress in correcting this inequity through the Balanced Budget Act, changes made at the last minute in the legislation will actually prevent efficient states from ever gaining full equity in payment under Medicare managed care plans. This legislation corrects that by requiring full funding of what is known as the ``blend'' portion of the formula. With managed care taking a larger role in Medicare it is more important now to assure equity in the payment formula. This legislation is supported by the Fairness Coalition and the American Hospital Association. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed for the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I join together with Senator Frist and ten other colleagues today to introduce bipartisan education reform legislation, based on a simple proposition: the federal government should liberate schools from the federal government's mandated bureaucratic water torture in return for schools committing to improve student performance. This bill is an invitation to innovation, an opportunity to develop home grown, locally driven solutions to Americans biggest education challenges. This legislation would empower states to get out from under burdensome federal education regulations, by expanding the enormously popular ``Ed-Flex'' demonstration program--in which 12 states already participate--into a nationwide effort. Ed-Flex is the program that allows states to waive out of certain federal regulations if they come up with a plan to show how they can do a better job. A State has to waive their own set of education regulations, develop high academic standards for their students and hold schools accountable for results. Here is a brief example of how Ed-Flex works: In the past, federal funds have allowed schools to purchase computers for students with disabilities, but the rules prevented others from using the equipment when the students weren't using it. So in an Oregon school district, in return for committing to using the idle computers to improve adult education, the State got a waiver to use the computer for this extra use as well as for the disabled students. Ohio uses a teacher training program that, without a waiver, can only be used to train teachers in math and science. Ohio wanted to use it where the greatest academic need is. They now have an Ed-Flex waiver and can tailor their teacher training program to the needs of the students, not to the needs of the federal government. In exchange, Ohio will have better prepared teachers in the classroom to help students improve in those areas. My state also uses Ed-Flex to allow school districts to team up with community colleges to better prepare kids to go into the workforce. Using the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act program, Oregon students can earn college credit or learn a practical skill without worrying about whether a credit will transfer or if they have to file several different pieces of paperwork. And even more kids will be able to benefit if we can expand Ed-Flex to allow school districts to streamline bureaucracies even further and eliminate waste. The bill Senator Frist and I are introducing today will expand Ed-Flex from a pilot program in just a few states to every place from Maine to Honolulu. The bill will also provide a unique opportunity for current Ed-Flex states to experience more flexibility in their adult literacy and educational technology programs. Let me give you an example of how the new flexibility will benefit my state. According to the National Adult Literacy Survey, Oregon has one of the highest literacy levels in the country. In fact, 75 percent of Oregonians have basic reading skills; that is, they can proficiently read, write and speak in English, whereas 55 percent of all adults in the nation achieved that level. Yet, for Oregonians, less than 100 percent is not good enough. We want all of our adults to have basic literacy skills. Under the Adult Education Act, a State can only use 20 percent of the funds to prepare people to make high school equivalency tests. That may work for a state that has a very low literacy level, but it does not work for Oregon. Oregon would like to develop a waiver to use the funds to help all illiterate or semi-literate adults earn a GED (general education development) or other high school equivalency measure. The more people with a GED, the more valuable our workforce becomes. Under our Ed-Flex bill, Oregon would be eligible to apply for that waiver. Mr. President, this bill grows out of the work of the Senate Budget Committee's Education Task Force, which Senator Frist chaired, and on which I served. Together, in hearing after hearing, we listened to States tell us that they can do a better job. They said they could balance flexibility and accountability and they we ready to be judged by results, not process. We know as well that Ed-Flex has strong support from the Administration, and our bill has strong bipartisan support in the Senate and from the National Governors Association. Oregon was the first state to participate in Ed-Flex, and people in Oregon are convinced that regulatory flexibility and school accountability work. It is time to expand that approach nationwide.