Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first, let me say to my good friend, Senator Domenici, the chairman of the Budget Committee, I just want him to know how much I have appreciated the chance to be a member of his committee. I think this is a historic occasion and a chance to work very closely with him on a variety of issues. Coming to the Senate has been a special pleasure. I also want to commend our good friend, Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, who in my view has done yeomen work in terms of keeping this whole effort together and keeping it bipartisan. Mr. President, the balanced budget agreement that will be passed this week has been a long time in coming. I think our challenge is to now make sure that actually getting a balanced budget takes a shorter period of time. I do believe that we are finally on the right track because this budget provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to get its fiscal house in order while still making a handful of extremely needed investments in the people of our country and in U.S. productivity. Most importantly, I am of the view that this is a historic moment because it has been achieved by working together. If ever there was an issue that required bipartisan cooperation, this is it. It seems to me that this is an example of what can happen when you put down for just a few moments the political cudgel and focus on the needs of our country first. Let me also say that I would like to make a special effort in the days ahead to address the Medicare provision of this legislation. In my view, in the 21st century, Medicare is not just going to be a part of the Federal budget; it is going to be the Federal budget. There is no program in America growing at the rate of Medicare. I think it is well understood that in the 21st century our country will be faced with a demographic tsunami. We are going to have upwards of 50 million baby boomers retiring, and it is quite clear that efforts must be made now to modernize Medicare and get this program ready for the 21st century. I sought to begin those efforts by introducing S. 386, the Medicare Modernization and Patient Protection Act, in the spring. And the fundamental principle of that legislation was to make sure that Medicare began to introduce the kind of competition and choice and emphasis on quality for older people that is available in private sector health care. What we are seeing in our country today is that Medicare has essentially been engaging in purchasing practices and management practices that the private sector threw in the attic years and years ago. In much of the United States, Medicare has been rewarding waste and penalizing efficiency, and we all saw that emphasized again this week when the Inspector General of the United States indicated that more than $20 billion is lost each year in the Medicare Program due to fraud and waste. The issue of inefficiency and the rewards for waste that you see in the Medicare Program are particularly important to those I represent at home in Oregon. We have gone a long way to reinventing the health care system in our State, particularly in the metropolitan areas. We have competition. We have extensive choice for older people. We do not have the gag clauses in the managed care plans where physicians are restricted from telling older people about their options. We have done a lot to come up with a health plan for seniors that will be good for older people and taxpayers in the 21st century. The reward to Oregon for doing the heavy lifting to reform Medicare over the last few years has been lower reimbursement collection. In effect, what the Federal Government told the people of Oregon over the last 10 years is you would have gotten higher reimbursement, you would have received higher payments, if you had gone about the process of offering wasteful, inefficient health care. And so what happens in much of my State, an older person, say, in the Klamath Valley will call their cousin or their sister in another part of the United States and ask them about their Medicare. And a senior in another part of the country where health care isn't provided so efficiently will say to the Oregonian, you know, my Medicare is great; I get prescription drugs for free; I get eyeglasses at a discount; I get all these extras that are not covered by Medicare. Seniors in Oregon and other States where health services have been efficient say, I pay the same into Medicare as seniors in those States. Why don't I get the same benefits? Medicare is a national program. Why shouldn't the senior in Oregon get the same benefits as the senior in another State, which on top of everything else is offering care that is more costly and inefficient? The reason for this bizarre situation is a very technical reimbursement system, an eye-glazing concept known as the average adjusted per capita cost. And the long and short of it is that it rewards waste, penalizes efficiency and in parts of the country like mine has meant that many of the health programs have difficulty even providing the basic benefits to older people let alone some of the additional benefits such as prescription drugs. Under this legislation, because of exceptional bipartisan work--and here I want to particularly commend Senator Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of our Aging Committee, who has worked very closely with me, for his perseverance in correcting this inequity. As a result of the work of our bipartisan coalition, this reimbursement system is going to change. We will see all counties in our country get a minimum payment for these health care plans that are holding costs down while giving good quality, and over a period of time there will be a blending of reimbursement rates to consider both local reimbursement patterns and national patterns. What this means is that areas like Oregon that have held costs down while giving good quality will get higher reimbursement, and my constituents, older people, are pleased because they will be in a position to get better benefits. But what is especially important is this is the kind of reimbursement change that is essential to save this program in the 21st century. I would submit that what will happen as a result of the bipartisan work to change the Medicare reimbursement process--Senator Grassley, myself, and others have spent so much time--is we will start seeing competition and choice come to health care programs in parts of the country where there is no competition and there is no choice. So we are talking about a change that, in my view, is going to really pay off for our country and pay off greatly in the years ahead. Mr. President, I want to turn very briefly to the question of the other changes in Medicare that the Senate has debated and we are going to have to tackle in the days ahead. Particularly now I turn to the question of raising the age of eligibility for the Medicare Program and the question of a means test or some sort of ability-to-pay test being incorporated into Medicare. I have long felt that Lee Iacocca ought to be paying more for his Medicare than should an older woman who is 75 and has Alzheimer's and has an income of $10,000 a year. So I think it is clear there is going to have to be an ability-to-pay feature added to the Medicare Program. But it is extraordinarily important that this be done right and that this be done carefully. I and other Members of the Senate felt that to try to do this over just a few months with so many questions about how this would be administered was precipitous action. But it must be done. Let us make no mistake about it. That change is going to have to be a part of 21st century Medicare. It has to be done fairly. My constituents were concerned that at a time when already they did not get a fair shake under the Medicare reimbursement formula, they were going to be asked to pay more immediately under Medicare. So there are some real questions about how to do this and do it fairly. But I want it understood I am of the view that there will have to be an essential change, and I am very hopeful the Senate will not wait for a bipartisan commission to make recommendations but with the completion of this legislation will start on that issue as well. With respect to the question of the age of eligibility for the program, here, too, there are very important technical questions of how it is done and how it is done fairly. There have been a number of analyses of late that have shown there is a significant increase in the number of uninsured Americans between the age of 55 to 64. So if that group of uninsured individuals is growing, to then add more, those between the ages of 65 and 67, would cause a hardship. So what I and others hope will be done as this effort to examine the age of eligibility is addressed is that there will be a buy-in opportunity, an opportunity for those individuals without insurance in that age group to be able to buy into the Medicare Program on a sliding scale. Again, I think this is an opportunity the Senate ought to examine carefully, ought to look at in a bipartisan way, and not wait for a commission to make recommendations as to how it ought to be done. Finally, Mr. President, let me say that as these significant changes in Medicare are made, beginning with the reimbursement formula changes that are being made now, changes that will bring fairness and competition