Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 additional minutes on Senator Leahy's time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Specter, in introducing a bill that will make it clear that this country will no more tolerate violence directed at gays, women, or people with disabilities. This legislation will end the bizarre double standard which says that hate crimes motivated by one sort of prejudice are a Federal crime, while those motivated by other biases are not. It will assure that every American who becomes a victim of a hate crime has equal standing under Federal law, because hatred and violence are always wrong. This bipartisan bill is based on a common conviction that this country still has work to do in rooting out hatred, prejudice and the violence they generate. Hate crimes--the threat or use of force to injure, intimidate or interfere with another person solely because of the person's race, color, religion or national origin--cannot be tolerated in our society. That point has already been enshrined in law and passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Reporting Act in 1990, followed by the Hate Crimes Penalty Enhancement Act in 1993 and the 1996 resolution condemning church burnings. Our bill simply seeks to offer the same protection to victims of gay bashing, woman beating and crimes against people with disabilities that has already been offered to victims of bias crimes based on racial and ethnic discrimination. Today, the perpetrator who hurls a brick at someone because he is Asian-American can be prosecuted under Federal law. The one who attacks gay men to ``teach them a lesson'' cannot. The perpetrator who burns a black church or defaces a synagogue can be prosecuted under Federal law. The one who targets people in wheelchairs or blind people cannot. This legislation would erase that double standard from the books. Hate crimes are all the same, and they are never acceptable. I urge my colleagues to join us in moving forward with this important legislation when we return here next year.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Specter, in introducing a bill that will make it clear that this country will no more tolerate violence directed at gays, women, or people with disabilities. This legislation will end the bizarre double standard which says that hate crimes motivated by one sort of prejudice are a Federal crime, while those motivated by other biases are not. It will assure that every American who becomes a victim of a hate crime has equal standing under Federal law, because hatred and violence are always wrong. This bipartisan bill is based on a common conviction that this country still has work to do in rooting out hatred, prejudice and the violence they generate. Hate crimes--the threat or use of force to injure, intimidate or interfere with another person solely because of the person's race, color, religion or national origin--cannot be tolerated in our society. That point has already been enshrined in law and passage of the Hate Crimes Statistics Reporting Act in 1990, followed by the Hate Crimes Penalty Enhancement Act in 1993 and the 1996 resolution condemning church burnings. Our bill simply seeks to offer the same protection to victims of gay bashing, woman beating and crimes against people with disabilities that has already been offered to victims of bias crimes based on racial and ethnic discrimination. Today, the perpetrator who hurls a brick at someone because he is Asian-American can be prosecuted under Federal law. The one who attacks gay men to ``teach them a lesson'' cannot. The perpetrator who burns a black church or defaces a synagogue can be prosecuted under Federal law. The one who targets people in wheelchairs or blind people cannot. This legislation would erase that double standard from the books. Hate crimes are all the same, and they are never acceptable. I urge my colleagues to join us in moving forward with this important legislation when we return here next year.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will the chairman yield briefly for just a moment?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman. Far be it from me to interfere with that. First, I thank the chairman for his courtesy and say I would very much like to work with him, to get this practice changed. I have, in fact, spent a considerable amount of time with Senator Byrd on this. He was very helpful as well. I would finally say to the chairman that with respect to this matter of courtesy, I and Senator Grassley have no concern about that. Of course the hold, if we are talking about a few days or a few hours as a courtesy, is not what is at issue. It is when a Senator digs in to try to block a bill that there ought to be some public disclosure. But to me the chairman has been very helpful, not just on matters from our committee like Internet and the like, but generally. I want to tell him I am very interested in working with him on it because I think this is an opportunity to keep the greatness of this institution and still make it more open and democratic. I thank him for all the time. central american refugees