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment to encourage the Department of Energy to involve the State of Oregon in decisions about the cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. This amendment is needed to protect Oregonians from the unusual and highly dangerous hazards that the Hanford Nuclear Reservation poses for the people of Oregon. This amendment should be familiar to many members of the Senate because a version of this legislation previously passed the Senate as an amendment to the FY97 Defense Authorization Bill. Mr. President, there is no other contaminated Federal property in the country that has caused the serious injuries to residents of another State that Hanford has already caused to citizens of Oregon. And no other Federal site currently poses anywhere near as serious a threat to the health and safety of citizens of another State as Hanford does to our citizens. Because of this special situation, the State of Oregon needs to be involved in decisions about how DOE proposes to clean up the Hanford site. I want to make clear that recognizing the unique conditions present at Hanford and the immediate danger they pose for Oregonians does not set a precedent for other Federal facilities besides Hanford. It will not turn every military base with a leaking gasoline tank into a multi- state cleanup issue. Let me put to rest any concern that this amendment will be misconstrued in that way. First, there is simply no facility in this country--Federal or non-Federal--that compares to Hanford. In fact, Hanford is generally considered to be the most contaminated site in the Western hemisphere. You would have to go to the former Soviet Union to find a site as polluted as Hanford. The extent of the environmental problems are mind boggling: Over the years, 200 billion gallons of toxic and radioactive liquids from nuclear weapons production were dumped at the site. That's enough to cover Manhattan to a depth of 40 feet. The Hanford site currently contains 56 million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes in 177 tanks. Some of these tanks are as big as the Capitol Dome. At least 54 of these tanks are known or suspected to be leaking or pose risks of explosion. The site also is currently storing 2,300 metric tons of high-level nuclear fuel rods in leaking basins located only a quarter mile from the Columbia River. And these are just a few of the problems that we know about. Second, there is also no other site in the country that has affected the health and safety of residents in another state the way Hanford has affected the citizens of Oregon. Oregonians living downwind from Hanford have suffered from thyroid cancers and other medical problems caused by airborne releases of radioactive iodine. Starting in the late 1940s and continuing through the 1950s, these releases average between 100 and 2,000 curies per month. To put that into perspective, the residents around Harrisburg, Pennsylvania were evacuated in 1979 when the Three Mile Island accident released 15-24 curies into the Pennsylvania countryside. The airborne releases from Hanford were 10 to 100 times what were released from Three Mile Island, and these releases were occurring every month! Ongoing epidemiological studies have linked these releases to increased cases of thyroid cancer and other adverse health effects on Oregonians living near the site. Children drinking milk from farms in the area were the ones most harmed by these releases. Hanford also poses a serious health threat to the more than 1 million Oregonians who live downstream from the site. Radioactive materials have been released into the Columbia River when water from the River was pumped through the sites nuclear reactors to cool them. Other hazardous and radioactive materials that were dumped at the site have and are continuing to seep into the River. A General Accounting Office report I released earlier this year documents that 900,000 gallons of radioactive wastes have leaked out of the Hanford tanks, contaminated the groundwater and this contaminated water is now heading toward the Columbia River. The bottom line is many Oregonians are suffering adverse health effects from living near Hanford. And many more are at risk of future harm because of conditions at the site. Finally, my amendment does not set a precedent for Federal facilities nationwide because it only encourages the Energy Department to continue existing efforts to involve Oregon in cleanup decisions. There is already in effect a Memorandum of Agreement between the State of Oregon and the Department of Energy concerning Oregon's participation in decisions about Hanford cleanup. The linkage to this agreement puts the site into a special category of Federal facility cleanups. It draws a bright line that divide Hanford from the hundreds of other contaminated Federal facilities around the country. The unique factors involved in the Hanford cleanup justify granting the State of Oregon a greater role in decisions about clean up of the Hanford site. I urge my colleagues to recognize how Hanford has harmed and continue to pose a serious hazard to the people of Oregon by giving our State the opportunity to play a greater role in cleanup decisions at the site.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Madam President.