and choice to the program, at every step of the way we have to keep the focus on protecting the rights of the patient. In this body Senators Akaka, Kennedy, and myself have led the push to ban gag clauses from managed care health plans. Health care is a complicated issue, we could all agree. But one issue we all should agree on is that patients have a right to know all the information about the kind of medical services and options that would be made available to them. Under this legislation, that significant protection for patients is in place and I think it is just the beginning of the kind of new focus that should be placed on patients' rights and the protection of quality health care which older people deserve. At a time when the health care system and Medicare specifically are in transition, protection for the rights of the patients is even more important than ever. At a time when there is a focus on more competition and choice, it ought to be met with an equal emphasis of protecting the rights of the patients, and that has begun in this legislation as well. Mr. President, I come from a part of the country that is proud to have led the Nation in the cause of health care reform and efficiency. Under the leadership of our Governor, Gov. John Kitzhaber, we have reinvented the Medicaid Program with the Oregon Health Plan. For more than a decade, as a result of work done by Democrats and Republicans and older people and health care professionals, we have reinvented the Medicare Program in much of our State. So there is a new emphasis on choice and quality. What this legislation does is it removes the penalties against those programs that have been creative, those programs that have led the Nation in reforming Medicare and Medicaid. It is high time that those changes are made. Mr. President, I think those changes lay the foundation for the other critical changes that are going to be needed to strengthen health care services in the days ahead. I look forward to working with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to achieve those changes. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. On the budget.

Mr. WYDEN. Fifteen or twenty or minutes would be plenty. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join today in bipartisan support for this important piece of legislation. In doing so, I want to commend Chairman Jeffords, in particular, and Members on both sides of the aisle, because this bill, in my view, meets the central test for good FDA reform legislation. An FDA reform bill ought to keep the critical safety mission for the Food and Drug Administration, while at the same time encouraging innovation-- innovation that is going to produce new therapies and save lives. This bill meets that twin test. This bill is a result of, as several of our colleagues have noted, much debate and an extraordinary effort to build consensus. I am proud to have played some part in that effort as a Member of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, having introduced, more than 2 years ago, H.R. 1472, the FDA Modernization Act, which contains several of the key ingredients of the legislation before us today. Mr. President, from the time we get up in the morning until the time we go to bed at night, we live, work, eat, and drink in a world of products that are affected by decisions made at the Food and Drug Administration. Perhaps no other Federal agency has such a broad impact in the daily lives of average Americans. Food handling and commercial preparation often occurs under the agency's scrutiny. Over-the-counter drugs and nutritional supplements, from vitamins to aspirin, are also certified by the agency. Life-saving drugs for treatment of cancer, autoimmune deficiency, and other dreaded diseases, are held to its rigorous approval standards. Medical devices ranging from the very simple to the complex, from tongue depressors to computerized diagnostic equipment, all have to meet quality standards at the FDA. These products that are overseen by the FDA are woven deeply into the fabric of our daily lives, and the agency's twin missions of certifying their safety and effectiveness is supported by the vast majority of Americans. Yet, balancing those missions against the time and expense required by companies to navigate the FDA approval system has often been difficult and controversial. In the last Congress, radical transformation of the agency, even ending the agency as we know it and replacing it with a panel of private sector, expert entrepreneurs, became a goal of some. At the very least, reforming the Food and Drug Administration at the beginning of the last Congress looked to be an exercise fraught with partisan political turmoil, and destined for ongoing gridlock. But while there was focus on the extreme ends of the argument--those folks arguing for no changes against Members demanding wholesale dismemberment of the agency--a broad, bipartisan group of Members of Congress developed. With the help of Vice President Gore's Reinventing Government Program, Members of Congress from both political parties developed practical, bipartisan solutions to the critical management issues that the FDA approval process presents. I sought to mobilize this bipartisan movement with H.R. 1472, introduced in June 1995. Some in my party thought I had gone too far, too fast. But I am gratified that many of the elements of this legislation, strengthened in this legislation, are going to be considered by the Senate. These include, first, a streamlining of approval systems for biotechnology product manufacturing. It is clear that the rules for biotechnology, so central to health care progress, have not kept up with the times. This legislation will allow biotechnology to move into the 21st century with a realistic framework of regulation. The bill allows approval of important new breakthrough drugs on the basis of a single, clinically valid trial. It creates a collaborative mechanism allowing applicants to confer constructively with the FDA at critical points in the approval process. It sets reasonable, but strict, timeframes for the approval of decisionmaking. It reduces the paperwork and reporting burden now facing so many small entrepreneurs when they make minor changes in the manufacturing process. It establishes provisions for allowing third-party review of applications at the discretion of the Secretary. It allows manufacturers to distribute scientifically valid information on uses for approved drugs and devices, which have not yet been certified by the Food and Drug Administration. Each of those areas, Mr. President, was in the legislation that I introduced more than 2 years ago, and with the bipartisan efforts that have been made in this bill, each of them has been strengthened. I am especially pleased that Senators Mack, Frist, Dodd, Boxer, Kennedy, and I could offer the provisions of this legislation relating to the dissemination of information on off-label uses of approved products. This provision will allow manufacturers to distribute scientifically and clinically valid information on such uses following a review by the Food and Drug Administration, including a decision that I proposed more than 2 years ago, which may require additional balancing material to be added to the packet. Here is why that is important. Manufacturers with an approved drug for ovarian cancer may have important, but not yet conclusive, information from new trials that their drug also may reduce brain or breast cancers. That data, while perhaps not yet of a grade to meet supplemental labeling approval, may be critically important for an end- stage breast cancer patient whose doctor has exhausted all other treatments. That doctor and that doctor's patient have the absolute right to that information. It is time for this policy of censorship at the Food and Drug Administration to end. I believe that, with the legislation that will come before the Senate, it will be possible for health care providers to get this critical information and do it in a way that protects the safety of all of our citizens. This legislation is going to save lives, not sacrifice them. It is going to mean that more doctors and their patients will have meaningful access to life-saving information about drugs that treat dread diseases like HIV and cancer. It will mean that biologic products will have a swifter passage through an approval process which no longer will require unnecessarily difficult demands with regard to the size of a startup manufacturing process. It will mean that breakthrough drugs that offer relief or cures for deadly diseases, for which there is no approved therapy, are going to get to the market earlier on the basis of a specially expedited approval system. Mr. President, legislation, indeed laws, are only words on paper. Mr. President, we must also have a new FDA Commissioner who is committed to the changes in S. 830, just as committed to those changes as former Commissioner David Kessler was committed to the war on teenage smoking. This bill goes a long way to making sure that the Food and Drug Administration is prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. But we also need to make sure that at the FDA, at that agency, there is a new commitment at every level to carry out these changes. I believe that it is possible to keep the mission of the Food and Drug Administration--that all-critical safety mission, a