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has been exceptionally kind to me as a new Member of the Senate. I thank him for yielding to me this time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that I be permitted to offer my amendment to prohibit secret Senate holds which was agreed to previously in the Senate D.C. appropriations bill.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, then in light of the time that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has kindly yielded to me, I should like to take a few minutes to describe why I think this issue is so important. Mr. President and colleagues, I spoke yesterday afternoon in this body on the need to end Senate secrecy. Within an hour of my talk, three of the most senior Members of the Senate came to me and said they hoped this amendment would prevail. These three Members probably have an aggregate total of 60 years seniority in this body, and each of them told me that they had been frustrated by instances of this hide-and-seek process that the Senate now has with secret Senate holds. Certainly most of the American people are not aware of what a hold is. But the fact of the matter is, it is now possible for any Member of the U.S. Senate to unilaterally block the consideration of a bill or nomination from coming to this floor. It is an extraordinary power. It keeps the U.S. Senate from even discussing a nomination or a particular bill. It is one thing to object to something, or plan to vote against something. But in the case of the secret Senate hold, one Member of the U.S. Senate, one Member, can block the consideration of a nomination or bill. And during these last days of a session, this power is not just extraordinary, it is essentially a veto. It is a power that is unbeatable. I would just say to my colleagues that, as a new Member of the U.S. Senate, every day I am impressed by the greatness of this institution. And I don't think that the greatness of this institution will in any way be diminished if this body is open and accountable. I think that is why senior Members of the U.S. Senate have come to Senator Grassley and myself and said, ``I hope you prevail on this.'' We are not seeking to block the right of a Senator to impose a hold. Under what we have proposed, each Member of the U.S. Senate could still use the hold, block the consideration of a nomination or bill. All we are saying is that it cannot be done behind closed doors. This Senate secrecy doesn't smell right. It doesn't pass the smell test to the American people. What Senator Grassley and I have proposed is that within 48 hours after a Member of the Senate informs the leadership that he or she is going to put a hold on a bill, that be so noticed in the Congressional Record. Recently there were more than 40 holds. Outside, much of the day, has been a group of people, outside the Chamber, simply trying to keep track of all the revolving holds, where a Senator imposes a hold for a short period of time and then, in effect, another Senator comes along and imposes a hold again. Outside the Chamber throughout this day there have been individuals trying to keep track of what is going on. I would say to my colleagues, I subscribe to the not exactly radical notion that public business is done in public. The use of this hold in the last few days of a session is not just some small thing. It is an extraordinary power. It can affect millions of dollars. It can affect the course of the judiciary and other key executive branch appointments. I am very concerned that at a time when the public is so skeptical and so cynical about Government, that this use of the secret hold simply feeds that cynicism. It contributes to the sense that the American people have that so much in Washington, DC, is not on the level. So, I am very grateful to Chairman Stevens for giving me this time to explain my point of view. Senator Grassley and I have indicated that we will be back. We will be back at the beginning of next session. I have tried for almost 15 months to get this issue before the U.S. Senate. The fact is, it is most abused right at this time, which is why we saw last week more than 40 holds. It was the subject of a hilarious press conference with the Senate minority leader, who said then that he couldn't figure out where all the holds were coming from. So Senator Grassley and I are not going to prevail tonight. I think that is bad news for democracy. I think the secret hold cheapens the currency of democracy. But we will be back. We will be back until we make this institution more open and accountable. Senator Stevens has been kind to give me all this time to explain my views. I appreciate that courtesy very much and I thank him for the time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to take a few minutes to discuss Federal meddling in the internal affairs of my home State of Oregon. As many of my colleagues know, the people of my State have been discussing at length the concept of assisted suicide. In fact, the people of Oregon have spoken twice on this issue. It is a very difficult issue, and after months of thoughtful debate and intense media scrutiny, the voters of my State have voted to allow physicians to assist their terminally ill patients in ending their lives. Mr. President and colleagues, let me say that I have deep personal reservations about the concept of assisted suicide. I have voted twice as a private citizen against assisted suicide, and once on the floor of the U.S. Senate I voted against Federal funding of assisted suicide. But let me also say that the voters of my State in a recent ballot measure have voted no on the question of repealing the matter of assisted suicide they voted