Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 1994, to reauthorize the programs of the FAA. For the safety and security of every Oregonian who flies and for our smaller airports this legislation is critical. I want to commend the chairman of the committee, the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and especially the distinguished ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford, for their hard work. The conference report includes several provisions I have worked on. In particular, I take pride in those that make safety paramount at the FAA, that require making airline safety information available to the public and that strengthen security at our airports. I also want to thank the managers for their cooperation in incorporating my amendment on train whistles. This provision will stop the Government from imposing a one-size-fits-all approach on communities with railroad grade crossings. Without this provision, towns across this country, like Pendleton, OR, would have had train whistles blowing night and day. My amendment will assure that the Federal Railroad Administration works with the people in Pendleton and elsewhere to develop appropriate safety measures for their grade crossings. When we began the process, this was a relatively modest reauthorization bill. No safety or security measures to speak of. Now, these concerns are at the forefront, where they belong. With this bill, we go beyond all the talk about safety. With this bill, we take the first step ever toward making information on airline safety available to the public. Finally, the traveling public will be able to get basic safety information in plain English. Everyone who flies should be able to make informed choices about the airlines they fly and the airports they use. This legislation will help consumers do that. Today, travelers can get plenty of information from the airlines about whether their bags will get crushed or their flights will arrive on time. With this bill, travelers will no longer have to go through the legalistic torture of the Freedom of Information Act to get basic safety information. They'll be able to get it online, from the National Transportation Safety Board. No one thought this would be easy. I have talked to people in all parts of the aviation community--the FAA, NTSB, airlines, labor, manufacturers, pilots, and consumer groups--about the best way to do this. While there are certainly differences over how to do it, everyone agrees that it should be done. And I agree with those in the industry who say that anything involving safety should not be part of competition. But by having uniform definitions, standards, and public access to this information, I believe we will move safety out of the shadows and into the sunshine. Also of special interest are the provisions seeking to improve aviation security. This conference report will require more comprehensive employment investigations, including criminal history records checks, for individuals who will screen airline passengers, baggage, and property. We remove the legislative straitjacket that has hamstrung the FAA's efforts to deploy security equipment in airports. When we talk about a security system that will cost as much as one B- 2 bomber, we can't expect the airlines to shoulder that burden alone. The conference report puts the administration on top of airport safety and security functions. Right now, this task is undertaken almost exclusively by the air carriers. From now on, the FAA will be firmly in charge. Another problem is the lax attitude we have toward some of the most critical players: Those who monitor the x-ray machines. What is the point of having $1 million machines if these workers are being paid minimum wage and lack any basic training? Americans should not expect a second-class attitude will produce first-class security. The amendment will toughen up the attention paid to these critical workers. There remains, however, one glaringly weak link in the security chain. It is that we don't even have an evaluation of the current status of security at our Nation's airports. We need a basic security baseline in order to establish goals and priorities. We need regular reports on whether the goals are being met. This is not rocket science. It is security 101. Although this is not included in the bill, I intend to work with the FAA on this in the coming months. Finally, I want to note another very important provision for Oregon: Funding protection for smaller airports. These airports, such as Bandon and John Day and Klamath Falls, serve citizens in the more rural parts of my State. Without the funding formula in this bill, these smaller airports would suffer disproportionate cuts in grant funds when appropriations are tight. Unless I've missed something, there doesn't appear to be any extra airport improvement grant funding lying around. Mr. President, there are many other important elements in this legislation. I want to conclude by again thanking the leaders of the Commerce Committee for their excellent work on a good aviation safety and security bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I want to thank the Senator from Arizona for not just his very thoughtful statement, but for all of the effort over these last few weeks. He and I got to know each other in the House and enjoyed working together, and it has been a pleasure to work with my friend from Arizona on it. I share Senator Kyl's view that we have had a number of Senators--I see Senator Nickles is here and Senator Coats on the Republican side; Senator Kennedy, for example, on the Democratic side--that have been working some very long hours and working in good faith to try to deal with this. I believe we are now very close in terms of dealing with the issue. I just want to spend a minute and try to outline the problem and then talk a bit more about some of the remedies that Senator Kyl has talked about. The reason this issue is so important is that managed care is the fastest growing part of American medicine. Now, health care, we know, is a multibillion dollar industry. The fastest growing part of it is managed care. I want to make it clear that there is a lot of good managed care in our country. I come from a part of our Nation, the State of Oregon, that has been a pioneer in the managed care field. We have seen good managed care. If you want to see 21st century medicine, you can come to my State and see a lot of it in action every day. But, unfortunately, too often we have seen that financial concerns, concerns about expensive treatments or referrals, have replaced what is the important essence of American health care, which is free and unfettered communication between doctors and patients. These limitations are what is known as gag clauses. A health maintenance organization may say to the doctors, ``We're watching you in terms of those expensive treatments.'' Or the health maintenance organization will say to the doctors, ``We're keeping track of the referrals that you're making,'' with an idea that perhaps a doctor who tells about an additional provider outside the network is doing something detrimental to the plan. We can have differences of opinion--and Senator Kyl and I have talked about this before--on a lot of health care issues. Reasonable people surely differ with respect to the role of the Federal Government, the role of the private sector. There are lots of issues in American health care that there can be legitimate differences of opinion on. I offer up the judgment that what should never be in dispute is the importance of patients and families to get all the facts, to get the truth, to get all the information about the various issues relating to their medical condition and the treatments that are available. In fact, I think 21st century health care is about getting information over the Internet. The kind of legislation