mission that Americans rely on literally from the time they get up in the morning until the time they go to bed at night--while still ensuring that there are opportunities for innovation in the development of cures for dread diseases. Mr. President, I also want to conclude by thanking a member of my staff, Mr. Steve Jenning. For several years now, he has toiled on many of these provisions with Members of Congress on both the House side and the Senate side, to help bring about this legislation. He has, in my view, done yeoman work, and I want to make sure that the Senate knows about his efforts. I know my colleagues in the House are very much aware of him. So we all look forward, on a bipartisan basis, to seeing S. 830 come to the floor. It is a bill that is going to make a difference in terms of saving lives. The Senate needs to pass it and needs to pass it this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support S. 830, the FDA Modernization and Accountability Act. This bill deserves support for one primary reason. It preserves the FDA's essential mission of validating the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and medical devices, while encouraging innovation and the commercialization of new, life-saving therapies. This bill is the result of much debate, and tremendous consensus building over the last two Congresses. I'm proud to have played some part in this as a Member of both the House and the Senate, having introduced more than 2 years ago H.R. 1472, the FDA Modernization Act of 1995, which contains several of the key ingredients of the legislation before us today. From the time we get up in the morning until the time we go to bed at night, we live, work, eat, and drink in a world of products affected by FDA decisionmaking. Perhaps no other Federal agency has such a broad impact in the daily lives of average Americans. Food handling and commercial preparation often occurs under the agency's scrutiny. Over-the-counter drugs and nutritional supplements, from vitamins to aspirin, also are certified by the agency. Life-saving drugs for treatment of cancer, autoimmune deficiency, and other dread diseases are held to its rigorous approval standards. Medical devices ranging from the simple to the complex, from tongue depressors to computerized diagnostic equipment, must meet FDA quality standards. These products overseen by the FDA are woven deeply into the fabric of our daily lives, and the agency's twin missions of certifying their safety and effectiveness is supported by the vast majority of Americans. Yet, balancing those missions against the time and expense required by manufacturers to navigate the FDA approval system has been difficult and controversial. In the last Congress, radical transformation of the agency, even ending the agency as we know it and replacing it with a panel of private-sector, expert entrepreneurs, became a goal of some. At the very least, reforming the FDA at the beginning of the 104th Congress looked to be an exercise fraught with partisan political turmoil, and destined for gridlock. But while there was focus on the extreme ends of the argument, those folks arguing for no changes against members demanding wholesale dismemberment of the agency, a broader, bipartisan middle developed. And with the help of Vice President's Gore's Reinventing Government Program, Members of Congress from both political parties developed practical, bipartisan solutions to the critical process and management problems in the FDA approval process. I sought to mobilize this bipartisan movement with H.R. 1472 introduced in June 1995. Some in my own party thought I had gone to far, too fast, But I am gratified that many of the elements of that legislation have been retained and strengthened in the legislation and managers amendment we expect to have before us this week. These include: It streamlines approval systems for biotechnology product manufacturing; it allows approval of important, new breakthrough drugs on the basis of a single, clinically valid trial; it creates a collaborative mechanism allowing applicants to confer constructively with the FDA at critical points in the approval process; it sets reasonable but strict timeframes for approval decisionmaking; it reduces the paperwork and reporting burden now facing manufacturers when they make minor changes in their manufacturing process; it establishes provisions for allowing third-party review of applications at the discretion of the Secretary; and it allows manufacturers to distribute scientifically valid information on uses for approved drugs and devices which may not yet be certified by the FDA. I am especially pleased that Senators Mack, Frist, Dodd, Boxer, Kennedy, and I could offer the provisions of this legislation relating to the dissemination of information on off-label uses of approved products. This provision will allow manufacturers to distribute scientifically and clinically valid information on such uses following a review by the FDA, including a decision by the agency which may require additional balancing material be added to the packet. Here's why that's important: Manufacturers with an approved drug for ovarian cancer may have important, but not yet conclusive information from new trials that their drug also may reduce brain or breast cancers. That data, while perhaps not yet of a grade to meet supplemental labeling approval, may be important for an end-stage breast cancer patient whose doctor has exhausted all other treatments. That doctor, and her patient, has the absolute right to that information. This legislation will save lives, not sacrifice them. It will mean that more doctors and their patients will have meaningful access to life-saving information about drugs that treat dread diseases like AIDS and cancer. It will mean that biologic products will have a swifter passage through an approval process which no longer will require unnecessarily difficult demands with regard to the size of a start-up manufacturing process. It will mean that break-through drugs which offer relief from, or curses of deadly disease for which there is no approved therapy will get into the marketplace earlier, on the basis of a special expedited approval system. But legislation, indeed laws, are only words on paper. Mr. President, we must also have a new FDA Commissioner who is as committed to these changes as former Commissioner David Kessler was committed to the war on teenage smoking. The pharmaceutical industry is a robust, risk-taking, technology- driven business. But by measure of total U.S. employment growth in this industry is stalling out. While sales by U.S.-based concerns continue to increase, more of the industry's manufacturing--its jobs--is migrating overseas. Part of the reason is rising domestic development costs. According to Tufts University, the average development time for a new drug is now up to 7 years. And the cost of such developments now figures out at something close to $360 million per product. We shouldn't kid ourselves about who foots the bill for these high development and approval costs--it's the consumer, and it comes via the extraordinary high prices we pay on drugs which can spell the literal difference between life and death. S. 830 significantly reforms that regime, recognizing that we all-- government, industry, and consumers--have a real stake in cutting the explosive costs of bringing new medical products to the marketplace, and in making available break-through, life-saving therapies more quickly, and at a lower price. Along with these important reforms, S. 380 also reauthorizes for 5 years the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, a very successful program that has helped swiftly approve scores of new life-saving therapies. Let me also point out that while this bill makes substantial and far- reaching improvements, it distinctly moderates last year's reform effort. So-called hammers that would have caused the agency to lose jurisdiction over the approval process if tight decision-making deadlines were not met have been eliminated. Also missing is last year's provision requiring the agency to approve products previously approved in Europe. My colleagues should understand that this bill is the result of efforts to reach a true common ground on many tough issues. Many more issues were gray, than they were black or white. Extremists on neither side of the debate can claim an advantage, or a victory. The real victory, I believe, will be realized by the American consumer.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds?