for earlier. My question today is, what part of no does the Federal Government fail to understand? We saw just a few hours after the Oregon vote some of the most powerful Members of the U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration looking to overturn the popular will of the people of Oregon. Within hours of the Oregon vote, a letter emerged from the Drug Enforcement Administration to the Members of Congress who control the budget for the Drug Enforcement Administration. In effect, the Drug Enforcement Administration indicates they want to declare war on physicians in Oregon and those they serve by threatening to revoke the drug dispensing privileges of any physician who abides by the law that Oregon has now passed on two separate occasions. In effect, the Drug Enforcement Administration is interested in thwarting the will of Oregonians. Now, Mr. President and colleagues, let me repeat again, I have deep personal reservations about assisted suicide. Going back to my days with senior citizens as codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers, I have been most interested in looking at medical advances in pain management and hospice care, and I don't think there has even been a beginning at those efforts, and certainly those are the first efforts that governmental bodies at every level ought to be trying to support. But when the people have spoken, and in this case the people of my State have spoken twice, it is time for the Federal Government to back off. It is not as if this town doesn't have enough to do already on this floor. It is obvious that important legislation needs to be passed as it relates to a number of Federal agencies. Certainly, the Drug Enforcement Agency has important work to do. I don't see any evidence that they have stemmed the flow of cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine to our kids. It seems to me the Clinton administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration has plenty to do right now other than to meddle in the internal affairs of the State of Oregon. Now, I have great respect for the Members of Congress who are interested in this issue. A number of them are personal friends and individuals with whom I have worked on a bipartisan basis on health care legislation such as the Food and Drug Administration and health care legislation to protect our youngsters. I have great respect for the Members of Congress, the leaders of the committees that have jurisdiction over the budget for the Drug Enforcement Agency, and I respect them and have worked with them on many occasions. However, I say to those Members of Congress and to the Clinton administration that it is an inappropriate exercise of our responsibilities to impose personal or religious views on the voters of Oregon. Those voters have spoken. My personal views notwithstanding, I want the Federal Government to get that fairly simple concept known as ``No.'' The people of Oregon have spoken on this issue, and it seems to me if there were a constitutional question involved, perhaps you could understand why the Congress and the Clinton administration would be interested in this Oregon ballot initiative. But in fact, a Federal court has recently ruled against a constitutional challenge to Oregon's law, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld that ruling. Mr. President, the citizens of my home State have now made law with respect to what they consider to be compassionate care on the part of Oregon physicians. It was not a rush to judgment. There were two very extensive debates in my State, and I have already indicated that my view with respect to assisted suicide is that I still have deep reservations about the concept. But the voters of my State have spoken. It would be wrong for those at the Federal level to meddle with that decision. It would be wrong to override the judgment of Oregon voters. And it is my view, Mr. President, that neither this Congress, nor the Clinton administration, nor the DEA, should trample on the judgment of Oregon voters on an issue that the courts have already decided is a matter that should be decided in my home State of Oregon. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in significant ways, the promotion of adoption, safety, and support for abused and neglected children represents an important step forward in Federal policy for child welfare. It parallels Oregon's best interest of the child bill in its recognition of the crucial importance of timely achievement of permanent family placements for children who must be temporarily placed in foster care. Further, it clarifies that a child's health and safety are paramount concerns in considerations of reasonable efforts for family preservation. The PASS Act also broadens support for adoptive placement, increases post-adoption assistance for families, and emphasises the link between the child's welfare and parent's well- being. Moreover, the bill's intense interest in kinship care is both wise and timely. I am particularly concerned about this complex issue and I have devoted a lot of attention to it over the past several years. Kinship care, the full-time care and protection of children by a relative, is in many cultures, a time honored tradition. Throughout history relatives have come forward to care for and raise children when the parents were unable to do so themselves. Recently, the decision over whether relatives may best