Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I will take an opportunity at a later time to talk about lack of policy on Social Security. I would like to address the type of accounting we have where we are kind of fudging some things that will cost future generations their Social Security unless we take some action now. We also need to take some action in the area of paying down the debt, tax policy, and education policy. If we don't address these policies using foresight instead of hindsight, if we don't do policy instead of polls, we are going to run into a situation similar to what we had when we hired 100,000 new teachers and then discovered we didn't have buildings to put them in. That was easy to solve; we just threw in a little more money. We put more buildings in there, except we are putting buildings in places where the voters themselves chose not to put buildings. I hope we will look at policy. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy in letting me put those letters in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, finally, in the area of forest fires and forest fire policy, Mr. H.B. Davis writes the letter to the editor where he explains in some detail how we are failing on our forests. Well, the West is again being managed by nature because a few people block the true management of our replenishable environment. Ignorance has again led us to ashes. Some of the very forests that have been ``protected'' against harvesting for years, have this summer burned. To those who wanted their homes surrounded by the pristine (I'm sorry), do they look better in ashes? The pristine that we admire will never remain, for it changes by growing old, weak, and ravaged, by nature, not just man. We can help it by maintenance, with harvest, common sense use, and stewardship. Nature does it by random (and sometimes violent) ways but we (some) have the intelligence to do it selectively and sensibly unless our hands are tied. He goes on to explain how a sensible forest policy will allow us to enjoy the beauty of the forests rather than the devastation of forest fires, and even though forest fires help to rejuvenate forests, they do it in a very poor stewardship way. As one lady at a hearing recently said: The difference between the clear-cutting that my little family business does and what Mother Nature does, we respect 200 feet from a stream. We protect against erosion. We don't kill the fish. Mother Nature often does. I ask unanimous consent that his entire letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also cite an editorial that appeared in the Riverton Ranger, Riverton, WY, with some of the same sentiments: The Clinton-Gore administration has announced its intention to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the nation's strategic reserve. This amounts to less than a two-day supply of oil for a country that uses 19 million barrels of oil a day. The rationale for the release of oil from the salt mines is that the administration wants to make sure that no Americans are cold this winter, due to a shortage or too high prices for home heating oil. The image of householders backing up to their burned-down home comes to mind. The optimist in the family warmed by the glowing embers as the fire dies down after consuming the house, remarks that ``at least we'll be warm tonight.'' That is about what the energy policy amounts to--burning down our strategic house to take care of a little blip that doesn't solve the problem at all--again, lack of an energy policy. I ask unanimous consent that the complete editorial from the Riverton Ranger be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives to accompany H.R. 2909.

Mr. ENZI. I yield.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, when the Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume postcloture debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2045, the H-1B visa bill. An agreement is being negotiated regarding the Water Resources Development Act, and it is hoped that the Senate can begin consideration of the bill this week. Therefore, Senators should be prepared to vote during tomorrow's session of the Senate.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 21, 2000. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Lott or his designee, 60 minutes; Senator Daschle or his designee, 60 minutes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask for a division vote on the resolutions of ratification.

Mr. ENZI. I further ask unanimous consent that any statements be printed in the Congressional Record as if read, and that the Senate take one vote on the resolutions of ratification to be considered as separate votes. Further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following the disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, and declarations be considered agreed to.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following treaties on today's Executive Calendar: Nos. 15, 17, 18, and 19.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, at the close of my remarks. I ask unanimous consent I be given such time as I might use.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have now been in the Senate almost 4 years. Some of the days have been extremely long, but the years have been extremely short. We work through a process here that I am sure, as people watch, seems extremely slow and cumbersome. That is probably because it is. It was designed that way by our forefathers. They intended that legislation that affects this Nation would be carefully considered in two separate bodies and then submitted to the executive branch for the possibility of a veto. That takes a long time. The bodies have grown in size as a number of States came into the Nation, and that makes it more difficult. But it is a system that works better than that in any other country in the world, and it is working now. It is difficult, very difficult; long days, tough issues, tough choices. When I first came to the Senate, the first issue I got to talk about was the balanced budget amendment. At that time, it was just a dream that at some point we could get the discipline to balance a budget. It had been years since a budget had been balanced around here. As we went through that debate, people said: Oh, this doesn't give us enough leeway. What if we would have a war? Technically, I guess, we have had a couple since that time, and we have still balanced the budget. Not only that, the economy has increased, and many will attribute that to the budget being balanced. In countries around the world, as they balance the budget, their economy improves. We balanced the budget, the economy improved. It gave us a lot more money to work with. In fact, we have so much money, we have started talking about honesty with the Social Security surplus. That is music to my heart. I am the only accountant in the Senate. It was pretty obvious that, with our accounting techniques, we were spending the Social Security surplus. People pay into Social Security, and the money that is paid in is, for the most part, paid in to the recipients of Social Security. It doesn't really flow into a trust fund and stay there with the portion of the trust fund for the person on retirement being used. No, the money flows in and the money flows out. But at the moment, there are more people working than receiving. As a result, there is a surplus in Social Security. That is going to change pretty drastically in about 2013. At that point, we are going to have more people retiring than working, and there will be a deficit in Social Security. So it has been very important that we be honest on Social Security and start to put that Social Security away. We also tried a motion to assure that would be put away. It is called a lockbox on Social Security. That has never passed around here-- similar to the balanced budget amendment, which did not pass. But the American people understood how important that balanced budget amendment was, that the Federal Government couldn't spend money, just as they cannot spend more money than they have, and they insisted on a balanced budget, and we got it. We talked about a lockbox. I think we had seven different votes to end the filibuster to put that into law. It has not happened. But the message has been delivered by the people of this country that we are going to put a lockbox on Social Security; we are going to put that money away; we are not going to touch it, so the little bit that there is--this is just a surplus, the money that is flowing in and out--will be there later. One of the things we are doing with that is we are paying down the national debt. You will hear a number of us around here say if you really look at the accounting on this, are we paying down the national debt? No, we are paying down the public national debt. We are taking that money that individuals across this country have invested in Treasury bills and we are buying their Treasury bills back. What that does is put IOUs into the Social Security trust fund--not money. We got rid of the money. At the moment, if you have a Treasury bill, you are paid interest periodically. We have to pay the interest if the public owns the debt. So what do we achieve by taking Social Security money and buying up this public debt? I will tell you what we achieve. We achieve the ability to spend more money because we do not pay Social Security interest in cash at the moment that it is due. We take a little bit of IOU and we use it to make the Social Security trust fund a little bit bigger. But it is not real money. If we wanted to spend it, we would have to put in money in order to take money out. How would we do that? We would increase the public debt. If you call the Treasury and they tell you the national debt at the moment--that is, the total, public and private-- is bigger than it was a year ago, then we really have not paid off any of the national debt. But we have made the country a little more secure for Social Security. One of the things we need to do now, the new push--for some of us, this is not a new push. The Presiding Officer, since he came here, has been adamant on paying down the national debt honestly. Senator Allard of Colorado and I got together our first year and talked about how this country ought to commit to paying down the national debt. There is not anybody in my State who does not understand that debts come due, and if we have a debt--and we talked about having a surplus--maybe we ought to take care of that debt a little bit. We put together a bill that put the national debt on a system like a house payment. We figured out how you could pay off the national debt in 30 years. That is about the time you normally pay a house down; it works similar to a house payment. You start with a fixed payment. This number still seems to be an awfully big number to me, but around Washington it is not a big number. You just start with a measly $10 billion. You pay that $10 billion in, and it saves you some interest--genuinely saves you interest. What you do is you take that interest that you save and, instead of spending it or putting phony IOUs in a box, you take that actual cash and you add it to the $10 billion. That is your next year's payment. So each year the $10 billion grows by the amount of interest you save, so that the final payment is huge--kind of the way a house payment works. The amount of principal that gets paid off in the 30th year on your house is practically the whole payment. With some discipline and a steady plan, that is the same thing as anybody in this country does when they are buying a house: We can pay off the national debt in 30 years. You will hear a lot of rhetoric around here about how we might have a war; what would we do? Some unusual expenditures might come up. That is an excuse for not paying a normal payment to pay off the debt. It is just an excuse. If we were really serious about paying off the national debt, we would enter into that kind of agreement and then we would say: Here is how it works if we have a war. People who have a home sometimes outgrow their home, it is kind of an emergency, and they decide they will add to their home a little bit. What do they do? They take out a second mortgage. That is what we ought to be doing, figuring out the lifespan of how we pay for that U.S. purchase and adding it to the payment so we stretch the payment out over a little period of time. That is money we borrowed from our kids. They are the ones who will have to pay that back. I have to tell you, we have not gotten a single Democrat to sign onto the debt reduction in any of the forms that we have proposed it. This year, we tried a little different approach because the surplus is growing so fast that, evidently, those estimating it cannot keep up with the estimations because every time there is a new estimation, it is greater than the one before. So what we have done in the appropriations bills this year is put in a little provision--in almost all of them, as another announcement is made of this huge new surplus-- that half of that surplus has to genuinely go to the national debt. We have been successful in putting that in almost every bill. Now we have a third plan. We are still trying to get some people in this body to sign on to debt reduction. There isn't anybody in this body who does not talk about the importance of debt reduction for this country. For some, that is a code word for, ``We could spend it, and we ought to spend, and it is more fun to spend it.'' But that is not the right thing to do with it. So we have said, OK, this year, for the fiscal year for which we are appropriating, we are going to have about $280 billion in surplus. The $280 billion is part Social Security surplus and part real surplus. But we made a proposal that 90 percent of that $280 billion ought to go to debt reduction--part of it the way we have been doing it with the Social Security and part of it with the real money. That still leaves us an increase of 10 percent, which actually works out to a little more than 10 percent. It is 10 percent of the surplus, but it is a bigger increase in spending. We have said, how about if we save that other 10 percent, and, at the most, allocate half of it to tax reduction and half of it to spending? That is a proposal we are still putting forth. It has a lot of popularity across the country. Again, people recognize the need to pay down the debt, but people also realize that that puts a tremendous safety mechanism in our budget process at the moment. But you will not see much on that in the papers. The papers don't carry debt reduction very much. People do not really carry it around as a code word. I guess it is kind of an accounting thing. But I have to tell you, I travel back to Wyoming almost every weekend, and we drive 300 to 500 miles and go to all the towns--the big ones and the little ones--and the people out there understand it. They say: That is a top priority. Pay down that debt. We got into that debt. We need to get out of that debt. And we need to take care of our kids. I mentioned the media probably will not carry much about that. I have not seen it in the eastern media. I am often disturbed at what the eastern media puts in the paper. Right now, of course, what they are doing is trying to generate some interest in the political races, particularly the Presidential race. The media isn't really being fair on that issue. I attended the Republican convention. That was on television, and I noticed there were 48 hours of it that were broadcast across the country. Then the Democratic convention happened later in the month, and evidently there was not anything else happening because they got 80 hours. That is not quite equal time. It is nowhere near equal time. It is almost twice as much time. I also noticed that the people covering the conventions were the same at both conventions, and their political colors showed. When they were at the Republican convention, they criticized everything. When they were at the Democratic convention, they lauded everything. That does not sound like United States good, old American fairness to me. The closest I have seen in fairness is in today's Washington Post editorial, which is entitled ``Al Gore vs. Business.'' It offers us a glimpse of the skin-deep approach to many policies, but particularly health care policies. Those are important in this country right now. We, through the media, have elevated that to a higher level than it has ever been before. Even the Washington Post speculates that: ``the candidate''--by candidate, they mean Vice President Gore--``plans to go after, in the same vein, a different industry every day, each target undoubtedly poll-tested.'' I would like to read the closing of their editorial and then offer some facts for your consideration on these health care things we are talking about. This is the Washington Post. This is not me. There are fair points to be made about the right balance between free enterprise and regulation, and useful debates to be had. Mr. Gore seems more intent upon telling us that he's for the people, not the powerful. Given his history, the slogan seems about as sincere as it is useful. Not me--the Washington Post, that doesn't carry the stuff I really like to read about. But he is going to take on a different industry. I am not concerned about big industry in this country. Big industry came about because of big government. If you are going to handle the bureaucracy, you have to have specialists. Big business has grown to take care of some of the specialists needed to handle the bureaucracy. The folks I am worried about are the small businesses. When I first came to the Senate, again, one of the early debates we had on the Small Business Committee--which is one of the really joyful committees for Wyoming because all of our businesses are small businesses--one of the first discussions we had was: What is a small business? The Federal definition says: Under 500 employees. I guess we don't have any big business in Wyoming--not one. I contend that a small business is the one where the owner of the business sweeps the sidewalk, cleans the toilets, does the bookkeeping, and waits on customers. In this country, if it is going to succeed, we need to get to a situation where that small business can deal with the bureaucracy and the forms and all of the things we put on them because that is where the entrepreneurship in this country starts. That is where the businesses start. One of the things we are talking about with businesses, of course, is health insurance. We are trying to encourage the businesses to provide health insurance. But at the same time, here we come up with a lot of complicated situations for how we are going to handle that, that make it necessary for businesses to be bigger and have specialists. We are also talking about Medicare and Social Security and how we are going to keep them solvent. One of the things we are good at doing here is trying to outbid everything. We have a Medicare system that is going broke. We have a Medicare system that everybody admits needs to be fixed. The President, in his State of the Union speech, mentioned the importance of fixing Medicare. Plans for fixing Medicare? There is a bipartisan plan. It came out of a commission. Senator Breaux and Senator Frist headed up this commission. They have a plan that will save it. Are we working on that plan? No. It doesn't generate enough publicity. We have gone to something that is a little catchier than that, and that is prescription drugs, and we are concerned about how people in this country can afford their prescription drugs and how nobody in this country should have to make a choice between food and prescription drugs. There isn't anybody here who thinks that kind of a choice ought to be made. What kind of a plan do we have? I know of six of them among Members here in this body. I know of four that are on this side. And then there are a couple more because in the Presidential election this has been poll-tested as an important feature and both candidates have a plan. The Washington Post has been covering the plans. I want to show you a little bit about how they are covering it. The biggest secret out there is the details of Mr. Gore's plan. But the Washington Post has delved into them a little bit and given us a little bit of information. Again, this isn't what I have written. But the Washington Post does give Bush some credit for detailing a Medicare plan. They say: Texas Gov. George W. Bush today proposed spending $198 billion to enhance Medicare over the next 10 years, including covering the full cost of prescription drugs for seniors with low incomes. Bush's plan was modeled on a [bipartisan] proposal by Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN). [Bush's plan proposes] fully subsidizing people with incomes less than 135 percent of the poverty level and creating a sliding scale for people with slightly more money. But Gore would stop the sliding scale at 150 percent of the poverty level, while Bush would extend it to 175 percent. I do appreciate them also going through the work of drawing up a little comparison and putting that in the paper. If you remember, on the other side it said it was going to cost $198 billion. They did the courtesy of adding up the columns for the two different proposals; the Gore proposal, the Bush proposal. The Gore proposal shows $158 billion by 2010. Why did he say $198 billion on the other page? Mystery. It also sounds as if he is spending an awful lot of money. When we total up this column, it comes to $253 billion. That is a little more than $158 billion. They also do a comparison of how it is supposed to work. The biggest difference on the two sides of this chart is how it is handled, two different philosophies on how it is handled. One philosophy says the Government knows best. Send your money to Washington. Washington will handle it. On the other side, Governor Bush says, we have a lot of things in place in this country, and they have been working well. Let's encourage them to work better and provide for more. Let's definitely not turn this thing over to HCFA. HCFA is one of those acronyms we use around here. All you have to do is mention HCFA to any medical provider and see the grimace they get on their face. It is a system that isn't working for the things they have already been assigned, and now we are talking about assigning them more work. Federal plan--Government knows best--as opposed to use what we have-- distribute it to the States, have the States use it through the plans that have been providing health care to the people already. I will go into the details of this at another time. I hope all of you do pay attention to what is being suggested out there because people think there is going to be a prescription drug plan that is going to be done between now and the time we adjourn this year, during this time of volatile politics. That isn't how we do any of the bills. That is how I started this out, mentioning how our process works slowly and pretty well. It goes through a committee process usually. That is where the ``bipartisan'' is supposed to come in. That is where both sides suggest amendments to a good plan. But that takes time. We have limits on how long in advance before a markup, which is where they insert amendments into the bill, that you have to turn these amendments in. And then often the markup, particularly if it is a complicated issue, one as far reaching as prescription drugs, might take several different days of working through the amendments, meeting and compromising and trying to come up with the plan that will work best for our country. That is where we need to go now. We need to have that process; we need to do that process. We should not latch on to any particular plan that is out there, unless, of course, we do the one that came out of the commission, that evolved in a bipartisan way over a long process. But that is not going to happen when the two sides have two plans. I know the hour is getting late. I have already done my part on an education program. I want to emphasize, again, we need to pay down the national debt. I want to emphasize, again, the need to have a prescription drug plan for this country but to have the right one, not a flash-in-the-pan program, particularly not one that takes people who already have a prescription benefit and shoves them into a Federal plan against their will, taking away the right to choose that they have now. I hope we have a situation where we can work together and come up with a plan where those who are happy with their situation can continue to do it that way, and those who aren't can have a new opportunity. That is a commitment Governor Bush has already made. He has outlined the plan. He has a plan. He has a policy. We are a little short on policies around here, but it is something that could be worked through. One of the things I was impressed with when he became the Governor of Texas was the legislature was Democrat. He was Republican. He sat down with each and every legislator, face to face, one on one, and talked about what needed to be done for Texas. Then they did it. Every time a new President is elected, I grab a biography that particular President likes and I read it. One of the things I found is that people repeat successes. I am sure the next President will be no different than any other President. If it is Governor Bush, I expect the opportunity to sit down with him--I look forward to it--face to face, one on one, and talk about the things that I see as necessary for this country and that he sees as necessary for this country. But more importantly, he will sit down with the people on the other side of the aisle. One of the things we are missing in this country right now is more of a bipartisan effort, that time of sitting down and working things out. That is how it starts, with the leadership, with the President. I will be expecting him to visit with each and every person here and all 435 on the other end of this building. A tremendous effort? Absolutely. It is the most essential thing I can think of. It is the way to get things done in a bipartisan manner. That is how we will get a prescription drug plan. That is how we will improve the medical plans we already have in this country that are recognized internationally as being some of the best. One of the great things about America is that we say we have the best, but we are always looking for ways to make it better. That is how our economy works. That is how the Government works. That is how free enterprise works. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 5203 is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I object to my own request.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the introduction today of S. 3067, a bipartisan bill to provide protection for our nations health care workers against accidental needlesticks and sharps injuries. I want to acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kennedy and Reed in the Senate and the Honorable Mr. Ballenger and Honorable Major Owens in the House for their work on this important safety issue. Since the mid-1980's, injuries to health care workers from needles or other ``sharps,'' such as IV catheters or lancets, have presented an increasingly troubling issue. As the spread of bloodborne pathogens such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C has escalated over the last 15 years, so has the danger to health care workers of contracting one of these diseases through sharps contaminated with bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C. Even where the injured worker does not ultimately contract a bloodborne disease, the uncertainty and fear of infection created by such injuries can be excruciating and destructive to the lives of the injured health care workers. In response to this problem, in 1991 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or ``OSHA,'' issued a standard requiring workplace safety measures to be used to protect against occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This was a laudable step in the fight against worker infection, and its implementation brought a reduction in the risk of contracting a bloodborne disease in the workplace. The success of this measure, however, was limited by the effectiveness of the safety technology available at the time, and occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens from accidental sharps injuries has continued to be a problem. In March 2000, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that between 600,000 and 800,000 needlesticks still occur among health care workers annually. Fortunately, since the publication of the bloodborne pathogens standard there has been a substantial increase in the number and assortment of new medical devices, such as needless systems and retractable needles, that protect against needlesticks. Numerous studies have shown that the use of these safer devices, as part of an overall bloodborne pathogen risk reduction program, can be extremely effective in reducing accidental sharps injuries. The legislation we introduce today will ensure that these safer devices are used, and lives will be saved as a result. The bill provides narrowly tailored instruction to OSHA to amend its bloodborne pathogen standard to make certain that employers understand they must identify, evaluate, and, where appropriate, make use of these safer medical devices to eliminate or reduce occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. OSHA issued similar instructions in a compliance directive published December 1998. Because OSHA's directive is merely agency guidance and does not have the force of law, however, I felt it was important that both employers and employees be given formal regulatory instruction on this vitally important safety issue. This legislation provides this security and improves protection for employees while still allowing employers the necessary flexibility to determine the best technology to use in the particular circumstances presented. This legislation even goes a step further to ensure that employers will have valuable input from the front line employees when it makes these determinations. This bill is an important step for safety in the workplace, and I hope it will bring some peace of mind to the more than 8 million workers who perform the vitally important service of providing health care in this country. I am extremely proud to be a part of legislation which will save lives and help stop the spread of bloodborne diseases.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the introduction today of S. 3067, a bipartisan bill to provide protection for our nations health care workers against accidental needlesticks and sharps injuries. I want to acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kennedy and Reed in the Senate and the Honorable Mr. Ballenger and Honorable Major Owens in the House for their work on this important safety issue. Since the mid-1980's, injuries to health care workers from needles or other ``sharps,'' such as IV catheters or lancets, have presented an increasingly troubling issue. As the spread of bloodborne pathogens such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C has escalated over the last 15 years, so has the danger to health care workers of contracting one of these diseases through sharps contaminated with bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C. Even where the injured worker does not ultimately contract a bloodborne disease, the uncertainty and fear of infection created by such injuries can be excruciating and destructive to the lives of the injured health care workers. In response to this problem, in 1991 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or ``OSHA,'' issued a standard requiring workplace safety measures to be used to protect against occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This was a laudable step in the fight against worker infection, and its implementation brought a reduction in the risk of contracting a bloodborne disease in the workplace. The success of this measure, however, was limited by the effectiveness of the safety technology available at the time, and occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens from accidental sharps injuries has continued to be a problem. In March 2000, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that between 600,000 and 800,000 needlesticks still occur among health care workers annually. Fortunately, since the publication of the bloodborne pathogens standard there has been a substantial increase in the number and assortment of new medical devices, such as needless systems and retractable needles, that protect against needlesticks. Numerous studies have shown that the use of these safer devices, as part of an overall bloodborne pathogen risk reduction program, can be extremely effective in reducing accidental sharps injuries. The legislation we introduce today will ensure that these safer devices are used, and lives will be saved as a result. The bill provides narrowly tailored instruction to OSHA to amend its bloodborne pathogen standard to make certain that employers understand they must identify, evaluate, and, where appropriate, make use of these safer medical devices to eliminate or reduce occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens. OSHA issued similar instructions in a compliance directive published December 1998. Because OSHA's directive is merely agency guidance and does not have the force of law, however, I felt it was important that both employers and employees be given formal regulatory instruction on this vitally important safety issue. This legislation provides this security and improves protection for employees while still allowing employers the necessary flexibility to determine the best technology to use in the particular circumstances presented. This legislation even goes a step further to ensure that employers will have valuable input from the front line employees when it makes these determinations. This bill is an important step for safety in the workplace, and I hope it will bring some peace of mind to the more than 8 million workers who perform the vitally important service of providing health care in this country. I am extremely proud to be a part of legislation which will save lives and help stop the spread of bloodborne diseases.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bill to extend permanent normal trade relations to China. I have taken a great deal of time to study both the positive and negative aspects of granting PNTR to China. I was undecided on which way to vote for quite some time. I met with and talked to those on both sides of the issue. Although I had several concerns, my biggest were about the reports of religious persecution and other human rights violations that continue to occur in China. It certainly is not fair that anyone--let alone 20 percent of the world's population--live under this kind of injustice. We in America, a great land of freedom and liberty, find these abuses intolerable and inexcusable. Although human rights have improved over the past 20 years since China has opened up its market to the world, it has a great deal of progress to make. I care deeply about many of the issues that have been raised throughout this debate. And I pledge to continue working to ensure that these issues are not forgotten. The evils that the communist government of China perpetuates, such as forced abortion, organ harvesting, religious persecution, weapons proliferation, and the like, should still be addressed. We must do everything we can to not only bring China into the world trading system, but also into the system of international norms, which recognizes the value of human life and rights. After carefully weighing the issues I decided to support passage of this bill. I also decided it was such an important bill for American and Chinese citizens that it should be passed this year. This caused me to be in the position of voting against several amendments that in any other situation I would have supported. I know several of my other good friends and colleagues did the same. Now I want to explain some of the conclusions I have reached. First, the recently signed U.S.-China trade agreement does not require the U.S. to make any concessions. It does not lower tariffs or other trade barriers for Chinese products coming into America. Instead, it forces China to open its market to U.S. goods and services provided the Congress extends PNTR to China. Passage or failure of this bill does not determine whether or not China becomes a member of the WTO. However, since the WTO requires that members treat each other in a non- discriminatory manner, each member country must grant other members permanent normal trade relations. Therefore, if China is not granted PNTR, it is not obligated to live by its WTO trade and market-opening commitments made to the United States. As I mentioned earlier, China's regime has a poor track record when it comes to the human rights of its more than 1 billion citizens. It still has a long way to go to become acceptable. But the United States should not isolate the people of China from the exchange of information and products. We should not impede the efforts of Chinese citizens to trade and exchange property, which is an essential aspect of a free society. The gradual opening of the Chinese market in recent years has been accompanied by very slow, yet positive advancements for religious freedoms in China. For example, consider the comments of Nelson Graham, son of the Reverend Billy Graham and President of East Gates International, a Christian non-profit organization. In his testimony at the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year he said, ``I believe that granting China PNTR will not only benefit U.S. businesses and U.S.-based religious organizations but will be one step further toward bettering the relationship between our countries.'' He went on to add that the impact of China's increased trade relations with the West has already caused a ``proliferation of information exchange [that] has allowed us to be much more effective in developing and organizing our work in the [People's Republic of China].'' These and similar comments by other religious leaders have led me to believe that increased trade will help the work of these religious organizations and help promote greater freedoms in China. Prior to the gradual market opening of China, religious organizations like Nelson Graham's East Gates International, had little or no way of reaching the spiritually-starved Chinese people. I also want to emphasize that this bill in no way ignores the importance of religious and human rights. It sets up a permanent Commission to monitor human and religious rights and the development of rule of law and democracy-building in China. This Commission will have similar responsibilities as the existing Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe established in 1976, which has proven effective in monitoring and encouraging respect for human rights in Eastern Europe. Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks I will ask unanimous consent that four letters and one op-ed piece I have be inserted into the Record. Three of the letters are written by the Reverend Billy Graham, Joe Volk of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network. The other letter is from thirty-two religious leaders representing a broad range of religious organizations. the op-ed was written by Randy Tate, former Executive Direction of the Christian Coalition, and was published in the Washington Times last year. Each communication makes the point that PNTR will benefit U.S. religious organizations with operations in China. I do not pretend that improvements in religious and human rights in China will happen overnight. Progress in liberty will not be immediate in a country where the government owns most of the property and has strict limits on political and religious association. Not one of us in this body would create a political regime such as that currently operating in China if we were cutting from whole cloth. Unfortunately, history rarely presents such ideal circumstances. Instead, we must address the world as we find it with all its imperfections. I believe the question each of us must ask ourselves is whether human and religious rights will be improved by refusing China permanent normal trade relations. I see no evidence this would be the case. Rather, I believe that the increase in economic freedom that comes through increased trade relations will, in turn, bring about greater religious freedom and a better environment for human rights as well. Randy Tate probably summed up this issue best. He said: Our case for greater trade . . . is less about money and more about morality. It is about ensuring that one-fifth of the world's population is not shut off from businesses spreading the message of freedom--and ministries spreading the love of God . . . [I]s it any surprise that some of our nation's most respected religious leaders, from Billy Graham to Pat Robertson, have called for keeping the door to China open? I also want to briefly discuss another serious issue which was raised during the PNTR debate--the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China. While I recognize the sometimes delinquent behavior of China in this area, I believe the amendment which failed used a flawed unilateral and inflexible approach. I want to see the elimination of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But the President currently has ample authority to sanction foreign entities for proliferation under numerous statutes. Therefore, the problem we now have is a failure by this Administration to effectively deal with the Chinese government to eliminate this proliferation. Some very targeted sanctions were probably in order for some of the Chinese proliferation activity. But the amendment that was offered would have prescribed a very rigid one-size-fits-all solution. And we must remember that the most effective sanctions are those that are multilateral and those that have general agreement among our allies. The amendment would have required unilateral sanctions which history has shown to be ineffective tools in achieving desired behavior. I do not believe that trade will cure all of the problems we have with China. Moreover, PNTR should not be considered a gift to China, but rather a challenge for China. The U.S. market is already open to countless Chinese goods. This will not change even if we were to refuse PNTR to China. Instead, if Congress extends PNTR to China it must open its market to the United States. At the same time China must play by the rules of the international trading system, subjecting itself to the WTO's dispute settlement process. Without PNTR, China can remain closed to U.S. products yet increase its exports to the U.S., further exacerbating our trade deficit with China. This bill is about getting our products into China. By cooperating with them, they will lower tariffs to get into the WTO and then we have a court to adjudicate their violations. PNTR simply allows fair treatment of U.S. products and services going to China once China enters the WTO. Change will not happen instantly. But I do believe increased trade will help advance the cause of freedom in China. The policy of engagement through trade must be backed up by strong U.S. leadership that vigorously challenges China, on a bilateral basis and through international organizations, about its human rights, weapons proliferation and other obvious shortcomings. But a vote against PNTR doesn't hurt the hard-line communists in China nor does it help the cause of human rights in China. The best way to end these evils is to transform China into a politically and socially free country. And that transformation will begin with economic freedom. Approving PNTR for China is the next and most important step toward a freer China and a safer world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have additional material printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his comments. I want to assure him I am not doing this on a jurisdictional basis. I am a little incensed at the implication of that accusation, and, in the objection I raised, I did not mention anything about jurisdiction. In the speech I gave yesterday, I didn't mention anything about jurisdiction. I mentioned the concerns about items that are in this bill and there are amendments that would need to be made to this bill. I am sure, if it went through the normal process--and one of the things I am learning about here is process. I learned a lot about process as I did the bill my colleague mentioned, the Export Administration Act. I took it through a process. I got a 20-0 vote on it. I brought it to the floor. I learned a little bit about process that sometimes, even when you think you have the right to bring it up on the floor, people can object after that point and you can have it taken down. But it went through a process there. That process has undoubtedly been effectively stopped for this year. I have not been whining about that. But I did learn a lot of things through that process because it involved going into a number of the reports the Senator from Tennessee has mentioned. I did not just go through the public part of those reports. I took the time to go over to the Intelligence Committee and have the special briefings and read the documents from a number of the things that have been cited, and particularly the Cox report. So I learned a lot of things about these areas of problems. There are some problems there, and they need to be solved, but they ought to be solved through the regular process so we do not wind up with some things we are going to be embarrassed by, or believe are lacking, or have pointed out to us later that just a little bit more deliberation would have changed. We have been suggesting changes. We can make some amendments. It is very difficult to go into another person's bill and make extensive amendments, but we have mentioned the need for some pretty extensive amendments. I am certain if this would have gone through the process of going through the Foreign Relations Committee first--not just hearings. Hearings are valuable. They build some basis for building things. I know these extensive hearings that have been done are where this bill came from. But it goes through another step in that process called a markup. That is where very detailed amendments are made to a bill by people who have a wide knowledge of the items that are included. It is kind of a free-for-all, putting on amendments. A number of them do not make it and should not make it. But it gives a more thorough review than if one of us drafts a bill, or two of us get together and draft a bill, and then occasionally talk to other people and occasionally listen to part of their criticisms but discard large parts of their criticism. I know this bill was originally drafted in May and we have been registering objections to things that are in it since May. They have been tweaked a little bit, and part of the process is, if you are not going to make the changes, then you have to go through this process here on the floor, which the Senate designs to be an extremely excruciating one--as I learned on my EAA bill. It is a part of the process. There needs to be additional work on it. There needs to be additional amendments. As I mentioned yesterday, if one listens to the debate, it sounds as if we can solve the export-import imbalance by doing PNTR, and that is not going to happen. The way that imbalance gets solved is if U.S. folks stop buying Chinese products or we get extensive sales over there. Extensive sales over there probably is not going to happen because the people over there on an average wage do not make much, so they cannot buy much. We do have a hope of getting in the door with some of the bigger equipment items. To listen to the debate, everything will be solved by PNTR, and that is not going to happen. I have to congratulate the Senator from Tennessee for the title he put on the bill. I noticed when he expanded the bill to include a couple of other countries in light of our objection, that it was aimed solely at China and they are not the only proliferators. A couple of others were stuck in there. But the title was not changed because the title is so great. One of the things I learned a long time ago in legislation is one does not vote on a bill because of a good title. One votes on it because it is good through and through. Those have been the reasons for my objections. I am sorry if the Senator from Tennessee put in all of that work. This delays his plan for a vote, but it does not stop it.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there isn't just an amendment that is being put on. It is an entire bill--33 pages--of very important information that has been changed each and every time we have seen a copy. My staff and I on the International Trade Subcommittee of the Finance Committee have been working on these issues for a long time. We have tried to take this moving target and worked on some amendments that could be put on it. It would need to be extensively amended to keep both national security and industry moving forward in the United States. On that basis, I have to object.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate since it began 3 hours ago. I am afraid colleagues and their staff and people watching this debate might be under the impression we are debating whether to limit Chinese imports. That isn't going to happen. That isn't part of this bill at all. This isn't about limiting what China is sending here, although maybe it would be a good idea. This is talking about the limitations placed on our trade in their country. It has also been mentioned a number of times that the Chinese do not keep agreements. It is a great chart. We have a copy of it on every desk. It has been mentioned that they are stealing our secrets. I do not think that is a secret to anybody but the Justice Department. This bill is not about stopping them from stealing our secrets. This bill is about sending our goods to China. I will go into that in a little bit more depth. I do rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Tennessee. It is not the goal of the amendment--reducing proliferation--that I oppose; I do not want proliferation. I want the Chinese under control. We all want to see the elimination of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. But I think the amendment takes a flawed approach toward solving the problems. Contrary to what the sponsors of this amendment indicate, this is a trade and economic sanctions bill. The amendment remains a counterproductive unilateral sanctions amendment that would impose trade and economic sanctions. I appreciate the author changing it so that it is not mandatory. Under the only version I had seen before this amendment was submitted, it was to be a mandatory 5-year penalty, regardless of what was done and regardless of the size of the offense. So some flexibility is appreciated. The countless revisions made to the legislation further underscore why it would greatly benefit from committee input and consideration. This is sweeping legislation, and it has had no committee hearings and no committee consideration--at least I am not aware of a single vote or a single amendment proposed to this bill in a committee meeting. It is a little different from when we do major legislation. Sponsors of the amendment are clearly frustrated at a perceived lack of enforcing sanctions contained in the nonproliferation laws that are now on the books. It is reasonable to conclude that the President should have imposed some very targeted sanctions as a result of certain missile-related transfers to Pakistan. However, I do not advocate, nor does this justify, making sweeping changes to our nonproliferation policy, which is what this bill will do. It singles out countries. It used to single out just one. It has been expanded a little bit. It still singles out specific countries--and they do need more scrutiny. We said these people steal, perhaps do not abide by agreements. I am reminded of a quote by my grandpa. When he was talking about people he didn't trust, he said: I don't trust them as far as I can spit. And my chin is always wet. You don't have to trust them to work with them, but you have to watch them. I remind my colleagues, this bill will not have an effect on this President, but it will certainly have a tremendous impact on the President's ability to conduct foreign policy. It is not in our security interests to tie the hands of the President. I have had a little experience with an industry in my State on this sanctions stuff. We have been working for years to be able to send soda ash to India. Soda ash--we call it trona in Wyoming--is used in making soda, but you also use it in glass manufacture and hundreds of other products. It is something needed in every single country. Southern Wyoming happens to have the largest single natural deposit of it in the world. We export that to most places around the world. Some places make it synthetically, and they put high tariffs on it or completely ban it from their country to give their country a better trade situation. We had already gotten trona into India. We had everything moving, in place, to get it into India. And they had to touch off one of those nuclear bombs. They had to prove they had nuclear proliferation. Do you know what we did? We imposed immediate sanctions on them. Now we need to tell the countries what the problem is and what we are going to do, and I agree with that. But here is the effect it had on India. They said: Oh, Wyoming, you know that product we did not want anyway? You are not going to let us have it, and we are glad. Now we are back to square one, trying to get trona into their country. It did not affect their economy, it did not stop their proliferation, it has not had any effect on them, but it has had a huge effect on us. Trade is out of balance with China, but it is not proliferation that is doing it; it is people in the United States buying products from China. This bill and the proliferation amendment do not stop that. There are reductions in tariffs they will have to follow if they become a part of the World Trade Organization. They have already signed some agreements that say they will do that. That is our hope so we will be able to get a more competitive situation. Of course, we are also hoping to open up some new markets over there, and there are some other things that Wyoming and the United States will benefit from selling over there. We have to be careful not to spite ourselves while we teach China a lesson they will not hear. Many in this body think the President currently has more than adequate authority to respond to proliferation undertaken by China or any other country. Some of the statutory examples are the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, the Export-Import Bank Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the Iran-Iraq Arms Nonproliferation Act of 1992, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994, and the Export Administration Act, which at the present time is implemented by Executive order under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA. If there is something that needs to be strengthened, that last item is the one where it needs to be done. A lot of the things we talk about to be able to control what China is able to use are embodied in that act. Right now, we encourage people to violate that law. We do not have sufficient penalties in that law. As I mentioned, it is operating under Executive order, and that takes away a lot of the capability of the United States to control what China has from us. It is important that that be done. But there are people in this body who evidently think we have enough of that because the ability to bring up the Export Administration Act has been thwarted. This amendment we are debating, the nonproliferation amendment--great title--also authorizes a new and, in my view, a very harmful tool for conducting foreign policy; that is, restricting the access of capital markets in the United States. Just sending the signal to the rest of the world that we are willing use our capital markets for the conduct of foreign policy would have a chilling effect on the competitiveness of our markets. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, testified before the Senate Banking Committee on July 20. There he issued a pronouncement of his concern about any proposal which could restrict or deny access to our capital markets. Besides the harm this would certainly cause to our own markets, Chairman Greenspan questioned whether this provision would be an effective tool. After all, the United States is not the only source of capital in the world. I will read just a portion of Chairman Greenspan's response to a question about using our capital markets as a foreign policy tool, specifically as provided for in this amendment. He said: But most importantly, to the extent that we block foreigners from investing or raising funds in the United States, we probably undercut the viability of our own system. But far more important is I'm not even sure how such a law could be effectively implemented because there is a huge amount of transfer of funds around the world. For example, if we were to block China or anybody else from borrowing in the United States, they could very readily borrow in London and be financed by American investors. Or, if not in London, if London were financed by American investors, London could be financed by Paris investors, and we finance the Paris investors. So you can move it down the road as many steps as are needed in order to make the same transfer of dollars. In other words, there are all sorts of mechanisms that are involved here. So the presumption that somehow we block the capability of China or anybody else borrowing in essentially identical terms abroad as here in my judgment is a mistake. Claims have been made by sponsors of the China Nonproliferation Act suggesting that all of the major concerns about the bill have been addressed. Let's take a little closer look at these claims. The first claim is the bill has been broadened to include countries in addition to China, so as not to single out China. However, while the bill expands the list of potential sanctioned countries, the bill title and focus remains the same: the China Nonproliferation Act. This clearly infers that the singular political target of the bill is China. Regardless, expanding the bill to include more potentially sanctioned countries does not correct the flawed unilateral approach of the legislation. Since the bill would use the past five Director of Central Intelligence proliferation report country lists, those countries which could be subject to unilateral sanctions include--these are ones that could be included under these sanctions because we are going back 5 years and using the Director of Central Intelligence proliferation reports. You will find Germany, the United Kingdom, which includes Great Britain, Italy, France, and other more likely suspects. These countries were listed in the 1997 DCI proliferation report. This means this amendment could sanction some of our allies for 5 consecutive years. The second claim by the sponsor of the China Nonproliferation Act is that the sanctions against supplier countries has been made discretionary, as opposed to the mandatory sanctions contained in the original bill. This is correct, but there is more than meets the eye. The sponsors of the bill leave out a crucial fact. If the President determines proliferation has occurred, he is required to apply all five of the sanctions provided for in section 4 of the bill. This is the mandatory, all-or-nothing aspect of the bill. The third claim is that the revised bill raises the evidentiary standard from credible information to a Presidential determination, giving the President complete discretion in making a sanction determination. Once again, the sponsors leave out crucial facts. Unlike other nonproliferation laws, the revised bill does not give the President any discretion over the types of sanctions that should be imposed on proliferating entities or the length of time those sanctions should remain. It requires the sanctions to be in place for a minimum of 1 year regardless of the circumstances. It also does not give discretion to the President regarding the SEC disclosure required in the bill if an entity is included in the President's proliferation report. Remember, no conclusive proof is necessary for an entity to be included in the report. It is also important to point out the dichotomy between the threshold level for the President's report--credible information--and that for triggering the mandatory sanctions--Presidential determination. This puts the President in the impossible position of labeling a certain activity, whether it occurred or not, as a concern sufficient to justify inclusion in the report to Congress but insufficient to justify action against the proliferator. The bill's authors' next claim is that it would not affect Wyoming farmers and ranchers, but they fail to recognize that regardless of who is sanctioned by the bill, it would still punish American agricultural producers. That is because foreign countries sanctioned as a result of the bill may retaliate by not buying U.S. farm and industrial products. Most of the agricultural groups recognize this and, as a result, remain opposed to this legislation. The last claim of the sponsors is that the latest charges of the bill make it ``consistent with current law and similar to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000.'' The reality is this bill does not track the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 at all, except for the credible information standard for the President's proliferation report to Congress. This amendment would only add another layer onto the 11 or more statutes available for the President to presently use against proliferators. I will mention just a few of the differences. I could have some of them wrong because the bill we have may not be the same as the one we were able to look at yesterday. I have mentioned a few of the differences in the amendment. As I mentioned before, there are mandated five different types of sanctions if the President determines proliferation occurred. In contrast, the INA allows for optional sanctions. The amendment before us requires sanctions for at least 1 year, whereas the INA does not require a specified period of time for sanctions to remain intact. If this is to track the Iran Nonproliferation Act, then I question the need for it, too. This amendment provides for an expedited legislative procedure for Congress to use if it disagrees with the President's determination, whereas the INA does not. These facts clearly demonstrate that the China Nonproliferation Act contains significant and substantive differences from the recently passed Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000. I would be remiss not to mention the significant impact this amendment would have on the operation of our export control system. It would add an additional layer to the current patchwork of dual-use export control law. Instead, the focus should be on a complete reform and reauthorization of the Export Administration Act to address proliferation of the dual-use items. Last year, the Banking Committee, as I mentioned, unanimously reported S. 1712, the Export Administration Act. This bill, the EAA, recognizes that the current system is broken and needs a complete modernization and overhaul to be fixed. The committee's EAA would create a country tiering system to take into account the risks of diversion and misuse of sensitive items if exported to any given country. Among the other nonproliferation enhancements, it would require the denial of licensed exports to entities that do not cooperate with U.S. postshipment verifications, with the possibility of license denial to the affiliate or parent company. It keeps us from shipping items that would help them. It also allows controls to be imposed based upon the end use or end user on the export of any item that contributes to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them. In conclusion, I remind my colleagues that the amendment we are considering is a unilateral sanctions bill. It could easily replace the current China NTR votes with annual proliferation votes on China and on other countries, including our allies. These are serious issues at stake, so it is not to the benefit of this body or to the people of the United States to hastily consider this legislation without the benefit of committee consideration. I share the concerns about proliferation, but this counterproductive amendment takes the wrong approach and would have harmful consequences on the U.S. national security and economy. I encourage my colleagues to take a careful look at it, to defeat the amendment, and to pass NTR. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have to add a few comments to what was previously said about needing to move forward because I sincerely believe we need to move forward with the work of the Senate. The biggest work we have before us is finishing the appropriations bills--$1.7 trillion of spending--and we ought to spend a few minutes debating that. If you will recall, before we left, one of the difficulties we were having was even getting the opportunity to debate those bills; There were filibusters prohibiting the right to debate the bills--extremely long filibusters. That was debate in itself, but it didn't allow the work of the Senate to proceed to appropriate the $1.7 trillion. We need to pass the bills, get them brought up; we need to have them discussed and have relevant amendments put on the bills. We need to get that work out of the way first. I can't help but comment a little on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The conference committee has been working on that. They were making great progress until it looked as if it might not be an issue anymore. Then it was brought up for a vote again and again using the original version, not the compromise version that had been worked out over a long period of very difficult work. So we have a choice: We can have issues or we can have solutions. It just takes the two sides getting together and moving forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to join in this elaboration on the damage and devastation that is going on in the West. It has been a tradition in the Senate that when disasters happen, Senators come to the floor and they ask emergency measures be taken, both to stop what is happening and to make up for some of the economic loss that is a result of the emergency. That is what we are doing today. Just as importantly, we are here today suggesting that there are changes the Federal Government can make so that we do not have these problems again. Prevention is better than pain. Prevention is better than the pain that is caused by the forest fires that devastate homes, jobs, and recreation. Senator Thomas and I have been traveling around Wyoming. We are downwind from Idaho. We are downwind from Washington. We are downwind from Montana. In the daytime, one cannot see the mountains or the fires for the smoke. At night, you can see the fires as you drive down the roads, and people prepare their evacuation plans to get out of their homes, to abandon their homes to flames. It is a terrible situation. It can be prevented, but we are going down the wrong road right now. I rise to express my deep concerns over the mismanagement of the National Forest System that has led to one of the worst fire seasons in the history of the United States of America. There is no question that fire is a part of the natural world. No one knows this better than the men and women in the Western United States who have risked their lives during the last 4 months to protect and save homes, lives, property, and the environment from the terrible threat of the catastrophic wildfires. As of September 4, the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, ID, reports that 6.6 million acres of Federal public lands have been burned this year alone. In comparison, in 1996, we suffered what was up until then the worst year on record for fires in the continental United States. At that time, we lost 5.8 million acres. We have already exceeded that loss by almost 800,000 acres, and it is growing. What makes this tragedy so terrible is that most of this threat could have been prevented had our Federal land management agencies not been stymied by the Washington, DC, one-size-fits-all-based policies that sacrificed forest health for political gain. Rather than implement policies that would have made our forests more fire resilient and would have made forest communities safer from the threat of catastrophic wildfires, these agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, have adopted practices from Washington that have allowed our forests to grow denser and denser without establishing the proper safeguards, such as defensible fuel profile zones and mechanically thinned forests that can incorporate fires into the natural management. For more than 60 years, our Nation has placed an emphasis on aggressive fire suppression programs which have removed fire as a mitigating factor in maintaining forest health. As a result of these well-meaning efforts, many of our forests now suffer from an unnatural accumulation of vegetation on the forest floors. Dense undergrowth, combined with increasing taller layers of intermediate vegetation, has turned Western forests into deadly time bombs. Unlike healthy fires of the past that thinned out the underbrush and left the large trees to grow larger, modern wildfire quickly claims the dense vegetation like a ladder until it tops out at the uppermost, or crown, level of the forest and races out of control as a catastrophic fire. Because of their high speed and intense heat, these crown fires leave an almost sterile environment in their wake. After a crown fire, nothing is left behind--no trees, no wildlife, and no habitat--with few micro-organisms left to rebuild the soil. Vegetation manipulation, including timber harvests, is therefore necessary to restore our forests, particularly in the West, to conditions that are most resistant to catastrophic disturbance and that are within acceptable ranges of variability. Good stewardship, scientific studies, including the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project report, state that timber harvest is a tool that can be used to enhance overall forest resilience to disturbance. The SNEP report states, for example, that ``logging can serve as a tool to help reduce fire hazard when slash is treated and treatments are maintained.'' If conducted on a large enough scale and in a controlled manner, timber harvests can restore our national forests to a point where large catastrophic fires are much less likely. In other words, we can harvest the trees instead of burning them down. We can make them into boards that will keep that CO2 they have absorbed over a lifetime intact in a home instead of going up in smoke as CO2. The Forest Service has recognized this threat and in April of this year stated that ``Without increased restoration treatments . . . wildfire suppression costs, natural resources losses, private property losses, and environmental damage are certain to escalate as fuels continue to accumulate and more acres become high risk.'' The Clinton-Gore administration, however, has chosen to ignore its own experts and has proposed new programs that would combine with current planning efforts, such as the Sierra Nevada framework, Interior Columbia Basin ecosystem management project, the roadless initiative, and the Federal monument proclamations, will only make the situation worse by removing our access to forests and by taking away some of our most effective forest management tools. Instead, the administration wants to rely on the extensive use of prescribed fire which will further exacerbate the risk of catastrophic wildfires on the Federal land throughout the West and proposes to prohibit all forms of commercial timber harvest, regardless of the objective. Those prescribed fires get out of control, as I am sure the Senator from New Mexico will point out in a little while, in one of those damaging winds. In Wyoming, prescribed burns get out of control, and if you cannot get to the fire, you cannot put out the fire. We are talking about a roadless initiative in the United States right know. This is a map that shows the forest system in Wyoming--not the grasslands, not the Bureau of Land Management-controlled lands--the forest system. Wyoming has about 400 miles on a border. If we take away the roads in any of those colored areas, how do we get in to fight the forest fire while it is still a small fire? That is when we want to take them on. That is when we need to be able to get to them. If we wipe out the roads--and they are referred to sometimes as ghost roads because they are not roads one takes a normal car over, but they are roads from which fires can be fought. Madam President, I draw your attention to another sign that has appeared in Montana. This is actually addressed to all of us, but it is a little more pointed than that: To the firefighters: Thank you for all your efforts. To the U.S. Forest Service: Everything that we love is gone . . . up in smoke. The mismanagement of our forests has turned our beautiful valley into an ash heap. To Bill Clinton and Al Gore: Because of your environmental policies, the jobs are gone, the way of life is gone, and now the beauty is gone. What's next? Shame on you. If we do not do anything about it, shame on us. In the interest of protecting the integrity and posterity of our forest and wild lands, wildlife habitat, watershed--if there is a forest fire and it wipes out all the trees, next year North Dakota will have more floods because more water will make it into the stream--air quality, human health and safety, and private property, the U.S. Forest Service and other Federal land management agencies must immediately enact a cohesive strategy to reduce the overabundance of forest fuels which place these resources at high risk of catastrophic wildfire. While this strategy must include increased timber sales, however, there is no reason these sales cannot be structured to improve forest health by including in the terms of the contracts a requirement to thin out the underbrush and leave our forests in a healthier, more sustainable condition. I have concentrated on forest fires. There are grassland fires happening on BLM lands, private lands, and there are some lessons to be learned on taking care of those, too. It is not as dramatic to talk about a grass fire as a timber fire, but on those lands where there is good stewardship, the fires will stop. Where there is bad stewardship, the fires will blow across at a rate animals cannot even run. The catastrophic wildfires not only cause damage to forest and other lands but place the lives of firefighters at risk, pose threats to human health, personal property, sustainable ecosystems, and air and water quality. We must call to task the failed policies and move forward with better proactive policies that protect the West and the United States from the overriding threat of catastrophic wildfire. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.