Mr. WYDEN. My last point is we know, for example, that properly managed forests are a cost-effective alternative to end-of-pipe emission controls or carbon taxes. There are alternatives out there. My home State has shown they can work, and I thank Senator Kerry for the extra time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend particularly Senator Byrd and Senator Kerry for their leadership in this area and say I come to the floor as a U.S. Senator from a State that is the first State in the country to put mandatory limits on carbon dioxide, the primary manmade source of global warming. We have shown in our home State that it is possible to have a thriving, prosperous economy and take steps to limit these environmental problems that our colleagues have talked about. The fact is, our country can help play a leadership role in controlling global warming without causing an economic meltdown. There are, really, three approaches that the State of Oregon has used, as the first State in the country to have mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions. First, as Senators Byrd and Kerry have talked about, we give great emphasis on market mechanisms. We are not talking about a big government approach. We are talking about using the market. Second, we have taken steps to build these new approaches into new powerplant design. It is prospective, so that all those who are constructing our new powerplants understand the rules. Third, we have given special rewards, credits, for innovative approaches such as proper management of our forests. I conclude by saying that properly managed forests can be very effective in helping to capture greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, and removing them from the air. Our Northwest forests are some of the very best carbon sinks in the world. The older forests are estimated to be two to three times as effective in capturing carbon dioxide emissions as new growth. I have heard several of my colleagues talk about some of the alternatives. Carbon taxes----

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the position of Assistant Attorney General for Anti-Trust is one of the most critical to assuring American consumers enjoy the benefits of competition. The decisions made by the individual who holds this title affect billions of dollars and the ability of our companies to compete in the global economy. They affect corporate profit and loss sheets and the course of the stock market. But most importantly, they affect the prices consumers pay for basic services, from telephone calls to transportation and television. No area holds more promise for competition than communications, and that was the major impetus for the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Act was intended to eliminate monopolies, spur new entrants and bring down prices. Eighteen months later, we have seen pitifully little progress. The Administration has not moved aggressively to promote competition. The vote I will cast today is meant to send a signal to the Administration that those of us in Congress who supported the 1996 Telecommunications Act want to see competition rather than concentration. As a member of the Commerce Communications Subcommittee, I had hoped the 1996 Telecommunications Act would unleash a torrent of competition. Instead, we have seen prices outpace inflation in many areas. Each day the paper seems to carry yet another announcement of one giant company's plans to merge with another. Companies are spending millions of dollars on litigation and negative advertising. The situation reminds me of the African proverb: when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. The grass here is the American consumer. Perhaps the overwhelming array of choices has lulled the consumer into a sense of complacency. We hear about 500 channel broadcast satellite and video-on-demand. We see pages and pages of advertisements for cellular phones and CD ROM's, interactive computers and digital cameras. The pace of progress is incredible. But if one peeks behind the smorgasboard, there is a very disturbing trend. The trend is toward concentration and media mega-mergers. Today's competitors are becoming tomorrow's partners. Mr. President, this is why the position of Assistant Attorney General for Anti-Trust is so crucial. The individual who sits in that office plays a pivotal role in assuring our anti-trust laws produce robust competition rather than rogue concentration. Consumers need a champion for choice in communications. I like Mr. Klein personally and believe him to be a skilled lawyer. It is the Administration's failure to move aggressively to promote competition that disturbs me. I hope my vote today sends a clear message to the Administration that the trend toward increased communications concentration needs to be thorougly examined and challenged. For this reason, Mr. President, I will not be able to support the Administration on this vote.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the hour is late, and I know a number of our colleagues, Senator DeWine in particular, has been very gracious or anxious to discuss some important issues. I just rise for a few moments to discuss the role of Egypt in the Middle East process. I think we all understand the dream of peace in the Middle East is going to take courage, patience and commitment from all of the countries in the region. Unfortunately, Egypt, the second largest recipient of U.S. aid, has taken a number of actions of late which seem more likely to undermine the peace that grew out of Anwar Sadat's courageous decision to go to Israel. I rise, therefore, with several other colleagues, questioning several of these actions by Egypt, a long-time recipient of substantial amounts of U.S. foreign assistance. These actions, in my view, raise serious questions, especially when they seem to contradict U.S. efforts to secure a lasting peace in the Middle East. Specifically, I am troubled by Egypt hosting an Arab League summit in Cairo earlier this year in which Egypt supported the renewal of the Arab League boycott of Israel. This represents a clear violation of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. U.S. policy has long sought to end the boycott. Yet, in this situation there is a recipient of U.S. aid that supports it. I am also troubled that Egypt has emerged as Libyan Leader Qadhafi's most important advocate internationally. Egyptian President Mubarak has publicly stated that Egypt does not produce chemical weapons, that Libya does not produce chemical weapons. He has advocated easing United States sanctions on Libya, and he has violated the U.N. ban on air travel by allowing Qadhafi to fly to the Arab summit in Cairo. What is particularly of distress to this Senator is President Mubarak was the only leader to decline President Clinton's invitation to attend an October Middle East summit in Washington to revise the peace process and to end ongoing violence. Most recently, Mr. President, and colleagues, we have seen some efforts by top Egyptian officials to take actions to reinvigorate the peace negotiations. I am very hopeful that those recent actions will be a signal that Egypt intends to play a more constructive role in the days ahead, in terms of producing a lasting peace. I have been especially pleased to see the strong, bipartisan support here in the Senate for the Middle East process, and for the good work begun in Oslo, and I am very hopeful that Egypt will see that there is strong concern right now in the United States Senate about a number of their actions of late and that the Congress will be monitoring those actions carefully. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes on an amendment that I offer today with my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith, dealing with the tragic crash last November of a C-130 Oregon Air Force Reserve plane. It is our understanding that the amendment has been cleared with the managers on both sides of the aisle and will be included in a package that will be offered later today.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, and colleagues, last November our Nation was shocked by the terrible news that an Air Force Reserve C-130 had crashed off the California coast, killing 10 Oregon reservists. All of the people of our State grieved and rallied to the support of the surviving family members, providing what comfort could be offered at a time of tragedy. Mr. President, when these tragedies occur, the first question must be: What can be done for the families of the victims, and how can it be possible to make sure that these tragedies do not happen in the future to the sons and daughters of other Americans? What we found in our situation is that the Air Force, when they stepped in, was able to offer only limited assistance to the families. The families had extreme difficulty in learning even the most basic facts about the crash and about the subsequent investigation. How would you feel if anxiously awaiting the news you were to first learn important details from television news stories? This is what happened in our home State of Oregon. And it is completely unacceptable. What our amendment does, Mr. President, is really two things. It directs the Federal Government to look into the question of using a different notification process for informing the families in these tragedies. As a member of the aviation committee here in the Senate, I have seen that there have been improvements in terms of dealing with these tragedies on the civilian side. And I believe it is time to bring more accountability, more compassion, and more openness in terms of how the families are notified in the instance of tragedies such as the C-130 that took the lives of our constituents. So the first part of our amendment directs the Federal Government to looking into using the process used on the civilian side with respect to these crashes such as we had in Oregon. The second part of our amendment directs the Federal Government to look into the way investigations of these accidents are followed up on. Right now, there is a dual-track system. There is one top secret investigation of a crash that cannot be seen. There is another separate investigation for public dissemination. And I am of the view that given what has come to light about the C-130 in the last few weeks, that this dual-track investigation, this dual-track process is eroding public confidence in our system of handling these inquiries. I believe that it is time to look at this in a comprehensive way, to lift the cloak of secrecy with respect to these investigations, unless it involves national security. Under the second part of the amendment that Senator Smith and I offer together here today, there would be an effort to look into ending the dual-track system. Right now, the dual-track system, given all that has come to light about similar problems in the last few weeks, in my view erodes public confidence, and it is time for the Federal Government to look at a different kind of system and, in my view, lift the cloak of secrecy unless an investigation does involve national security. Mr. President, I want to thank the managers of the legislation, particularly the chairman of the committee, Senator Thurmond, and the ranking Democrat, Senator Levin. They have been extremely helpful to Senator Smith and I in going forward on this matter. The people of our State are grieving about this, and they want answers. We thank them. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Smith, who has been working with me on this. We have pursued this every step of the way on a bipartisan basis. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the managers of the Department of Defense authorization bill and the committees for their assistance and support of my amendment. Earlier this year, the Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention. This historic treaty puts into U.S. law a clear prohibition on the testing, production, and stockpiling of an entire class of terrible weapons of mass destruction, and we are now part of the international institutions which will enforce the treaty worldwide. Even with this clear ban, constituents have written me concerned that, without their consent, human test subjects are used to research chemical and biological weapons agents, or that the Government, with the consent of local elected officials and Congress, may conduct experiments on civilian populations. Very often, these concerns are based on reading existing provisions in the United States Code that appear to permit it. The provision in question, contained in title 50, United States Code, Chapter 32, Section 1520, is a relic of the cold war, and my amendment strikes it. Further, to make it clear that such testing is no longer permitted, this amendment spells out a clear, easily understood prohibition of the use of human test subjects in chemical and biological weapons research. To prevent confusion, this amendment spells out the distinction between weapons testing and such peaceful medical research such as the search for a cure for AIDS or developing vaccines for deadly diseases. But to make sure that even this peaceful research is not misused, my amendments adds a new reporting requirement for the Pentagon to describe in detail every year exactly what sort of medical and peaceful research is conducted and requires the Department of Defense to certify that full informed consent was obtained in advance from anybody participating in this research. Congress, and most importantly, the public must have the best possible information about these programs. A provision that, on the surface, appears to permit testing of chemical weapons on civilian populations has no place in U.S. law, and I thank my colleagues for joining me in striking it. amendment no. 595 as modified (Purpose: Reports on procedures for providing information and assistance to families of victims of Department of Defense aviation accidents) At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with that assurance of the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Roth, and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, who have been very helpful to Mr. Smith and myself on behalf of our State, we are very pleased with this, and with that assurance, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment at this time and look forward to voting for the managers' amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, because of its inclusion in the managers' package, that is appropriate at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment allows several States to go forward with some of the most innovative work being done in health care in America--in Senator McCain's State and my own, several others. This amendment is budget neutral, but in our home State of Oregon, through the Oregon Health Plan, we have been able to serve upwards of 100,000 low-income families with an innovative approach. The administration supports these efforts. It is a chance to go forward in innovative health care, a critically important issue at this time. I hope my colleagues will support this budget-neutral measure. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Report Card Act of 1997 to redress the poor quality of national data on adoption and foster care. According to the American Public Welfare Association, the population of children in foster care is growing 33 times faster than the United States child population in general. During the past 10 years, more children have entered the foster care system than have exited. Every year, 15,000 children graduate from foster care by turning 18 with no permanent family. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 40 percent of all foster children leaving the system end up on welfare. In addition to the 50,000 children who today are legally free to be adopted, there are hundreds of thousands more who drift for days, months, or years within the state-run system--a system that too often lets down some of society's most vulnerable--our children. I have already introduced legislation to promote kinship care as one solution to this problem. However, more still needs to be done. Part of the problem is we simply don't have any data on where children are in the system. No one knows how long our children are languishing in the foster care system, or how long it takes a State to find adoptive placements for children. Finding comprehensive data for each State is a challenge and, until recently, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] did not collect comprehensive national data on adoption from every State. The legislation I offer in the Senate today will require HHS to issue an annual report card on the performance of each State in protecting children placed for adoption, in foster care or with a guardian. My bill will require HHS to develop outcome measures, a rating system for each State and make recommendations on how States can improve their efforts to move children from foster care to loving families. It is high time we started holding those responsible for children in foster care accountable for the treatment of these children. I believe an annual report card will give us the information we need to improve the care and quality of life for these children. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Adoption Report Card Act of 1997 to redress the poor quality of national data on adoption and foster care. According to the American Public Welfare Association, the population of children in foster care is growing 33 times faster than the United States child population in general. During the past 10 years, more children have entered the foster care system than have exited. Every year, 15,000 children graduate from foster care by turning 18 with no permanent family. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 40 percent of all foster children leaving the system end up on welfare. In addition to the 50,000 children who today are legally free to be adopted, there are hundreds of thousands more who drift for days, months, or years within the state-run system--a system that too often lets down some of society's most vulnerable--our children. I have already introduced legislation to promote kinship care as one solution to this problem. However, more still needs to be done. Part of the problem is we simply don't have any data on where children are in the system. No one knows how long our children are languishing in the foster care system, or how long it takes a State to find adoptive placements for children. Finding comprehensive data for each State is a challenge and, until recently, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] did not collect comprehensive national data on adoption from every State. The legislation I offer in the Senate today will require HHS to issue an annual report card on the performance of each State in protecting children placed for adoption, in foster care or with a guardian. My bill will require HHS to develop outcome measures, a rating system for each State and make recommendations on how States can improve their efforts to move children from foster care to loving families. It is high time we started holding those responsible for children in foster care accountable for the treatment of these children. I believe an annual report card will give us the information we need to improve the care and quality of life for these children. I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senator D'Amato to reauthorize the Self-Employment Assistance [SEA] Program. The Self-Employment Assistance Program takes an innovative and cost-effective approach to helping