provide for children has increasingly involved child welfare agencies. Yet, Mr. President, our country does not have a national policy to deal with relative care arrangements. In light of this fact, the PASS Act makes significant strides toward recognizing relative care arrangements for what they are--legitimate, appropriate placements--for a family. There is a precedent for this recognition; last year I fought for language in the welfare reform bill requiring that kinship care be considered first for children needing placement. I am pleased that many of the provisions I included in my kinship care bill, S. 822, were incorporated in the PASS Act. One such provision allows kinship providers an opportunity to be heard during abuse and neglect proceedings. I have heard from grandparents in Oregon who tell me that they can add additional information that may be helpful to the court's determination of the child's future living arrangements, but often are not aware of their grandchild's placement in foster care or where they are in the system. It is important that relative caregivers are notified when there are administrative proceedings on a child's status. The inclusion of a kinship care advisory panel instructed to make recommendations about kinship care policies is also included in this bill. Thankfully, relative caregivers and former foster children in relative care arrangements will now be able to sit on a panel and examine what is needed to improve these arrangements for all involved. The panel's findings must be submitted in a comprehensive report to the Department of Health and Human Services. The report will examine who kinship caregivers are, what services are provided to them and many other factors that will help us develop a national policy on this growing child welfare issue. Another critical provision in the bill deals with standby guardianship. Many relative caregivers are caring for families devastated by HIV/AIDS. In adoption or guardianship proceedings today, dying parents are asked to give up their custodial rights over their children in order to ensure a permanent, stable placement for their child. Under this bill, any parent who is chronically ill or near death may designate a standby guardian without being forced to surrender their parental rights. PASS encourages States who have not already passed standby guardianship laws to do so. As we seek to adequately support relative care providers caring for children, we must first ask educated questions and receive thorough answers. Ultimately, the PASS Act has made a good-faith effort to recognize and study the issue of kinship care. This is a good first step for children and families.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the reauthorization of the Family Preservation and Support Act is important to families who are at risk or in crisis. One notable service now specifically mentioned in the act is the care provided by a crisis nursery. Crisis nurseries provide respite and therapeutic services for families with young children to assist parents in attaining self-sufficiency. One crisis nursery in particular, the relief nursery of Eugene, OR, is a model child abuse and prevention program. After involvement with the relief nursery, fewer than 9 percent of the 373 children served reported abuse, neglect, or domestic violence to the State child protection office. Moreover, 82 percent of children served by the relief nursery were living safely with their parents at the end of the year, averting foster care or other out-of-home placement. The relief nursery has accomplished these results through dedication to comprehensive family services emphasizing programs that strengthen the parent-child relationship. Does the Senator agree that crisis nurseries can play an important role in saving families?

Mr. WYDEN. I think the relief nursery is a needed member of the community, providing invaluable services to children who need them most. Crisis nurseries work because they provide intensive, personalized, and long-term services to families with children in the most vulnerable age groups. I thank the Senator for recognizing the work of nurseries, such as the relief nursery, in your bill.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to take a few minutes to discuss the effort here in the Senate to eliminate the secrecy with which the Senate so often conducts business. Through a procedure that certainly isn't known to most Americans, it is possible for one U.S. Senator to unilaterally block this Senate from considering a piece of legislation or a nomination. This process is known as a hold. Certainly as we have seen in the last few days, a hold is an extraordinary power in the last few hours of a session in the U.S. Senate. In fact, it is fair to say in the last few hours of a session, a hold is essentially unbeatable. Now, originally a hold was intended as a courtesy to a Senator. If the Senator couldn't be present at a particular time--there was an illness in the family, this sort of thing--they could put a hold on a measure or nomination, and that way, as a courtesy, the Senate would make sure it was brought up shortly thereafter when that Senator could be there. But what has happened over the years is that the hold has been abused. At one point here fairly recently there were more than 40 holds on individuals, nominees, pieces of legislation, and it was all done in secret--all of it. At a time