we are talking about today is going to be built around empowering patients to get the information so as they look at the various options that they might consider for their treatment, they can do it on the basis of having all the facts. Now, Senator Kyl has outlined briefly a few of the issues that we have focused on in some depth. Let me just add to them very briefly. The first is on the matter of the regulatory framework and the role of the Federal Government and the States. What Senator Kyl and I have done, in very blunt, straightforward terms, is make it clear the States will take the lead with respect to carrying out this statute. Congress has done this before in a number of areas, done it in the Medigap area, done it in the maternity stay legislation. The legislation that we offer up and is based on our discussion, basically makes it clear when a State acts in a way that is rationally connected to the purposes of this statute, the State is going to be in a position to take the lead. Second, we know there are many who are concerned with respect to an issue that comes up in this body quite often, and that is reproductive health issues, in the matter of abortion specifically. We have sought to make sure that each individual practitioner or doctor can exercise what amounts to a ``conscience clause'' and be able to express that for religious or moral reasons, there are certain matters--abortion--that they would not be comfortable discussing. We also thought to make it clear that plans would have certain rights, particularly to make it clear to their individual practitioners, doctors, and others, that the plan did not offer abortion services. There are other ideas that may be worth exploring, built principally on the concept of disclosure. Plans ought to know they are not going to be subject to unexpected legal consequences, and the consumer ought to be in a position to get full disclosure of exactly what their plan offers. I believe we have made considerable headway in that regard. We believe, with a bit more work and the kind of good faith we have seen over these last few weeks--and it is important to note that the same spirit exists in the House. Dr. Ganske of Iowa and Congressman Markey, like Senator Kyl and I, have been working on a bipartisan basis, with the idea that these gag clauses have no place in 21st century American health care. Mr. President, 21st century American health care ought to be built around the idea that when patients and families sit down with their physician, their physician would give them all the facts, all the information they need, to make these choices. I want to thank Senator Kyl. He knows when I offered this the first time we got a majority of votes in the U.S. Senate, but the point is to get something that is going to bring the entire Senate together, to bring all the Members together around a proposition of full consumer disclosure and consumer empowerment. I think we can do that. We are putting the States in the lead. This is not an example of Federal micromanagement or Federal Government run wild. We are going to make sure that plans and practitioners, who, for religious or moral reasons, have concerns about discussing abortion, and others, would be protected. I think we do it in a way that is sensitive to legitimate concerns of many in the field for managed care plans. For example, we have important provisions on utilization review. Those managed care plans ask for those. That is part of our compromise. Let me at this time yield, because I know there are a number of Senators who have been working in good faith and want to participate in this. Therefore, I yield back to Senator Kyl and our other colleagues who have been putting some long hours on this. I am looking forward to staying with this until we get these protections for consumers and doctors, and do it in a fair way.

Mr. WYDEN. I want to tell the Senator from Oklahoma that we very much appreciate his involvement in this. I only asked for 5 additional minutes because I want to go back to negotiating with him and his staff on it. As you know, Senator Kennedy has done yeoman work on this and has been very involved in this as well. I think we are going to have good input and involvement on both sides of the aisle if we try to finish it up. I think it is important that the Senate and the country understand that what we are talking about is ensuring that straightforward, honest conversation could take place between doctors, nurses, chiropractors, therapists, and their patients. That is all we are talking about here-- information, and those honest, straightforward discussions. Right now, because of these gag clauses, that kind of communication so often can't take place. That is not right. That is what we are going to try to change. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for the additional time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise to take just a few moments to talk a bit about the gag clause that involves the right of patients across this country to know all the information about their medical condition and the treatments that are appropriate and ought to be made available. I wish to discuss it in the context of the pipeline safety bill. In the beginning. I particularly wish to thank the bipartisan leadership of Senator Daschle and Senator Lott who have worked closely with us on this also, the continued bipartisan effort of Senators Kennedy and Kyl who, in particular, have worked very hard to try to address this legislation in a responsible way and to demonstrate the bipartisan spirit of this effort. It really all began with Dr. Ganske of Iowa and Congressman Ed Markey on the House side, where both pursued this effort in a bipartisan way. Senators Lott and Daschle, Kyl, Kennedy, and I and others have spent several days working to reach an agreement with respect to the legislation that I originally sought to offer several weeks ago with respect to the patient's right to know. These negotiations have been lengthy, they certainly have been difficult, and they are not yet concluded. Because there has been much good faith on the part of a number of Members on both sides of the aisle, on both the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle, I think it is fair to say that we have made a considerable amount of progress, and I want to make it very clear to the Senate I intend to keep up this fight throughout the session because it is so fundamentally important that the patients of this country in the fastest growing sector of American health care, the health management organization sector, have all the information they need in order to make choices about their health care. I do think it is important to say tonight that I do not think it is appropriate to withhold any longer a vote on the pipeline safety bill as these negotiations go forward. The pipeline safety bill, in my view, is a good bill. It is an important bill. It, too, has bipartisan support as a result of a great deal of effort, and I would like to put in a special word for the efforts of Senator Exon, of Nebraska, who has labored for a long time on this measure. He is, of course, retiring from the Senate. His leaving will be much felt, and it seems appropriate that this important and good bill to protect the safety of our energy pipelines go forward. And so I want to make it clear to the Senate tonight I do not think the Senate should withhold a vote on the pipeline safety bill any further as the negotiations go forward with respect to the gag clause in health maintenance organizations that is so often found in plans around this country. If I might, I wish to take a few minutes to explain why this issue is so important in American health care. Most people say to themselves, what is a gag clause? What does this have to do with me? Why is it so important that it has generated all this