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, only 52 legislative days remain in this session. Dozens of nominations are pending, and more than 400 items are on the calendar. Being an election year, this is a recipe for the explosion of a little-known procedure, but one that is extraordinarily important as the Senate moves to the end of the session. I speak today about the issue of secret holds on nominations and legislation before this body. Nowhere in the Constitution nor in our Federal statutes is there any mention of the right of a U.S. Senator to put a secret hold on a bill or a nomination. Nevertheless, this power is one of the two or three most significant powers that a Member of the U.S. Senate can have. In effect, this power allows any Member of the U.S. Senate, in secret, to block a nomination or a piece of legislation from even being considered on the floor of this body. I have talked to citizens at home about this. They are stunned that any Member of the U.S. Senate would have the power to be able to block something. But what really galls them is the right to do it in secret without there being any accountability whatsoever. I am of the view that it is appropriate that Members of the U.S. Senate, in efforts to represent our constituents, have the power to make decisions that are going to affect dramatically the lives of millions of Americans. But I think that extraordinary power ought to be accompanied by real responsibility. Certainly if one Member of the U.S. Senate is going to block this body from even considering a bill or a nomination, it should be accompanied by public disclosure. Our friend, Senator Grassley, has come on to the floor. The Presiding Officer and our colleagues know that for more than a year he and I have been trying to bring some sunshine to the U.S. Senate. We have been trying to change the rules so that if a Member does singlehandedly seek to block a nomination or a bill from coming to this floor, they would be required, as part of the Standing Order of the Senate, to stipulate in the Congressional Record that they were, in fact, that individual. We are moving to that part of the legislative session where the secret hold is most abused. Very shortly, in this body we will begin a game that I call legislative hide and seek. We will have holds on nominations and bills. Outside this Capitol Building there will be lobbyists trying to figure out who has put a secret hold on a particular bill or nomination. And this entire process contributes to the cynicism and skepticism that so many Americans have about our government today. Madam President and colleagues, it came to light in the fall of 1997--which, as we all know, wasn't an election year--that there were 42 holds in play at one time. As I mentioned, this game of legislative hide and seek was underway outside these Chambers. At that time, Senator Grassley and I were able to win on a voice vote an amendment to change the Senate's Standing Orders to require public disclosure of a hold. But then, in what was really the ultimate irony, our effort to end secret holds was secretly killed in a conference committee and vanished when the D.C. appropriations bill was brought back before the Senate. I hope now with just over 50 legislative days remaining, that the Senate would on a bipartisan basis change this particular longstanding tradition--a tradition noted nowhere in the Constitution, our Federal statutes or Senate rules--and bring some openness and some sunshine to this body. The hold started out as simply an effort to try to accommodate our colleagues. If a Member of the U.S. Senate had a spouse who was ill or a relative who faced a particular problem, they could, on a Monday, say, ``I can't be there on Tuesday, would it be possible to hold things over for a couple of days so I could address a matter that was important to my constituents?'' That is not what Senator Grassley and I are talking about. We are not talking about the right of a Senator to be present to discuss an issue important to them and to their constituents. We are talking about making sure that when a Member of the U.S. Senate digs in and digs in to block a particular nomination or a bill from either coming to the floor or ever being considered at all, that at that point they would be required to disclose publicly that they are the individual who is blocking consideration by the Senate. Under our amendment no Member of the U.S. Senate would lose their power to place a hold on a bill. A Senator's power would be absolutely unchanged with respect to the right to place a hold on legislation. All that Senator Grassley and I are saying is when you put on that hold, be straight with the American people. Let the Senate and let the American people know that you are the person who feels strongly about a particular issue. Make sure that it is possible, then, for us to find out where in the discussion of a particular nomination or piece of legislation the Senate is considering there is a problem. This has not been the case, and this situation is getting increasingly serious. In the two years since I have been here I have seen more and more abuse of this process. We are seeing in a number of instances that even the Senators themselves don't know that a hold is being placed in their name. I have had Senators come to me and say, ``I learned that one of my staff''--or someone else's staff--``put a hold on a bill,'' and the Senator I was working with didn't even know that a hold had been placed on the legislation. This ought to be an easy reform for the U.S. Senate. It simply would require openness, public disclosure, and an