when the American people are so skeptical of the way business is done in Washington, DC, and so often understandably skeptical, the secret hold, the unilateral power of one Senator to block a bill or nomination and do it all in secret is something that is being abused, and abused especially at the end of a session of the U.S. Senate. Senator Grassley and I, on a bipartisan basis, have tried to eliminate the secrecy that surrounds these holds. We have said we are not quarreling with the proposition of a Member of the U.S. Senate to have this extraordinary power. Members of the Senate, under all other circumstances, are accountable to their constituents. But in this case they aren't accountable because they can exercise this power in secret. Senator Grassley and I offered what we don't think is exactly a radical idea, which is that when a Senator uses this power, it would be publicly disclosed. We said if a Senator uses this power, they should have to disclose the use of that hold in the Congressional Record within 48 hours of exercising their hold. That way, the U.S. Senate would know who is exercising this power, the American people would know who is exercising this power. If a Member of the U.S. Senate is doing the bidding of a powerful set of interests, it would be possible for everybody to know what exactly was taking place. So Senator Grassley and I were able in the last weeks of the session to attach an anti- Senate-secrecy amendment so that when the use of the hold is applied, the American people would know who was blocking this body from considering a bill or nomination. Now, as I understand it, there are discussions underway, in effect behind closed doors, behind closed doors without public debate, there is discussion of dropping an effort to end Senate secrecy. I will tell you, that doesn't pass the smell test. Killing a plan to end Senate secrecy behind closed doors isn't the way this body ought to be doing business. Certainly what we have seen in the last few weeks since Senator Grassley and I prevailed on our proposal here in the Senate to end secrecy, is that there has been an explosive proliferation of the use of holds once again. There are countless bills and nominations that certainly deserve consideration. You can argue whether they deserve majority support, but they certainly deserve open debate, and they can't be brought to this floor because one Senator has secretly said no. One Senator has secretly said, ``No, I will not allow discussion'' of that particular topic. The irony of all of this, Mr. President, is that often even Senators don't know when a hold has been placed in their name. I have had a number of Senators tell me since I've come to the Senate that they have been approached about holds. They were told they had a hold on a measure. It turned out the staff had put a hold on it without their even knowing about it. So it is one thing for an elected official, a Member of the U.S. Senate with an election certificate to exercise this extraordinary power; it is quite another to have those who are not elected exercise it. It highlights, again, how much this process has been abused of late. I thought that the minority leader, Senator Daschle, captured the spirit of this situation the other day in his morning briefing with the press. Amid what reads on the transcript like pretty raucous laughter, the minority leader walked reporters through the variety of holds that there were on dozens of nominees at that time. In fact, he said, ``If you don't have a hold, you ought to feel lonesome.'' The minority leader was pressed by reporters about who might be placing some of the holds, but the minority leader said he didn't know who was placing these holds. Some have said eventually you can find out who is exercising the hold. But I can tell my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate that even the minority leader is on record as saying he doesn't know who is placing these secret holds. This secrecy, in my view, Mr. President, is not in keeping with the proud traditions of the U.S. Senate, and it is not in keeping with the fundamental spirit of openness and accountability that is at the heart of our democratic process. I sought to serve in the U.S. Senate because I wanted to be in a position to influence policy on issues that are important to Oregonians and the people of this country. I value the extraordinary opportunity that I have been given by my constituents to serve and to use the power that they have given me on behalf of them and the American people. But it is time to say that power must be accompanied by responsibility. That responsibility is to be straight with the American people, to tell them about the actions and the policies that they are taking. It certainly is not in line with the spirit of openness and accountability for the American people to allow one Senator in secret to unilaterally block from this floor even the consideration of a bill or nomination. I am one who simply feels that public business ought to be done in public. Some might think that is a little bit quaint at this time in American history. But I think it is time to bring some sunshine to the process for debating these issues. I am very proud and very grateful that Senator Grassley has joined me in this effort. I think it is very unfortunate that there appears now to be an effort behind closed doors to kill our proposal to end Senate secrecy. That will be