attention in the Senate? A gag clause is something that really keeps the patients in our country from full and complete information about the medical condition and the treatments that are available to them. I think it is fair to say--I know the Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, has done a lot of work in the health care field--reasonable people have differences of opinion with respect to the health care issue. People can differ about the role of the Federal Government; they can differ about the role of the private sector, but it seems to me absolutely indisputable that patients ought to have access to all the information--not half of it, not three-quarters, but all the information--with respect to their medical condition. What is happening around the country is some managed care plans--this is not all of them. There is good managed care in this country. My part of the Nation pioneered managed care. Too often managed care plans, the scofflaws in the managed care field are cutting corners, and so what they do either in writing or through a pattern of oral communication, these managed care plans tell their doctors, ``Don't fill those patients in on all the information about their medical condition.'' Or they say, ``There are some treatments that may be expensive and we think you shouldn't be telling everybody about them.'' Or maybe they say, ``We're watching the referrals that you're making and if you make a lot of referrals outside the health maintenance organization to other physicians, other providers, we're going to watch that. If you make too many of them, we're going to consider getting some other people to deliver our health services.'' So these are gag clauses in the literal sense. They get in the way of the doctor-patient relationship and either in writing in the contract established by the health maintenance organization or orally through a pattern of communications between the health maintenance plan and the physician, the doctor is told in very blunt, straightforward terms, ``Look, you're not supposed to tell those patients all the facts about their medical condition or all the treatments that might be available to them.'' I think these restrictions on access to patient information care turn American health care on its head. The Hippocratic oath, for example, to physicians starts with, ``First do no harm.'' If you have these gag clauses, essentially, instead of ``First do no harm,'' in these health maintenance organizations the charge is, first, think about the bottom line. Think about the financial condition of the plan and that maybe the plan will have a little less revenue if physicians really tell their patients what is going on and tell them about referrals and the like. Trust, in my view, is the basis of the doctor-patient relationship. Without that trust, physicians cannot perform adequately as caregivers. The patients get shortchanged, in terms of the quality of their health care. And I think that, when you limit straightforward and complete information between physicians and their patients, what you are doing is prescribing bad medicine. Mr. President, there are a number of provisions that are central to this debate and there are two or three that have consumed most of our attention over the last few days, in terms of trying to work this legislation out on a bipartisan basis. Let me say, especially Senator Kyl has done yeoman work, in terms of trying to bring all sides together. He has led the effort on the Republican side. He has worked particularly hard with me on a couple of the provisions that I would like to take just a minute or two of the Senate's time to discuss this evening. The first is with respect to enforcement provisions in this bill. Senator Kyl and I both share the view that the States should take the leadership role with respect to enforcement of these gag clause provisions. There is precedent for this in the medigap legislation, the legislation to protect older people from ripoffs in the supplemental policies sold in addition to their Medicare. We have looked at other approaches. In particular, the enforcement provisions that the Senate came together on in a bipartisan way in the maternity legislation looked attractive, but Senator Kyl and I have spent a special effort, trying to work out the provisions with respect to ensuring that the States are given the lead in terms of enforcing the anti-gag clause legislation. I think we have made considerable progress. All Senator ought to know there is bipartisan interest in not having some Federal micromanagement, run-from-Washington kind of operation with respect to the enforcement provisions in this gag clause legislation. The second area that has consumed considerable amount of time in our discussions involves matters of religious and moral expression. Here, the issue, as it does so often in the U.S. Senate, involves especially abortion. Senator Kyl and I have worked hard to try to ensure that an individual physician who has religious or moral views with respect to abortion would not be required to express those views in a way that was contrary to deeply held religious or moral principles that that physician had. At the same time, I think it is understood that, if this is not carefully done, such provisions could become a new form of institutional gag, which would limit communication between doctors and patients. Senator Kyl and I have, I think, been able to bring about an approach that does allow an individual physician who, for religious or moral reasons, desires not to discuss abortion issues to be able to do that. I think we will be able to resolve that in a way that is good health policy, is fair, and bipartisan. Now, the continuing resolution, of course, is before us. The Senate will be dealing with this in the hours ahead. Some may consider it will be the days ahead--but certainly the hours ahead. I want the Senate to understand that I think, with respect to the future of American health care, making sure that patients have access to all information about their medical condition and the treatments that are available to them is about as important as it gets. The Senator from Vermont also has done a great deal of work in the health care area over the years. We have had a chance to work together on ERISA legislation, and a variety of other matters. I come back to the proposition that there are a lot of areas where people can differ in the health field. Health is a complex riddle by anybody's calculus. And these debates about the role of the Federal Government and the role of the private sector--these are areas where reasonable people do have differences of opinion. What I think is indisputable, however, is the importance of patients getting all the facts and the patients being in a position to know all of the matters that relate to their getting the best treatment for them, given the kind of medical problems that they face. So, this ultimately, this question of how to deal with this issue, is not an issue about abortion. No abortions are being performed or referrals made. It is not a question of Federal micromanagement, because the States are put clearly in the lead position with respect to enforcement. It is not a regulatory paradigm, in the sense that Members may have different views with respect to the type of approach. Whether it is a medical savings account approach that some have favored, or single-payer approach that some have favored, this bill does not touch any of those issues. This bill gets to one question and that is: As we look to the decisions involving 21st century health care, are we going to put patients in the driver's seat with respect to their own health care so they can get information? It seems almost absurd to me that, at a time when we look at how medical information may be exchanged in the future using the Internet, so that folks in rural Vermont