opportunity for every Member of the Senate and for the American people to know who, in fact, feels sufficiently strongly about that bill, that they are the one keeping this body from considering it. A number of public interest organizations and opinion leaders have come out in favor of the effort being pursued by myself and Senator Grassley. I will close my opening remarks and then yield my time to Senator Grassley, with just a quick statement from a Washington Post editorial that came out in favor of this effort. The Washington Post said: It's time members of the Senate stand up and answer to each other and the public for such actions. What are they scared of? That, Madam President, is what this issue is all about. It doesn't pass the smell test to keep this information from the American people. There is not a town meeting in our country where it is possible for a Member of the U.S. Senate to say, ``I'm involved in making decisions that affect millions of people and billions of dollars, but you know, I'm not going to tell you anything about it. I'm not going to let you in on this particular procedure.'' Again, this is a procedure that has evolved over the years, that is written down nowhere, not in the rules, not in the statutes, and not even in the Constitution. Madam President, it is time to ensure that when Senators exercise the extraordinary powers that we are accorded in the Constitution and the laws of our land, that those powers be met with responsibility, powers that make it clear that when there is legislation affecting billions of dollars and countless Americans that we are going to let the public in on the way the Senate does its business. Senator Grassley and I filed our amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. It is our intention to bring this bipartisan amendment before the Senate at the earliest opportunity. We want to make it very clear that between now and the fall, when we are likely to have 60, 70, 80 secret holds and this game of hide and seek is being played all over the Capitol, Senator Grassley and I want to have the Senate rules changed so that the public will know at the end of a session how and when these important decisions are being made. Before I conclude, let me just say to my colleague from Iowa, who has joined us on the floor to speak after me this afternoon, I have enjoyed working with him on many issues. I serve on the Senate Aging Committee, which he so ably Chairs, but I am particularly appreciative of the chance to work with him on this issue. We have had a bipartisan team pursuing this matter for many, many months. We want it understood that there is absolutely nothing partisan, nothing Democrat, nothing Republican, about our desire to bring real openness and accountability to the U.S. Senate. This isn't about partisan politics. This is about good government. This is about making sure that in the last days of a Senate session we are no longer playing legislative hide and seek, but are making decisions in a way that we are accountable to the public, and that the American people can follow. We want to contribute to confidence in the way the Senate does its business, rather than to what we face today, which is additional skepticism and cynicism by virtue of the fact that the Senate does so much business at the end of a session in secret. I thank my colleague from Iowa, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

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 from runoff and meeting the standards for water temperature. 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 a 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 from 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, water 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. WYDEN

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 from runoff and meeting the standards for water temperature. 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 a 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 from 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, water 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, around this building now there is that army of high-priced tobacco lobbyists who are getting ready to celebrate tonight. It looks like the tobacco industry is going to win a big round in this fight. The children lose. The powerful will beat out the powerless. But this fight is going to have other rounds. And to those who think that the Senators who are trying to protect the kids are going to give up today, I ask, ``What are you smoking?'' The health of millions of our kids is worth a long, hot summer of debate in this Capitol. Get ready for it, folks.