Jack Reed

Mr. REED

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

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would broaden the definition of capital expenditures for paratransit facilities. These are vehicles used for disabled American citizens. There are many communities in the United States that have these facilities. This definition would not adversely affect the allocation and would provide, we hope, for more use of the paratransit services. I encourage adoption of the amendment.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes for their work on this initiative. The bill they brought to the Banking Committee adds immensely to the act we are debating. It provides a critical component to the overall transportation in America, and that component is mass transit. This bill that Senator Sarbanes and Senator D'Amato have worked so hard on would provide $5 billion, which, over the next 6 years, would accumulate and provide sufficient funding for mass transit throughout the United States. The legislation recognizes that in many regions of the country, particularly the Northeast where I come from, mass transit is one of the critical elements of our transportation policy. We do not have the space to build more roads. We also are in a congested area of the country in which environmental factors are so critical. Without mass transit we cannot deal with transportation problems, environmental problems, and also the basic needs of the people of my State and my region to be productive citizens. This is particularly the case when we are talking about reforms we have just undertaken with respect to the welfare system, moving Americans from welfare to work. For many of these Americans, literally, their path to the work site is through mass transit, through buses, through subways. Without these vehicles, without these mechanisms, they cannot become effective participants in our work force. Transit is particularly important to my State of Rhode Island. Just this morning I had an opportunity to meet with our director of the Rhode Island Transit Authority, Dr. Beverly Scott. She is doing a remarkable job. She impressed upon me again the important role that transit plays in my State. Ridership is up in Rhode Island. We are one of the few States in the country with a statewide system, one system serving the entire State. Last year 19.5 million bus passengers used our rider services. In addition, we had over 450,000 paratransit riders. These are small jitneys that move around the State, many times serving disabled Americans who cannot use the traditional buses that we still have in our fleet. Indeed, 18 percent of the riders of mass transit in Rhode Island are seniors or disabled Americans. These are individuals who cannot avail themselves of the highways through their own vehicles in many cases. They depend upon transit. They depend upon our role here in Washington to adequately fund mass transit throughout America. We also have, because of our mass transit investments in Rhode Island, done some remarkable things with respect to the environment. It is estimated that the buses of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority over the past several years have kept about 1.2 million pounds of pollution from entering our system. In doing so, they have allowed us to keep pace, at least, with the demands for a cleaner environment up in Rhode Island. We have to do more, but without mass transit we would be in a much more perilous situation. There are those who are arguing with respect to transit that we should move away from traditional formulations of transit policy and start talking about minimum allocations, State by State, which, in effect, would reward certain parts of the country that do not have the history and, indeed I would argue, the strong need for transit services, as we do in the Northeast or in other parts, the older urban parts of America. I think this approach would be wrong. This bill we are considering in effect shapes national transportation policy. As Senators in the National Assembly, we have to recognize our national responsibilities. One responsibility is to continue to support those systems that are so essential to my region of the country, so essential historically. I was thinking, as I spoke to Dr. Scott, my director of public transportation, that his family goes way back in transit. My grandfather, James J. Monahan, worked for the United Electric Railway System, which was the local transit system. In fact, he started around the turn of the century. Before there were electric railroads, there were horse-drawn rail cars, and he was working on those. We have seen, in my section of the country, this reliance upon transportation for years. We must maintain appropriate funding. I hope we can do that because I think, if we would try to arbitrarily distort the funding for transit, if we would suddenly yield, not to sensible national transportation policy but simply regional interests, we could undercut something which is very essential, not only to my region but also to the Nation. If we do not have good transit in the Northeast and other parts of the country, we will not make our environmental targets, we will not be able to continue to develop a strong economy, we will not be able to ensure that all of our citizens have access to the job sites, we will not be able, in short, to do what we all want to do--provide for a transportation system that serves all of America. I should point out, too, that in this debate we have seen changes impacting, through the highway formulas, adversely on many parts of the country. Those parts of the country are most dependent on transit. The idea of reformulating highway policy, which many of us have approached with some sense of cooperation because of our view of the national economy and the national needs, to turn around now and inject strident regionalism into the transit formula would, I think, be a mistake. We cannot, I think, in our position, bear to see some of these changes in the highway position without the confidence that transit funding will be maintained on a reasonable basis and that we will continue to develop and support good transit throughout this country but particularly in those areas that historically have relied upon it. Mr. President, I hope we could summon not only the wisdom and courage to support this bill coming from the Banking Committee but also to oppose those proposals which would impose a minimum allocation on the States. We have to recognize and support transit as it exists today and develop new starts, for which there is plenty of funding in the proposal that Senator D'Amato is bringing to the floor to do that. But we cannot, I think, impose some arbitrary constraints on the transit formulation which so far has served us very well. I hope we can support this amendment from the Banking Committee, oppose the amendment that would distort it dramatically, and in doing so contribute, along with our highway provisions, to sound and very important national transportation policy. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment this afternoon to talk about the pending highway bill and particularly the transit provisions in that bill.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lautenberg- DeWine amendment, and I commend both Senators for this excellent amendment. It would, as previous speakers have discussed, establish a .08 blood alcohol concentration level, or BAC level, as a threshold for driving under the influence throughout the United States. As we all know, drunk driving is a scourge on the highways of the United States of America. It is something that we are all against. This legislation would take a very positive step to ensure that all States provide for a very rigorous .08 blood alcohol content standard as their measure of driving under the influence of alcohol. This law builds on previous success. Since 1986, alcohol-related fatalities on our roads have decreased by 28 percent. That is a result of the efforts of many, many people. It is the result of tougher laws, increased enforcement, public education, and particularly the work of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have done so much to illustrate this problem and reach policymakers throughout the United States. Although we are proud of this success, we can and must do more. In 1996, more than 17,000 people were killed because of drunk driving. Now, these deaths are not accidents because these are tragedies that could have been avoided--many of them--if we had tougher laws and better enforcement. That is what we are about today. We are trying to declare throughout this country that we have a tough standard for those who would drink and drive, a standard that would save lives throughout this country in every community. I don't think any of my colleagues would like to say to a family who lost a loved one and tell them, ``Well, the standard of .10 was OK,'' because in that situation it's not OK. We can do better. We know these laws work, and we want to make them work much, much better. In essence, the .08 blood alcohol concentration standard means fewer deaths on the roads of America, fewer driving fatalities, fewer young people cut down in the prime of their lives, and it means a safer America. That is what we should stand for today. Currently, 15 States already have adopted a .08 blood alcohol concentration standard. A recent study by Boston University showed that these States experienced a 16 percent decline in fatal driver crashes where the driver's BAC was .08 or greater. Already these States have shown that this standard saves lives. And we can do better. It is estimated that nationally, if we adopt the .08 standard, we can save between 500 and 600 lives a year. Those are impressive statistics. But lives alone are not at stake. Each year drunk driving accidents cost this country $45 billion. That is six times more than we spend on Pell grants. We can do better. We can save lives. We can save resources. We can make our world much, much safer. There are those who argue that this would put a huge constraint on law-abiding Americans who occasionally will have a drink and then drive. That is something I don't think is true at all because under this standard a 170-pound man must consume more than four drinks in an hour on an empty stomach to reach this BAC. A woman of 135 pounds would have to consume three drinks. That is not social drinking. That is drinking irresponsibly, and then getting into an automobile. This law will not affect the reasonable, rational, careful, deliberate person who may have one social drink or two and then drive. In fact, the American Medical Association said that really the beginning of impairment is not .08, it is .05 blood alcohol content. So this standard is far from what medical experts would argue is the beginning of deterioration of motor skills when one drives an automobile. We can do better. We have to recognize today that we must do better. There are those of my colleagues who have suggested that this proposal is an improper infringement on the prerogatives of the States. First of all, we have taken positive steps before in this land. For example, just a few years ago we adopted through congressional action a zero-tolerance policy that would say for young people driving that the blood alcohol content was basically zero, that they should have no drinks if they are driving an automobile, and we have seen success already. Mr. President, we have already seen the success of our zero-tolerance policy throughout the United States, a policy that was promulgated through Congress and adopted by many States, where fatalities at night by younger drivers have dropped 16 percent in States that are following the zero-tolerance policy. So this law and this approach is not an impermissible imposition on the States. It is a rational, reasonable way to encourage what is the right thing to do. It is small comfort that if one State, such as my State of Rhode Island, adopts this standard but it is not adopted next door in Massachusetts or Connecticut, and someone in Massachusetts comes speeding into my State. That is not a States' rights issue. That is an issue of interstate commerce, of national economy, of national highways that reach every corner of this country regardless of State lines. We don't stop the national highways at the State lines. We shouldn't stop good, sensible bills that will control drunk driving in this country at the State lines. I urge passage of this legislation, and again commend Senators Lautenberg and DeWine for their excellent effort. I yield my time. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, March 3rd was the eighth annual celebration of National Sportsmanship Day in over 10,000 schools in all fifty states and more than 100 countries throughout the world. Recognized by the President's Council on Physical Fitness, National Sportsmanship Day was conceived by the Institute for International Sport, located in my home state of Rhode Island. As the President's Council Co-Chairs Tom McMillen and Florence Griffith Joyner have stated, ``this event will serve as a highly visible, one-day effort to stress the importance of ethics and sportsmanship, not just on the athletic field but in all aspects of life. . . having a powerful and positive effect on the youth of the United States and the world.'' Heeding President Clinton's challenge to begin a serious dialogue on race relations in the United States, the centerpiece of this year's National Sportsmanship Day was a seminar and town meeting at the University of Rhode Island discussing race issues in sport. This day long event included panels composed of athletes, coaches, and journalists who discussed the many different aspects of these issues. In addition, the Institute has enlisted the help of several Sports Ethics Fellows, including Mills Lane, a Reno, Nevada district judge and internationally known professional boxing referee, Billy Packer, CBS sports commentator, and Ken Dryden, the president and general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs. These men and women are wonderful role models who can be admired for more than just their athletic prowess. They have consistently demonstrated an interest in furthering the principles of honesty and integrity in sport and society. These Sports Ethics Fellows are helping to teach the important lessons of National Sportsmanship Day by developing programs for National Sportsmanship Day. Through competition, young athletes can learn that while winning is a worthy goal, honor, discipline, and hard work are more important. Indeed, these values will guide them in all aspects of everyday life. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports and the Rhode Island Congressional delegation in recognizing this day and the principles it embodies.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the bipartisan compromise amendment offered by Senators McCain and Feingold. This would be reasonable but limited reform of our campaign finance system, reform that is long overdue. This legislation would effectively change two very important issues with respect to campaign finance reform. First, it would ban soft money, those unlimited, unregulated gifts by corporations, wealthy individuals, and unions to political parties. The soft money issue has created a great crisis within the electoral system of the United States. Second, the bill would require those who run broadcasts which expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate within a certain window, 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, to play by the same rules applying to candidates and others who participate in political campaigns. Thus, organizations funding such broadcasts would have to disclose the individuals and political action committees which fund their advertisements. This would curtail what has become an explosion throughout our American political system. Phony issue advertisements are unconstrained, cropping up suddenly, without attribution, to strike at candidates. These are two very important reforms which must be implemented to preserve the integrity of our political system by inspiring within the American people confidence that we, in fact, are conducting elections and not auctions for public offices. I believe these provisions are very, very important. Again, I commend both Senators McCain and Feingold for their efforts. I also commend my colleagues from the States of Vermont and Maine. Senator Jeffords and Senator Snowe are proposing another amendment which would help break the current gridlock we have on this legislation. The Snowe-Jeffords proposal also addresses the issue of phony advertising through better disclosure of those who are participating in campaigns. I think their efforts are commendable. Frankly I prefer a much more robust form of campaign finance reform. I believe that at the heart of our problem is the Supreme Court decision of Buckley v. Valeo, which more than 20 years ago held that political campaign expenditures could not be limited. Frankly, I think the decision is wrong. Justice White, who dissented from that opinion and, by the way, was the only Member of that Court with any practical political experience, declared quite clearly that Congress has not only the ability but the obligation to protect the Republic from two great enemies--open violence and insidious corruption. Indeed, the Court in Buckley did accept part of that reasoning by outlawing unlimited contributions to political campaigns, but they maintained that unlimited expenditures were constitutionally permissible. I believe that we should go further than this bill proposes today. Indeed, we have practical examples within the United States of systems that do constrain contributions and expenditures in political campaigns. I was interested to note that in Albuquerque, NM, since 1974, the mayor's campaign has been limited to an expenditure of $80,000, equivalent to the salary of the mayor. I know as I go around my home State of Rhode Island, people often ask why a candidate would spend more money in a campaign than he or she would receive in salary to hold that office. In Albuquerque, they took the rather interesting step of capping expenditures to the pay of the mayor. It turns out that for the last 23 years, the Albuquerque system worked well. Unfortunately, last year the Albuquerque law was challenged in court under the Buckley v. Valeo theory. Up until last year, the municipal law was a model of not only good campaign finance practice but of also good electoral politics. A former mayor, who held the position during the challenge said, ``No one's speech was curtailed, no candidates were excluded, the system worked well.'' I hope we can adopt on another day robust campaign finance reform that would begin to revise the Buckley v. Valeo decision. But today we are here to support McCain-Feingold, to take a limited step forward to ensure