Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. If the majority leader can spend another minute--these are thoughtful points that you raise, and I appreciate the courtesy--the reason for acting now is this is the season when senior Members say that the abuses are greatest. At the end of a session when there is a rush to complete the business is when this practice which, as the majority leader points out, is a long tradition, that is when this practice is abused. I think the majority leader makes a very good point with respect to the need for courtesy and respect for traditions. I see our friend, Senator Grassley, is here. This is a bipartisan amendment. We share the majority leader's view with respect to this tradition. We are not seeking to eliminate the hold, seeking to eliminate the filibuster, seeking the right of Senators to work matters out. What we are concerned about is secrecy. At a time when the American people are so skeptical about our Government, when they go to hearings and day after day look at practices that they question, when they look at the U.S. Senate and see these procedures that are secret, it smacks of a backroom deal. I think the majority leader is right, the Senate is a good institution. It is not going to suffer if a bit of sunlight comes in. This is an institution strong enough to have a bit of sunlight and to have Members held accountable. I don't want to disrupt the tradition of the Senate, but if an important health or environmental measure or other important issue is held up for months on end because a Senator genuinely objects, then it is not just a matter of courtesy, it is a matter of being accountable to the American people. I will interpret the majority leader's response to this colloquy as willing to work with the Wyden-Grassley effort, and I appreciate the fact that it is going to pass today. I know the majority leader has other matters that he has to attend to. I want to thank him for his colloquy and look forward to working with him. I yield the time now to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, retinal degenerative diseases affect more than six million Americans. This number is expected to climb beyond 10 million as the baby boomers age. This is a vision timebomb and I have witnessed its devastating impact on many of our senior citizens. September 27, 1997 marks World Retina Day, a day in which organizations around the world dedicated to finding the cures for retinal degenerative diseases join together to call attention to the collaborative research that is being done internationally. The most common retinal disease is age-related macular degeneration (AMD) which is the leading cause of vision loss in adults over the age of 60. Individuals with AMD not only lose their central vision, but also their ability to read, drive and in many cases they lose their sense of independence. Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) is a genetic disease that steals the sight of the young, robbing them in the prime of their life, their night vision and then their peripheral vision. RP is a progressive disease, leading in most cases to blindness. There is no treatment to stop the progression of this disease. Usher's Syndrome is also a genetic disease and it is the leading cause of deaf-blindness in the United States. This again shows up in our young, robbing them of vision and hearing. The suffering to the patients and their families is incalculable. Due to the work funded by the National Eye Institute at the National Institute of Health, and organizations such as the Foundation Fighting Blindness and similar organizations worldwide, significant progress in research has been made. Just this past week a stunning research breakthrough was announced. Scientists have discovered gene mutations that cause AMD. This landmark finding offers the first concrete evidence that AMD is genetically linked. There is now hope that by the time the generation of the baby boomers reaches age 60, in about 10 years, that there will be a genetic treatment for AMD. If a treatment is found, we will see a return on our investments in eye research, and the savings to the budget in terms of health care costs will be significant. With the international collaboration among researchers who represent a broad spectrum of highly specialized scientific disciplines, great strides have been made in understanding AMD, RP, Usher's syndrome and related retinal degenerative diseases. International breakthroughs and collaboration in research warrant the recognition of World Retina Day. I am hopeful that there is a cure in sight. I believe that as we continue to fund medical research, diseases such as these will become eradicated and remembered only in the archives of medical history.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, which requires Federal facilities to obey key environmental laws including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and State hazardous waste laws. However, subsequent Federal court decisions threaten to undermine the important principle that Federal Government facilities must comply with the same environmental laws that govern the private sector. In fact, one court decision that covers the Hanford Nuclear Reservation would allow Hanford to poison the water, pollute the air and contaminate the soil for decades, and be immunized for any violations that occur before the Hanford cleanup is completed sometime in the next century. This court ruling allowed the interagency agreement among the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington Department of Ecology that governs the Hanford cleanup to be used as a shield to block an enforcement action against the Energy Department for violations of the Clean Water Act. The Energy Department's use of interagency agreement to bar enforcement of environmental laws not only undermines the Federal Facilities Compliance Act but also puts at risk the health of citizens who live downstream or downwind from Hanford, and near other Federal facilities around the country. Madam President, we also have a double standard here. The Superfund law only authorizes interagency agreements for Federal facilities; there