and rural Oregon can tap all these exciting new technologies so as to get more information about their health care and about the treatments available to them, it seems almost fundamental to say that, when a patient and a doctor or a nurse or chiropractor at a health plan sits down with a patient and that patient's family, that provider, that doctor or nurse or chiropractor, is in a position to say to the family, ``Look, here are all the facts that you and your loved ones face with respect to your medical condition. You may want to pursue this particular treatment. Perhaps I should refer you to Dr. A or Dr. B, who is outside the health plan.'' But whatever the ultimate choice of the consumer is at that point, at least the consumer can make it in an informed way. Right now, while there is good managed care in our country, and I have seen it in my part of the United States, in the Pacific Northwest, too often there have been managed care plans that do not meet those high standards. There are plans that have told their physicians, their nurses, their chiropractors and others: We are going to be watching you, with respect to making referrals. We want you to know, we are looking over your shoulder with respect to expensive treatments, and those kinds of gag provisions are getting in the way of the doctor-patient relationship, and the trust that is so important. So I want it understood, Mr. President, that I am going to use every ounce of my strength, working with Senator Kyl and Senators on both sides of the aisle, to make sure that this legislation is part of the continuing resolution. I want to, again, let the Senate know that we are very appreciative of Senators Daschle and Lott and the bipartisan leadership that has worked cooperatively with us. We want to make sure that this legislation gets into the continuing resolution. Managed care is the fastest growing part of American health care. Both Democrats and Republicans throughout this Congress have looked to managed care repeatedly as the discussions have gone forward on Medicare and other issues. So it is important that patients in these plans get all the facts, get all the information, and we are going to go forward in good faith, as we have done over the last week. Senator Kyl and I have put a big chunk of our waking hours into this effort to try to do it in a bipartisan way. I believe we can get it done. And in the spirit of the progress that has been made and to facilitate the passage of other important legislation, I would like to make it clear that I believe that the Senate should no longer withhold a vote on the pipeline safety bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am announcing that I would object to any request for unanimous consent to proceed to consider the conference report on H.R. 1296. I would object to any unanimous request to proceed with this conference report because it contains a provision to that would allow the Secretary of the Interior to sell corporate sponsorships to America's National Parks System. This provision has the potential to completely change the character of our national parks and fosters conflicts of interest between the Department of the Interior and potential sponsors. Importantly, it would fail to contribute significantly to critical funding needs of the National Parks System. I will object to consideration of the conference report because I don't believe we should consider such a controversial provision under procedures that do not provide for the debate and amendment of such objectionable provisions.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to inform the Senate that I have put a hold on S. 555 so that I may have time to negotiate my request that the Senate take up S. 697, the Domestic Violence Identification and Referral Act, in conjunction with S. 555. I believe that if we take up a bill dealing with the education of health professionals, we should insure that doctors, nurses and other health professionals are trained to identify, refer, and treat victims of domestic violence. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women between 15 and 44. It seems to me that if the Federal Government is going to invest money in educating medical students, they should at least be trained in how to identify and refer cases of domestic violence. This is why I have requested that the Senate and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources consider my and Senator Boxer's legislation in conjunction with S. 555.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to enter some remarks for the record regarding the Bumpers grazing fee amendment to H.R. 3662, the Interior appropriations bill. In my view, if Federal policies are enacted that drive the small, independent family rancher off the land, there will be many adverse consequences for our country. I appreciate Senator Bumper's responsiveness to my concerns about small, family ranches that led to a 5,000 AUM cap instead of the original cap of 2,000 AUM. This change, a 150-percent increase in AUM's over his initial proposed cap, resulted in an exemption from the fee increase for approximately 300 Oregon ranchers. Further, the amendment would not impact most of the 2,100 permittees in Oregon. There are, however, some small family ranchers who I remain concerned about. A significant number of Oregon ranchers are small and independent but they operate through one permittee, an incorporated family ranch. They are the folks I am concerned about. They include families with multiple households who live on, work on, and derive their livelihood from the ranch. They are working together to provide for their families, they provide generations worth of knowledge, and they are active in associations and restoration work. It is those family ranches who hold permits to graze more than 5,000 AUM that will have to pay the increased fee. To address this problem, each legitimate, separate household on a family ranch should be recognized as an independent permittee or lessee for the purposes of determining the grazing fee increase. This should be done for a simple, yet very important reason. Multi- generational ranchers are the backbone of our land stewardship program. They provide a unique knowledge of the land, are critical to maintaining our national food supply, and are helping to ensure the long-term protection of our rangeland resources. We need to assure that we consider their needs as we look to the future of grazing on public lands.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator's case would be logical, in many respects, to my constituents, if my constituents were not acknowledging there does need to be change. The Senator mentioned the dams in Bonneville. We are now reinventing Bonneville. We have all our Governors out, trying to set about to adopt practices that relate to the next century. The same is true in the Amtrak area. But what would not make sense to my constituents is to say, ``Look, we are going to slam the door on you. We are not going to give you the chance to try to change, to have local communities do more, to have States do more, to be cost effective. We are just going to shut the door on you and, instead, adopt what sounds almost like supply-side transportation policy, which is have the east coast of the United States make lots of money on their runs and presumably some day some of it may trickle down.'' I know the Senator does not intend that, but I want him to understand I intend to work closely with him. I am a supporter of Amtrak and supporter of a national rail system. But it is getting harder and harder to explain to folks in rural Oregon how they are supposed to wait, they are supposed to be cut off, when they are committed to change. The citizens of my region are saying, ``You bet, it is different now than it was 30 years ago, and we are not being given the chance to change.''