unfortunate if it takes place. If it takes place, I want every Member of the U.S. Senate to know that Senator Grassley and I will be back on this floor pressing the case again. It's not going to threaten the deliberative approach that this body rightly takes to consideration of issues, to have openness and accountability in the way that the Senate does business. Senator Grassley and I aren't saying get rid of the hold; we are not saying the hold ought to be abolished and a power that a Senator now has be diminished. We are simply saying that power should be accompanied by responsibility. Rights should be accompanied by responsibility. Now, I was very gratified when the proposal Senator Grassley and I offered in the U.S. Senate was approved by this body. I have been appreciative of the fact that the Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, has been willing to work with me on this matter and has indicated that he certainly doesn't want to see Senate secrecy and see important decisions made without accountability. And I felt that the Senate was moving in the right direction when, initially, our proposal was voted on, and favorably so, by the U.S. Senate. But I am concerned that the bill that will come before the Senate, the D.C. appropriations bill, will not contain the legislation that Senator Grassley and I offered to end Senate secrecy. I am concerned that our proposal may just disappear behind closed doors, without any public debate, without any explanation at all, and that our proposal may be put aside with the very secrecy that we sought to end. So I tell my colleagues, Mr. President, that this fight is not going to end today. The D.C. appropriations bill is an important part of the Senate's work and it needs to be completed. But this Senator wants to be clear that we will be back, and we will be back, in my view, with even more support from the American people, given the fact that, in recent weeks, there were more than 40 holds--40 holds--on nominees and individual pieces of legislation, and even the Senate minority leader could not tell the American people who was exercising those holds. Mr. President, it's time for additional openness and accountability in the U.S. Senate. In my view, continuing these secret practices cheapens the currency of democracy. The Senate can maintain its proud traditions with having openness and accountability, and each Member of the U.S. Senate will still be able to fight for their constituents and do the work they were sent here to do. So I am still hopeful that the D.C. appropriations bill, when it comes back, will contain the legislation that Senator Grassley and I authored to end the secrecy in the way business is done in the Senate. But if it's not, if our provision is not, I want to assure the Members of the U.S. Senate that we will be back, we will be back on a bipartisan basis. I don't believe it's possible for any Senator, at a town hall meeting in their home State, to justify these secret holds. I don't think it passes the smell test. I think it's wrong. If we don't prevail on it today, Mr. President, we will be back. I yield the floor. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a supporter of the development of renewable energy in this country, and in the Northwest in particular, I am pleased to see our region taking a leadership role in developing renewable energy resources. Several years ago, two forward thinking utilities in the Northwest, along with the Bonneville Power Association, initiated an effort to site and permit a new wind project in Carbon County, WY. The focus of the project was to test a new generation of technology in Northwest climates, and develop capability and experience with a resource which the region has in abundance. Despite considerable changes in the electricity market, and challenges presented by the project, these three utilities persevered and made this project a reality. PacificCorp., the Eugene Water and Electric Board, and the Bonneville Power Administration demonstrated great leadership to create the first new commercial-scale wind project to serve the Northwest. Their commitment marks the dawn of a new industry for the Northwest, and a substantial contribution to a sustainable future for us and our children. Three individuals deserve special recognition in this effort: Dennis Steinberg of PacifiCorp., Ken Beeson of the Eugene Water and Electric Board, and George Darr of the Bonneville Power Administration. I thank them for their dedication and hard work in bringing this project to fruition.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to join my colleagues in expressing support for the important work of RC&D Councils as well as opportunities to enhance these efforts. I urge the NRCS to seek avenues that maximize the beneficial conservation and environmental purposes of RC&D activities.