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Since coming to the Senate, I have worked side-by-side with Senators Burns, Ashcroft, Leahy and others on the critical issue of encryption. Our common goal has been to craft a policy that puts the United States squarely out front of the crypto-curve, rather than locks us permanently behind it. A one-size-fits-all government policy simply won't work in this digital era. We all recognize and acknowledge the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the national security communities, but tying the hands of America's high technology industry in the process will serve neither those needs, nor the national interest in maintaining our competitive edge in the fiercely competitive global marketplace. It's time to move forward with comprehensive encryption reform legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I believe it is very clear that the tobacco industry and their allies will pull out all of the stops to kill legislation that protects our children. It is very clear how the tobacco industry hopes to bring about this legislation's demise. The tobacco lobbyists want to produce a death by distraction. It is very easy to see why the tobacco lobbyists are pursuing this strategy. They cannot derail our cause of protecting children from starting to smoke on the merits. The case for passing legislation to protect our kids is too powerful. It is too strong. It is too moral. So the tobacco lobby hopes to throw everything but the proverbial kitchen sink into this debate, hope that it doesn't stink the place up too much, and then hope that the American people lose sight of what this is really all about. But the fact is that the American people get it. They know that this is about protecting children. They are not going to fall for this strategy of trying to produce enough distraction that somehow the Senate will have to move on to other issues or somehow some other question will have to be addressed on this floor. I believe that allowing this bill to die by all of these distractions would be one of the most shocking abdications of our public responsibilities that has been seen in years. If this body stays focused on the goal of protecting children, works through the relevant amendments, and passes this important legislation, this Congress would have a lasting legacy of accomplishment in the cause of keeping our children healthy in the 21st century. There are a variety of legitimate issues that have come up in this debate. The question of education policy, of income taxes, a whole host of questions. I happen to agree with a number of our colleagues on the other side who want to make it tough, for example, to raise taxes. I am one of the Democrats who voted to do that. But this is not the proper bill on which to have a debate about tax policy. This is not the proper vehicle to have a comprehensive discussion about tax reform. This is about tobacco. I see our friend and colleague, Senator Ford. He and I serve on the Commerce Committee. We produced a bill that came out of committee by 19 to 1 because we stayed focused on the relevant issues. We didn't always agree. I have enormous respect for Senator Ford. He has done yeoman's work on the question of making sure our farmers get a fair shake. He knows I feel strongly on key issues: for example, making sure that these tobacco companies don't pay for a settlement in this country by targeting youngsters around the globe. But together, and with our colleague, Senator Hollings of South Carolina, we produced what we think is a fair package. There can be further discussion of those issues. But we stayed focused on the question of tobacco. We didn't raise a whole host of other issues that are important to both of us. We stayed focused on the cause of trying to protect children, recognizing that we would have further discussion of that subject here on the floor. But we stayed focused on the topic at hand. The fight to stop the cigarette industry from marketing to children did not begin this year. But this is the year we have an opportunity to make real progress. I was a Member of the other body and participated in the hearings held by then-Chairman Henry Waxman. The tobacco executives told me under oath that nicotine isn't addictive. The American people didn't believe them. The Surgeon General of the last 20 years didn't believe them. As a result of that hearing, and the documents that have come out over these many years, we have been in a position to make great progress--progress, for example, that lead to that 19-to-1 vote in the Senate Commerce Committee. So this debate is the culmination of years of work by those who have been trying to promote the cause of better health for the children in our Nation. We are trying to do it in a way that is going to help kids around the world be healthier. For the first time, we are going to say that you have to protect kids in Oregon and in Texas, and across this country. But we are going to get the Government out of the business of trying to help these tobacco companies sell cigarettes overseas to hook kids in Bangkok and Bangladesh. That is important. But we are up against tremendous lobbying. The tobacco companies have spent millions. Maybe what we need is a ``Million Child March'' on Washington, DC, with families, with health professionals, to show that we are not going to be derailed by these lobbyists. These lobbyists are not going to be allowed to derail the cause of public health in this body. We are going to come back again and again and again in the days ahead. So this issue is focused on what really counts; that is, protecting children. There is not going to be a death by distraction. There is not going to be a precipitous and unfortunate demise for this bill by virtue of so many other issues coming up and being debated on this floor. We are going to stay focused. Mr. President, I know of the good work that you have done on this issue. We have fought together on a bipartisan basis to try to protect children in our State. I am looking forward to seeing the kind of spirit that you and I have brought to this issue come to this body as a whole to make sure that we stay focused on the issue of protecting children. I yield my time, Mr. President.