is no comparable provision and no comparable immunity from enforcement for private sector sites. Today, Senator Allard and I are introducing the Federal Facilities Superfund Compliance Act to put an end to this double standard. Our legislation makes clear that Federal Government facilities are subject to the same environmental cleanup laws that apply to the private sector. And they are subject to the law now, not sometime off in the future. Under this legislation, an interagency agreement, such as the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement, can no longer be used as a means to evade other environmental requirements. Our legislation also makes clear that if Federal facilities fail to meet their obligations, States and affected citizens will be able to enforce against the Federal Government for these violations just as they would be able to enforce against private parties for violations of environmental laws at a private sector Superfund site. Our citizens who live in the shadow of contaminated Federal facilities should not have to wait years or decades to obtain the health and environmental protections our laws are supposed to provide. I urge all our colleagues to support this important legislation to provide citizens who live downwind or downstream from Federal facilities equal protection under our environmental laws.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, which requires Federal facilities to obey key environmental laws including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and State hazardous waste laws. However, subsequent Federal court decisions threaten to undermine the important principle that Federal Government facilities must comply with the same environmental laws that govern the private sector. In fact, one court decision that covers the Hanford Nuclear Reservation would allow Hanford to poison the water, pollute the air and contaminate the soil for decades, and be immunized for any violations that occur before the Hanford cleanup is completed sometime in the next century. This court ruling allowed the interagency agreement among the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington Department of Ecology that governs the Hanford cleanup to be used as a shield to block an enforcement action against the Energy Department for violations of the Clean Water Act. The Energy Department's use of interagency agreement to bar enforcement of environmental laws not only undermines the Federal Facilities Compliance Act but also puts at risk the health of citizens who live downstream or downwind from Hanford, and near other Federal facilities around the country. Madam President, we also have a double standard here. The Superfund law only authorizes interagency agreements for Federal facilities; there is no comparable provision and no comparable immunity from enforcement for private sector sites. Today, Senator Allard and I are introducing the Federal Facilities Superfund Compliance Act to put an end to this double standard. Our legislation makes clear that Federal Government facilities are subject to the same environmental cleanup laws that apply to the private sector. And they are subject to the law now, not sometime off in the future. Under this legislation, an interagency agreement, such as the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement, can no longer be used as a means to evade other environmental requirements. Our legislation also makes clear that if Federal facilities fail to meet their obligations, States and affected citizens will be able to enforce against the Federal Government for these violations just as they would be able to enforce against private parties for violations of environmental laws at a private sector Superfund site. Our citizens who live in the shadow of contaminated Federal facilities should not have to wait years or decades to obtain the health and environmental protections our laws are supposed to provide. I urge all our colleagues to support this important legislation to provide citizens who live downwind or downstream from Federal facilities equal protection under our environmental laws.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I do not intend to object. I have had a chance to discuss this with the majority leader who has been gracious in offering me his time on this matter. I ask only that the further discussion of this amendment take place at a time when the majority leader could be on the floor and he and I could discuss this briefly. I believe the proposals he has made with respect to holds are constructive. This proposal goes one step further, to have public disclosure of holds. I ask only that the majority leader, at a time convenient with his schedule, be allowed to participate in that 20-minute discussion so he and I could briefly discuss that. With that, I have no objection.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I am proposing that an amendment be accepted by the Senate that would modestly change one of a Senator's most extensive powers, the power to secretly block a measure or matter from coming to the Senate floor. Does the Senator believe that it is not appropriate to have 10 minutes of discussion of it tomorrow before it comes up?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I need 30 minutes on my side.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, will the Senator from North Carolina be open to a question at this time?