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Iran Missile Proliferation Act of 1997, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Lott. This legislation is critically needed because of dangerous recent developments in the Middle East, namely disturbing reports that indicate Iran is acquiring terrifying weapons of mass destruction at an alarming pace. Iran has become the most serious threat to stability in the Middle East and is rapidly developing the means to strike Israel. Very recently, Israeli and American intelligence have discovered that, due largely to technology obtained from Russia, Iran may soon have the capability to begin assembling and testing ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and other vital targets in the Middle East. Russian companies are providing Iran with crucial technologies, including wind tunnels for the design of missiles, lasers, and special materials for missile construction. There are even reports of over 9,000 Russian advisers working in Iran on a variety of military projects, and Iran earlier this year tested a Soviet-designed rocket engine. Iran, one of America's foremost self-proclaimed enemies, has been linked to numerous anti-Israel terrorist attacks ranging from taking hostages and hijacking airlines to carrying out assassinations and bombings. These incidents include the taking of more than 30 Western hostages in Lebanon from 1984 through 1992, the bombings of the United States Embassy and the French-United States Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the Buenos Aires terrorist attacks on the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and on the Argentine Jewish communal building in 1994. An Iranian ballistic missile capability would have enormous strategic repercussions for the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Iran possesses chemical weapons, and quite possibly could be only a few years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Clearly, the United States must adopt a stronger approach toward Russia. To its credit, the administration has tried every diplomatic effort with Russia. Vice President Gore and other senior officials have addressed this issue at the most senior levels of the Russian Government, including with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomydrin, but these efforts have met with little success. Further discussions are set for November, however, and I believe Congress must act now to enact a more forceful policy which will ensure Russian cooperation. The Lott-Lieberman legislation requires the President to submit a report to Congress 30 days after enactment, providing a list of the entities that have been implicated in the transfer or attempted transfer of goods, technology, or technical assistance that has contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles. Highly targeted sanctions will be imposed on these entities 30 days after the submission of the report, unless the President waives them under limited circumstances. I urge my colleagues to support this vital measure which takes concrete steps to halt the spread of ballistic missile technology to Iran and to preserve peace and stability in the Middle East.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Iran Missile Proliferation Act of 1997, introduced by Senators Lieberman and Lott. This legislation is critically needed because of dangerous recent developments in the Middle East, namely disturbing reports that indicate Iran is acquiring terrifying weapons of mass destruction at an alarming pace. Iran has become the most serious threat to stability in the Middle East and is rapidly developing the means to strike Israel. Very recently, Israeli and American intelligence have discovered that, due largely to technology obtained from Russia, Iran may soon have the capability to begin assembling and testing ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and other vital targets in the Middle East. Russian companies are providing Iran with crucial technologies, including wind tunnels for the design of missiles, lasers, and special materials for missile construction. There are even reports of over 9,000 Russian advisers working in Iran on a variety of military projects, and Iran earlier this year tested a Soviet-designed rocket engine. Iran, one of America's foremost self-proclaimed enemies, has been linked to numerous anti-Israel terrorist attacks ranging from taking hostages and hijacking airlines to carrying out assassinations and bombings. These incidents include the taking of more than 30 Western hostages in Lebanon from 1984 through 1992, the bombings of the United States Embassy and the French-United States Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the Buenos Aires terrorist attacks on the Israeli Embassy in 1992 and on the Argentine Jewish communal building in 1994. An Iranian ballistic missile capability would have enormous strategic repercussions for the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. Iran possesses chemical weapons, and quite possibly could be only a few years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. Clearly, the United States must adopt a stronger approach toward Russia. To its credit, the administration has tried every diplomatic effort with Russia. Vice President Gore and other senior officials have addressed this issue at the most senior levels of the Russian Government, including with President Yeltsin and Prime Minister Chernomydrin, but these efforts have met with little success. Further discussions are set for November, however, and I believe Congress must act now to enact a more forceful policy which will ensure Russian cooperation. The Lott-Lieberman legislation requires the President to submit a report to Congress 30 days after enactment, providing a list of the entities that have been implicated in the transfer or attempted transfer of goods, technology, or technical assistance that has contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles. Highly targeted sanctions will be imposed on these entities 30 days after the submission of the report, unless the President waives them under limited circumstances. I urge my colleagues to support this vital measure which takes concrete steps to halt the spread of ballistic missile technology to Iran and to preserve peace and stability in the Middle East.