that we go after the two most pressing problems currently facing our political system: the prevalence of soft money and the explosion of issue advertising by third parties. These unaccountable groups surreptitiously enter the race, deal their blow and leave. I believe if we support today the McCain-Feingold formula, we can, in fact, take a step forward to ensure that our political system is recognized by people as legitimate and positive. I yield back my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Christmas in April USA, our Nation's oldest volunteer home repair initiative. This program has helped to rehabilitate the homes of over 31,000 elderly, low-income, and disabled individuals nationwide. I would particularly like to recognize the 5th anniversary of the Christmas in April program's arrival in Providence, Rhode Island, where it is making a difference in many communities. In just five years, Providence's Christmas in April has helped to restore over 100 dwellings, through the efforts and commitment of thousands of volunteers. Indeed, this important initiative has dedicated almost $1 million to improve our communities and to help Rhode Island's less fortunate homeowners. The Christmas in April program exemplifies the true spirit of volunteerism. Mr. President, I would particularly like to commend Providence College and its President, Reverend Philip A. Smith, for his leadership in creating our nation's first Christmas in April campus chapter. I am convinced that this unique volunteer service organization will continue to better Rhode Island's communities for many years to come.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with my Republican colleague on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Susan Collins, as well as Senators Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, Mikulski, Conrad, Levin, Akaka, Kerry, Johnson, Torricelli, Kerrey, and Hollings to reform and reauthorize an important student aid program, the State Student Incentive Grant program or SSIG. Last fall, I was pleased to join forces with Senator Collins to lead the fight to restore funding for SSIG on an 84 to 4 vote. This program provides funding on the basis of a dollar for dollar match to help states provide need-based financial aid in the form of grants and community service work study awards to 700,000 students nationwide, and 13,000 students from my home state of Rhode Island. Grants are targeted to the neediest undergraduate and graduate students. As I noted last fall during the debate on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill, many states would not have established or maintained their need-based financial aid programs without this important federal incentive. Moreover, students, searching for sources of need-based grants to make their higher education dreams a reality, have come to rely on SSIG. Indeed, the importance of SSIG has increased over the years as skyrocketing college costs have eroded the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, and as the grant-loan imbalance widens. Twenty-three years ago, 80 percent of student aid came in the form of grants and 20 percent in the form of loans. Today the opposite is true, and students face significant debt upon graduation. In addition, low-income students are still finding it particularly hard to afford higher education. Less than 50% of high school graduates with incomes under $22,000 go to college, while more than 80% of their higher income counterparts pursue education beyond high school. To address these trends and ensure that needy students have alternatives to borrowing, SSIG must be strengthened during the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The legislation we introduce today, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Act, does this by reauthorizing and making significant reforms to the SSIG program. The LEAP Act provides states greater incentives and flexibility to help needy students attend college. Our legislation creates a two-tier grant program. Any funds appropriated over a trigger level of funding-- $35 million-- would require an increased state match of two new dollars for every federal dollar. However, states would gain new flexibility to use these funds for activities such as increasing grant amounts or carrying out academic or merit scholarship programs, community service programs, early intervention, mentorship, and career education programs, secondary to postsecondary education transition programs, or scholarship programs for students wishing to enter the teaching profession. These improvements restore the incentive nature of the program by attracting more state funds for student aid and providing greater flexibility for the use of these funds, while not disenfranchising states that can only match according to the current 1-to-1 requirement. The LEAP Act is supported by students, educators, and student aid officials, including the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP), the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the American Council on Education (ACE), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the United States Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), the United States Student Association (USSA), and the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students. Mr. President, I believe we should help all our citizens achieve the American Dream and ensure access to higher education, especially for hard working families whose wages have not kept up with inflation. I urge my colleagues to join us in this critical effort to strengthen federal-state student aid partnerships and our commitment to America's students. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation with my Republican colleague on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Susan Collins, as well as Senators Kennedy, Murray, Dodd, Mikulski, Conrad, Levin, Akaka, Kerry, Johnson, Torricelli, Kerrey, and Hollings to reform and reauthorize an important student aid program, the State Student Incentive Grant program or SSIG. Last fall, I was pleased to join forces with Senator Collins to lead the fight to restore funding for SSIG on an 84 to 4 vote. This program provides funding on the basis of a dollar for dollar match to help states provide need-based financial aid in the form of grants and community service work study awards to 700,000 students nationwide, and 13,000 students from my home state of Rhode Island. Grants are targeted to the neediest undergraduate and graduate students. As I noted last fall during the debate on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill, many states would not have established or maintained their need-based financial aid programs without this important federal incentive. Moreover, students, searching for sources of need-based grants to make their higher education dreams a reality, have come to rely on SSIG. Indeed, the importance of SSIG has increased over the years as skyrocketing college costs have eroded the purchasing power of the Pell Grant, and as the grant-loan imbalance widens. Twenty-three years ago, 80 percent of student aid came in the form of grants and 20 percent in the form of loans. Today the opposite is true, and students face significant debt upon graduation. In addition, low-income students are still finding it particularly hard to afford higher education. Less than 50% of high school graduates with incomes under $22,000 go to college, while more than 80% of their higher income counterparts pursue education beyond high school. To address these trends and ensure that needy students have alternatives to borrowing, SSIG must be strengthened during the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. The legislation we introduce today, the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Act, does this by reauthorizing and making significant reforms to the SSIG program. The LEAP Act provides states greater incentives and flexibility to help needy students attend college. Our legislation creates a two-tier grant program. Any funds appropriated over a trigger level of funding-- $35 million-- would require an increased state match of two new dollars for every federal dollar. However, states would gain new flexibility to use these funds for activities such as increasing grant amounts or carrying out academic or merit scholarship programs, community service programs, early intervention, mentorship, and career education programs, secondary to postsecondary education transition programs, or scholarship programs for students wishing to enter the teaching profession. These improvements restore the incentive nature of the program by attracting more state funds for student aid and providing greater flexibility for the use of these funds, while not disenfranchising states that can only match according to the current 1-to-1 requirement. The LEAP Act is supported by students, educators, and student aid officials, including the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs (NASSGAP), the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), the American Council on Education (ACE), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), the United States Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), the United States Student Association (USSA), and the National Association of Graduate-Professional Students. Mr. President, I believe we should help all our citizens achieve the American Dream and ensure access to higher education, especially for hard working families whose wages have not kept up with inflation. I urge my colleagues to join us in this critical effort to strengthen federal-state student aid partnerships and our commitment to America's students. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, in supporting and introducing the HEALTHY Kids Act and thank him for his kind words. I must say, if there is anyone who has been a true leader and true hero in this struggle to date, it has been Kent Conrad, whose leadership helped pull together not only an impressive array of cosponsors but, with over hundreds of witnesses and many, many sessions, he was able to get to the substance of a very complicated and difficult issue: How are we going to respond to the crisis of teenage smoking in the United States? How are we going to protect the public health of America, particularly America's children? Today we are introducing the HEALTHY Kids Act, which will, I believe, do that. Again, I commend Senator Conrad for his great leadership and effort, and I look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to develop legislation that will once and for all prevent the illegal sale of cigarettes to children in this country. We are all aware of the depressing statistics with respect to smoking and children in the United States. Today, some 50 million Americans are addicted to tobacco smoke. Every year, 1 million children become regular users of cigarettes, tobacco. One-third of them will die prematurely of lung cancer, emphysema, or other horrible smoking related illnesses. This is an addiction. Fully three-quarters of smokers want to quit but they cannot because they are addicted. The most disturbing aspect of this addiction is it begins with young people. Mr. President, 90 percent of adult smokers today began to smoke while they were 18 years old or less. In fact, this goes down to children who are 10, 11, 12 years old. It is a shocking, disturbing, and all-too-real aspect of American life and culture. We have an opportunity, indeed an obligation, to do something about it. That is why I am here, along with Senator Conrad, to join in the introduction of this HEALTHY Kids Act. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a situation in which adult smoking is beginning to stabilize. Unfortunately, teen smoking continues to rise, with a more than 25 percent increase among high school students. That is a bad omen for the future, a bad omen for the country. It is too easy for children to buy cigarettes. It is too easy, in a climate in which the tobacco industry spends upward of $5 billion a year making cigarette smoking appear to be alluring, sophisticated, adult-oriented--all those things which are attractive to children. We know from the record that has emerged over the last several months in court proceedings that this is not a coincidence, we know that children have been deliberately targeted by cigarette companies. They are the replacement customers for the 400,000 Americans who die each year of smoking-related diseases. We have to stop that insidious replacement, that insidious attack on the youth of America. We begin this legislative process in a situation