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for yielding. I want to discuss briefly the Amtrak issue with him, and in effect pose the question that I am having to wrestle with at home, and your sense of how you handle it. I have been both as a Member of the House and in the Senate a member of the Commerce Committee a very strong supporter of Amtrak. I think that it is important to have a national rail program. It is important policy for our country. I have been in support of the Senator from Delaware. In fact, I remember, as the Senator from Delaware does, your Governor, our former colleague. He called me a bit ago in terms of the funding formula that we all wanted. And I was in strong support of it at that time because I think it is important that the east coast of the United States have good rail service. But I tell my friend that because of what I have seen with Amtrak in the last few months in terms of their handling of the Pioneer, which is a run that serves rural Oregon--it also serves Idaho and Wyoming, and the rural west--that it leaves me very troubled. I want to just take a quick minute and tell the Senator my concern. My concern is that the new philosophy in terms of Amtrak is essentially to tell people I represent in rural eastern Oregon you are supposed to put up your hard-earned tax dollars today to support the development of all these runs on the east coast of the United States, in densely populated areas, and then maybe if those runs are exceptionally profitable we will come back and one day have rural Oregon get served with Amtrak service. My constituents are very exasperated by this. I had a community forum in Hermiston, OR, on this, and Amtrak officials came. Now, this is not the Senator from Oregon. These are Amtrak officials. And they told the community: We have given you lousy service. In fact, people don't even know when the train is going to show up. That is kind of the joke. There has been absolutely no promotion, and there has been absolutely no investment in infrastructure. Now, what our communities have said--and I think this is a reasonable proposition--is that what they would like to have is 1 year to get the State governments out in the West and local governments and the Federal Government together to try to come up with a new cost-effective strategy to keep that Pioneer serving rural Oregon open. They did not say the Federal Government is supposed to write out a check today for everything. They said give us a year in order to try to have a new partnership that acknowledges what the Senator from Delaware has correctly said, which is that times really have changed. We understand that. And so, give our communities and our staffs 1 year to try to come up with a new plan, and the Amtrak officials, who very much like this Senator to vote for their budget covering east coast lines, will not give our part of the country, rural Oregon, a 1-year deferral to try to work it out. I would just close this by asking my friend from Delaware, if the Senator were in front of a community meeting in rural Oregon where those folks are being asked to support the lines in the East and they are being told after Amtrak admits that there has not been any service, there has not been any promotion, there has not been any investment, that they still cannot have a year for self-help to come back. What would the Senator tell those folks in that community? I say this out of friendship to the Senator and as one who voted for the Senator's request.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield just one second more? I will be very brief.

Mr. WYDEN. Right.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Does the Senator have 5 or 6 minutes?

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Management Act. This bill is a good step forward in the management of our Nations' fisheries, addressing important areas of concern such as rebuilding over-fished stocks and collecting better data so we can manage our fisheries more effectively. I guess I'm the only Member of Congress in the position of voting for this legislation in both Houses of the Congress. I want to thank Senators Stevens and Kerry, and their staffs especially, for their help and guidance to me, the newest member on the Commerce Committee, on issues of great importance to the fishermen, fishing communities, and the fishing industry in Oregon. I commend them for their hard work on this legislation and hope that we will be signing this bill into law in the very near future. I would also like to thank Senators Murray and Gorton for their willingness to address an issue critical to the Oregon crab fishery. I am satisfied that the compromise we have reached will go a long way to helping the State of Washington address its crab management concerns, and assure Oregon crab fishermen continued access to crab fishing areas off of the Washington coast. The State of Washington is currently struggling to address management issues arising from a recent Federal court decision that requires the State of Washington to provide Washington's Indian tribes with 50 percent of the Washington crab fishery. Historically, Oregon crabbers have also fished off of Washington's coast and it is easy to see how this new situation could create conflict. Historically as well, Oregon, Washington, and California have enjoyed an excellent working relationship with regard to the crab fishery. So, it was with concern that I reviewed the original proposal to extend state jurisdiction into the Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] for all fisheries without a Federal management plan. In my view, this original proposal had the potential to restrict many Oregon fishermen from fishing in their traditional areas. With respect to the crab fishery alone, the potential effects were ominous for all segments of the crab fishery in Oregon, crab fishermen, the coastal communities of Astoria and Warrenton and the crab processors in those communities who provide employment to hundreds of workers. The Oregon crabbers fishing off the Washington coast represent a significant percentage of the crab landings to Astoria and Warrenton: these boats land almost 85 percent of the crab processed in these two ports. To say that this fishery is significant to these communities barely coveys the vital importance of this fishery to the economy of Oregon's north coast. Fishermen, equipment suppliers, crab processors, and their employees are all intimately tied to this natural resource. The compromise Senators Murray, Gorton, and I have reached restricts the extension of State jurisdiction to conservation measures within the crab fishery only. These restrictions would apply equally to all boats fishing in the same waters. Each State's limited entry programs and landing laws are respected. To address the harvest requirements of Federal Court Order, U.S. v. Washington 89-3, the State of Washington may close areas or restrict the number of crab pots laid by crabbers. Our intent is to give the State of Washington flexibility in meeting requirements of the Federal court order while minimizing the restrictions on Oregon's crabbers. Perhaps the most important part of the State jurisdiction provisions is a clause stating that the Pacific Fisheries Management Council should develop and submit a fishery management plan for Dungeness crab and other shellfish. The timely development of a Federal