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I will be very brief. I also want to thank the majority leader for his courtesy. This amendment involves one of the most awesome powers that a Member of the U.S. Senate has. That is the power to effectively block the consideration of a bill or nomination in secret. Now, it is a power that I think many Americans are concerned about. I have made it very clear that I am not seeking to abolish the right of a Senator to put a hold on a measure or matter. But I do think that if an important health or environmental matter comes before the Senate, as the Kennedy-Kassebaum measure did in the last Congress, involving health care for millions of Americans, that there ought to be public disclosure, that there ought to be sunshine. The majority leader, in my view, has made a number of constructive proposals in the past with respect to this procedure. I am particularly pleased that he sought in the beginning of this year, January 27, to limit Members from putting holds on blocks of legislation, in effect, blocking a whole package of legislation, from coming before the Senate. But we still have not been able to change the Senate rules to bring some sunshine in, to make sure that the American people can hold each one of us accountable. There have been reports that when the Senate passes the Wyden- Grassley legislation to have public disclosure of holds in the U.S. Senate, this is just going to die in conference and it will just vanish in the vapor in secret. It is especially ironic that an effort to eliminate secrecy in the exercise of awesome powers of the U.S. Senate, that would somehow take place again in secret, but I am concerned that may happen. In fact, there is a report today in Roll Call, a Capitol Hill publication, that raises concern in my mind. I briefly would like to engage the majority leader in a colloquy on this point. He and I have been talking about it for about a year and a half now, I think. As I said, I believe the majority leader has made a number of constructive changes already with respect to the hold procedure. I would like to have his thoughts at this time with respect to his views on public disclosure of holds, and specifically whether it will be possible on a bipartisan basis to work out this change and ensure that there is real accountability with the American people for important actions taken by Senators. I yield to the majority leader.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an additional 10 minutes.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Wyden-Grassley amendment is before the Senate at this time?

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you. Mr. President, I want to especially thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, for a fine statement and for all his help. He has long been recognized as one of the most honest, up-front Members of the U.S. Senate. I want to tell him that it is a special pleasure to be able to work with him. Mr. President, certainly, if you walk down the main streets of this country and ask our citizens what a hold is in the U.S. Senate, you are certainly not going to find many Americans who are familiar with this practice. But the fact of the matter is, this is an awesome, awesome power exercised by a Member of the U.S. Senate. The power to put a hold on a bill or a nomination is the power to singlehandedly, effectively block the consideration of a bill or nomination from coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate. All Senator Grassley and I are asking tonight is that when a Member of the U.S. Senate exercises this extraordinary power, that it be publicly disclosed. All we are asking is for an end to the secrecy. My constituents look at the U.S. Senate sometimes and raise questions about how business is done here and, frankly, have some suspicions about the way the Senate conducts business. Sometimes I think they suspect that the procedures around here are a little bit like an elegant game of three-card monte. Now, my own hope is that with the passage of this amendment tonight in the U.S. Senate, and by making public the exercise of this extraordinary power by a U.S. Senator, our citizens will feel a bit more confidence and a bit more likely to see the Senate as an institution that is open and accountable. The majority leader, Senator Lott, is absolutely right about the traditions of the Senate and, particularly, making accommodations to work out issues wherever possible. All we are saying is that when a Member of the U.S. Senate digs in with all his or her strength to block a bill or a nomination, the American people deserve to know the name of that Senator. This effort does not eliminate holds, it doesn't eliminate the filibuster; it eliminates none of the traditions that the majority leader referred to. All it does is say that a Senator is going to be straight with the American people when they exercise their enormous power to effectively block the consideration of a bill or a nomination on the use of the hold procedure. Mr. President, I yield the floor.