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this effort that Senator Grassley and I have pursued for many months has been endorsed by a number of groups that are seeking to try to make the U.S. Senate more open in the way it conducts its business. Common Cause, for example, is an organization that has sought to have public disclosure of this particular procedure. What we are talking about here is if a Member of the U.S. Senate is going to exercise this extraordinary, unilateral power, there should be sunshine; sunshine, we all know, is the very best disinfectant. It is an opportunity for all Members of the U.S. Senate to have a chance to be part of the debate because at least they will know who they are debating with. What is the most ironic part of the use of the hold is that the Senate, in which every Member takes pride, an institution to foster debate about important issues, doesn't in many instances allow for a Member of the U.S. Senate to even know who they are debating with because one Member of the Senate has anonymously blocked the issue. So let me be clear with respect to what this legislation does. This applies to a Senator who is digging in and making it clear that they object to a measure or a nomination. This is not an individual who perhaps needs to know when an amendment is coming up, or perhaps have an opportunity to come over to the Senate floor to speak on a measure or matter. That is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed here is making sure that when there is a full court press to oppose a bill or a nomination that that kind of opposition be brought to light. We had some recent experience with how influential polls can be. For example, we saw that in the last Congress, to quote USA Today on the matter, ``A skulk of faceless Senators is using a series of parliamentary holds to dry gulch legislation extending health insurance to millions of Americans.'' That wasn't 20 years ago. That wasn't 30 years ago. That was an anonymous hold that was used to influence an important piece of health care legislation in the last session of the U.S. Congress. The fact is, Mr. President, that this procedure, which was once a matter of common courtesy, is now so widely used that it has become one of the most frequent ways to prevent any public disclosure of Senate business. I hope that as we look to these last few days of this session--I bring this to the floor now because I believe that the abuse of the hold is most likely during these last few days of the session--that we take this opportunity to make the U.S. Senate more open and more accountable. Right now, if a Senator seeks to personally block a measure or matter, there is no cost to them. They face no disapproval because no one would know who they were disapproving of. The fact is that this is a process and a power, an enormous power, held by the U.S. Senate that is exercised in the dark. It seems to me that it carries the odor of back room deals, abuse of privilege, and a body that cares more about individual personal desires than those of the American people. This isn't cutting off the right of any Member of the U.S. Senate. Every Senator can still filibuster. Every Senator can still exercise their rights with respect to a motion to proceed. It simply says that it has to be done publicly. Let me also say that it has been the experience of Senator Grassley and myself that you can do this, and, as Senator Grassley has told me, it doesn't hurt. For example, just a week ago Senator Smith and I felt strongly, on a bipartisan basis, about issues with respect to a C-130 crash that carried Oregonians who were reservists. At that time, because we were seeking answers from the military and given the fact that the appointment of the new head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was forthcoming, I put a hold on that nomination for a brief period of time. I made it clear on the floor and in other forums that I was the Member of the Senate who did it. I published it in the Congressional Record, just as my amendment calls for. So, during that period, there was, over a short few days, an effort to have a public discussion about this matter. There were also bipartisan discussions with Senator Thurmond and Senator McCain, and others were extremely helpful in the efforts that Senator Smith and I made on this matter. And early the next week the hold that I had, which was public, I lifted. The needs of my constituents were addressed, and the American people saw a good man--a good man--General Shelton, confirmed to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So, Mr. President, what we have done, Senator Grassley and I, is we have practiced what we preach. We don't believe that it abridges our rights in any way. All we are saying is that there is no reasonable place for protracted ongoing anonymous delay. That is what we think is wrong. There is no place, as the New York Times recently said, for ``the hold as currently practiced.'' So I am not suggesting today, Mr. President and colleagues, that the hold be abolished. I am not suggesting that the filibuster be changed in any way. I am not suggesting that on the motion to proceed there be any change. All I am saying is when a hold is put on a matter so that a Senator digs in to personally effectively block the consideration of a measure or a matter, that within 2 days of that time they notify party leadership that they are the individual seeking to prevent consideration of that measure or matter on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and that they just put a little notice in the Congressional Record. No big procedure, no hassle, just a notice, just a notice identifying that Senator as the Senator who has put a hold on a measure or matter. Mr. President, my guess is that if my amendment passes, there may be a variety of ways that Senators may still seek to vitiate the spirit of what Senator Grassley and I are seeking to do. But I do think that passage of this amendment will put the U.S. Senate on record. We will be on record for sunshine. We will be on record as being opposed to secrecy, and especially we will be taking steps so that at this time of the session as the session moves into the last few weeks when history shows that you are most likely to have abuses of the hold, we will have shown that we are willing to make changes that hold the U.S. Senate and each Member here publicly accountable for their actions. Mr. President, none of us got here easily. Like many other Senators, my campaign and my election was something of a trial by fire. No Member of this body lacks fortitude. I think we can stand some extra added light. I think we can stand some extra added sunshine. I think that we can take the secrecy out of the hold procedure and still make sure that each and every Senator is able to exercise their rights and protect their constituents. I believe that the passage of this