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, these tragic incidents involving students bringing guns to school have taught us that we must proceed on two tracks. Government's first responsibility is to protect our citizens, particularly our young people, from violence. The only way to do that when a student brings a gun to school is to get them out of the classroom, off the streets, and in front of someone who is in the best position to determine what steps to take. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Gordon Smith will help that happen. Mr. President, all over my state people are calling out for help. The Springfield Chief of Police and the Governor both recognize that the way we currently deal with kids and guns is not working. These kids are slipping through the cracks--only to resurface in deadly and dangerous ways. Mr. President, our current policies are not working. They are not serving anyone. Simply put, when it comes to kids bringing guns to school, we can and must do a better job. We must stop the violence before it spreads across one more school yard. The memorial fence at Thurston High School is the last memorial fence I ever want to see--in Springfield, Oregon, in Pearl Mississippi, in Jonesboro, Arkansas--or anywhere else in the country. Let it end here. Today, Senator Smith and I are introducing legislation that encourages states to pass laws to require a student who brings a gun to school to be held for up to 72 hours and undergo a psychological evaluation. If a state adopts such a law, the state would be eligible for an increase of 25% in the Juvenile Justice funds that would enable it to provide the type of psychological evaluation and other treatment that such a student needs. Bringing a gun to school is a warning sign that must be taken seriously. And while so-called ``zero tolerance policies'' that mandate a student be expelled for bringing a gun to school may adequately punish the behavior, they are clearly not enough. We must offer services to this student--see what is going on in that student's head and help them through the rough spots. We must find a balance between preventing these crimes from occurring and punishing them once they do. Voters in Oregon are tough on juvenile crime, especially serious crimes. We have the minimum sentences. We have the prisons. We do not allow juveniles probation or parole. We do not release juveniles early for good behavior. What Oregon needs is a system that works from the beginning--when the warning signs appear, not just at the end, when harm has been done. Oregon needs resources to identify these kids and help them before there's an arrest to be made. Across the country the message is spoken loud and clear: punishment, while important, is only part of the solution. It does not save lives. Prevention does. Mr. President, my bill will help communities better identify and service students at-risk of endangering themselves or others with a firearm. My bill gives everyone involved--teachers, public school administrators, law enforcement, police officers and juvenile justice professions--the tools they need to get a troubled student the help he or she needs. Under the State laws my bill would promote, when a student brings a gun to school, the public school must report this behavior to law enforcement and the juvenile authorities immediately. Police must then come to the school and determine if there is probable cause to take action. If there is cause to take action, the police must bring the student into the station for two purposes: first, the student must have a mental health professional give him or her a psychological evaluation, and second, the student must immediately be scheduled for a judicial hearing. The State has up to 72 hours to complete these intervention measures. States pass a law following these parameters will receive a significant bonus: they will receive 25 percent more money to spend on juvenile prevention and intervention services. Mr. President, no one wishes to see the tragedy at Thurston High School repeated. It is my hope that this legislation will give States the incentive they need to enact tough preventative detention laws to assure that this doesn't happen again. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, these tragic incidents involving students bringing guns to school have taught us that we must proceed on two tracks. Government's first responsibility is to protect our citizens, particularly our young people, from violence. The only way to do that when a student brings a gun to school is to get them out of the classroom, off the streets, and in front of someone who is in the best position to determine what steps to take. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Gordon Smith will help that happen. Mr. President, all over my state people are calling out for help. The Springfield Chief of Police and the Governor both recognize that the way we currently deal with kids and guns is not working. These kids are slipping through the cracks--only to resurface in deadly and dangerous ways. Mr. President, our current policies are not working. They are not serving anyone. Simply put, when it comes to kids bringing guns to school, we can and must do a better job. We must stop the violence before it spreads across one more school yard. The memorial fence at Thurston High School is the last memorial fence I ever want to see--in Springfield, Oregon, in Pearl Mississippi, in Jonesboro, Arkansas--or anywhere else in the country. Let it end here. Today, Senator Smith and I are introducing legislation that encourages states to pass laws to require a student who brings a gun to school to be held for up to 72 hours and undergo a psychological evaluation. If a state adopts such a law, the state would be eligible for an increase of 25% in the Juvenile Justice funds that would enable it to provide the type of psychological evaluation and other treatment that such a student needs. Bringing a gun to school is a warning sign that must be taken seriously. And while so-called ``zero tolerance policies'' that mandate a student be expelled for bringing a gun to school may adequately punish the behavior, they are clearly not enough. We must offer services to this student--see what is going on in that student's head and help them through the rough spots. We must find a balance between preventing these crimes from occurring and punishing them once they do. Voters in Oregon are tough on juvenile crime, especially serious crimes. We have the minimum sentences. We have the prisons. We do not allow juveniles probation or parole. We do not release juveniles early for good behavior. What Oregon needs is a system that works from the beginning--when the warning signs appear, not just at the end, when harm has been done. Oregon needs resources to identify these kids and help them before there's an arrest to be made. Across the country the message is spoken loud and clear: punishment, while important, is only part of the solution. It does not save lives. Prevention does. Mr. President, my bill will help communities better identify and service students at-risk of endangering themselves or others with a firearm. My bill gives everyone involved--teachers, public school administrators, law enforcement, police officers and juvenile justice professions--the tools they need to get a troubled student the help he or she needs. Under the State laws my bill would promote, when a student brings a gun to school, the public school must report this behavior to law enforcement and the juvenile authorities immediately. Police must then come to the school and determine if there is probable cause to take action. If there is cause to take action, the police must bring the student into the station for two purposes: first, the student must have a mental health professional give him or her a psychological evaluation, and second, the student must immediately be scheduled for a judicial hearing. The State has up to 72 hours to complete these intervention measures. States pass a law following these parameters will receive a significant bonus: they will receive 25 percent more money to spend on juvenile prevention and intervention services. Mr. President, no one wishes to see the tragedy at Thurston High School repeated. It is my hope that this legislation will give States the incentive they need to enact tough preventative detention laws to assure that this doesn't happen again. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, and colleagues, the single most important step this Congress can take to protect our youngsters from the tobacco companies that prey on them is to hold each of those companies individually accountable. And that is what the look-back legislation does that is now before the Senate. I would like to spend just a few minutes talking about why this is such a critically important amendment in terms of protecting our children. History shows, and shows very clearly, that each time the Congress tried to rein in the tobacco companies in the past, the tobacco companies would use their enormous marketing, entrepreneurial and public relations skills to get around those efforts. So this amendment offered by our colleagues, Senators Durbin, DeWine, myself, and others, provides an opportunity to literally reverse the course of history. Previous efforts were always evaded by the tobacco companies. They were able to get around efforts to restrict electronic advertising; they were able to get around the early warning labels that were passed by the Congress. When our colleague on the other side of the Congress, the late Mike Synar, passed legislation to ensure that the States would take strong action to enforce the antisales laws to minors, the tobacco companies got around that. And the reason is that past policies never provided a way to hold each individual company accountable. So that is why this legislation is so very important. I would submit to my colleagues--I argued this in the Senate Commerce Committee when, as the Presiding Officer knows because I offered a similar proposal there as well--that this is really the key, if you want to see tobacco companies clean up their act and do what they have long said they would do, and that is, stop targeting the youngsters of our country. If you really do not want to change business as usual, vote against this amendment. If you think that tobacco companies will do it on their own, then you ought to oppose this amendment. But if you want to change the course of history and make sure that we have the tools to hold the companies accountable when they again, as they have done throughout history, look