fishery management plan for Dungeness crab is essential if we are to avoid inter-State conflicts in the future. To this end, the bill also requires the Pacific Fisheries Management Council to report to the relevant Senate and House Committees within a year regarding their progress on a plan. Again, I appreciate the willingness of the Senators from Washington to address this issue. I look forward to working with them on these issues in the future. As I mentioned above, I have voted on both the House and Senate versions of this bill. Not only did I support the House bill, I voted for key conservation amendments that were adopted as floor amendments, including those on over-fishing and habitat protection. The conservation provisions of S. 39 are also significant, several of which are of particular importance to Oregon. Reauthorization of the Magnuson Act is a high priority for Oregon fishermen and conservation groups alike. The new mandatory provisions requiring fishery management councils to develop criteria for determining when a fishery is over-fished, and for rebuilding those fisheries, will help us set a solid target for rebuilding over-fished stocks both in the Pacific Northwest. Likewise the measure adding a new national standard to the Magnuson Act requiring that conservation and management measures minimize by- catch--the incidental harvest of nontarget fish--makes a good effort at reducing one of the most distressing aspects of our fisheries. The bill also defines essential fish habitat and requires the councils to minimize adverse effects on habitat due to fishing. I shall note at this time some disappointment with regard to the communities provisions. While in the House I supported Congressman Miller's proposal on communities. The Oregon fishery is in large measure family owned and shore-based, and I would have preferred to have communities language in the bill that recognized and protected our fishing communities more fully. During our discussions on passage of the bill, it was made clear to me that a protracted fight over the communities language would jeopardize the entire Magnuson reauthorization. In my view this would have hurt Oregon more than it would have helped. Reluctantly, I have for now agreed not to insist on stronger communities language and get this reauthorization done. Mr. President, although S. 39 is not perfect, it is one of the strongest pieces of conservation legislation to pass the Senate this year. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and colleagues, I rise in support of this legislation, S. 1994, to reauthorize the programs of the FAA. This is important legislation, and I especially want to commend the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. McCain, and also the distinguished ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford, for working closely with me on several provisions that have been included in this legislation. Suffice it to say that when consideration of this bill began, it was a relatively modest reauthorization measure. No safety or security issues--certainly not any dramatic changes in safety or security policy--were envisioned at that time. Now these concerns are finally back to the forefront where they belong. It is my view that with this legislation the Senate takes the first step toward meaningful action to improving aviation safety and security in our country. I think it has to be understood that there is still a long way to go even with the enactment of this legislation, but with the passage of this bill at least the prospect has begun in earnest to strengthen safety and security for the citizens who fly in our country. My view is that in particular it is time to adopt new policies that empower the consumer, make it possible for consumers to be in a position to get critical information about aviation safety in our country. Right now it is possible for consumers to find out if their bags get crushed, and it is possible to find out if their flight is on time. But it is pretty darned hard for consumers to find out if the airline that they fly on has been fined for violating a major safety law. At present what happens is, if there is a violation of a major safety law by an airline, for a citizen to find out they have to file a Freedom of Information Act request in order to get the information about a safety violation on the part of an airplane on an airline that they fly regularly. I do not think that is good enough. I think consumers deserve better. And Senator Ford and I have requested that the Federal Aviation Administration undertake an effort to make this kind of information available to the citizens of our country. In the next few weeks we expect to receive a report from the Federal Aviation Administration about the best way to make important safety information available to the public, and this legislation that the Senate considers today requires a comparable report to the National Transportation Safety Board. Mr. President, colleagues, let me say that from my standpoint this is only part of what needs to be done to empower consumers to get relevant information about safety and security. For example, today the Federal Aviation Administration posts signs in U.S. airports about the security dangers in foreign airports, but there are not any signs about security problems at our airports. It seems to me, again, that consumers, in line with certain uniform criteria so that the airlines and all who work in aviation understand what the standards are--the airlines would be expected to act in concert with those kinds of safety and security criteria, and the public would have a right to know whether airports in our country are meeting those safety and security criteria just as we now have postings with respect to security problems at foreign airports. So I think that in these next few weeks we will begin to get information from the FAA with respect to how to make this key safety information public. I want it understood, Mr. President and colleagues, that I think this is just the beginning. I want to thank the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. Both he and his staff have been very helpful to me in this effort to empower consumers. I am going to make a couple of other quick comments with respect to the legislation, but I want Chairman McCain to know that I very much appreciate the help that he and his staff, as well as Senator Ford, have given me on this; because, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why it is right for consumers to find out if their bags get crushed, find out if their flights are on time, but why they ought to have to go out and file a Freedom of Information Act request to determine whether an airline has violated major safety laws. That is not right. That has to be changed. On a bipartisan basis, working with Chairman McCain and ranking member Ford, I think we can get it changed. We will get that information with respect to the FAA in the next couple of weeks. This legislation makes a positive step forward as well as by requiring a comparable report from the National Transportation Safety Board. I also want to say to Chairman McCain that I want to work very closely with him on the matter of security postings at our airports. I have had a chance, both publicly and privately, to discuss this with officials in the aviation field. It is important to do it in line with certain recognized