amendment, at a time when millions of Americans are especially cynical and skeptical about Government, will cause citizens to say that the Senate is doing the right thing, and we will see constituents have a bit more respect for this body as a result of Senators being willing to be held publicly accountable. This amendment is not about getting rid of the hold. It is not about doing anything to a hold other than saying that a Senator has to be publicly accountable when that one Senator effectively moves to block the consideration of a bill or a nomination. Mr. President, I have not been here as long as some, but I read the statements of Senators who have been here for quite some time--Senator Glenn, who called it deplorable; Senator Thurmond, who said that there has been an abuse; Senator Hatch, who said that every Senator has been victimized by it; and, Senator Leahy, who went far far farther than anything I would be talking about. He said there shouldn't be any holds at all. In fact, in my conversations with Senators, I have been told that some Senators find this procedure so abhorrent that they will not exercise it at all, and they are especially frustrated by their colleagues who do. So, in closing, Mr. President, let me go back to just how great the abuse is. It is one thing if Chairman Faircloth or Senator Boxer or another Member of U.S. Senate puts a hold on a matter. All of the Senators are directly responsible to their constituents. What I found is a lot of Senators didn't even know that a hold had been placed on a bill in their name. One senior Member of the U.S. Senate came to me last session, and said, ``I am for your bill. I think it is a good idea. We need some public disclosure of these holds. And the reason I am for it is a few minutes ago a Senator came up to me and said, `Why do you have a hold on my bill?' And the person who was sympathetic to what I have been trying to do said, `I don't have a hold on your bill.' '' It turned out that a staff person had done it in their name. So what we have is a situation where not just are holds by Senators kept anonymous and kept confidential, but now we have staff that doesn't have an election certificate putting holds on these matters as well. The hold started out many years ago. I gather from historians that it is well over 100 years old. It started out as a matter of common courtesy. It was something that Senators did to accommodate each other to make sure that an individual could be present to speak on an amendment, to ensure that they would have an opportunity to be heard if they had some sort of glitch in their time schedule. That is not what this amendment addresses. That is not what this amendment addresses at all. This amendment is about ensuring that when a U.S. Senator uses all of their power, every bit of their power, to block a measure or a nomination, and they exercise those extraordinary rights that each of us has, that it be accompanied by a responsibility to the American people. That responsibility to the American people is to tell them, tell your constituents, when you exercise this extraordinary power that you are the one who did it. You are the one who blocked a bill or a nomination. Let's bring some sunshine here. I will tell leadership--let me say that Senator Daschle and Senator Lott have talked with me about this. Both of them have been very gracious. Senator Daschle indicated that he is in support of this. I believe that what I am proposing in this amendment complements the useful changes that Senator Lott, the majority leader, made this January. The majority leader, Senator Lott, implemented a number of changes that I think are constructive, but they still allow for the secrecy. They still allow for one Senator to effectively block consideration of a measure or matter. I gather that the vote on this amendment will be tomorrow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to be able, prior to the vote tomorrow, to speak on this amendment again for up to 10 minutes, to be able to ensure that Senators prior to the vote----

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today on behalf of myself and Senator Grassley of Iowa. Mr. President, one of the most significant personal powers of a U.S. Senator is the power to effectively block the consideration of a bill or nomination from coming to the floor of the U.S. Senate. This power has become known as putting a ``hold'' on a measure or bill that a Senator opposes. It is a power that a U.S. Senator can exercise in secret. The name of the Senator placing a hold on Senate business is now held confidentially by party leadership. This extraordinary power was once used rarely by Senators, usually as a matter of common courtesy. In the last 20 years, however, the hold has become a special tool for influence and leverage. It is especially valuable at this time--at a time when we are moving toward the end of the session--because it allows a Senator, secretly, to exercise an enormous amount of clout over a matter when time is short. Mr. President, the record is replete with statements of Members of this body who have indicated that there have been abuses of the hold, and that this is a procedure that has completely gotten out of hand. Let me read from the words of Senator John Glenn during the final hours of the 101st Congress. Senator Glenn said: I find it deplorable that, suddenly, anonymously, a Senator or a combination of Senators on the Republican side can stand against the strong desire of the President and the Office of Management and Budget for this legislation. Lest anyone think that this be a partisan matter, Senator Thurmond said: I think abuse does arise out of that. Senator Hatch said: We get victimized by holds, especially at the end of a session. Senator Leahy of Vermont, another senior Member said: There should not be any holds at all. He said we just should not have any holds. Well, I am not proposing anything like that. But I do think that every Member of the U.S. Senate ought to be held publicly accountable. I think when one Member of the U.S. Senate moves to effectively block the consideration of a bill or a nomination, they ought to make it clear to their