Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment which I offer tonight with Senator Kerry of Massachusetts would put the U.S. Senate on record as saying that it is time to end tax writeoffs under our Tax Code for polluters. We know our country wants the Senate to get serious about balancing the budget. I know this has been a slow moving exercise in the past. They want a serious sprint to balancing the budget. I believe it is possible to make real progress in balancing the budget. I said in my campaign that I believe you can balance the budget, just the way Oregon families have to balance their budget. Under the proposal that I offer tonight, if it had been law over the last 6 years, about $500 million would have gone to reducing the deficit simply by ending tax writeoffs for those who pollute in our country. What happens today, even though we want a polluter-pay philosophy with respect to environmental protection, what we do is under the tax law provide a Macy's basement discount for those who actually have to pay penalties. So what I am proposing tonight with Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, is basic tax fairness. Under our amendment, no longer would average working families pay more on their taxes just because the polluter has received a writeoff on their tax return. What we propose is to put the Senate on record that all revenues collected, when you have the kind of current tax treatment for these penalties, would go back to the Treasury. It would not go into the pockets of the polluter. Let me talk, for a moment, about the way it works today under our tax laws. If you have a polluter who violates the Safe Drinking Water Act, a statute that assures that the water our kids drink is safe, they then have to pay a penalty. But under the Federal tax laws, they get a tax break for that penalty that they would be paying. The Clean Air Act assures that the air our families breathe is pure. But if a polluter violates it and pays a penalty, they get another tax break when they violate that important environmental law. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act protects our communities against hazardous waste. When a polluter violates that statute, they have to pay a penalty under the law, but they get a tax break under the Tax Code when they do so. The CERCLA Act is the one designed to clean up our Nation's Superfund sites, some of the most hazardous and dangerous waste in our country. When a polluter violates those laws, they pay penalties, and, again, get tax writeoffs. The Oil Pollution Act is a particularly important example of why this change Senator Kerry and I propose tonight is needed. The Oil Pollution Act seeks to guard against devastating oil spills like the Exxon Valdez. In the case of the Exxon Valdez disaster in Prince William Sound, the polluter agreed to a settlement of approximately $900 million. The defendant in that case took an immediate $150 million tax deduction. Over the course of that 10-year payout on that particular settlement, you have a polluter that is going to be able to write off nearly $300 million of the total cost. Now, some are going to argue that it makes sense to provide a tax deduction as an incentive for polluters to somehow settle these damage suits. I argue that the knowledge that these polluters are going to pay the full freight of their damage is a lot more than incentive for them to comply with the environmental laws and get serious about cleanup. I do not think it provides any real incentive if you allow people to write off on their taxes when they violate the environmental laws and have to pay penalties. I think it erodes the fairness of the Tax Code when you provide almost unlimited deductibility arrangements for the polluters, where they get a discount of everything they pay up to 34 percent. Now, the fact is, Mr. President, that all of the major environmental organizations are in support of this particular amendment. They have said this is one of their priorities with respect to the environment and this budget resolution. Every Member of this body who cares about tax fairness ought to support this amendment. I do not see how a Member can go and stand up at a community meeting, a town hall meeting in their own home State, and justify, at a time when we are seeing pressure for deficit reduction and many valuable programs cut, allowing a tax writeoff of up to 34 percent when you have somebody violating environmental laws and paying a penalty as a result. So, Mr. President, if the manager for the majority is prepared to yield back time on the amendment, I am prepared to yield back time, as well. Let me see what the desire of the majority is.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield back my time, Mr. President.

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I would be happy to.

Mr. WYDEN. Let me say thank you to my friend from New Jersey as well and say that I think he has made a fine statement and offered much on this issue with which I agree. I commend him for it.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, many Americans see the process of setting a budget resolution as a murky, inside-the-beltway exercise that, charitably speaking, leaves them confused and frustrated. More than occasionally I have shared this frustration. But Americans also know that the decisions we make now are going to affect their futures and the futures of their children and their grandchildren. At home in Oregon, that means doing the hard work that the majority budget resolution simply ignores. At home in Oregon, it means making tough choices, not politically expedient ones. For example, it means fixing Medicare and Medicaid, not just sucking billions of dollars out of these extraordinarily important health care programs. At home in Oregon, we have ground down the cost of health care and Medicare to one of the lowest per capita averages in our Nation. Republican budget drafters could have built on Oregon's success. They could have helped transform the Medicare Program, its management and its finances, in a way to encourage innovation and equality and efficiency as we have done in much of my State. But this budget simply cuts rather than transforms. It leaves behind many of the same old problems in the Medicare Program, the problems that have seen so often results in rewards for inefficiency and instead again pounds the vulnerable. I think it is a mistake, and I think it is possible to do far better. On the welfare reform issue, all of us understand this is a job that must be done. Again, at home in Oregon, we found a way to make a real start by reforming our health care system for the working poor and launching a new welfare-to-work program that is putting our citizens in good-paying jobs. It took an up-front investment that is already paying dividends and is expected to be yet more successful in the future. But it took political will. It took reasonable public support to get the job done, and again I think this budget is not going to make that possible. I am afraid this budget on the welfare reform issue promises a stillbirth for future efforts in other States by operating on the idea that you can just out-cheap the system rather than transform it to make it work. If you look at the budget offered by the majority, we would have to cut $56 billion more than the administration foresees for education and training. On one of the issues most important to the future of Oregon families, this budget says it is more important to spend on a number of outdated military weapons systems than it is to support education and vocational training for our children who are going to need the skills and the experiences essential to compete in a global economy. I say to my friends, the cold war is over. We won it. But the majority budget does not reflect this reality. The new war, the economic war that enlists every schoolchild in my State and across the country, is the one that we are going to have to fight aggressively. Our competitors in Asia and Europe shoot with real bullets. They are making stronger investments in education and training than we are, and they are creating world standard, technical quality work forces. What is the response in this budget? The majority budget extracts funds that we need for training and educating our schoolchildren and reinvests it in goldplated weapons systems that even the military questions today. The majority budget goes on to cap the Direct Student Loan Program at 20 percent, a program that eliminates red-tape and middle-level bureaucracy in order to get funds to working families and students. Head Start would be frozen, eliminating opportunities for up to 20,000 children. And, while Americans across the country are talking about the specter of corporate downsizing, this budget would deny assistance over the next 6 years through the Job Training for Dislocated Workers Program to many of the workers in our Nation who have lost their jobs. On the environmental issue, an issue of great importance to our State, we see again how there is a retreat in this budget from much of the great bipartisan progress that has been made in the last 20 years. For example, in my State this bipartisan progress has led to effective stewardship of great natural treasures like Crater Lake and the Three Sisters Wilderness. This budget would put that bipartisan tradition of environmental protection in reverse, simply by cutting the National Park Service budget by 20 percent below the administration's proposal. This is going to force some parks to close, others are going to cut back on maintenance and access, and we are going to spoil, in my view, much of the important progress in environmental protection that has been made in the last few decades. In the early 1960's, citizens of my State launched