criteria. But it seems to me that, if an airline passenger in Phoenix, Portland, or anywhere else goes into an airport and finds out about overseas airports that have security problems, it seems to me they ought to have a right to know about the airports in our country where there are security concerns as well because I think those empowered consumers, once they have that kind of information, will help us and help us on a bipartisan basis to work for the kind of safety and security that the public deserves. Mr. President, colleagues, one of the other aspects of this bill that I think makes a positive step forward deals with the need for uniformity in definitions relating to safety. Right now an accident involving a death or a serious injury or substantial damage to an aircraft is treated the same as an accident involving a plane backing into a truck or a coffee-cup spill that causes problems which are also reported as an accident. An incident involves less severe mishaps that affect safety in other ways, such as planes hitting birds or things of this nature. This legislation will provide some uniformity in terms of definitions in this area, and I think that is a fortunate step forward. I also think this legislation is very helpful from the standpoint of requiring more comprehensive employment investigations, including criminal history record checks for individuals who will screen airline passengers, baggage and property. Under Senators McCain and Ford, what has happened here is the legislative straitjacket that has hamstrung FAA efforts in this area are removed. I think that is a helpful step forward as well. Finally, I think this legislation is a very important measure with respect to the small airports of our country. These airports, such as Bandon and John Day and Klamath Falls, in my home State, serve citizens in rural Oregon. This legislation makes it possible for those small airports around the country to get some help at a critical time. Without the funding formula of this legislation, the smaller airports would suffer disproportionate cuts in grant funding at a time when appropriations are especially tight. So this is a piece of legislation that needs to be enacted. I think, with respect to safety and security, it is important to note that when this reauthorization began, safety and security were not much measured in what looked, at that time, to be a modest reauthorization. But the events of the last few months have indicated that important and much more significant action needs to be taken, especially with respect to safety and security. I think the legislation that Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Ford bring to the Senate moves us significantly in the right direction. Mr. President, I yield the floor and urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, S. 1965, to urge its swift enactment. Today, the Senate is telling drug dealers that we aren't going to let methamphetamine become the crack of the 1990s. By passing the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act, the Senate is taking decisive action to stem the tide of the methamphetamine epidemic that has sunk its claw into communities in Oregon and across the Nation. I do not believe we are acting a moment too soon. Last year in Oregon, 52 deaths were tied to methamphetamine. By comparison, Oregon's Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs reported that there was only one meth-related death in 1991. Meth-related arrests are rising across my State: Over the last 5 years in Jackson County, meth-related violations rose 1,100 percent, while in Malheur County, meth-related arrests jumped 110 percent from 1993 to 1994. In Portland, police seizures of meth increased 145 percent from 1994 to 1995. Since this bill was introduced in June, I have met with Oregonians from across the State who have told me about the need for a tough Federal response to the meth crisis. In Medford, I attended a Methamphetamine Awareness Conference, where law enforcement officials joined with public health experts and other social service providers to discuss the need for a comprehensive approach to the meth problem. In Portland, I convened a round table so law enforcement officials from across the State could focus on how Federal, State, and local law enforcement can come together to take on the methamphetamine crisis. Everywhere I go, the refrain is the same--the problem is growing, as is its grip on our communities. The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act will aid in turning the tide against the methamphetamine menace by giving law enforcement much needed new tools to combat this deadly drug. The legislation goes after the source of the methamphetamine problem--the precursor chemicals, often found in legal, over-the- counter drug products, which are used to manufacture methamphetamine and its ugly cousin, amphetamine. While still allowing consumers access to many helpful and commonly used products containing the precursor chemicals, the bill will place significant restrictions on the bulk sale of the chemicals, both through the mail and over the counter. The legislation will also increase the penalties for the illegal possession and trafficking of the precursor chemicals and the equipment used to manufacture the controlled substances and will allow law enforcement increased flexibility to obtain injunctions to stop the illegal production and sale of precursor chemicals. This legislation addresses the international trafficking in precursor chemicals by imposing a maximum 10-year penalty on the manufacture outside the United States of precursor chemicals with the intent to import the chemical into this country. Back at home, the bill will increase penalties for those convicted of possessing and trafficking in methamphetamine. Penalties for methamphetamine trafficking have been too low for too long, and I hope the enhanced penalties will make drug dealers think twice before they peddle their poison. The bill will also ensure that methamphetamine manufacturers who put the life of any person at risk or endanger the environment will receive longer prison sentences. Finally, I think that all our efforts at enforcing penalties against traffickers and users are going to be for naught unless we work to get at the root of the problem, which is the addiction to this deadly substance. I am pleased that this legislation will expand education, treatment and research activities related to methamphetamine. While the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act will make a difference in the battle against this deadly drug, there should be no doubt that we will all need to remain engaged so we can counter the challenges posed by the methamphetamine crisis and by other illegal drugs, which are eating away at our Nation's youth. I commend the fine bipartisan effort that went into crafting this bill. My colleagues, led by Chairman Hatch and Senators Biden and Feinstein, deserve praise for their commitment and cooperation on this matter. As we all seek to stamp out drug abuse in this country, I hope the partisan spirit that permeated this bill can be a harbinger of good things to come.