constituents that they are the individual blocking this matter. Mr. President, as I have worked on this issue with Senator Grassley, on a bipartisan basis, for a year and a half, I have found that very few Senators are aware of how extensive some of these abuses are until it happens to them. For example, I learned last year that, often, a member of the staff places a hold on a measure and the Senator whose name in which the hold is placed isn't even aware of it. So what you have are secret holds, not just by someone with an election certificate, but by someone who doesn't have an election certificate at all--a member of the staff. So I believe that it is time to ensure that the rights of Senators and the rights under the Senate rules afford substantial opportunities for Senators to make sure that they are heard and, to represent their folks, are accompanied by responsibilities. I want to make it clear to each and every Senator that I, in no way, would limit the right to filibuster. I would, in no way, limit the right to ensure that they can speak at length on a motion to proceed. And, in fact, I am not even going so far as to put any limits on the right to place a hold on a measure or a matter, other than that a U.S. Senator be public about what they are doing. As I have talked about it with my constituents, they raise serious questions about whether one Member of the U.S. Senate should be able to effectively block consideration of Senate business at all. So I think that the American people will consider this a very modest reform. I see no evidence that citizens want this kind of information held confidential, held secret. So I want to make clear to my colleagues that what I am against is the secrecy. It is the secrecy that is wrong, not the question of whether a Senator wants to exercise their rights. Let me also say that I think it is particularly appropriate for the Senate to move now. I have discussed this, over the last 15 months, on a number of occasions with the majority leader, Senator Lott. Senator Lott, to his credit, has taken several steps to improve the procedures of the Senate and in dealing with the holds that I think are very constructive. But what has not been done is there has been no change in the Senate rules to deal with the issue that I bring up today. A hold can still be kept secret. A hold can still be kept confidential with the party leadership. So, in my view, Senator Lott's proposal and the proposal that he made on January 27 of this year is a constructive one. It puts in place a number of sensible changes, such as disallowing what are known as ``block holds,'' where a Senator would put a hold on a block of bills. But it still keeps this procedure and the use of one of the most extensive personal powers a U.S. Senator has secret. So I hope that as the Senate considers this legislation--and it is only one sentence long, it is not a complicated amendment; it is only one sentence long. I hope that the Senators will see this for what it is, which is to bring sunlight to the debate over the Senate's rules. I will be speaking for a few additional minutes, Mr. President, but I understand that the chairman of the subcommittee has asked to make a change in the time for the vote that he had arranged earlier. I am happy to yield to him at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague Senator Hatch in offering an amendment which will add strength, substance, and a new level of appropriate public accountability and involvement in the missions of the Food and Drug Administration. Quite simply, our amendment provides for real access and participation by patients and consumer groups, science and health experts, and the regulated manufacturers in appropriate policy making functions within the scope of the agency's missions. As my colleague Senator Hatch has pointed out, our amendment underscores the real partnership FDA must forge with all Americans as it conducts its work certifying the safety and effectiveness of so many products important to our everyday lives. I certainly want to acknowledge and applaud the assistance and encouragement of our colleagues Senators Jeffords and Kennedy with regard to the development of the FDA reform bill generally, and their work with us in perfecting the agency's mission statement in particular. I believe this legislation will help create the dialog necessary between the agency and all interested parties in order to effectively exercise all of the other far-reaching elements of this reform bill. I was very pleased to have played some part in the development of that legislation and the broader reform effort, and I know that American citizens dependent on pure food, life-saving new drugs and medical devices, and safe electronic equipment will benefit for many years to come from the work we do here, today. Amendment No. 1183, as modified

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am submitting for the Record a notification of a proposal I intend to offer. I ask that the proposal be printed in the Record. The proposal follows: (Purpose: To eliminate secret Senate ``holds'') At the appropriate place, insert:

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, included in the manager's amendment is an amendment, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment with my colleague, Senator Smith, to provide an additional tool in the toolbox, if you will, for rural counties who have come under significant hardship in funding law enforcement activities covering National Forest lands. Most particularly, Mr. President, a number of Oregon counties have had their sheriff's office budgets nearly busted by the need to address illegal, occasionally violent protests related to Federal timber sales and the regular management of National Forest lands in Oregon. On nearly every timber sale protest, my office has worked very closely with the Forest Service to find help. We have literally shaken the Forest Service tree to find additional resources to help small counties deal with their heightened law enforcement needs when one of these demonstrations occurs. While the Forest Service has been helpful, it has not prevented these rural counties from