for ways to get around this legislation, if you really want to get the job done right, then vote for this amendment offered by our colleague from Illinois. The tobacco companies have spent vast sums in recent months arguing that this sort of legislation really isn't needed, that they would take strong action on their own and that they have cleaned up their act from years past. In the Senate Commerce Committee, we heard that argument. As the Presiding Officer knows, we heard from all the CEOs at that time. Given the fact that many of the documents and the accounts of past industry misdeeds were pretty old, a number of us were inclined to say it is a new day. Let us see if the tobacco companies are going to be better corporate citizens. Let's see if they have cleaned up their act. As we prepared for those Commerce Committee hearings, Mr. President, I learned that the Brown & Williamson Company was again engaging in conduct that did not really reflect what they and other companies were saying in the ads that they were running at that time about how it is a new day and they have cleaned up their act. A brief bit of history for the Senate I think would be revealing. I participated, as a Member of the other body, in the hearings in 1994 where the tobacco executives then under oath, told me that nicotine isn't addictive. Of course, they contradicted every Surgeon General for decades. But there was actually a revelation at that hearing that perhaps was equally remarkable. At that hearing, it was brought to light that the Brown & Williamson Company was genetically altering tobacco plants to give it an added punch as a way to attract smokers--shocking evidence. And when brought to light, the Brown & Williamson Company pledged to the committee, to the country, that they wouldn't engage in that kind of conduct again. As we prepared for our hearings in the Senate Commerce Committee, we began to hear about news reports that the Brown & Williamson Company was using genetically altered tobacco, known as Y-1, in cigarettes and selling them both here and abroad. So when the executives came before the Senate Commerce Committee I asked them about this. In their words, the CEO of the Brown & Williamson Company said, ``We are working off a small stockpile of genetically-altered tobacco, and in fact that is being included in cigarettes in our country and around the world.'' As many in the Senate know, there is now a criminal inquiry underway. There have already been those who have pleaded guilty in connection with this matter. The Justice Department continues its investigation. The reason I bring this up is this is a concrete, tangible reason why we need the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. The Senator from Illinois, our colleague, Senator Durbin, gives us a chance to reign in a company that engages in that kind of rogue action, action that is detrimental to the health of the American people, and action that, in fact, as recently as 4 years ago said they would never engage in again. It is one thing to talk about conduct that is 20 or 30 years old; it is another thing to talk about conduct that stems from the 1950s. But it is quite another to see a company that makes a pledge to the American people that they will stop engaging in a health practice which is obviously detrimental to children and to our citizens, and then start it again, even while the hot light of the Congress is examining their conduct in considering legislation. These companies are not going to change on their own, Mr. President. We are going to have to hold them accountable through legislation. That is why this amendment is so very important. I will tell my colleagues that I believe this amendment, in connection with the accountability requirements that the President knows we set up in the course of our Commerce Committee deliberations, is the single most important tool for reversing history and making sure that after this bill is passed and the tobacco companies try to get around it, that we will have some strong tools to rein them in. I know we want to move to a vote on this, but I simply wanted to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to say that I think this is a critically important amendment. It is critically important for each Senator who really is serious about changing business as usual with respect to tobacco policy. The single most important concept the tobacco companies fear is accountability. They have not been faced with company specific accountability when we have passed previous legislation--warning labels, advertising restrictions, or the Synar amendment. They never had to face an amendment like this that would say, look, we are actually going to require you to produce results. I hope our colleagues will, as reflected by the bipartisan authorship of this amendment--our colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator DeWine-- will pass this legislation. It is critically important for the youngsters of this country. It is the one part of this bill that will make sure that the job actually gets done in protecting youngsters, and not allow another piece of legislation, once again, to be evaded by the tobacco companies' genius, their marketing skills, and the vast sums that they will continue to spend with respect to marketing their products. I yield the floor.

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