eligible dislocated workers become self-sufficient: It enables them to use their weekly unemployment checks to start their own businesses. The law has helped turn the unemployment safety net into a trampoline of opportunity for thousands of unemployed. Today, in 38 States the unemployed who wish to start their own businesses are forced to give up their weekly unemployment compensation checks as soon as their company starts generating revenue--but before it provides enough income to support them. It is exactly this problem the Self-Employment Assistance Program is designed to correct. It gives many skilled workers the chance to get back to work faster and helps create new jobs as well. In a few short years, the Self-Employment Assistance Program (Public Law 103-182; title V) has enabled thousands of unemployed Americans to use their unemployment compensation to establish new businesses. Modeled on experiments in Massachusetts and Washington, self-employment programs can create jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. Using existing funds, the Massachusetts program created dozens of new businesses but actually paid $1,400 less unemployment per worker than the State average. The Washington program created more than 600 new jobs and the firms were paying an average of $10.50 an hour to workers they had hired. In Oregon, 122 UI claimants enrolled in SEA last year; 76 completed the program. These entrepreneurs are now running an auto repair shop, a marine maintenance and repair shop, distributing cleaning products to resorts and restaurants along the Oregon Coast and setting up a computer cleaning service. In Grants Pass, OR, one participant said she could not have developed her publication business without SEA. It helped keep her afloat financially while she pursued her self-employment goal. She received counseling from the local Small Business Development Center, and through the Center she was able to contact potential customers. In Sweet Home, OR, another woman said the SEA program gave her the chance to have an income as she was starting up her day care business. She presently cares for nine children by herself and has plans to increase enrollment and add another teacher and three aides. The Small Business Development Center at Linn-Benton Community College helped her develop her business plan and locate financial resources. Over the past 3 years, 10 States used the 1993 legislation to create Self-Employment Assistance programs: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island. To date, DoL has approved six States plans (California, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, New York and Oregon) and four of these-- Delaware, Maine, New York and Oregon--are actually up and running. Here's how the program works. States are given the flexibility to establish Self-Employment Assistance [SEA] programs as part of their unemployment insurance [UI] programs. It permits States to provide income support payments to the unemployed in the same weekly amount as the worker's regular unemployment insurance [UI] benefits would otherwise be. It permits claimants to work full-time on starting their own business instead of searching for traditional wage and salary jobs. The law directs the DoL to review and approve State SEA program plans. In States that operate SEA programs, new UI claimants who may be eligible for SEA are identified through worker profiling--automated systems that use a set of criteria to identify those claimants who are likely to exhaust their UI benefits and need reemployment assistance. State SEA program provide participants on a weekly or biweekly basis the same amount as regular UI benefits while they are getting their business off the ground. SEA participants are required to participate in technical assistance programs--entrepreneurial training (accounting, cash flow, finances, taxes, etc), business counseling (business plans, marketing, legal requirements, insurance, etc.), and finance--to ensure they have the skills necessary to operate a business. Finally, SEA programs are required to operate at no additional cost to the unemployment trust fund: the law stipulates that the payment of SEA allowances may not result in any additional benefits charges the unemployment trust fund. Individuals may choose at any time to opt out of the SEA program; they may resume collection of regular unemployment compensation until the total amount of regular unemployment compensation paid and the SEA paid equals the maximum benefit amount. States, through the title III of the Job Training Partnership Act and Small Business Development Centers, support the costs of providing basic SEA program services, like business counseling and technical assistance, but may allow participants to pay for more intensive counseling and technical assistance. In effect, the program eliminates a high hurdle for those who have the ingenuity, motivation and energy to start their own businesses. In those States with SEA programs, an unemployed worker no longer has to choose between receiving UI benefits and starting a new business. Mr. President, as we move into the global economy of the 21st century, we must adopt fresh strategies so that our skilled but unemployed workers can start anew in the private sector. Harvard Business School reported last year that from 1978 to 1996, 22 percent of the workforce, or 3 million workers, at the country's top 100 companies had been laid off, and that 77 percent of all the layoffs involved white collar workers. Many of these highly-skilled and motivated workers want to start their own firms. Congress should not stand in their way. Renewal of the Self-Employment Assistance Program will give those States with programs continued flexibility to help unemployed workers create their own businesses and should encourage those without programs to establish them. Our bipartisan bill promotes the spirit of entrepreneurship. It carries forward a reasonable and sensible reform of the unemployment insurance system at no cost to the taxpayer. I would like to thank Senator D'Amato for joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill. New York has a very active and successful Self- Employment Assistance Program, and I look forward to working closely with him to see this important program reauthorized. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senator D'Amato to reauthorize the Self-Employment Assistance [SEA] Program. The Self-Employment Assistance Program takes an innovative and cost-effective approach to helping eligible dislocated workers become self-sufficient: It enables them to use their weekly unemployment checks to start their own businesses. The law has helped turn the unemployment safety net into a trampoline of opportunity for thousands of unemployed. Today, in 38 States the unemployed who wish to start their own businesses are forced to give up their weekly unemployment compensation checks as soon as their company starts generating revenue--but before it provides enough income to support them. It is exactly this problem the Self-Employment Assistance Program is designed to correct. It gives many skilled workers the chance to get back to work faster and helps create new jobs as well. In a few short years, the Self-Employment Assistance Program (Public Law 103-182; title V) has enabled thousands of unemployed Americans to use their unemployment compensation to establish new businesses. Modeled on experiments in Massachusetts and Washington, self-employment programs can create jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. Using existing funds, the Massachusetts program created dozens of new businesses but actually paid $1,400 less unemployment per worker than the State average. The Washington program created more than 600 new jobs and the firms were paying an average of $10.50 an hour to workers they had hired. In Oregon, 122 UI claimants enrolled in SEA last year; 76 completed the program. These entrepreneurs are now running an auto repair shop, a marine maintenance and repair shop, distributing cleaning products to resorts and restaurants along the Oregon Coast and setting up a computer cleaning service. In Grants Pass, OR, one participant said she could not have developed her publication business without SEA. It helped keep her afloat financially while she pursued her self-employment goal. She received counseling from the local Small Business Development Center, and through the Center she was able to contact potential customers. In Sweet Home, OR, another woman said the SEA program gave her the chance to have an income as she was starting up her day care business. She presently cares for nine children by herself and has plans to increase enrollment and add another teacher and three aides. The Small Business Development Center at Linn-Benton Community College helped her develop her business plan and locate financial resources. Over the past 3 years, 10 States used the 1993 legislation to create Self-Employment Assistance programs: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island. To date, DoL has approved six States plans (California, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, New York and Oregon) and four of these-- Delaware, Maine, New York and Oregon--are actually up and running. Here's how the program works. States are given the flexibility to establish Self-Employment Assistance [SEA] programs as part of their unemployment insurance [UI] programs. It permits States to provide income support payments to the unemployed in the same weekly amount as the worker's regular unemployment insurance [UI] benefits would otherwise be. It permits claimants to work full-time on starting their own business instead of searching for traditional wage and salary jobs. The law directs the DoL to review and approve State SEA program plans. In States that operate SEA programs, new UI claimants who may be eligible for SEA are identified through worker profiling--automated systems that use a set of criteria to identify those claimants who are likely to exhaust their UI benefits and need reemployment assistance. State SEA program provide participants on a weekly or biweekly basis the same amount as regular UI benefits while they are getting their business off the ground. SEA participants are required to participate in technical assistance programs--entrepreneurial training (accounting, cash flow, finances, taxes, etc), business counseling (business plans, marketing, legal requirements, insurance, etc.), and finance--to ensure they have the skills necessary to operate a business. Finally, SEA programs are required to operate at no additional cost to the unemployment trust fund: the law stipulates that the payment of SEA allowances may not result in any additional benefits charges the unemployment trust fund. Individuals may choose at any time to opt out of the SEA program; they may resume collection of regular unemployment compensation until the total amount of regular unemployment compensation paid and the SEA paid equals the maximum benefit amount. States, through the title III of the Job Training Partnership Act and Small Business Development Centers, support the costs of providing basic SEA program services, like business counseling and technical assistance, but may allow participants to pay for more intensive counseling and technical assistance. In effect, the program eliminates a high hurdle for those who have the ingenuity, motivation and energy to start their own businesses. In those States with SEA programs, an unemployed worker no longer has to choose between receiving UI benefits and starting a new business. Mr. President, as we move into the global economy of the 21st century, we must adopt fresh strategies so that our skilled but unemployed workers can start anew in the private sector. Harvard Business School reported last year that from 1978 to 1996, 22 percent of the workforce, or 3 million workers, at the country's top 100 companies had been laid off, and that 77 percent of all the layoffs involved white collar workers. Many of these highly-skilled and motivated workers want to start their own firms. Congress should not stand in their way. Renewal of the Self-Employment Assistance Program will give those States with programs continued flexibility to help unemployed workers create their own businesses and should encourage those without programs to establish them. Our bipartisan bill promotes the spirit of entrepreneurship. It carries forward a reasonable and sensible reform of the unemployment insurance system at no cost to the taxpayer. I would like to thank Senator D'Amato for joining me as an original cosponsor of this bill. New York has a very active and successful Self- Employment Assistance Program, and I look forward to working closely with him to see this important program reauthorized. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation authorizing an exchange of lands between the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Lake County, OR. I believe that this exchange project is a win-win proposition for both the Federal Government and Lake County. Under my bill, the U.S. Forest Service will deed about 290 acres of national forest land, comprising the Warner Canyon ski hill, to Lake County. In exchange, Lake County will deed roughly 320 acres of land within the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge to the Federal Government. The refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The specific acreage offered by the county will be determined upon a specific appraisal of all the lands in order to provide for an equal value land trade. While there is a commonly held notion that western ski areas resemble Oregon's Mt. Bachelor or Colorado's Vail, the fact is that there are many dozens of very small, financially marginal ski hills in the backyards of many small western towns. Warner Canyon is one of them. The Warner Canyon ski hill has been operated by the nonprofit Fremont Highlanders Ski Club since 1938. It's one of America's last nonprofit ski hills. It has one lift--a T bar. It has 780 vertical feet of skiing. The ski area is about 5 miles from the town of Lakeview, which has a population of roughly 2,500. The people of Lakeview believe that this legislation is necessary to keep the ski area viable. The Federal requirements for managing ski areas are more in tune with the Vails than the Warner Canyons. I'm told that under county ownership the liability expense alone should be reduced tenfold. The forest supervisor tells us that it costs the Forest Service about $10,000 per year to administer the ski area permit, yet the area generates just more than $400 per year in ski fee revenues to the U.S. Treasury. I also want to emphasize the benefits of this bill to the Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge. As my colleagues well understand, too many of our national wildlife refuges contain private land inholdings over which the Federal Government has essentially no control. These lands can be sold or developed at any time. If Lake County were ever strapped for cash, it would certainly be their prerogative to sell these parcels to the highest bidder. With this acquisition we move closer to the permanent protection of this important Oregon wildlife refuge. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record the bill and my statement, a document from the Lake County Board of Commissioners entitled ``Reasons to support Warner Canyon Ski Hill Ownership Transfer,'' and letters of support from the Fremont Highlanders Ski Club, Inc., and the Lake County Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation authorizing an exchange of lands between the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Lake County, OR. I believe that this exchange project is a win-win proposition for both the Federal Government and Lake County. Under my bill, the U.S. Forest Service will deed about 290 acres of national forest land, comprising the Warner Canyon ski hill, to Lake County. In exchange, Lake County will deed roughly 320 acres of land within the Hart Mountain National Antelope Refuge to the Federal Government. The refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The specific acreage offered by the county will be determined upon a specific appraisal of all the lands in order to provide for an equal value land trade. While there is a commonly held notion that western ski areas resemble Oregon's Mt. Bachelor or Colorado's Vail, the fact is that there are many dozens of very small, financially marginal ski hills in the backyards of many small western towns. Warner Canyon is one of them. The Warner Canyon ski hill has been operated by the nonprofit Fremont Highlanders Ski Club since 1938. It's one of America's last nonprofit ski hills. It has one lift--a T bar. It has 780 vertical feet of skiing. The ski area is about 5 miles from the town of Lakeview, which has a population of roughly 2,500. The people of Lakeview believe that this legislation is necessary to keep the ski area viable. The Federal requirements for managing ski areas are more in tune with the Vails than the Warner Canyons. I'm told that under county ownership the liability expense alone should be reduced tenfold. The forest supervisor tells us that it costs the Forest Service about $10,000 per year to administer the ski area permit, yet the area generates just more than $400 per year in ski fee revenues to the U.S. Treasury. I also want to emphasize the benefits of this bill to the Hart Mountain Antelope Refuge. As my colleagues well understand, too many of our national wildlife refuges contain private land inholdings over which the Federal Government has essentially no control. These lands can be sold or developed at any time. If Lake County were ever strapped for cash, it would certainly be their prerogative to sell these parcels to the highest bidder. With this acquisition we move closer to the permanent protection of this important Oregon wildlife refuge. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith. At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record the bill and my statement, a document from the Lake County Board of Commissioners entitled ``Reasons to support Warner Canyon Ski Hill Ownership Transfer,'' and letters of support from the Fremont Highlanders Ski Club, Inc., and the Lake County Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Kinship Care Act of 1997. Grandparents caring for grandchildren represent one of the most underappreciated and perhaps under-utilized natural resources in our Nation. Yet they hold tremendous potential for curing one of our society's most pressing problems--the care of children who have no parents, or whose parents simply aren't up to the task of providing children a stable, secure, and nurturing living environment. There is such a great reservoir of love and experience available to us, and more especially to the tens of thousands of American children who desperately need basic care giving. We provide public assistance for strangers to give this kind of care, but the folks available to do it are in short supply. Legislation I am introducing in the Senate today will give States the flexibility to provide the support these grandparents need, so that our seniors can fill the care gap. Last year, as part of welfare reform, Senator Coats and I were successful in passing legislation that would give preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining a placement for a child. My new legislation will continue the process of shifting the focus of our child welfare system from leaving children with strangers to leaving them in the loving arms of grandparents and other relatives. I am not noticing a new trend. States have been moving in this direction for over a decade. Over the past 10 years the number of children involved in extended family arrangements has increased by 40 percent. Currently, more than four million children are being raised by their grandparents. In other words, 5 percent of all families in this country are headed by grandparents. My view is that it's time for the Federal Government to get with the program and start developing policies that make it easier, instead of more difficult, for families to come together to raise their children. My bill has several parts. First, it would allow States to obtain waivers to set up kinship care guardianship systems where grandparents and other relative providers can receive some financial assistance without having to turn over custody of the child to the State and without having to go through the paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles of the foster care system. Grandparents already face a number of hurdles when they suddenly find themselves caring for a grandchild. These may include living in seniors-only housing, not having clothes or space for a grandchild, or living on a fixed income. We need to encourage States to start making their child protection systems grandparent- and relative-friendly. The second part of this bill requires states to give relative caregivers notice of and an opportunity to be heard in hearings or case reviews with respect to the child's safety and well-being. I have repeatedly heard the frustration of these grandparents and relative caregivers who say they never knew about or were not allowed to attend a hearing or case review affecting a child for whom they may be caring or have cared for years. Surely their voices should be heard in those circumstances where the well-being and safety of the child is being discussed. As we reevaluate the effectiveness of our country's child protection systems, it's time that we start developing some new ideas and new ways to use our resources more effectively to find loving environments for children who can't live with their natural parents. I applaud the efforts of my colleague in the House, Representative Connie Morella who has introduced the companion bill in the House, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in giving states increased flexibility to make their foster care systems more grandparent friendly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Kinship Care Act of 1997. Grandparents caring for grandchildren represent one of the most underappreciated and perhaps under-utilized natural resources in our Nation. Yet they hold tremendous potential for curing one of our society's most pressing problems--the care of children who have no parents, or whose parents simply aren't up to the task of providing children a stable, secure, and nurturing living environment. There is such a great reservoir of love and experience available to us, and more especially to the tens of thousands of American children who desperately need basic care giving. We provide public assistance for strangers to give this kind of care, but the folks available to do it are in short supply. Legislation I am introducing in the Senate today will give States the flexibility to provide the support these grandparents need, so that our seniors can fill the care gap. Last year, as part of welfare reform, Senator Coats and I were successful in passing legislation that would give preference to an adult relative over a nonrelated caregiver when determining a placement for a child. My new legislation will continue the process of shifting the focus of our child welfare system from leaving children with strangers to leaving them in the loving arms of grandparents and other relatives. I am not noticing a new trend. States have been moving in this direction for over a decade. Over the past 10 years the number of children involved in extended family arrangements has increased by 40 percent. Currently, more than four million children are being raised by their grandparents. In other words, 5 percent of all families in this country are headed by grandparents. My view is that it's time for the Federal Government to get with the program and start developing policies that make it easier, instead of more difficult, for families to come together to raise their children. My bill has several parts. First, it would allow States to obtain waivers to set up kinship care guardianship systems where grandparents and other relative providers can receive some financial assistance without having to turn over custody of the child to the State and without having to go through the paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles of the foster care system. Grandparents already face a number of hurdles when they suddenly find themselves caring for a grandchild. These may include living in seniors-only housing, not having clothes or space for a grandchild, or living on a fixed income. We need to encourage States to start making their child protection systems grandparent- and relative-friendly. The second part of this bill requires states to give relative caregivers notice of and an opportunity to be heard in hearings or case reviews with respect to the child's safety and well-being. I have repeatedly heard the frustration of these grandparents and relative caregivers who say they never knew about or were not allowed to attend a hearing or case review affecting a child for whom they may be caring or have cared for years. Surely their voices should be heard in those circumstances where the well-being and safety of the child is being discussed. As we reevaluate the effectiveness of our country's child protection systems, it's time that we start developing some new ideas and new ways to use our resources more effectively to find loving environments for children who can't live with their natural parents. I applaud the efforts of my colleague in the House, Representative Connie Morella who has introduced the companion bill in the House, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me in giving states increased flexibility to make their foster care systems more grandparent friendly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think it is clear what some of the opponents of the Kennedy-Hatch legislation are trying to offer the Senate. They are saying that the Kennedy-Hatch bill, a health insurance program for vulnerable kids that pays for itself, is a bad idea. I submit that even Joe Camel would have a tough time selling that proposition. The fact of the matter is this is a program that pays for itself, that is fiscally disciplined. In my State, close to 100,000 kids without health insurance are going to be in a position to get help as a result of this tobacco tax. I think it is important that the record be set clear on this. Now, this morning, Mr. President, the New York Times carried an article that said that the States are going to lose revenue as a result of the Kennedy-Hatch legislation and that this should be opposed on the grounds that the States need this revenue. The fact of the matter is that attorneys general across this country are rushing to file lawsuits on behalf of their States in order to recoup some of the costs to State coffers for health care costs. That is the reality. The fact of the matter is States are losing vast sums right now as a result of our current policies. Without the Hatch-Kennedy legislation, I am of the view we are going to have children grow up sicker, they will be sicker adults, they are going to die sooner, and health costs in America are going to increase. This is an important piece of bipartisan legislation. Mr. President, I close by paying a special compliment to my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith. He has been subjected to very intense criticism at home by the tobacco lobby. I know a bit about what it is like to be attacked by them. They sued me personally when I was a Member of the House subcommittee that investigated their practices. I want to make sure that people know that Senator Smith has hung in there on behalf of better health care for America's youngsters. This proposal is right. It is fiscally responsible. It is compatible with a balanced budget approach. I hope my colleagues will reject the arguments that have been advanced against this legislation. As I said earlier, I think even Joe Camel might have some difficulty selling the argument that a fully funded proposal that will help our kids is a bad idea. Mr. President, I yield the floor.