incurring, in some cases, nearly their entire year's law enforcement budget on just one protracted timber protest. Federal receipts must be used by Oregon Counties in the proportion of 25 percent for schools and 75 percent for roads. This amendment simply allows counties to use surplus funds out of the share that is for roads, on law enforcement activities associated with the use of public roads of the county. The Smith-Wyden amendment simply gives these counties--Douglas, Lane, Klamath, Jackson, and Josephine--a small tool to help them deal with illegal timber demonstrations that are political, and that are related to the Federal management of Federal lands. It is patently unfair that local communities must bear this burden at all, but we believe that this amendment will help. I want to express my great appreciation to the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and to the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Bumpers, for working with me and Senator Smith on this provision. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have asked for this time to notify my colleagues that I no longer intend to object to the U.S. Senate proceeding to the nomination of General Shelton to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Last Thursday morning, I announced publicly that I would object to the Senate proceeding to General Shelton's nomination. My colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, supported me in this effort. We did so not out of any reservation about the general's qualifications but because he is about to become the Nation's top ranking military officer. Mr. President, General Shelton is in a position to assure that the military--and in this case the Air Force--respond to rather than ignore the requests of the Congress and our constituents. It is not too much to ask that the Nation's top general help us address the concerns of the widows of the American airmen who have died serving our country. What they have wanted is simply to have the Air Force explain the reasons for the crash of a C-130 off the coast of California last November that killed 10 airmen on board. In April of this year, the Air Force informed the widows and families that the cause of the crash was engine failure due to fuel starvation. No further explanation was offered at that time. When the widows and families sought further explanation, they were told that the case was closed. Later that month, they came to me, and asked if we could help. I approached my colleague, Senator Smith. And, at every step of the way, Senator Smith has been exceptionally helpful in our joint efforts to work to make sure that the Air Force would provide the loved ones of these airmen an answer to what happened in this tragedy. The families, my colleagues, have a right to know. We asked that an independent group be allowed to review the file. We asked that information about the crash be made available to the families. We asked that the Air Force give the National Transportation Safety Board's aviation experts access to the file. The denying of the request to provide the National Transportation Safety Board access to the files was especially difficult for Senator Smith and I to understand, because in the interim the Air Force had allowed a private contractor to look at these materials. On September 10, the National Transportation Safety Board informed us that, based on the limited data available, the Board was unable to determine whether the Air Force had conducted a thorough investigation. Having exhausted all other avenues to get this critically needed information for Oregon families, it was my hope that we could command some attention at higher levels of the military by appealing to the soon-to-be most senior officer. General Shelton's staff responded quickly. The Air Force has now proposed an agreement with the National Transportation Safety Board that should provide us the information we seek. It is a solid agreement and we wish to thank the Air Force for the prompt response to this case. The agreement between the Air Force and the National Transportation Safety Board is supported by the widows and the Oregon families, and provides for a joint, high-level review of the accident involving King- 56 and other C-130 incidents. The agreement calls for the team to issue a preliminary report within 90 days. It is our hope the full participation of the National Transportation Safety Board in a manner that assures its independence of action will finally get the families and the widows the answers they have awaited for so long. I want to yield to my colleague, Senator Smith. Before I do, I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, and Senator McCain, his colleague, and Senator Levin, for assisting Senator Smith and me. In yielding to my colleague, I again express my appreciation and thanks for the opportunity to work together on this matter in a bipartisan way. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Reed amendment, I want to explain why the Senate should restore $35 million to the State Student Incentive Grant [SSIG] program. First, SSIG funds go directly to the students, not to Federal bureaucrats or administrators. One hundred percent of these funds go to the students. Second, SSIG grants go to those who need them most: the median family income for SSIG recipients is $12,000--well below the Federal poverty level for a family of four. Third, because every Federal dollar directly leverages State education dollars, each additional Federal dollar may make the difference whether another student gets the chance to go to college. In many States SSIG grants truly make or break a student's chance to go to college. Fourth, at a time when costs are limiting access to higher education, we must do everything we can to give every student the opportunity to go to college. I was an early supporter of tax credits to help middle- class families pay the cost of higher education, and this program is just as crucial for the most needy students. This program is especially important for Oregon. In the 1995-97 period, the SSIG Program made the difference for 49,400 students in Oregon, with an average grant