a huge public program to clean up the polluted Willamette River, a project that, at that time, was one of the biggest and most expensive environmental efforts in our history. We understand the value of clean water and resource protection, and we were willing to pay the price of renewing that great river. And that wise investment has been paid back many times. The people of our State want to see those special values and environmental stewardship projected in this budget resolution. But this budget makes a retreat from those values by cutting the environmental programs nearly 20 percent in 2002. The budget would relieve polluters of certain Superfund cleanup costs and make every taxpayer shoulder new burdens. EPA enforcement activities would be rolled back, and there would be fewer environmental cops on the beat. I am particularly concerned that the need for salmon restoration funds in the Columbia River and maintaining our fish hatcheries in this Great Basin are priorities that again come up unattended and short in this resolution. So I say to my colleagues on both sides, one of the efforts I have been proudest of in my early days in the Senate was getting 34 Senators to join me in a letter that I authored, making it clear that it was important to get the nongermane and devastating environmental riders out of the omnibus appropriations bill. We were successful at that. The spending bill does not gut the environmental protections that have been pushed so hard by so many for so long. If this budget resolution forces a retreat on environmental protection, we will make the same effort, as this process goes forward, to turn it around as we did in our successful work in terms of getting the antienvironmental riders out of the omnibus appropriations bill. Let me conclude with a word or two about taxes. Oregonians want tax reform and they believe that this should be a priority as part of this budget resolution. But this majority budget cuts taxes in strange and mysterious ways that many of my constituents challenge. A $500 per child tax credit for a person making $110,000 per year? How does that square against increasing taxes to low-income working families, families that work hard, that play by the rules, and have had a chance to see work rewarded under the earned income tax credit? This budget, unfortunately, retreats, in terms of support for working families that are struggling to get ahead. It retreats on the question of Medicare and Medicaid. And I believe, as a result of those changes, we are going to see lower quality health care, a sicker pool of individuals relying on those Government programs, and we will see, as a result of the tax changes and the health changes, a significant reduction in the opportunities that all of us want to see for individuals in these public programs who want to get out having that opportunity to do so. The proposed cuts in Medicaid would end guaranteed health coverage, for example, for 36 million Americans. For seniors, the $250 billion in Medicaid cuts over 7 years risks cutting off prescription drugs, home and community-based care, and assistive devices such as wheelchairs. I do not think our families can afford those additional burdens. So, as we now go to the amendments on this issue of extraordinary importance, let us look beyond the cold, stark figures of the budget. Budgets just are not about numbers, they are about the hopes and aspirations of the American people. We have to get a balanced budget. The families of my State balance their budgets. It is important for the Congress to balance the Federal budget as well. But it has to be approached in a way that ensures a sense of fairness, that sacrifices are not just singled out for those who do not have political power. Let us make sure that this budget resolution, this budget resolution which would provide an opportunity to reform Medicare and Medicaid in a way that Oregonians have already begun, would be pursued by the Congress as a whole. I am happy to yield time to the Senator from California. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this June, Dr. Paul Kreider will be retiring from his position as president of Mount Hood Community College in Gresham, OR. I would like to recognize Dr. Kreider for his exceptional accomplishments and leadership during his many years of service. Through strategic planning, program review and improvement, staff and organizational development, management information systems, and participatory decisionmaking, Dr. Kreider has played a significant role in the successful development of Mount Hood Community College. His effectiveness as a leader has not gone unnoticed; Dr. Kreider has received a number of awards, among them the National Council for Research and Planning 1991 Management Recognition Award, the National ACCT Marie Y. Martin CEO of the Year Award, and the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development Leadership Award. Dr. Kreider's leadership did not stop at the doors of Mount Hood Community College; he has extended his knowledge and expertise to others in the community as well. In particular, he founded and chaired the Consortium for Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success in the Community College, an American Association Community Colleges- affiliated consortium. Additionally, he reached out to assist other community colleges in developing assessment tools to measure student outcomes, strategic planning, and program improvement. Dr. Kreider remains quite active on State, national, and international levels. In the past, he served as president of the Board of Education Partners for International Cooperation, Inc. and the Oregon Community College Presidents' Council. Presently, he sits on the boards of several organizations including the American Association of Community Colleges and Community Colleges for International Development, Inc. Again, I would like to both pay tribute to Dr. Kreider and congratulate him for his accomplishments and contributions to the educational community. Mount Hood Community College, as well as Oregon at large, has most certainly benefited from his initiative and leadership. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy for working with me and my cosponsors to craft a bipartisan amendment to commission a GAO study on the effectiveness of the H-2A Guest Worker Program. It seems to me that the H-2A Program works for no one. From what I have heard from growers and from farmworker advocates on this program: First, it does not effectively match up American workers with employers who need labor; second, it is administratively unwieldy for growers, potentially leaving them at the date of harvest without sufficient labor; and third, there are cases where the labor protections under the program have been poorly enforced and some growers have driven out domestic laborers in favor of foreign labor through unfair employment practices. It seems to me that this program can use a good, hard look on a number of fronts, and this is why I am proposing a GAO report so that an outside agency can take a balanced look at the effectiveness of this program. I am concerned about this issue because agriculture is one of Oregon's largest industries. It generates more than $5 billion in direct economic output and another $3 to 5 billion in related industries. According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, roughly 53,000 jobs in Oregon are tied to the agricultural industry. Let me clarify: these are not seasonal or temporary jobs, these are good, permanent, American jobs. If we add on seasonal workers, we are talking about 76,000 to 98,000 jobs in Oregon. When we are talking about this many jobs in my State of Oregon, I don't want to be flip or careless about any changes to any statute that might adversely affect these jobs or this industry. At the same time, I certainly don't want to see the creation of a new Bracero Program. In my mind I set some simple goals for looking at the H-2A Program: First, we have to make sure that the U.S. agriculture industry is internationally competitive, and second, we have to make sure that American farmworkers are not displaced by foreign workers and that they have access to good jobs, where they can earn a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. With these goals in mind, I think that we can design a reasonable system to meet labor shortages, if and when they occur. It is an understatement to say that the issue of the H-2A Program for bringing in temporary guest workers is polarized. Labor unions and advocates for farmworkers feel that the H-2A Program is barely a notch above the old, abusive Bracero Program. Growers feel that far from giving them access to cheap labor, the H-2A Program is extraordinarily costly and almost totally unusable and that the Department of Labor is openly hostile to their interests. Given the passions surrounding this issue, I think that it's important that we begin any process of redesigning this program by bringing in an independent, outside agency to take a look at H-2A to try to sift out what is actually happening, and what can be done to make this program an effective safety valve, if indeed, after immigration reform legislation passes, there ends up being a shortage of American workers who are able and willing to take temporary, agricultural jobs. I and my cosponsors, along with Senator Kennedy and Senator Simpson, have agreed that it is important for the GAO to look at four issues: First, that able and willing American workers are efficiently matched up with employers seeking labor. I have heard criticism of the H-2A Program from both the growers and from farmworker advocates. According to the testimony by John R. Hancock, a former Department of Labor employee, before the House Committee on Agriculture