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending committee amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk involving a voluntary watershed restoration effort on private lands. I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, at the beginning, I want to thank my friend from Washington, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Gorton. He has been very helpful, both the chairman and his staff, in our preparation of this effort. I want him to know that I very much appreciate all his help. Senator Byrd is not here, but he, as well, has been very helpful to me. I want to thank both Senator Gorton and Senator Byrd at this time for their assistance. As Senator Gorton knows, in particular, the natural resources questions in the West are especially polarized. They are ones where so often there are very heated and controversial fights between groups, particularly industry groups and environmental groups. I and others, and I know the Senator from Washington is interested in this, are continually making efforts to look at new models, in effect, new paradigms, for resolving some of these natural resources questions and trying to bring people together. It is for this reason that I offer this amendment, Mr. President. My sense is some of the most exciting work being done in our country, particularly in our Pacific Northwest, involves voluntary, purely private efforts, where people look to try to get beyond some of the old controversies, some of the old battles, and come together to resolve natural resources questions in a balanced way. What our history in the Northwest has always been about is protecting our treasures, protecting our natural resources, while at the same time being sensitive to economics. It is my sense that some of the voluntary watershed restoration projects on private lands give us the chance to accelerate the effort, to find these new models for resolving natural resources questions. It is for that reason that I offer this amendment today. This amendment would make it possible, Mr. President and colleagues, for willing private landowners to work on cooperative efforts with the Bureau of Land Management to restore damaged watersheds so they can provide habitat to salmon and other species. It is going to make more effective the Bureau of Land Management's watershed restoration efforts in a fashion that involves no extra costs to our taxpayers while at the same time protecting the private property rights of citizens in our country. I got particularly interested in this issue, Mr. President, when I met with a watershed restoration group in Coos Bay on our south coast. They had been working with a number of the natural resources agencies, getting some funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work on projects that involve private landowners. The group was also interested in working in a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Land Management but had been unable to do so. This watershed restoration group, which involved environmental leaders, industry leaders, fishermen, a cross section of people, approached the Bureau of Land Management and were told by the Secretary that the Bureau of Land Management interprets its authority to work on projects involving private landowners as limited to what they describe as planning activities. The Bureau of Land Management said at that time to this group on the south coast in Oregon that they did not think they had the authority to actually go out and fund improvements on private lands. It is my view that the Bureau of Land Management ought to have the clear authority to work with willing private landowners on cooperative watershed restoration efforts. In many cases, the only way to solve a watershed problem or restore species habitat is to target both public and private lands in the watershed. You cannot solve the problem if you focus just on the public lands. This is the most biologically responsible approach to species management. It recognizes that many species frequently cross property lines, moving from public to private property and back the other way. As a result, restoring habitat on private lands may in certain cases be the most effective investment for survival of species also found on Bureau of Land Management and other public lands. For a moment, let me take an example where 90 percent of the land in the watershed is owned by the Bureau of Land Management but the source of the watershed problem is the 10 percent that is privately owned. In this case, the problem is most likely not going to be solved if the Bureau of Land Management can only spend money for improvements on the BLM land. The result will be that the watershed problem is either not going to be solved, or else the Bureau of Land Management is going to end up wasting money funding improvements only on the Bureau of Land Management lands. There is a simple and straightforward solution: Give the Bureau of Land Management clear authority to work with willing private landowners on cooperative watershed restoration projects in cases where this will do the most good for the whole watershed. This way, the public's and the watershed's concerns--taxpayers', industries', and environmental concerns--all get addressed. To be eligible for funding under this legislation, the project site on private land must be in the same watershed as the Bureau of Land Management lands. But the private land does not have to border directly with the Bureau of Land Management lands. The key consideration ought to be the biological and ecological connections between the private lands and the Bureau of Land Management lands. Taking for a second what happens if salmon use both forks of a river in a single watershed, but only one of the forks contains public land, this legislation would allow the Bureau of Land Management to spend money on private land in the other fork where this would benefit the survival or recovery of the species as a whole in the watershed. The Bureau of Land Management would also be authorized to spend money on private lands where this would provide for immediate protection to the threatened or endangered species found on the public land or where spending the money on private land is more beneficial to the overall recovery of the species. Now, at the same time, we do not want the Bureau of Land Management spending taxpayer money on projects that benefit only the private landowners. To ensure that this does not happen, the amendment requires there be a benefit to fish, wildlife, or other resources on public lands. The Secretary must also determine that the project is in the public interest in order for the Bureau of Land Management to purchase them. Finally, Mr. President, my amendment provides important protections for private property owners participating in cooperative watershed restoration efforts. From start to finish, the process is completely voluntary. Under the amendment, the Bureau of Land Management can only enter into watershed restoration agreements that are mutually agreed to by the Secretary, as well as by the private landowner. If there is any part of the agreement that the private landowner objects to, that landowner can simply say no to the agreement. What we have, Mr. President, is an amendment that, in my view, will be good for watershed restoration efforts. It will be good in terms of maximizing taxpayer funds during these tough times, and it fully protects the rights of private landowners. I hope this will be adopted. I thank the Senator from Washington. Both he and his staff have been very helpful, as well as the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment.