Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will resume consideration of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill with the 50 minutes remaining on the Enzi amendment to begin at 10 a.m. Following the vote on that amendment, the leader anticipates final action on the IMF amendment No. 2100, which would therefore leave the Nickles HCFA amendment and the others on the leader's list as the only outstanding issues remaining before the concluding action on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. As a reminder to all Members, the second cloture vote on H.R. 2646, the Coverdell A+ education bill, was postponed and could occur at a time to be determined by the majority leader if an agreement cannot be reached. As always, all Members will be notified as to when that vote will occur. It is still hoped that an agreement can be worked out. Also, the Senate can be expected to consider the Mexico decertification bill, which under the statute has a limitation of 10 hours. Therefore, votes will occur throughout Thursday's session of the Senate, with the first vote occurring at 10:50 a.m. on Thursday.

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.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 87 submitted earlier by Senator Jeffords.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Colorado for his outstanding sportsmanship and for recognition of this great rivalry between two universities that are part of the Western Athletic Conference, a conference that is coming into its own and being recognized nationally. We are certain that because of rankings of two of the teams, and probably three of the teams, they will be in the NCAA National Tournament. There are a lot of kids out there who are well deserving of being in that. They are fierce competitors. Of course, this is one of the old rivalries of basketball. They have been isolated by being in the far West for a long time, and, as a result, have enjoyed playing each other because of what is a close proximity out there. Just being an hour's transportation away is quite a feat in the far West. Both schools have outstanding basketball teams. But I would be remiss if I didn't mention the outstanding schools that these basketball teams represent, particularly a portion of the school at Fort Collins that Senator Allard is a graduate of, the veterinarian school, which is world renowned. But both schools have a number of schools that are well recognized throughout the United States and around the world. We hope that kids take a look at both universities when they are interested attending in school. Again, I thank my colleague for his gracious comments about the University of Wyoming. The kids there appreciate it. I yield my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also ask for just a couple of minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment that is on the floor and to the McCain-Feingold substitute on campaign finance. Rather than ``reform'' the way that campaigns are financed, this substitute would infringe on the first amendment rights of millions of American citizens and place enormous burdens on candidates running for office. While the McCain-Feingold substitute claims to ``clean up'' the elections, it does so by placing unconstitutional restrictions on citizens' ability to participate in the political process. For the past few days, we have heard Members of the Senate bemoan the fact that various citizens groups and individuals have taken out ads criticizing them during their elections. I have to admit that I can sympathize with my colleagues who have been the object of often pointed and critical campaign ads. In fact, during my last campaign, some ads were aired against me that were downright false. That is why I support truth in advertising, but this isn't truth in advertising. At the same time, I believe that in a free society it is essential that citizens have the right to articulate their positions on issues and candidates in the public forum. The first amendment to our Constitution was drafted to ensure that future generations would have the right to engage in public political discourse that is vigorous and unfettered. Throughout even the darkest chapters of our Nation's history, our first amendment has provided an essential protection against inclinations to tyranny. Just a moment ago, the Senator from Michigan mentioned loopholes that we are plugging up. One of the things that always disturbs me about legislation, while legislation is being designed, loopholes are being thought out, loopholes nobody intends to disclose until after they have an opportunity to use them. I suggest to you that this piece of legislation and the amendment before us is subject to loopholes. There are people who have already decided how they can get around it. These are not the ethical people. These are the unethical ones. That is unenforced responsibility, that is what unethical activity is. It is also what ethical responsibility is, unenforced responsibility. You can't make somebody who intends to be bad be good, not if they intend to be. What we do by placing some of these restrictions on people is say to those who are willing to conform to the rules that they have limitations and those who don't have, don't have limitations. ``Oh, well, we will build in penalties, we will make this tough, we will take away the right of those people who intend to follow rules the opportunity to address an issue while it is timely, an issue that really concerns them,'' and an issue in this day and age may cost more than they can give to that candidate. We will take that right away from them. But the person who isn't worried about being punished after the fact will go ahead and do exactly what they have been doing all the time. So we are going to put in place a rule that takes away a constitutional right, adds additional burden, builds bureaucracy and takes away the freedom of speech. We are doing it in the name of making contests fairer. But, again, there are people out there thinking of the loopholes as we speak, and there are a lot of them in this. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the first amendment to protect the right of individual citizens and organizations to express their views through issue advocacy. The Court has maintained for over two decades that individuals and organizations do not fall within the restrictions of the Federal election code simply by engaging in this advocacy. No time limits, no disclosures, they just do not fall within the restrictions of the Federal election code simply by engaging in advocacy. Issue advocacy includes the right to promote any candidate for office and his views as long as the communication does not ``in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.'' As long as independent communication does not cross the bright line of expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, individuals and groups are free to spend as much as they want promoting or criticizing a candidate and his or her views. While these holdings may not always be welcome to those of us running in campaigns, they represent a logical outgrowth of the first amendment's historic protection of core political speech. Madam President, this amendment, which parades under the guise of reform, would violate these clear first amendment protections. The amendment impermissibly expands the definition of express advocacy to cover a whole host of communications by independent organizations. The McCain-Feingold amendment attempts to expand bright-line tests for issue advocacy to include communications which, in context, advocate election or defeat of a given candidate. Are we comfortable with giving a Federal regulatory agency the power to determine what constitutes acceptable political speech? The substitute gives expansive new powers to the Federal Election Commission. This is one Federal agency which has abused the power it already has to regulate Federal elections. Just last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals strongly criticized the Federal Election Commission for its unsupportable action against the Christian Action Network. The network's only crime was engaging in protected political speech. The Court of Appeals required the FEC to pay the network's attorney's fees and court costs since the FEC's prosecution had been unjustified. Congress should not condone flagrant administrative abuses by giving the FEC expanded new powers and responsibilities. What we have talked about for a year and a half while I have been here is the inability to really look into situations that appear to be pretty flagrant. Now we want to expand their right, after they have not been able to do the job and have enforced their actions in court actions that have been decidedly abusive, we want to give them more power. The McCain-Feingold substitute also includes within its new definition of express advocacy any communication that refers to one or more clearly identified candidates within 60 calendar days preceding an election. These provisions would allow the speech police to regulate core political speech during the most crucial part of the election cycle. The amendment that is on the floor right now also talks about that most crucial part of the election cycle. They would also place an economic burden on thousands of small radio and television stations which carry these ads. I don't think we in Washington should be placing any more restrictions on America's small businesses. Our Founding Fathers drafted the first amendment to protect against attempts such as these to prohibit free citizens from entering into public discourse on issues that greatly affect them. I cannot support legislation that stifles free speech of American citizens and gives expanded new powers to the Federal bureaucracy. For these reasons, I must oppose the McCain-Feingold substitute and the current amendment. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the first amendment and opposing the McCain-Feingold substitute and this amendment and any other amendment that unconstitutionally restricts the rights of citizens to participate in the democratic process. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of legislation offered by my esteemed colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. I appreciate his steady commitment to improving our nation's public health--especially as it relates to the pending global tobacco settlement. I, too, believe that we have an opportunity to dramatically affect the number of current and future smokers through education, research and regulation of tobacco products. It is my belief that the Prevention Addiction to Smoking Among Teens, or PAST Act, is a significant component that accomplishes just that. The PAST Act is the first piece of legislation fashioned after the global tobacco settlement--reflecting the resolution's public health aspects. I commend the Senator and his staff for working with me on remedying a number of outstanding issues in this bill. I look forward to working closely with my colleague on tightening this legislation as it works its way through the mix. I do wish to share my thoughts on a number of issues in the global settlement that must not be overlooked. In addition, I would point out that a handful of these issues relating to public health are already addressed in the PAST Act. First, I believe the settlement fails to complement FDA's regulatory role by tapping the expertise of other federal agencies with relative jurisdiction. Second, the look-back provisions prescribed by the global settlement are only geared toward our nation's youth and don't apply to smokers above the age of 18. Third, the settlement focuses largely on reimbursing Medicaid expenditures and ignores enormous Medicare expenditures for smoking related illnesses. Finally, the settlement's overall compensation mechanism fails to address long-term smoking attributed illnesses. In light of these and other inherent difficulties, I am reluctant to embrace the entire global settlement with open arms. We are accepting revenues for past problems and insuring the future without compensation. Let me first share my concerns regarding the FDA's role. The global settlement would delegate all regulatory authority of tobacco products to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including advertising and education. Although I favor FDA being the key regulatory agency of tobacco products, I do not believe the agency needs an annual allocation of $300 million to carry out its obligations--that's nearly 10 times what the FDA requested to enforce its original tobacco rule and one-third the agency's total annual budget. Such funding for one agency could not only foster regulatory abuses, but also stretch FDA's internal resources while simultaneously compounding Congress' oversight responsibilities. Such an approach is nothing more than a blueprint for yet another big government bureaucracy incapable of meeting its alleged purpose. I believe Senator Jeffords has acknowledged this predicament in the PAST Act. Rather than allotting $300 million each year for the FDA, the agency would receive $100 million, while other federal agencies with jurisdiction would receive $135 million, with the remaining $65 million going to the states for enforcement. This is a very fairminded approach and we largely avoid an unfunded federal mandate. Second, the look-back provisions included in the global settlement were written to be applicable to our nation's youth--ages 18 and under. As a result, Senator Jeffords' bill only addresses the admirable objective of reducing underage smoking. While I have no problem with setting strict goals for reducing underage tobacco use, I firmly believe that the global settlement and any subsequent legislation should not overlook the need to reduce the overall impact of smoking related illnesses. We must be careful not to lend pride of being an adult to smoking. I appreciate Senator Jeffords' commitment to strengthening this section of the PAST Act. Third, the global settlement fails to address Medicare smoking- attributable expenditures by focusing all of its attention on reimbursing states for Medicaid expenditures. This is a substantial financial oversight in my opinion. In 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration spent $176.9 billion in Medicare payments. Medicare outlays for fiscal 1996 are estimated to be $193.9 billion. Conservatively assuming that only 5 percent of those expenditures were smoking related, the average Medicare expenditures attributable to smoking during 1995-1996 would still amount to $9.3 billion per year, thereby bringing the twenty-five year total to $192.3 billion. This is an astronomical sum that deserves consideration. Finally, the global settlement's reimbursement structure is dubious at best. It is my belief that Senator Jeffords' legislation must receive a sound, long-term financial commitment from the tobacco industry. Under the current settlement, tobacco companies would pay an initial $10 billion, and make annual payments starting at $8.5 billion in the first year and increases to $15 billion in the fifth year of the settlement. While the total estimated payments over 25 years would be $368.5 billion, there is no guarantee under the settlement's structure that the total amount would be collected. Economic conditions could change or tobacco companies could be driven out of business leaving the federal government holding an enormous tab for a very expensive regulatory scheme. Moreover, a large portion of the global settlement total may not even go to reimburse government for the costs of cigarette smoking. The money is designed to fund everything from underage smoking cessation campaigns to potentially large civil damage awards. The scope of expenditures under the global settlement is too broad and the reimbursement mechanism is too incomplete to warrant Congressional approval. In the coming weeks, I will continue to advocate an alternative reimbursement mechanism that not only caters to the PAST Act, but compensates for smoking attributed illnesses under the Medicare program as well. Two principles lie at the heart of this alternative approach. First, nonsmoking taxpayers should not be expected to continue footing the bill for what are largely self-induced illnesses. Second, Congress must ensure that the actual compensation fund is solvent for years to come. To these ends, I believe we should give serious thought to a new industry-based approach in which the government determines the costs caused by the manufacturer's product, and then requires the manufacturer and smoker to pay for these costs. Such a program would entirely eliminate smoking-attributed reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare. A ``Smoker's Compensation Fund'' of this type could be modeled on the Worker's Compensation Funds already in existence in the states. The proceeds for this fund would come from the tobacco industry, and ultimately from smokers themselves in the form of higher cigarette prices. The tobacco industry's annual contributions to the fund could be tied to the number of occurrences of smoking illnesses--the greater the occurrences, the larger the contribution. Using Worker's Compensation as a model, a rolling multi-year average could form the basis of annual premiums to individuals suffering from smoking- attributed illnesses. This would create an economic incentive for the tobacco companies to take actions to reduce tobacco-related illnesses, thereby driving down the number of smokers over the long-term--a true look-back policy. Moreover, an industry-based approach would not allow tobacco companies to walk away from long-term smoking attributed illnesses through a total $368.5 billion payment over a 25 year period. Instead, it would administratively make the tobacco companies and the smokers themselves responsible for paying for the medical care of individuals with smoking-related illnesses indefinitely. I believe that the Smoker's Compensation Fund concept would be the best vehicle to provide long-term financial coverage not only for the Medicaid and Medicare programs and smokers of all ages, but for the public health provisions outlined in Senator Jeffords' bill being introduced today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of legislation offered by my esteemed colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. I appreciate his steady commitment to improving our nation's public health--especially as it relates to the pending global tobacco settlement. I, too, believe that we have an opportunity to dramatically affect the number of current and future smokers through education, research and regulation of tobacco products. It is my belief that the Prevention Addiction to Smoking Among Teens, or PAST Act, is a significant component that accomplishes just that. The PAST Act is the first piece of legislation fashioned after the global tobacco settlement--reflecting the resolution's public health aspects. I commend the Senator and his staff for working with me on remedying a number of outstanding issues in this bill. I look forward to working closely with my colleague on tightening this legislation as it works its way through the mix. I do wish to share my thoughts on a number of issues in the global settlement that must not be overlooked. In addition, I would point out that a handful of these issues relating to public health are already addressed in the PAST Act. First, I believe the settlement fails to complement FDA's regulatory role by tapping the expertise of other federal agencies with relative jurisdiction. Second, the look-back provisions prescribed by the global settlement are only geared toward our nation's youth and don't apply to smokers above the age of 18. Third, the settlement focuses largely on reimbursing Medicaid expenditures and ignores enormous Medicare expenditures for smoking related illnesses. Finally, the settlement's overall compensation mechanism fails to address long-term smoking attributed illnesses. In light of these and other inherent difficulties, I am reluctant to embrace the entire global settlement with open arms. We are accepting revenues for past problems and insuring the future without compensation. Let me first share my concerns regarding the FDA's role. The global settlement would delegate all regulatory authority of tobacco products to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including advertising and education. Although I favor FDA being the key regulatory agency of tobacco products, I do not believe the agency needs an annual allocation of $300 million to carry out its obligations--that's nearly 10 times what the FDA requested to enforce its original tobacco rule and one-third the agency's total annual budget. Such funding for one agency could not only foster regulatory abuses, but also stretch FDA's internal resources while simultaneously compounding Congress' oversight responsibilities. Such an approach is nothing more than a blueprint for yet another big government bureaucracy incapable of meeting its alleged purpose. I believe Senator Jeffords has acknowledged this predicament in the PAST Act. Rather than allotting $300 million each year for the FDA, the agency would receive $100 million, while other federal agencies with jurisdiction would receive $135 million, with the remaining $65 million going to the states for enforcement. This is a very fairminded approach and we largely avoid an unfunded federal mandate. Second, the look-back provisions included in the global settlement were written to be applicable to our nation's youth--ages 18 and under. As a result, Senator Jeffords' bill only addresses the admirable objective of reducing underage smoking. While I have no problem with setting strict goals for reducing underage tobacco use, I firmly believe that the global settlement and any subsequent legislation should not overlook the need to reduce the overall impact of smoking related illnesses. We must be careful not to lend pride of being an adult to smoking. I appreciate Senator Jeffords' commitment to strengthening this section of the PAST Act. Third, the global settlement fails to address Medicare smoking- attributable expenditures by focusing all of its attention on reimbursing states for Medicaid expenditures. This is a substantial financial oversight in my opinion. In 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration spent $176.9 billion in Medicare payments. Medicare outlays for fiscal 1996 are estimated to be $193.9 billion. Conservatively assuming that only 5 percent of those expenditures were smoking related, the average Medicare expenditures attributable to smoking during 1995-1996 would still amount to $9.3 billion per year, thereby bringing the twenty-five year total to $192.3 billion. This is an astronomical sum that deserves consideration. Finally, the global settlement's reimbursement structure is dubious at best. It is my belief that Senator Jeffords' legislation must receive a sound, long-term financial commitment from the tobacco industry. Under the current settlement, tobacco companies would pay an initial $10 billion, and make annual payments starting at $8.5 billion in the first year and increases to $15 billion in the fifth year of the settlement. While the total estimated payments over 25 years would be $368.5 billion, there is no guarantee under the settlement's structure that the total amount would be collected. Economic conditions could change or tobacco companies could be driven out of business leaving the federal government holding an enormous tab for a very expensive regulatory scheme. Moreover, a large portion of the global settlement total may not even go to reimburse government for the costs of cigarette smoking. The money is designed to fund everything from underage smoking cessation campaigns to potentially large civil damage awards. The scope of expenditures under the global settlement is too broad and the reimbursement mechanism is too incomplete to warrant Congressional approval. In the coming weeks, I will continue to advocate an alternative reimbursement mechanism that not only caters to the PAST Act, but compensates for smoking attributed illnesses under the Medicare program as well. Two principles lie at the heart of this alternative approach. First, nonsmoking taxpayers should not be expected to continue footing the bill for what are largely self-induced illnesses. Second, Congress must ensure that the actual compensation fund is solvent for years to come. To these ends, I believe we should give serious thought to a new industry-based approach in which the government determines the costs caused by the manufacturer's product, and then requires the manufacturer and smoker to pay for these costs. Such a program would entirely eliminate smoking-attributed reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare. A ``Smoker's Compensation Fund'' of this type could be modeled on the Worker's Compensation Funds already in existence in the states. The proceeds for this fund would come from the tobacco industry, and ultimately from smokers themselves in the form of higher cigarette prices. The tobacco industry's annual contributions to the fund could be tied to the number of occurrences of smoking illnesses--the greater the occurrences, the larger the contribution. Using Worker's Compensation as a model, a rolling multi-year average could form the basis of annual premiums to individuals suffering from smoking- attributed illnesses. This would create an economic incentive for the tobacco companies to take actions to reduce tobacco-related illnesses, thereby driving down the number of smokers over the long-term--a true look-back policy. Moreover, an industry-based approach would not allow tobacco companies to walk away from long-term smoking attributed illnesses through a total $368.5 billion payment over a 25 year period. Instead, it would administratively make the tobacco companies and the smokers themselves responsible for paying for the medical care of individuals with smoking-related illnesses indefinitely. I believe that the Smoker's Compensation Fund concept would be the best vehicle to provide long-term financial coverage not only for the Medicaid and Medicare programs and smokers of all ages, but for the public health provisions outlined in Senator Jeffords' bill being introduced today. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I too rise as an original cosponsor to express my support for the American Debt Repayment Act and to congratulate Senator Allard for all of his work on this very important issue. While Congress was not in session, I traveled several thousand miles across Wyoming. At town meetings I constantly and consistently heard comments such as, ``What surplus? If there is any surplus, please pay down the debt. Don't squander any of it on new spending ideas.'' If recent CBO estimates hold true, we have the lowest deficit in about 30 years. We did not get to that point by exercising fiscal restraint, however. We still spent too much--nearly $1.7 trillion every year. I voted against the spending portion of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because it seemed clear more could have been done to cut down the size and scope of the Federal Government and get our fiscal house in order faster. If not for the unexpected revenues that came as a result of 7 years of economic expansion, we would not even be close to eliminating the Federal deficit today. In recent days, I have seen a unique attitude transformation take place in this city. Even though a budget surplus, or even a zero deficit--only estimated, of course--has not occurred yet, the administration has not hesitated to offer over $100 billion worth of new and expanded programs that would easily create a larger deficit in its proposed balanced budget. There are even more tax proposals. It seems the eye for spending is still bigger than our taxpayers' wallets. Even though the economy is strong, I am surprised that so few are concerned about the debt we as a nation are in danger of passing on to our children and our grandchildren. It seems we are tied to the immediate gratification we receive from spending money, spending money that we do not even have. We do not see the danger that looms in the not too distant future if we do not stop spending on credit and with reckless abandon. That danger is a massive Federal debt and changing demographics that will place a tremendous amount of pressure and burden on young taxpayers who, if no changes are made to the entitlement programs, will see a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system and a mountain of debt so high and an economy so weak there will be no hope of paying it off. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that we deserve these benefits. Meanwhile, we will will it to our children to figure out a way to pay for them. The interest, just the interest that we are now paying on the Federal debt has reached about 15 percent of the total budget outlays. That amounts to $250 billion that cannot be used for education or military readiness and our national defense or people. The only way we can cut down on the amount of interest paid is to pay down the Federal debt. We have a Federal debt of over $5.5 trillion. We must run budget surpluses not just for 1 or 2 years but for 30 or more years to pay off that debt. And the surpluses are not even projected to last that long. I believe the administration and Congress should heed the words of the Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He noted in his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday, January 29, 1998, that we should be cautious in our spending because Federal revenues are not guaranteed and they may fall short of our expectations. He again advised that ``we should be aiming for budgetary surpluses and using the proceeds to retire outstanding Federal debt.'' That will keep the economy sound and protect Social Security. The American Debt Repayment Act follows the advice of Chairman Greenspan. It requires budgetary surpluses every year, with these surpluses going toward payment of the Federal debt. These payments would amortize the debt over the next 30 years, similar to house mortgage payments, only on a $5.5 trillion mansion. Anyone who purchases the house must pay the mortgage that accompanies it. Why should the Federal Government be exempt from a similar requirement? It's the ethical thing to do, and it just makes sound economic sense. Yes, we bought a house for us and our kids, and we will pass on the house and the debt. But let's be sure it's a responsible debt with the payments current. Now is the time to start making these mortgage payments and begin to chip away at that mountain of debt. It is irresponsible, reckless, and selfish to wait any longer. Any delay will jeopardize the national security and economic freedom of us, our Nation, and our children. Some may ask if we can afford to do this now. In response, I would borrow the words of former President Ronald Reagan: If not now, when? If not us, who? I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I too rise as an original cosponsor to express my support for the American Debt Repayment Act and to congratulate Senator Allard for all of his work on this very important issue. While Congress was not in session, I traveled several thousand miles across Wyoming. At town meetings I constantly and consistently heard comments such as, ``What surplus? If there is any surplus, please pay down the debt. Don't squander any of it on new spending ideas.'' If recent CBO estimates hold true, we have the lowest deficit in about 30 years. We did not get to that point by exercising fiscal restraint, however. We still spent too much--nearly $1.7 trillion every year. I voted against the spending portion of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because it seemed clear more could have been done to cut down the size and scope of the Federal Government and get our fiscal house in order faster. If not for the unexpected revenues that came as a result of 7 years of economic expansion, we would not even be close to eliminating the Federal deficit today. In recent days, I have seen a unique attitude transformation take place in this city. Even though a budget surplus, or even a zero deficit--only estimated, of course--has not occurred yet, the administration has not hesitated to offer over $100 billion worth of new and expanded programs that would easily create a larger deficit in its proposed balanced budget. There are even more tax proposals. It seems the eye for spending is still bigger than our taxpayers' wallets. Even though the economy is strong, I am surprised that so few are concerned about the debt we as a nation are in danger of passing on to our children and our grandchildren. It seems we are tied to the immediate gratification we receive from spending money, spending money that we do not even have. We do not see the danger that looms in the not too distant future if we do not stop spending on credit and with reckless abandon. That danger is a massive Federal debt and changing demographics that will place a tremendous amount of pressure and burden on young taxpayers who, if no changes are made to the entitlement programs, will see a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system and a mountain of debt so high and an economy so weak there will be no hope of paying it off. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that we deserve these benefits. Meanwhile, we will will it to our children to figure out a way to pay for them. The interest, just the interest that we are now paying on the Federal debt has reached about 15 percent of the total budget outlays. That amounts to $250 billion that cannot be used for education or military readiness and our national defense or people. The only way we can cut down on the amount of interest paid is to pay down the Federal debt. We have a Federal debt of over $5.5 trillion. We must run budget surpluses not just for 1 or 2 years but for 30 or more years to pay off that debt. And the surpluses are not even projected to last that long. I believe the administration and Congress should heed the words of the Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He noted in his testimony to the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday, January 29, 1998, that we should be cautious in our spending because Federal revenues are not guaranteed and they may fall short of our expectations. He again advised that ``we should be aiming for budgetary surpluses and using the proceeds to retire outstanding Federal debt.'' That will keep the economy sound and protect Social Security. The American Debt Repayment Act follows the advice of Chairman Greenspan. It requires budgetary surpluses every year, with these surpluses going toward payment of the Federal debt. These payments would amortize the debt over the next 30 years, similar to house mortgage payments, only on a $5.5 trillion mansion. Anyone who purchases the house must pay the mortgage that accompanies it. Why should the Federal Government be exempt from a similar requirement? It's the ethical thing to do, and it just makes sound economic sense. Yes, we bought a house for us and our kids, and we will pass on the house and the debt. But let's be sure it's a responsible debt with the payments current. Now is the time to start making these mortgage payments and begin to chip away at that mountain of debt. It is irresponsible, reckless, and selfish to wait any longer. Any delay will jeopardize the national security and economic freedom of us, our Nation, and our children. Some may ask if we can afford to do this now. In response, I would borrow the words of former President Ronald Reagan: If not now, when? If not us, who? I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Judge Ann Aiken as the district court judge for the district of Oregon. I asked for a rollcall vote because I want to be on record as opposing this nominee. I put a hold on this nominee before we left on recess, with adequate time, I assure, for a rollcall vote. I made that a public, not a secret, hold. I wanted anyone interested in the case to know that I wanted a rollcall vote. I know that message got out. I was told that a rollcall vote would be OK, and I am sorry that there was not time or sufficient people around to have a rollcall vote prior to the time that we left. I did make a statement on the judge, and I want to reiterate some of my concerns. While I do not question Judge Aiken's experience or academic qualification to sit on the Federal bench, I do have serious concerns about her judicial philosophy as she applied it as a State trial judge in Oregon. One particular case has been mentioned this morning, and I appreciate the extra information that has been passed out at this time. That particularly tragic case perhaps best illustrates my concern, and I have looked at five other cases as well that I don't have more information on. In the case of the State v. Ronny Lee Dye, a 26-year- old man was convicted, convicted, of first-degree rape--first-degree rape--of a young 5-year-old girl. Instead of sentencing this convicted rapist to State prison, Judge Aiken sentenced him to 90 days in jail and 5 years probation, plus a $2,000 fine. The other option was 5 years in prison. There was concern about whether there would be enough rehabilitation in prison. The option was there for 5 years in prison and the effort to get a rehabilitation program in that prison. If I were the parents of a 5-year-old child that was raped and knew the convicted rapist could receive between 90 days and 5 years, I would have serious concerns about anybody who voted for that judge. Out of a concern for those parents, I am opposed to this nomination. According to the local papers, Judge Aiken did not want to sentence Dye to State prison because the prison did not have a sex-offender rehabilitation program. There are folks out in my part of the country that would insist on some other kind of rehabilitation. Moreover, she believed that probation following the jail term provided a stricter supervision than the parole that would have followed a prison sentence. Less than 1 year after his conviction for rape, Dye violated his parole by driving under the influence of alcohol and having contact with minor children without permission of his probation officer. I believe Judge Aiken's handling of this case and others illustrates an inclination towards an unjustified leniency for convicted criminals. Mr. President, I do not pretend to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy how this nominee or any other will rule while on the Federal bench. In exercising our solemn constitutional duty to advise and consent on the President's nominations for the Federal courts, we have only the past action, statements and writings to guide our deliberations. Moreover--and this is one of my big concerns--since Federal judges have life tenure and salary protection for the rest of their lives while they are in office, we have but one opportunity to voice our concerns and disapproval of a judge's record. Now, I understand that she has been repentant of what she did at an early time in her judgeship. But I have got to tell you that I think that we give out Federal judgeships for service, not for repentance. We talk about law and order. We have to back up that law and order through the court system as well, not just with words in this Chamber. I, for one, cannot vote to confirm a nominee to the Federal court who I believe is inclined to substitute his or her personal policy preferences to those of the U.S. Congress or any other State legislature. I have strong concerns that Judge Aiken, if confirmed, would be inclined to this type of judicial activism. For this reason, I asked for a rollcall vote. I appreciate the opportunity for me to go on record as being against the confirmation of Judge Aiken. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 10 minutes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, in the last 3 hours there has been some pretty heavy lifting and some excellent debate by both sides about what is to come of this country. But I am going to take just a moment and let everyone relax and reflect a little bit and realize that everything in the world isn't happening right here in Washington. I want to bring some attention to some things that have happened over the last weekend. One of those, of course, was the Super Bowl game. I want to congratulate those Broncos and people in Wyoming and Colorado who are avid supporters of that team. They did a wonderful job as fans, as players. It was a great game. But something that is not as well known out of this part of the country is that there is the Western Athletic Conference. There are a bunch of basketball players out there that are having a great year. Some people may have heard about Utah because, frankly, they are No. 4 in the Nation right now. You may have heard about New Mexico because they are also in the top 20 in the Nation. But I want to talk just for a moment about another team that is going to be in that top 20 in the Nation, and that is Colorado State University, a small university in northern Colorado just south of Wyoming. This last weekend we had an event called the ``Border Wars.'' That is an event that has been going on for 101 games in Laramie, WY, alone. They play the other half of the games in Colorado. So the oldest traditional rivalry in basketball, probably, in the United States--101 games. This last weekend was the event of that 101st game. I cannot convey to you enough the rivalry that we have between these two schools that have been playing for that long and that are only separated by 45 miles, which out in our part of the country is very little distance. It is my pleasure to say that Colorado State University won that game. They beat an outstanding team. That is why you are going to hear more about Colorado State University. They won that game 53-46. They got out to a 9-0 lead in the game, then a 15-2 lead, which is almost what their record is this year, 15-3, a pretty outstanding record, particularly in that conference. They are 3-2 in the Western Athletic Conference. But they have won nine of their home games, only losing one. Their coach, Stew Morrill, has done an outstanding job with the team that came back from last year. As most people do not realize, they had that entire team back for another season. And they will have a great season. So keep your eye on the Western Athletic Conference and particularly Colorado State University. This is such a rivalry that this last weekend I had the pleasure of hosting Senator Allard and his wife Joan for the basketball game in Wyoming. As part of that competition, part of that rivalry, I agreed that if Wyoming lost that game, I would wear this Colorado State tie for a week. It was really fun having the folks from Colorado come up and to have that competition continue. I want to congratulate Senator Allard for the outstanding job that they did. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, today I rise to oppose a nomination. I want to tell you, I have a hold on a nomination. It is not a secret hold. Those that are interested in the nomination know I have the hold on it. I would not do that in secret. The purpose is not for secrecy. The purpose is to get an action that will show on the record, that will be reflected by this body for years to come. That is what we were sent here for. Judge Ann Aiken has been nominated by the President of the United States to be a District Court Judge for the District of Oregon. I have asked for a rollcall vote because I want to be on record as opposing this nominee. I don't question Judge Aiken's experience or academic qualifications to sit on the Federal bench. I do have serious concerns about her judicial philosophy as she has applied it in State court in Oregon. One particularly tragic case perhaps best illustrates concern. It is the case of State versus Ronny Lee Dye, a 26-year-old man who was convicted of first-degree rape of a 5-year-old girl. Instead of sentencing this convicted rapist to State prison, Judge Aiken sentenced him to only 90 days in jail and 5 years' probation, plus a $2,000 fine. According to local papers, Judge Aiken did not want to sentence Dye to state prison because the prison did not have a sex offender rehabilitation program. How do you think the parents of that girl felt? Moreover, she believed that the probation following the jail term provided a stricter supervision than the parole that would have followed the prison sentence. Less than a year after the conviction for rape, Dye violated his parole by driving under the influence of alcohol and having contact with minor children without permission of his probation officer. I believe that Judge Aiken's handling of this case and others illustrates an inclination toward an unjustified leniency for convicted criminals. I do not pretend to be able to predict with any degree of accuracy how the nominee or any other will rule while on the Federal bench in exercising our solemn constitutional duty to advise and consent on the President's nominations for Federal courts, what this body stands for, we have only the past action, statements and writings to guide our deliberations. Moreover, since Federal judges have life tenure--life tenure--and salary protection while in office we have but one opportunity to voice our concerns in disapproval of a judge's record. I, for one, cannot vote to confirm a nominee to the Federal court who I believe is inclined to substitute his or her personal policy preferences for those of the U.S. Congress and the various State legislatures. I have strong concerns about this judge. If confirmed, would she be inclined to this type of judicial activism? For this reason, I will cast my vote against the confirmation of Judge Aiken and insist on a rollcall vote so that it will be recorded. That may result in a delay in that court, but I think it is an important delay. I don't think I'm the only one opposing this, and I will insist on the rollcall vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I appreciated the comments earlier of the Presiding Officer. I learned a great deal from listening to the Senator talk of the people that have gone before her. Of course, that reminds me of people that have gone before me from my State and all of those who have gone before us in this great body. We not only think about those who have gone before, we think about those people who are here now, those people who are at home in our respective States at the moment, and those people who are relying on our judgment in this Chamber today to preserve the right for them to be here or in Maine or in Wyoming in the future.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I come to the floor--in the waning hours of this session--to express my continuing frustration with the way that the Environmental Protection Agency is handling Wyoming's environmental audit law. The troubles began last September, when the EPA delayed granting final approval of Wyoming's clean air permitting plan. Earlier this year, I joined with the other Members of Wyoming's congressional delegation in sending a letter to Administrator Carol Browner at the EPA. We suggested that it was inappropriate to withhold delegation of Clean Air Act permitting authority because of the State's environmental audit law. Administrator Browner responded with an assurance that, EPA has not taken steps to withhold further delegations of Federal programs in Wyoming as a result of the State environmental audit law. In September, the EPA announced that it had completed its review of Wyoming's audit law. It found that, The State won't need to make statutory changes to the self- audit law to retain primacy over Federal laws like the Clean Air Act. The EPA went on to say that, The law shouldn't interfere with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's efforts to gain primacy over several other Federal programs. Mr. President, in spite of Ms. Browner's assurances, there has been a very real and ongoing manipulation of States that attempt to craft sensible audit laws. I trust that my colleagues from Colorado, Utah, Michigan, and Texas would be able to verify that activity. Their States have all been coerced by the EPA into changing their audit laws. On October 29, I introduced the State Environmental Audit Protection Act, which is S. 1332. This bill would provide a safe harbor from EPA's coercive actions for States that adopt reasonable audit laws. The next day, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a very good hearing on the issue. We listened to an excellent panel of witnesses on both sides of the issue. Both myself, and Senator Hutchison of Texas-- who has also introduced legislation to resolve this problem--testified on the need for Federal legislation. I was interested to read in the paper on October 30, the day after the hearing, that the EPA is now requiring Wyoming to change its law. The EPA has submitted legislation to a special session of the Wyoming legislature. On Monday, a joint committee in Cheyenne heard preliminary testimony on the revisions. The proposal would strike at least 50 percent of Wyoming's law regarding discovery of evidence in criminal proceedings. A State environmental audit law is designed to help clean up the environment. In Wyoming, we created our State law to provide incentives for good faith efforts. We thoroughly debated this issue in the Wyoming State legislature. We consulted with the State Department of Environmental Quality and different stakeholder groups. We wanted to provide a mechanism that would encourage people to make an extra effort--an extra effort--to clean up the environment in their communities. We debated it in a Democratic forum and we passed a consensus bill. And we passed it by more than a two-thirds vote in each body. Our State law allows an entity to hire an auditor to review their operations. The entity might be a town that is trying to examine its storm drainage system. It might be a hospital that wants to review its air emissions. It might be a college or school district whose vocational education department uses solvents. It might be a company that maintains a construction yard, or a garage. These are all entities that may be affecting their environment without even knowing the consequences of their operations. Some of them are on regular inspection schedules, but the majority of them will never be inspected. How many of those entities would know, with 100 percent certainty, that they are in full compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws? How many of them think they are in compliance? How many of them don't know? How many inspectors are out there randomly checking these facilities? These are questions I cannot answer. In fact, I asked a similar question to the Environmental Protection Agency in Senator Chafee's committee hearing. There was a general notion of how many EPA inspectors were employed, but they did not know how many total inspectors are out there. Furthermore, they could not say what percentage of regulated entities were on an actual inspection schedule. There is one simple question here that I can answer. That is, how many of those regulated entities would ask an EPA inspector to come around and take a look? How many of them would trust the EPA to offer friendly advice. The answer to these questions, my friends, is zero. People don't trust the EPA any more than they trust the IRS. The fact is, Mr. President, most of these entities are afraid of the EPA. Most of them are unaware that their operations could land them in Federal court. They are unfamiliar with the regulations and they are afraid to find out if they are in compliance. They are afraid because if they search for problems and find them, they may be fined and even sued. And if they are sued, their own review has given regulators a roadmap for prosecution. No small business is going to spend money to hire an auditor to collect evidence for regulators to use against the small business. And I do not believe more heavy handed enforcement is the answer. We, as legislators, should be able to encourage entities to look for problems. We can designlegislation that protects good faith efforts, without sacrificing traditional enforcement. We can design legislation that promotes cooperation toward a cleaner environment. The EPA and the Department of Justice rely heavily on enforcement as a deterrent. But in spite of Vice President Gore's reinventing Government proposals--and in spite of President Clinton's commitment to revinventing regulations--neither the EPA nor the Department of Justice have supported any statutory compliance assistance programs. Their command and control methods remain firmly ensconced--not just in rhetoric, but in practice. I agree that strong enforcement is necessary as a deterrent against environmental violations. I have never suggested that we should hamstring our regulators. We can, however, look at audit laws as a positive and reasonable way to supplement strong enforcement. When the goal is a cleaner, healthier environment, we should not be afraid to be innovative. We can do it in a reasonable and thoughtful way. We can agree not to penalize good behavior. The EPA and the Department of Justice have shown a complete unwillingness, however, to cooperate. They have repeatedly argued against State and Federal audit laws. They maintain that such laws are unnecessary and dangerous. They describe numerous imaginative scenarios where laws could be abused. When asked for constructive suggestions, however, they choose instead to mischaracterize audit laws, implying that there is no middle ground. In the rhetorical attacks on audit laws, the EPA and Department of Justice always start by constructing their own premises--not those of the actual law--so the most frightful conclusions can be drawn to support their position. I point this out because the term ``secrecy'' has been the most recurrent fallacy dragged across this debate. It was used to excess in the recent Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. The EPA maintains the danger of secrecy by suggesting that audit laws will shield evidence of wrongdoing and impede public access to information. Nobody in this body has been talking about creating an audit law to allow secrecy or fraud. These are things the EPA argues against. They are things I have argued against. Under a well-crafted audit law, this kind of abuse can be easily avoided. First, the EPA claims companies will conduct audits to hide evidence. I want to expose the holes in that argument. An audit report can only include information gathered during a specific time period and according to a defined audit procedure. Because privilege is not extended to cover fraud or criminal activity, it cannot reach back to cover prior malfeasance. For example, in Wyoming, before a company conducts an audit pursuant to our State law, they must tell the regulators they plan to conduct an audit. Only information that is gathered after that date, and as a part of the audit, can fall under the audit protections. An audit report cannot include information that is otherwise required to be disclosed, such as emissions monitoring. It can only include information that is voluntarily disclosed. How does the privilege work in practice? First, if nothing is discovered and nothing is disclosed, the report may not be privileged. If the company does find a deficiency during the audit, then it must report the problem and clean it up with due diligence. If these conditions are not met, then it cannot assert privilege to the information related to the deficiency. The privileged information is never secret because the deficiency must be disclosed. Remember, the company must report the deficiency and clean it up to assert privilege. The public can view the disclosure form. They can know about the problem and they can make sure it is cleaned up. As long as these conditions for privilege are met, the report may not be admitted as evidence in a civil or administrative action. The end result of this is a cleaner environment--not secrecy--as the EPA suggests. One only has to think logically to expose the flaws in EPA's arguments about secrecy. If a company says they are going to conduct an audit, then they must find violations, disclose them, and clean them up to get any benefit from the law. If they don't disclose anything, they gain no protections from an audit law. A company would not spend money to conduct an audit and then keep the violations secret. If they did so, they would face criminal liability for knowingly violating the law. I ask my colleagues, if a company conducts an audit, discloses its violations, and cleans them up, what have we lost? Haven't we improved environmental quality? That is the goal of our environmental laws. That is the point of compliance assistance. The EPA and Department of Justice maintain that audit laws run counter to our common interest in encouraging the kind of openness that builds trust between regulating agencies, the regulated community, and the public. Mr. President, litigation does not build trust. Using voluntarily gathered information to prosecute good actors does not build trust. Enforcement depends on intimidation to act as a powerful deterrent. But it does not build trust. Reasonable audit laws will promote cooperation between regulated entities and their regulators. We should ensure that people who act in good faith and who go the extra mile don't face stricter enforcement than those companies that do nothing. Audit laws do build trust. Most importantly, they will result in a cleaner and healthier environment. I look forward to working on this issue when the Senate reconvenes next year. It has been a broad bipartisan issue in the States and I know it can be a broad bipartisan solution here in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent the period for morning business now be extended until the hour of 1:30.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the fast-track bill that is before us. I have followed the debate on this legislation very closely. I have listened to my colleagues discuss at length the issues of trade flows, foreign direct investment, the delegation of authority, and unfair trade agreements. It has been an interesting debate for this freshman Senator. I want to share with my colleagues the feelings that my constituents have expressed to me. Many of them have deep concerns about our progress on trade. Intense import competition makes them feel as if they have been left behind in the pursuit of fair trade. There is an issue here that is far more important to my constituents than trade, however, but it is inextricably linked to their ability to compete. While the administration vows to fight for fair trade with foreign countries, people in Wyoming want this administration to fight for fair regulation in this country. For them, fair trade will not stimulate economic growth when their growth is halted by unreasonable regulations. It seems that there is a real disconnect in our administration's policies on economic health. While one side of the administration is promoting job growth in exports, the other side is shutting down our enterprises with overly restrictive environmental regulations. There is an inconsistency here that is difficult to explain to people in Wyoming. They do not understand why the administration supports export growth, but allows the Environmental Protection Agency to issue and adopt regulations such as the new particulate matter and ozone standards for air quality. How does this relate to the fast-track bill we are debating? It connects in two ways. The first issue is jobs. The purpose of the bill before us is to promote job growth--which is a good purpose and I support it. Unreasonable regulatory mandates, however, do not create jobs. Second, like fast track, environmental regulation is a delegated authority. And in my opinion, it is one delegated authority that is out of control. Let me first discuss what is wrong with the standards and how they will destroy jobs. They were formulated and adopted with a disturbing lack of scientific consensus; with no accountability; and with a genuine disregard for the real effects they will have on working people. The accuracy of scientific information in the formulation of scientific rules is critical for a democracy. Democracies cannot survive without being able to rely on the precision of their scientific information. Furthermore, democracies cannot survive when bureaucracies are able to impose expensive mandates without any accountability. Democracy depends on representation along with taxation. Bureaucrats must consult with elected representatives before imposing massive costs on our citizens. With the adoption of these unreasonable standards, the EPA and the administration have failed on both of these counts. There are numerous examples that show a lack of scientific consensus in the promulgation of these new air quality standards. The EPA's own Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, stated that at this point, ``there is no adequately articulated scientific basis for making regulatory decisions concerning a particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard.'' The administration's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences dismissed the EPA's claims about the relationship between childhood asthma and air quality. They observed that the asthma rate in Philadelphia has soared even as that city's air pollution levels have plummeted. They also noted that some of the highest asthma rates in the world occur in Australia and New Zealand--two countries with excellent air quality. Strangely enough, while the EPA is promulgating expensive rules, other agencies have been pushing for economic growth. The U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce, the Small Business administration, and the Department of Agriculture--have all advocated the importance of fast track for growth. Even the President has emphasized the need for fast track in terms of job creation. He stressed that, ``In order for us to continue to create jobs and opportunities for our own people, and to maintain our world leadership, we have to continue to expand exports . . . We have to act now to continue [our] progress to make sure our economy will work for all the American people.'' Well, I stand here to tell you that unreasonably expensive regulations will not make our economy work for all American people. Achievements in trade expansion will not overcome the excessive costs imposed by regulatory mandates. And the costs are excessive. At first, the EPA estimated the cost would be less than $2.5 billion. Then, the President's own Council of Economic Advisors put the price at a considerably higher $60 billion. I have seen estimates for the cost as high as $150 billion. That was an amount quoted in a Senate Small Business Committee hearing we held earlier this year. I think the difference in magnitude between these estimates--$2.5 billion and $150 billion--deeply concerns me, and is-- in and of itself--a good reason to delay the standards. The disagreement continues. The EPA stated in its regulatory impact analysis that the rules will not have a significant effect on small businesses. But the Small Business Administration refuted that. The SBA confirmed that, ``Considering the large economic impacts suggested by EPA's own analysis, [which] will unquestionably fall on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of small businesses--this would be a startling proposition to the small business community.'' It will affect hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Just who are we trying to help our trade policy, Mr. President? The U.S. Department of Agriculture also raised concerns. They highlighted that EPA's air quality standards ``do not contain detailed information regarding specific effects on agriculture that may be caused by pollution or that may result from pollution controls.'' American agriculture is just beginning to see what is coming down the pike with regard to clean water standards. We are now taking a close look at how the EPA will be able to enforce ``total maximum daily load'' guidelines on streams in my State. This is a big concern for everyone who uses water in Wyoming. And we all do. The fact is, the unreasonable environmental regulations destroy thousands of U.S. jobs by raising input and compliance costs. In a 1996 study of regulatory costs, Thomas Hopkins of the Center for the Study of American Business, estimated that regulatory mandates already cost small businesses between $3,000 and $5,500 per employee. The new air quality standards will impose an enormous new cost on top of that without any verification of the benefits. The second connection this issue has to the debate of fast track is the issue of delegated authority. Congress has a responsibility to regulate commerce with foreign nations that is derived directly from the Constitution. Fast track delegates that authority to the executive branch. Whether one agrees with the practical need for fast track or not, no member can deny that it is a delegation of congressional responsibility. Our senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd, is an expert historian on constitutional law and he has spoken very eloquently and persuasively about this issue and against the fast- track legislation. I have also heard some very convincing arguments about the necessity of fast track. The argument is made that we need a strong voice in our multilateral trade negotiations--a voice that has the authority to back up its demands. Whether that is to be believed or not, recent developments make me very reluctant to delegate that authority. I have already stated my concerns about EPA's expansive interpretations of its delegated authority--now, we face the prospect that the administration will commit to dangerously unfair commitments in the global warming treaty to be discussed in Kyoto this December. The administration's positions on the global climate change treaty are a paramount example of politics over science. There has been no scientific consensus on this issue. There has been no proven relationship to show that the climate change treaty would have any effect on global temperatures. In fact, there isn't any proof that human intervention will make a difference. For some reason, however, the administration seems ready to embrace an agreement that would wage economic war against our own workers. According to one independent estimate, complying with U.N. reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions could cost this country as much as $350 billion per year. That is nearly $2,000 for every working American. The result will be the loss of 5 million American jobs directly related to energy use and production and the loss of several million more jobs that are indirectly related. The jobs will simply be transferred overseas--not to countries doing a better job, countries that are doing a worse job--something that is becoming easier and easier. It will be particularly easy if developing countries like China, India, Brazil, and Mexico do not impose the same air quality standards on themselves. That is what we are talking about in that treaty. This is not consistent with promoting economic growth. Furthermore, there is no scientific consensus. Most importantly it is unfair. Personally, these circumstances make me very hesitant to support fast track and to restrict my ability to modify agreements entered into by this administration. I cannot rationalize giving the Administration the authority to negotiate agreements with other countries when they refuse to negotiate domestic regulations with Congress. Before I close, I want to stress that I understand the importance of trade agreements. I understand that Americans have much to gain by reducing foreign barriers. I do believe fast track is necessary for practically negotiating multilateral agreements. I want to point out, however, that many of my constituents in the State of Wyoming have grave reservations about expanding NAFTA. Two of the largest sectors of Wyoming's economy, agriculture and energy, are in direct competition with Canadian producers. While our Nation as a whole stands to benefit from increased market access in Europe, South America, and Asia--my constituents need attention focused on unfair import competition from NAFTA. This problem is most apparent in our northern tier States. The Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, has clearly presented the unfair practices faced by our wheat and barley growers. United States food manufacturers import over $200 million per year in Canadian wheat--nearly all of which is sold by the Canadian state trading board. Cattle imports from Canada have also flooded our market. While national meat import levels have remained fairly stable, live imports from Canada into the Northern States have increased by over 100 percent since 1994. They have been especially unwelcome in a buyers' market that is saturated by oversupply and restricted by packer concentration. These Canadian imports exacerbated prices that were already down by over 40 percent. Most recently, the independent oil producers in my State, who already face stringent regulations and substantial Federal taxation, are now competing with 130,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude that is being pumped into the region through a new pipeline. Wyoming's posted sour crude prices have plummeted from over $19 per barrel in 1996 to just $14 per barrel this year. Needless to say, many of my Wyoming constituents feel they are getting the raw end of free trade. Most of them are people who deeply believe in fair and open trade, but they have real reservations about expanding agreements they don't feel are fair. I will conclude by stressing that it is good for the administration to set its sights on foreign markets, but they must also pay attention to what is happening at home. There is no reason to open up foreign markets while you are closing down your businesses by strangling them with regulations. We need to inject a standard of reasonableness in our environmental policy. The issues of job growth, trade, and domestic regulation are linked. I would like to see more consistency in our policy on economic growth. I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.