December 14, 1995, Only about 10-15 percent of the job openings available with H-2A employers have been referred by the Employment Service in recent years, and the number of such workers who stay on the job to complete the total contract period has been minimal. Similarly, a briefing book sent to me from the Farmworker's Justice Fund cited the Commission on Agricultural Workers' finding that ``the supply of workers is not yet coordinated well enough with the demand for workers.'' So, it seems that we all can agree that we seriously need to evaluate how we match up workers with employers who are experiencing labor shortages. Second, if and when there is a shortage of American workers willing to do the necessary temporary, agricultural labor, there will be a straightforward program to address this shortage with temporary foreign workers. I have been assured that across the country there are hundreds of thousands of migrant farmworkers, ready, willing and able to work. If there is no such shortage, then clearly there is no need for growers to use the H-2A Program. However, growers in Oregon and across the country are afraid that if this legislation is effective in cracking down on false documents and cracking down on people who come across the border, then they will see their work force decline sharply. Now as far as I can tell, no one can say for certain how many illegal immigrants there are in this country and how many are part of the migrant labor work force. But I know from visiting with folks in Oregon, that there is nothing that makes a farmer lose more sleep at night than worrying about his or her fruit, or berries, or vegetables, rotting in the field because there is no one there to pick it. I know that many say that a farmer could get as much labor as he wanted if the wage was high enough. I want to make clear that I strongly support making sure that seasonal, agricultural workers get a good, living wage. I strongly support ensuring that they have good housing, and workers compensation, and safe working conditions. But I do think we have to be realistic that if we want to keep a competitive agricultural industry, these temporary, seasonal jobs are never going to make a person a millionaire; these jobs are always going to involve tough, physical labor, and they most likely aren't going to be filled by out-of-work engineers. So it seems to make sense to me that because we want our agricultural industry to be the most competitive in the world, that if and when there is a labor shortage of people who are willing and able to do temporary, seasonal work, there should be an effective way for the farmer to get help to harvest the crop. I don't want to have to scramble while the food rots in the field to fix the H-2A Program. Let's straighten it out now. Hopefully, we'll never have to use it--but if we do, let's have something that is usable. Third, if and when a farmer uses the H-2A Program, the program should not directly or indirectly be misused to displace U.S. agricultural workers, or to make U.S. workers worse off. There are a lot of stories about misuse of the H-2A Program --I find these appalling. I do not think that the H-2A Program should be used as a conduit for cheap foreign labor, as a substitute for already available American workers. It seems to me that everyone admits that there are some abusive employers. There are employers who have manipulated the piece rates to pay people lower wages. There are employers who, once they get into the H-2A Program, never again look for American labor. I think that this program needs careful scrutiny to ensure that workers are treated fairly--that they get a fair wage for a fair day's work, that they have places to live and reasonable benefits, and that we don't bring in foreign workers to the detriment of American workers here. Many of the problems I hear about with the H-2A Program from farmworker advocates seem to stem from a lack of enforcement in the program. Perhaps this is something that we also need to look at--what mechanism can make sure that this program is enforceable. Fourth, finally, I believe that it is important that we do not undermine the intent of this bill to ensure that we stop the flood of illegal immigrants coming across the border. We would ask GAO to look at the extent to which this program might cause an increase in illegal immigrants in this country. I know that a number of concerns have been expressed about overstays among temporary workers. Obviously, our primary concern with this entire legislation is that we get some control over the illegal immigrants coming into this country, and it is important that we don't close the door in one place, only to open a backdoor elsewhere. I know that the tensions over the guest worker issue run deep. I hope that with this GAO report we can start to take an objective, balanced look at what this guest worker program will mean both for farm workers and for employers, and how it can operate so it is fair to both.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, thank you very much. Mr. President, I take the floor today to speak on behalf of this extremely important bill. In doing so, I want to commend the chair, Senator Kassebaum, and also Senator Kennedy for what I think is exactly the kind of spirit of bipartisan effort that is needed to produce an important health bill. The reason this legislation is very important is it will provide a new path for upward mobility in American life. I have seen again and again in my home State--this goes back to the days when I was director of the Grey Panthers, a senior citizens group at home--I have seen citizens cut off from economic opportunity because this bill was not law. You could have, for example, a young person just starting their career in Oregon. They are working hard. They are committed, doing well in the marketplace, playing by the rules, and showing the kind of discipline to get ahead in the work force. But they, in effect, end up being cut off because they have a medical problem. So, if they hear about a better job across town, another economic opportunity where they can make a better wage, they lose out simply because today's insurance system does not work all that well unless you are healthy and wealthy. With this legislation, it is going to be possible to make the health insurance system work for all Americans so that all Americans can get access to health insurance and get it when they need it most, which is when they have serious medical problems. I would like to give special thanks to the chair, Senator Kassebaum, and to Senator Kennedy for their efforts to work with those of us from Oregon. Oregon has been one of the States, as the Chair knows, that has consistently been out in front in terms of health reform. We have done it with the Oregon Health Plan, for example, innovative in terms of senior programs, and we have been on the cutting edge with insurance reform as well. There is a very special State effort supported by Republicans and Democrats alike at home. We have initiated a number of important insurance reforms at the State level that we felt had to be protected. Through the good offices of the chair, Senator Kassebaum, and Senator Kennedy that has been possible. I have been notified in writing that the Oregon insurance reforms that have been initiated on a bipartisan basis are working well according to the insurance industry, and consumer groups alike are protected under this legislation. Finally, Mr. President, let me add that no one should be mistaken about how much more is left to do in the area of health reform. If I had my way, for example, a very important, albeit modest, change that we would add to this legislation would be to open up the national practitioner data base to the public so that the citizens of this country could get access to the disciplinary record where the medical profession has disciplined one of their colleagues. I wrote this law as a Member of the House of Representatives--again, a statute that has bipartisan support. Today in that data bank lay thousands and thousands of names of physicians who have been disciplined formally by their colleagues, and the American people cannot find out about it. Senator Boxer has done yeoman work on this issue. A number of our colleagues on both sides of the floor have approached me on this. If I had my way, we would be on the floor today including this important change that would be of benefit to consumers. But as a number of our colleagues have noted, it is not possible to get all the way to health reform in America. It is not possible today to get all of the work done that needs to be done to protect consumers and to insure universal coverage. But I think it is quite clear that a major step forward is being taken as a result of the bipartisan work done by Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and then, as it goes to conference, to reject the number of anticonsumer provisions that were added in the House. For example, in the House--it seems, again, incredible to see this kind of anticonsumer retreat--the House wants to roll back the protections for older people who buy policies to supplement their Medicare care. The late Senator Heinz of Pennsylvania and others fought for years for this legislation. The House wants to roll it back. The House wants to roll back the fight against fraud and waste. So, I hope today that the Senate will vote for this important bipartisan legislation--it is an important step forward--and then to reject the legislation in conference coming from the House. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Senator Kennedy on the Oregon reform proposal and his reply to me be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I introduce the Kinship Care Act of 1996. Today Representative Connie Morella is introducing companion legislation in the House. Grandparents caring for grandchildren represent one of the most underappreciated natural resources in our Nation. They hold tremendous potential for curing one of our society's most pressing maladies: 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 to strangers for this kind of care, but the folks available to provide foster care homes are in short supply. At the same time, inflexibility in current regulations often force us to ignore a precious alternative that is right at our doorstep. Our public policy planners have missed the forest for the trees. Grandparents can fill the gap. They are ready, willing and able to provide the kind of care these youngsters so desperately need. The legislation I plan to introduce in the Senate today will give States the flexibility to provide the support these grandparents need, so that our seniors can help fill the care gap. The House included my legislation, similar to today's bill, as part of the welfare reform measure last year. My new legislation will continue the process of shifting the focus of our child welfare system from turning children over to strangers, to granting them the loving arms of grandparents and other relatives. 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 3 million children are being raised by their grandparents. In other words, 5 percent of all families in this country are headed by grandparents. It's time that the Federal Government 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. The first would require States to give preference to relative providers when a child is removed from their parents' home. Too often I have heard stories of grandparents or other relatives, not finding out that their grandchildren have been removed from their children's home. By the time they know what is happening, the grandchildren are locked into the foster care system. Often I have heard stories where brothers and sisters are split up and grandparents spend years in court trying to reunite their own families. As we rethink our child protection system, we need to rededicate ourselves to looking to families, including extended families, for solutions. When a child is separated from their parents, it is usually a painful and traumatic experience. Living with people that a child knows and trusts gives children a better chance in the world and gives families a better chance to rebuild themselves. The second part of my bill allows 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. Our child protection system is where our welfare system was about 10 years ago. We know it isn't working well, but States and the Federal Government are still fumbling for solutions. What we need to do now, as we did for our welfare system, is start opening the door for States to try new ideas to both protect children and keep families together. As we reevaluate the effectiveness of our country's child protection systems, it's time that we identify new ideas and new ways to find loving environments for our Nation's most vulnerable children. Grandparents can provide the lynchpin for such a new system.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I introduce the Kinship Care Act of 1996. Today Representative Connie Morella is introducing companion legislation in the House. Grandparents caring for grandchildren represent one of the most underappreciated natural resources in our Nation. They hold tremendous potential for curing one of our society's most pressing maladies: 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 to strangers for this kind of care, but the folks available to provide foster care homes are in short supply. At the same time, inflexibility in current regulations often force us to ignore a precious alternative that is right at our doorstep. Our public policy planners have missed the forest for the trees. Grandparents can fill the gap. They are ready, willing and able to provide the kind of care these youngsters so desperately need. The legislation I plan to introduce in the Senate today will give States the flexibility to provide the support these grandparents need, so that our seniors can help fill the care gap. The House included my legislation, similar to today's bill, as part of the welfare reform measure last year. My new legislation will continue the process of shifting the focus of our child welfare system from turning children over to strangers, to granting them the loving arms of grandparents and other relatives. 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 3 million children are being raised by their grandparents. In other words, 5 percent of all families in this country are headed by grandparents. It's time that the Federal Government 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. The first would require States to give preference to relative providers when a child is removed from their parents' home. Too often I have heard stories of grandparents or other relatives, not finding out that their grandchildren have been removed from their children's home. By the time they know what is happening, the grandchildren are locked into the foster care system. Often I have heard stories where brothers and sisters are split up and grandparents spend years in court trying to reunite their own families. As we rethink our child protection system, we need to rededicate ourselves to looking to families, including extended families, for solutions. When a child is separated from their parents, it is usually a painful and traumatic experience. Living with people that a child knows and trusts gives children a better chance in the world and gives families a better chance to rebuild themselves. The second part of my bill allows 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. Our child protection system is where our welfare system was about 10 years ago. We know it isn't working well, but States and the Federal Government are still fumbling for solutions. What we need to do now, as we did for our welfare system, is start opening the door for States to try new ideas to both protect children and keep families together. As we reevaluate the effectiveness of our country's child protection systems, it's time that we identify new ideas and new ways to find loving environments for our Nation's most vulnerable children. Grandparents can provide the lynchpin for such a new system.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I first want to extend my appreciation to Senator Hatfield. The chairman of the committee has done yeoman work on this and on so many issues for our State and for our country. He has honored me with the chance to work with him on the Oregon option in both the House and the Senate. I want him to know how much I appreciate his help and his counsel. I think it is clear that the administration looks to him for leadership on these issues and to a great extent it is because of Senator Hatfield that the administration consistently comes to us for the opportunity to test these issues. I want the Senator to know how grateful I am to be able to work with him and in particular, to support his amendment today. I think Senator Hatfield has outlined quite well that the welfare system in America today does not work for anyone. It certainly does not work for taxpayers. In so many instances they watch as their tax dollars are frittered away. And I know that it does not work for many of those who are in the system. I have talked to them, and many of them have said they would very much like to break out of the system, but they get caught in a Catch-22. They may have a child at home and would like to work, but if they start working they lose their child care. So, to a great extent, the welfare system in America today does not work for much of anybody. What I think Senator Hatfield has outlined is that Oregon, with our unique Oregon option, a plan that is being tried literally nowhere in the country, is offering the Nation the chance to break out of the encrusted shell of the old welfare system. We are saying, in effect, that we would like to bust loose, like we did with the Oregon health plan, and focus most specifically on results. Senator Hatfield has made so many of the important points that I would like to just touch on one or two others that I believe have great implications for the national debate about the delivery of services in our country, and particularly our human services. We know that many of our colleagues are now part of the debate that suggests either you ought to run everything from Washington, DC, that Washington, DC has the answers, or you should just give it back to the States and see what happens. The Oregon option is a plan developed with the leadership of our Governor, John Kitzhaber, who has done outstanding work in the human services area, and with the help of the administration. The Oregon option offers an alternative approach that falls in between the two extremes of either running it all from Washington, DC, and saying Washington, DC, has the answers, or simply turning it over to the States and seeing what happens. Oregon, in effect, with the Oregon option, is saying that if we are allowed to be free of some of the Federal shackles and some of the Federal red tape, we will guarantee we will focus on real accountability with respect to services. We will make sure that the focus is getting people off welfare into gainful employment in the private sector, and we will focus on results, we will focus on accountability. I suggest to the Senate that the Oregon option does show real promise of getting to a creative third path between those who say ``run it all from Washington'' and those who just say ``turn it all over to the States and we will see what happens.'' Yes, let us give the States more freedom and more authority, but let us also require accountability. That is what the Oregon option is going to do. I think it is worth focusing for a moment on how this is actually going to produce change in the system. In the future, with the Oregon option, a welfare office is going to be evaluated not by whether all of the boxes in every application get checked, but by how many individuals actually move into good, nonsubsidized jobs and whether we are reducing the number of children who live in poverty. Right now, probably the best way to describe the system is that if you have somebody who is on welfare and at home, the system just goes forward. You do not have to adjust any benefits. You do not process any paperwork. There is no job training to account for, no assets that might accumulate. The system just goes on and on and on. Under the Oregon plan, those individuals who are running welfare services, are going to know the focus is on making sure there are results, making sure that you actually see people move into the private sector. This is what reform ought to be all about. There are a number of specific features about the Oregon plan that I think make great sense for welfare reform generally. Under the Oregon option, the State is going to invest in what is known as transitional child care and preventive child care. As a Member of the other body, I saw repeatedly that there were individuals, particularly women who head households, who would be able to get off welfare. Sometimes they would get off a couple of times. They would be in the private sector, they would be making headway, then their child care would fall apart, and they would slide back onto public assistance. The Oregon option, with its innovative approach toward child care is going to help prevent that in the future. The Oregon option allows welfare recipients to keep certain assets that can expedite the transition from welfare to work and make sure people do not fall back on welfare. Finally, the focus with respect to the State's role is on real work situations, not these make-work kind of arrangements, but real employment opportunities where welfare recipients get trained on-site, by business people who have actual needs in the job markets in our State. A lot of us see the welfare system as something that can be a ladder to a fresh start. It is not supposed to be a feather mattress. It is supposed to be a ladder. I am excited about the chance to change lives for the better in our State, excited about the fact that the Oregon option is going to allow taxpayer dollars to be used in a more effective way. I want to commend both the administration and Secretary Shalala. I have had a chance to work with her on the Oregon option and the Oregon health plan. We think this is our one-two punch in reforming services that affect thousands of families. Secretary Shalala deserves great credit for that. Finally, our Governor, as Senator Hatfield has noted, is consistently out in front in trying to look at these issues. I think, when you write the history of health reform, and I know the President is particularly interested in this issue, the country is going to look at what Oregon has done in health care and the way Oregon has made tough choices and the way Oregon has focused on prevention and focused on medical effectiveness and focused on ways to build a new partnership with providers. Because of Dr. Kitzhaber's work, the Oregon health plan is going to make a difference in health reform across this country. It is going to be something that the rest of the Nation is going to look to. Now, with the Oregon option we have a chance, through welfare reform, to complement the work that has been done on the health care side. So I urge the adoption of the Hatfield amendment. As you can tell, we are passionate, on a bipartisan basis, about this important cause. It is going to change lives across our State. I think it is going to make a difference across our Nation, and I am pleased and honored to be here with Senator Hatfield to support his amendment. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, this past January 31, around 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning, I tried to imagine what I would say in my first Senate floor speech. I reflected a bit on what I had learned from Oregonians during the campaign that sent me here. Though I had not slept a whole lot for many days, I had no problem piecing together what the election was all about: Oregonians, regardless of who they voted for, are hungry for real solutions. In many ways, ideological purity--looking at Government through a set of partisan blinders--is far less important to the people of my State than making the Government work. The message from our electorate was blunt: Put aside the partisan differences, shed the political armor, and find common ground. I am by nature an optimist, and I believe that there are plenty of reasons to see that the water glass of democracy is more than half full. Both political parties now understand how important it is to downsize the Federal Government. Both parties recognize that our Nation needs real welfare reform. Soon the Senate will deal with a bipartisan health insurance reform bill. These are all areas where Democrats and Republicans can come together and find consensus. But, frankly, I did not expect in the early morning hours of January 31 that my first speech would be about the so-called ``salvage rider,'' a subject that seemingly defies consensus building. And that is why our job today is so critical. More than half the forests in Oregon are owned by the Federal Government. For many Oregonians, the responsible management of these Federal lands is the acid test for determining if the Government really works or is actually broken beyond repair. I believe that the Senate can help bring peace to our forests. Our challenge is to help persuade the warring forest factions to lay down their ideological clubs and work together so that America has healthy, productive forests in the next century. Eminent forest scientists agree that our Western forests have genuine health problems that can be cured through salvage logging. For example, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber's expert panel has made a number of important findings with respect to our State's Blue Mountains. They found that sizable amounts of certain species, such as Douglas fir and true firs, have died as a result of overcrowding on drier sites, drought, and insects. A major portion of the live forest is under stress because stands are too dense, especially the true fir and Douglas fir understories beneath pine and larch, and it increases the likelihood of future mortality in both understory and overstory. Restoration treatments including thinning and fuel reduction could reduce the risk of loss from insects and fire on large areas of these forests. Time is of the essence to capture economic value and reduce risk of catastrophic losses in the future. Salvage and restoration treatments have the potential to pay for themselves and provide funds for ecosystem restoration projects. This story is not unique. Similar situations exist in forests throughout the West. A science-based forest health and salvage policy is needed to end this crisis, and as an Oregon Senator I am going to work with anyone, anywhere, anytime for a forestry policy that works. In 1995, the Congress enacted a new salvage logging program. The supporters said it was a win-win policy, arguing that dead and dying trees would be salvaged for our mills and that the harvest would reap the added benefit of improving forest health. As a Member of the House, I felt compelled to vote against the plan because it was hard to find what we call the good wood in these arguments. First, buried in the technical language of the bill was a definition of salvage that was so broad that virtually any tree in the forest could be cut. That definition specifically allows salvage sales to include what were called associated trees that are not dead or dying as long as that part of the sale did include salvage of dead or dying trees. Second, the lack of hearings on the measure was a sure ticket, an absolute glidepath to the legal bedlam that Senator Hatfield has described. Third, whether or not you support the President's forest plan, a Federal judge has ruled that timber-dependent communities can actually harvest trees under it. The salvage rider threatens that harvest for a short-term gain. Finally, I voted against this rider because it embodies what citizens have come to mistrust in American politics. While supporters of the rider said it was a good Government plan to prevent catastrophic fires and insect infestation, it has turned out to be a Trojan horse that would allow for the lawless logging of healthy old growth trees. The outcry that followed the rider's enactment is predictable and is why we are in the Chamber today. My colleagues, it did not have to be this way. The Congress could have addressed these problems through the proper authorization process. The Senate could have let the public in on the debate. Senator Craig's bill, S. 391, squarely addresses forest health and could serve as a valuable starting point for a discussion of this issue. In our previous life in the House, Senator Craig and I worked very well together. I have always enjoyed working with Senators Hatfield and Gorton. They have both been very kind to me in these early days of my service in the Senate, and I know we can work together again to achieve better Federal forest management. The Senate needs to understand that the frustrations in resource- dependent communities that gave birth to the salvage rider are legitimate. That is certainly the message I got in my recent townhall meeting in Prineville, OR. Thousands of families in these communities are losing hope, and the Congress has to respond to their needs. Under the President's plan for northwest forests, timber workers and communities were promised a harvest level of more than 1 billion board feet by 1999. This is down from unsustainable but peak harvest levels in the 1980's, but timber workers and their communities rightly feel abused when even meager promises are not kept. Some of the original supporters of the salvage rider agree that the old growth logging that is occurring goes beyond what they have intended. In an effort to fix the problem, they have included language in the appropriations bill to give the agencies some additional flexibility to substitute alternative tracts and authority to buy back environmentally damaging sales. These provisions are only a partial fix. They provide only a brief 45-day period allowing Federal agencies to substitute new timber for old sales which would be environmentally damaging or for a buyout of these sales. If the purchaser is not happy, the agencies have little leverage. Environmentally sensitive sales are going to go forward. The deck is stacked heavily in favor of the purchasers so that in effect they can dictate the terms. In addition, provisions currently in the bill continue the exempting of salvage logging from environmental laws even extending this exemption for some of the most troubling sales. If these environmental laws are not working, then it is the duty of the Senate to change them. But it ought to be done in the open. It ought to be done in the clear light of day. As a new Senator, I am not going to support the politics- as-usual process by circumventing the law. I also have no intention of turning my back on working families. If you oppose the salvage rider, you have to stand up for an alternative. You have to say what you are for if you are going to keep faith with folks in timber-dependent communities. I support a strong legally constituted forest health and salvage logging program that provides a real timber harvest and real hope for rural Oregonians. That is why, today, I am going to support the amendment offered by Senator Murray. I compliment the Senator and her staff for her efforts to reach out to the broad section of stakeholders who care so much about this issue. I intend to work actively with other Senators to improve this legislation, but I believe that the Murray bill is a sounder, more comprehensive solution than the language now in the bill. I believe that the centerpiece of reforming the salvage rider is ensuring that those who voluntarily relinquish contract rights to old- growth timber receive replacement timber. If the Murray amendment is adopted, I wish to work with my Northwest colleagues to strengthen the Murray proposal by making it a legal duty for the Clinton administration to find acceptable replacement timber from nonsensitive areas. My own view is that failure to provide certainty on the replacement timber issue virtually guarantees that this body will be back debating yet another fix to this problem. The Murray amendment provides the agencies with tools they can use to deliver on the critical requirement of replacement volume. And the Murray amendment has other positive features. First and foremost, it restores critical habitat, forest and streambed protections in our current law. It gives citizens the right of legal redress, but the legal process will no longer drag on interminably. Instead of using scarce tax dollars for salvage buyouts, the buyouts are used as a last resort. The Murray amendment encourages and expedites legitimate salvage logging where it can treat genuine forest health problems. There is more to do, and let me outline some followup steps if the Murray amendment goes forward. For example, I believe it is important to expedite the harvest of any remaining 318 sales that are not environmentally sensitive. These are sales that were planned under the process set up in the 1990 appropriations. The salvage rider orders the release of 318 sales which had been held up for environmental concerns. There are some who would claim that all of these sales should be suspended because of their potential environmental impacts. The fact is, Federal agencies do not challenge the release of all of them. A number of them have already been cut. If, in fact, some of these sales do not impact environmentally sensitive areas, I hope they will move forward. A related concern is that bona fide salvage sales not be held up when; they do not trigger environmental concerns. Delay in salvaging dead and dying trees can cause the value of timber to decline substantially, even making it unmarketable. Automatically suspending salvage sales when an appeal is filed could invite meritless appeals that frustrate legitimate salvage efforts. Finally, I am concerned that the forest health provisions in the amendment are somewhat duplicative, and that more work needs to be done on the roadless area provisions. Mr. President, I would like to conclude my first speech in the Senate with one final comment. I am the first Senator from Oregon elected from my party in more than 30 years. But what I want to do most in the Senate is get beyond party labels, get beyond urban versus rural politics, and find common ground to help all our people. Whether you are an environmentalist or a mill owner, a fisherman or a logger, a new policy for creating and maintaining healthy forests is the common ground on which we all may stand. I urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this year marks the 50th anniversary of Portland State University [PSU], Oregon's urban university. In its short life, the university has evolved into a national model for how higher education can be integrated into urban communities through service learning directed at taking on thorny urban problems. What this means is that instead of just focusing on ethereal academic concepts, PSU staff and students roll up their sleeves and connect concepts with community, and knowledge of an academic subject with real world applications. In 1946, Portland State University began as an extension school to serve returning World War II veterans. Today, the university serves more than 37,000 individuals every year, offering a wide range of undergraduate and graduate degree programs. What's more, since its extension school days, PSU's mission has shifted to showing how town and gown can work together to build the communities of the future. When innovative community programs in the Portland metropolitan area are brought to my attention, often I find that PSU is in the thick of things. One program that I am involved with is PSU's partnership with the Police Activities League [PAL] in sponsoring the National Youth Sports Program on campus every year. The program provides at-risk youngsters with a structured summer program which emphasizes sports, positive decisionmaking skills, and education. PSU does more than just provide the facilities--in keeping with its mission, university faculty consult with PAL in developing curriculum for the program and students are active participants in running the program. The collaboration doesn't just stop at the end of the summer. Throughout the year, PSU and PAL work together to involve these youngsters in positive programs and encourage them to work toward a college degree. PSU has also tapped into emerging technologies to both strengthen the university and the community. One of the most innovative uses of technology is its PORTALS program, or the Portland Area Library System. PORTALS is a cooperative endeavor linking public and private institutions throughout the Portland area to an electronically accessible research library, with PSU as its hub. The States of Oregon and Washington both stand to benefit from the new resources available through this innovative project. These programs are just the tip of the iceberg of the university's involvement, PSU runs teacher academies to help local teachers get in- service education. PSU students, who are all required to be involved in community projects, work at local community-based organizations such as community health centers, schools, and after-school programs. It is thus no surprise that PSU has received a number of national awards for its innovative curriculum and for its work serving the metropolitan community and the State. Last year, the school received over $3 million from foundations and Federal agencies to support its cutting-edge undergraduate curriculum. For the same reason it is also has been recognized by the American Association of Higher Education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the Interstate Commission on Higher Education as a national model for innovative undergraduate education. The 50th anniversary is a time to celebrate the achievements of the past and look forward to the innovations and adventures of the future. The faculty, staff, and students at Portland State University, past and present, deserve our congratulations on a remarkable history and our best wishes for future success.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my strong support for H.R. 1747, the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995. I would like to thank members on both sides of the aisle, including Representative Bilirakis, Representative Waxman, and Representative Frank for their unflagging support and assistance in moving this important piece of legislation through the House. In particular, I wish to thank Representative Nancy Johnson of Connecticut for her years of work and commitment on this bill. She is a true friend of community health centers and has been an outstanding partner in our fight for smarter Government. As always, it was a joy to work with her. I think we all realize that the Federal Government has to work harder to squeeze every last ounce of service out of each taxpayer dollar allocated to health care. That's exactly what this program accomplishes. This legislation will be a shot in the arm to struggling community health centers [CHC's]. The bill allows CHC's to reallocate desperately needed health care dollars from the coffers of private medical malpractice insurance companies to direct services for hundreds thousands more poor and rural Americans. Additionally, it will ensure that American taxpayers get the biggest bang for their buck. When Representative Johnson and I first introduced this legislation in 1991, community health centers were paying $58 million a year, most of which came out of their Federal grant fund for medical malpractice insurance--while they only generated about $4 million a year in claims. Roughly $54 million dollars, allocated by the Federal Government for health care services for poor and rural Americans, was not going for services, but was going as pure profit to large insurance corporations. It seemed to myself and Mrs. Johnson that there had to be a better way. What we discovered was that Federal employees, including health care providers at the Veterans Administration, Department of Defense, and Indian Health Service, are covered by the Federal Tort Claims Act [FTCA] instead of by private insurers. It seemed only natural that community health centers, which receive a substantial sum of their operating budget from the Federal Government and which are strictly regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services, should also be included under this program. The original Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act set up a fund, under the FTCA, to which a portion of the grants for community health centers would be allocated. To date, only 15 claims have been filed against health centers under the FTCA and none of the $11 million set-aside to be expended for coverage of such has been expended. In fact, since the enactment of this bill in late 1992, coverage under the FTCA has saved community health centers an estimated $14.3 million, allowing about 75,000 more patients to be served. H.R. 1747 reauthorizes the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act permanently and clarifies portions of the original legislation. In particular, it ensures that doctors who have to do shared call are covered. These are doctors in rural or poor urban communities who all have to share duties at the local hospital. The legislation also ensures that part-time doctors who work for health centers are covered under the FTCA, and it clarifies that FTCA coverage may apply in managed care arrangements with health centers. Time is of the essence with this reauthorization. Since the final regulations for this program were not issued until May of this, many community health centers are waiting before they drop their private malpractice coverage to see if this act is reauthorized. For those 119 health centers that are now covered under the FTCA, the situation is more urgent. If this bill is not reauthorized, they will have to start purchasing expensive private malpractice insurance in the next couple weeks to ensure that they are not left without coverage next year. In Oregon, the passage of H.R. 1747 will mean a number of health centers will finally feel comfortable dropping their private malpractice insurance. At La Clinica Del Valle in Phoenix, OR, the health center will have as much as $20,000 more to spend on patients-- meaning they can serve at least 250 patients. Next year, when they move to a new facility, they will save $40,000 or the equivalent of a part- time doctor--and be able to serve 500 more patients. At the Salud Medical Center in Woodburn, OR, reauthorizing this program will mean that the center will have at a minimum $10,000 more to spend on serving patients. At the West Salem Clinic in Salem, OR, with the savings from this program, they will be able to hire a part-time nurse practitioner, and the head of the center estimates that this will mean they will be able to take 2,100 more visits from people in the area--or serve about 700 more patients. At the Southeastern Rural Health Network in Chiloquin, OR, the savings will mean the center can repair a leaking roof and build a wheelchair ramp so that handicapped people can enter the clinic to visit the doctor. It seems to me that this legislation is a prime example of how we can work together, on a bipartisan basis, to come up with creative, cost- effective solutions, to provide people with more medical assistance and to effectively use American's hard-earned tax dollars. Again, I thank the Members who have helped with this important piece of legislation, and urge its speedy approval.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts for his courtesy, and I would only say to my colleagues that there are two ways in America to reduce fraud and protect investors and consumers. We can do it through litigation, and under any circumstances this involves playing catchup ball after a fraud has been perpetrated; or we can detect and deter fraud up front, and that is what this legislation requires. For the first time in America, under this bill, accountants would be affirmatively required to search for, attempt to detect fraud, and report it to management. If management did not correct it, it would then have to be passed on to Government regulators. I am of the view, and we saw this under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] that had this requirement been in effect in America, Charles Keating could have been stopped in his tracks cold. Because in the Keating case, the auditors had the goods. And instead of reporting the fraud, they simply shrunk away. The fraud reporting requirement in this legislation, in my view, provides an opportunity to change the psychology in corporate board rooms all across America. Because in the future, management will know that they cannot have an auditor in their pocket. They will know that an auditor has a legal responsibility to report fraud when this legislation is signed. So I ask my colleagues to support the bill. It provides a chance to try a fresh approach. Litigation is appropriate where consumers are fleeced, but let us do more to prevent fraud up front by requiring the auditors to blow the whistle. That is what this legislation requires, and I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, lobbying reform needs to be enacted now. If there is any delay, it may be another 40 years before anything gets done. [[Page H 13686]] The United We Stand organization has written all of us that amendments on this bill should be opposed so that lobbying reform does not get caught up again in legislative gridlock. My colleagues Smith, Bryant, Canady, Frank, and others have argued passionately and convincingly that amendments would only mean that once again the enemies of lobbying reform would prevail. This is why I chose to oppose any amendments to this legislation. I do want to emphasize, however, that under any other circumstances, I would support the Fox amendment to prohibit lobbyists from giving gifts to Members of Congress. Already, as of January 1, 1996, Members will be prohibited from accepting gifts, and we ought to make this a two-way street. Additionally, I would strongly support Representative English's amendment which would impose a lifetime ban on the Secretary of Commerce and the Commissioner of the International Trade Commission from lobbying for a foreign interest. Representative Canady has promised that these amendments will be brought up in a second piece of legislation. I intend to be a part of the effort to move these amendments and will work for their passage. While I think there are many ways to further improve lobbying reform legislation, it is time to end the gridlock on lobbying reform. The time is now. The place is here. At long last, let's send a lobbying reform bill to the President.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Today the debate is how to reach a balanced budget over the next few years in a manner that is reasonable, humane, and efficient. The bill before us today is neither reasonable nor humane nor efficient. The new majority's road map to a Federal balanced budget takes America to a lot of places we do not want to go and a lot of places we should not even want to visit. These detours leave behind the poor, the elderly, and the disabled. These detours ensure that there will be a lot more wasteful military boondoggles. These detours ensure that there will be a lot more sweet days for the polluters. My colleagues, that is not right. Let us vote for a balanced budget that brings money home that we are now spending defending the Germans and the Japanese. Let us make the polluters pay their fair share. That is the way to balance the budget.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I support balancing the Federal budget within 7 years. It can be done if we roll up our sleeves and work in a bipartisan fashion. However, I am not able to support this evening's continuing resolution as it fails to provide even the most basic protections for Social Security or Medicare. Further, it would immediately cut education, veterans' homeless programs, and--at the outset of winter-- the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This is not a vote taken in a vacuum. The House has adopted a balanced budget that calls for $270 billion in Medicare cuts. I cannot and I will not support the weakening of Medicare for our seniors. I am prepared tonight to work across the aisle to balance the budget. My priorities for cutting the Federal budget include slashing military spending, agricultural subsidies, the space program, and Federal agency overhead, as well as eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. I will work with anyone to bring the Federal budget under control, but I cannot support tonight's partisan effort.