of $1,060. SSIG helped account for 5- percent of the funding for the Oregon Need Grant program. And there are more than 16,700 students who did not receive the grant because of underfunding. The Oregon Need Grant program helps provide basic access for Oregon's most needy student population. If we cut off SSIG for the l997-98 academic year, some 620 students could be forced to drop out of college. In pure dollar amounts, the grant may not seem like much to people in Washington, DC who are used to dealing in billions of dollars. But it will enable thousands of students in Oregon to make the decision to go to college. It is the students, of course, who say it the best. One student who works at the U of O admissions office on work study said ``My father has been unemployed for about 4 years even though he has 20 years of naval experience and a college degree. My mother works for the local school system, but her income can't even provide for our family, let alone my college education. Without the need grant that I receive, I wouldn't be able to attend a 4 year university and work towards my degree in psychiatry and business.'' Another student at the University of Oregon said: ``The state need grant has literally been godsend. I come from a single parent household and my mother was laid off from a [major] corporation a few years ago and has only been able to get jobs as a waitress since. If it were not for the state need grant, I would not be able to attend the University of Oregon. I have lived in Eugene all of my life and I've always wanted to attend the U of O. I am majoring in journalism and hope to graduate this year. The grant made it possible for my mother to send me to school and still put food on the table for a family of four.'' Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. The resolution also contains a condition on the use of supporting aids and services where such use would place a significant difficulty or expense on the operations of the Senate. Is my understanding correct that this undue burden language is intended to apply only in very unusual circumstances, such as where significant architectural modifications might be necessary?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I first wish to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for his cooperation in moving forward with such an extremely important matter. Because of its significance, I think it would be useful for us to engage in a colloquy to enlighten the Senate further as to the intent of this resolution. It is my understanding that the purpose of this resolution is to clarify that individuals with disabilities who have been given the privilege of access to the Senate floor under rule XXIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate may bring necessary supporting aids or services onto the floor. This will ensure that the staff of a Senator wishes to have on the floor will not be denied the privilege of the floor because the staffer happens to use a guide dog or a wheelchair. This resolution is intended to be broadly interpreted to cover all individuals with disabilities. Is my understanding correct that this is the purpose of the resolution?

Mr. WYDEN. I again want to express my appreciation to the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his commitment to this issue and thank the Rules Committee for moving this resolution to the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I have one final question: is my understanding correct that the Rules Committee has written a letter of guidance to assist the Sergeant at Arms in interpreting and implementing this resolution?

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass the bill H.R. 1944, authorizing an exchange of lands between the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Lake County, OR. My colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, joined me in introducing S. 881 on June 11. The chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski, was extremely helpful and the bill was included in a hearing on various land exchange bills on June 18th. The U.S. House passed the companion measure, sponsored by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Congressman Smith, on July 22. The Energy Committee reported the House bill yesterday, and I greatly appreciate the Chairman's excellent work to bring the bill to floor for final passage today. This legislation will go far to keep the Warner Canyon Ski Area of Lakeview, OR, in business. If ever there was such a thing as a community ski area, this is it. It is low tech. It is run by a non- profit local organization. This legislation is clearly in the public interest of Lakeview, OR, and the Nation. This bill has important benefits to the Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge, as well. Management of our National Wildlife Refuges can be burdened when there are privately owned lands inside of a refuge boundary, and this measure allows the refuge to take ownership to more than 300 acres of county owned lands inside the refuge. With this acquisition we move closer to the permanent protection of this important Oregon wildlife refuge. I was pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, and I urge its passage.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I take the floor tonight to discuss a resolution that I have introduced with Senator Warner to permit individuals with disabilities full access to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I believe that this resolution will be approved later tonight and has been reviewed by both the majority and the minority. I anticipate that it will be incorporated into the final business of the U.S. Senate during the wrap-up session before the session formally concludes. Mr. President, this resolution that I offer tonight will close the book on discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Earlier this year, after a visually impaired professional on my staff was barred from bringing her guide dog onto the floor, the Senate adopted a resolution providing for temporary case-by-case entry to the floor for those professionals with disabilities. This was a good step-- an important step. But it still left some room for discrimination. The resolution that will be considered by the Senate tonight will ensure that as a matter of formal Senate rule there is no discrimination permitted against individuals with disabilities. There will no longer be a double standard in the U.S. Senate. Senate staffers with disabilities who have the privilege of the Senate floor will be permitted to bring onto the Senate floor supporting aids and services such as canes, service dogs, interpreters, or assistive devices. This is an important day for the Senate, for people with disabilities, and for our whole country because it makes clear that the U.S. Congress ought to follow the laws that apply to everyone else in our country. I especially want, Mr. President, to recognize the hard work of the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator John Warner, in moving this resolution forward. As every Member of this body knows, he has an enormous workload. He was extremely gracious to me in working to develop this resolution and gain bipartisan support for it. I would also like to pay a special tribute to the senior Senator from the State of West Virginia, Senator Byrd, whose expert knowledge of the Senate rules was of enormous benefit in drafting this new resolution. As a relatively new Senator, I have great esteem for the constant care which Senator Byrd uses to guard the traditions and prerogatives of this body. I am of the view that every U.S. Senator owes a debt of gratitude to the Senator from West Virginia for his constant vigilance with respect to ensuring the rights of all on the Senate floor. Mr. President, this is an important resolution. It is justice long overdue. Earlier this year, a congressional fellow in my office was denied access to the Senate floor because she uses a guide dog. That guide dog is a working dog; a guide dog that serves as the eyes for a visually impaired person. The people of this country were offended, and they sent a message that this type of discrimination is unacceptable to them. My office, like many others in the U.S. Senate, were inundated with calls, mail, and e-mail. There was one letter I received that recounted a bit of history that I would like to briefly share. The letter that was sent to me told a story about the Senate in the 1930s when there were some Members who disapproved of a guide dog coming onto the Senate floor. The individual then who needed the assistance of the guide dog was Senator Schall of Minnesota. The letter described the Senator's first entry into the Chamber with his guide dog and how the other Senators rose, one by one, and then in large numbers applauded him. The Senate galleries followed suit until the whole Senate was just one gigantic standing ovation. The letter goes on to say that Senator Schall stopped by his seat, turned and listened to the ovation from all around him and was touched as the ovation continued and continued. Waving to the crowd, the Senator took his seat and commanded his guide dog, Lux, to lie down. The guide dog then curled up under the Senator's desk, tucking his body so it would not be in the way of any Senator who passed by. The May 22, 1933, issue of the Congressional Record documents how strongly the American public reacted to the news of the death of Senator Schall's guide dog. The guide dog died after being separated a few days from the Senator when he thought it would be inappropriate to take the dog with him to attend the funeral of another Senator. Senator Schall said then: Mr. President, since the death of my good dog, Lux, last March, the mails of this and other countries have brought me hundreds of letters of regret. So many expressions of interest have gladdened and surprised me. It seems to me that the action that the Senate will take shortly makes it clear that we have not forgotten how important it is to stand for the principle of equal justice in this Chamber. What we do each day is set an example, and here particularly an important example, because as a result of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Congressional Accountability Act, and other statutes, we make clear that the laws of the United States are going to apply in this Chamber. As a result of this resolution, and particularly the extremely helpful work that Senator Warner and Senator Byrd have done, it is going to be possible to have a formal Senate rule that ensures that discrimination against individuals with disabilities is not going to be tolerated on this floor. This rule takes the generally accepted definition of an individual with a disability, defined as one who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual, and says it is not possible to discriminate against that individual in this Chamber. In closing, Mr. President, I want to observe that there are 49 million Americans with a disabilities. Under the law, they are guaranteed the same rights as all other Americans in terms of access to jobs, insurance, transportation, and telecommunications technology. They are not guaranteed special treatment. They are guaranteed just equal access. That is what this resolution is all about, equal access. Finally, Mr. President, many lessons have been learned from this experience. I believe that the Senate and our country are more aware and sensitive to the many issues facing individuals with disabilities. We have seen that rules can and should be updated to meet the changing needs of our society. I believe that the Senate and our country as a whole are better off as a result of the consideration of this resolution and the strong bipartisan support that has developed here and in our country. Mr. President, I think this is an important day for the Senate, a good day for the Senate, because it was a day which ensures that our country is a bit more fair, a bit more sensitive to the needs of those with disabilities. I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have helped me so much, particularly Senators Warner and Byrd. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Byrd, Reid, Kerry, Chafee, Akaka, Kennedy, Murray, Bingaman, Murkowski, Feingold, Hatch, Durbin, and Harkin be added as cosponsors.