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I believe that there is a clear consensus in this body for bipartisan reform of the Medicaid Program, and clearly the States can play a critical role in reforming that essential program. Five States have been the lead; five States have been a laboratory for change, and the tragedy today is that this bill will turn out the laboratory for change in our home State of Oregon. This bill means that a program that is serving more than 100,000 low-income people will have to be dismantled. This means that charity care is going to increase. This means our welfare rolls are going to increase. I would note specifically in a letter I just received from Jean Thorne, who is our Governor's assistant on Federal health policy, that she believes that the level of funding involved in this bill is going to require the dismantling of the Oregon health plan. This is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for Oregonians. But it is a tragedy for our Nation because we need bipartisan Medicaid reform, Medicaid reform that stresses prevention, holds down costs through health maintenance organizations, and this plan does it. Let us reject this bill. Let us not turn out the lights on the laboratories for health care change in America like in my home State of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a very strong, bipartisan consensus in this House to fix Medicaid--and to fix Medicaid in some very fundamental and tough-minded ways. And I believe that the State can play a very important role in this matter as our laboratories for change and innovation. This bill, unfortunately, turns out the lights on those laboratories for change by eliminating waivers for these experiments in five States including my home State of Oregon. This is bad medicine for Oregonians, and no remedy for the beleagured Federal taxpayer. This is the last thing we should be doing. It is unwise because it will remove health care coverage from thousands of our fellow citizens, it will hog-tag States that already have undergone significant reforms, and it ultimately will cost tax payers far more dollars than you are attempting to save in this reconciliation package. This bill sends us marching backwards, dooming States that have had the political guts to reform, back into the bad old days of public welfare programs. Oregon is one of the States that has lead the way toward a century Medicaid Program, and our waiver plan has full, bipartisan support within our congressional delegation. It has that support because in the last 16 months: Oregon has enrolled 130,000 working poor into managed care; reduced uncompensated, charity expense at hospitals by 30 percent; and has delivered a Medicaid Program which, per capita, is 10 percent less costly than the national average. This bill even with the new provisions worked out by the speaker last night, dooms the Oregon health plan. I have just received a letter from Jean Thorne, governor Kitzhaber's Federal policy director and the former manager of the state's Medicaid Program. Here is what she has to say about the measure we are voting on, today, with regard to our health plan. Short-term, she says that while additional moneys inserted into this bill last night will alleviate some of the problems in the first year, we will likely need to take actions limiting the program before the end of the 1996 fiscal year. After that, according to Thorne's letter, the package will cause the Oregon plan to plummet as if from a cliff. She says the 7 year loss from this measure ``is still almost $2 billion.'' It is likely that such a level of funding loss will require us to dismantle the Health Plan. If this were to happen, it would mean that approximately 130,000 low-income Oregonians would no longer have Medicaid coverage. These are people who are primarily families with children. My colleagues, and particularly my colleagues within the Oregon delegation, make no mistake, this will kill the Oregon health plan as we know it. I suspect, after speaking with State officials this morning, that this will force a special session of our State legislature early next year to revamp the Oregon plan. This will mean fewer services covered, and fewer Oregonians under health care coverage. One State official speculated that somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 Oregonians--working poor--will have to be let out of their coverage in the next 15 to 20 months. Mr. Chairman, I should point out that under this plan we have reduced the number of welfare recipient in the State by about 8 percent in the last year. We projected further decreases of about 12 percent over the next 2 years. That projection, like health care coverage for some tens of thousands of Oregonians, is now out the window as well. We will see our welfare rolls, and our welfare costs, grow because of the loss of this waiver. Mr. Chairman, as I said we have worked cooperatively in our delegation to try to get this issue turned around, and I want to especially commend the work of my colleague, Jim Bunn. But we have no remedy in what is proposed, today. This language is a prescription for higher public costs, higher costs to hospitals which will be shifted to other consumers, and the loss of decent health coverage for many, many of my fellow Oregonians. I urge my colleagues to reject this measure. State Capitol, Salem, OR, October 26, 1995. To: Congressman Ron Wyden. From: Jean I. Thorne, Federal Policy Coordinator. Subject: Amendment to House Medicaid Bill. In reviewing the special adjustment made for Oregon in the House bill, I believe it helps alleviate the need to take immediate action to possibly dismantle the Oregon Health Plan, but it does not change the long-term outlook for the Plan. As I read the language included in the bill, it provides a one-time allotment to Oregon of an additional $155 million in fiscal year 1996, but does not change the allotments in subsequent years. The amount of funding provided in 1996 basically would equal the amount spent in 1995 plus an inflation factor of 7.24%. We are anticipating approximately 9% growth in Oregon's Medicaid expenditures between fiscal years 1995 and 1996, so although this additional amount of funding will alleviate much of the immediate problem, we will likely need to take actions before the end of the fiscal year to trim back the Health Plan and other areas of Medicaid, such as long-term care services. By fiscal year 1997, more drastic actions will be necessary, although it is unknown at this point whether a special legislative session prior to the regular 1997 session would be necessary. Clearly, beginning with 1997 we face the same problems as in the original House bill. The seven-year anticipated loss with this change is still almost $2 billion, as opposed to $2.1 billion. It is likely that such a level of funding loss will require us to dismantle the Health Plan. If this were to happen, it would mean that approximately 130,000 low-income Oregonians would no longer have Medicaid coverage. These are people who are primarily families with children. Since the beginning of the Health Plan in February 1994, we have increased the number of Oregonians with Medicaid coverage by almost 50%. We currently have over 75% of all Medicaid enrollees receiving services through prepaid health plans. The amount of funds hospitals spend on charity care has decreased by over 30%. Our welfare caseloads have declined by 8%, with another 12% decline anticipated in the current two- year budget period. At the same time, our spending per beneficiary is more than 10% below the national average. Our ability to ``squeeze'' additional savings out of the program is severely limited. If the Oregon Health Plan were to be dismantled, we would face the prospects of actually going backwards from the gains we have made--less people covered, less people in managed care, more costs shifted to other payers and welfare caseloads increasing. We deeply appreciate the work of Congressman Bunn in getting this issue before Congress, but we recognize that it is only a first step. Our hopes are that we can secure an exemption for states with operating Section 1115 waivers to continue under the funding terms of the waiver, allowing us to prove that our demonstration programs can improve the health of poor persons in a cost-efficient manner. John A. Kitzhaber, Governor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, our Nation needs bipartisan reform of Medicare, but instead today's bill will deliver a nationwide Medicare migraine. Instead of listening to our seniors, and our families, and to the inspector general, this is a cut first, ask questions later Medicare initiative, and the fraud section is a metaphor for the whole bill. Instead of legislation to protect seniors and taxpayers, it protects the crooks and the thieves. Instead of improving access to health care, it provides a freeway to fraud, and, my colleagues, think of the words of the nonpartisan fraud-buster at the Office of the Inspector General who said that this bill will cripple, it will cripple, efforts to bring justice. [[Page H 10335]] Let me tell my colleagues it is possible to develop 21st century Medicare that works for seniors and taxpayers. Reject this bill and come with me to Oregon because I will show each of you programs that protect seniors, hold down costs, and insure that we have a path to the 21st century. We can do this job right. We can do it in a bipartisan way. But let us listen to our seniors and our taxpayers.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, our Nation needs----

Mr. WYDEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.