in which the tobacco industry has worked hard to earn the distrust--let me say it again--the distrust of the American people. Over the years they have not been candid. They have deliberately confused, fought against, and frustrated attempts to regulate their product in the marketplace. I recently came across an interesting story about youthful smoking among boys. One of the research scientists said, ``The cigarette smoker is slowly and surely poisoning himself and is largely unconscious of it.'' That report was in Education Magazine in 1909. The tobacco industry has long known that cigarette smoking is harmful to children, and harmful to public health. In 1963, Battelle Laboratories in Switzerland did a series of studies for the British American Tobacco Company, that's the parent of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The conclusion, after review of these studies by the general counsel of Brown & Williamson, was shown as follows: ``We are then in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug, effective in the release of stress mechanisms.'' Since 1960, the industry has known they were selling an addictive product, and has known they were selling a product that killed people. It has all, though, been obscured and dressed up by advertising that would suggest to everyone that smoking is not harmful; indeed, claiming it is healthful. That is absolutely wrong. Back in the 1920s, the companies that were selling cigarettes were advertising themes like, ``20,679 physicians say Luckies are less irritating.'' Promoting cigarettes, in effect, as a healthful practice and not a harmful practice. Another theme of those days was, ``For digestion's sake, smoke Camels.'' Again emphasizing an illusory therapeutic value that never existed in cigarettes. In 1953, an advertisement read, ``This is it. L&M filters are just what the doctor ordered.'' As if the medical profession was endorsing a product which they knew was harmful and which they suspected, but perhaps did not yet know, was highly addictive. In this Congress, we have tried to rein in the use of tobacco by children, tried to control the access of young people and tried to warn the American public about the dangers of tobacco. In the 1960s, we brought the industry, we thought, kicking and screaming to accept legislatively mandated warning label. Only after the fact did we learn that the industry privately accepted this label as a good fortune because it allowed them to defend themselves in court with the notion that smokers assumed the risk because they read these labels. Only recently, with the evidence that is more and more conclusive each day of the addictive quality of cigarettes, has the industry begun to respond. Today we are here to ensure that the past is not repeated, the past of addiction of young people to cigarettes and the past of a very pliant Congress, not effectively regulating the tobacco industry. That is why the HEALTHY Kids Act is so important. It represents a comprehensive effort to ensure that our children are safe and the public health is protected. One of the important elements of this bill is a price increase of $1.50 a pack. This is not in any way an attempt of retribution on the industry. Rather, it recognizes the fact that a price increase is probably the strongest deterrent there is to teenage smoking. Unlike adult smokers who may already very well addicted, teenagers will respond to price increases. A price increase is one sure way, perhaps the best way, we can ensure that teenagers do not smoke. The second aspect of the act is giving the FDA full authority over tobacco products, all tobacco products. This proposal would not condition their authority; it would give the FDA the authority, the responsibility, the obligation to regulate tobacco as it regulates so many other drugs and so many other products in our society. This legislation also includes strong look-back penalties. The HEALTHY Kids Act would set a goal of reducing teenage smoking rates by 67 percent in 10 years and would hold manufacturers accountable for these tough goals by imposing 10-cent-a-pack penalties on the industry across the board and 40-cent penalties on brand-specific products that do not meet the targeted reductions. There would be no rebate. In the proposal the industry negotiated with the Attorneys General, there would be the possibility of a company receiving a rebate by just trying hard. This legislation would require the goal be met, not simply the effort be made. This would also include comprehensive anti-smoking programs, through advertising, prevention programs, and other means that would help ensure that children do not smoke. These program would also give adults, if they wish to change, access to programs to make sure they can make that transition from smoking to nonsmoking. Because of the money that is generated, we will be able to commit significant resources to programs that are extremely important, programs that have been outlined so well by Senator Conrad: education, child care, health resources. Also, this legislation, importantly, does not curtail prospective liability for the tobacco industry. It would settle the suits that have been lodged by the State attorneys general. Also, it would settle claims with respect to governmental entities, but it would allow individual citizens who have been harmed and who will be harmed by tobacco smoke to bring their case to court. I believe this is a crucial part of the legislation, because without this, the other mechanisms that we develop may well be undermined by sophisticated corporate reorganizations by the industry, by challenges to aspects of the law, and by many things which the tobacco companies have done in the past to remake themselves to comply with Federal statutes. Statutes which Congress thought would control their behavior but which in many cases not only did not control their behavior but gave the tobacco companies additional ammunition to defend themselves against civil suits in the courts. I believe that this liability issue is an important one and one that distinguishes this legislation from others that have been introduced in this Congress. We here today have the opportunity to do what all Americans want us to do, ensure that children do not have ready access to cigarettes, ensure that the next generation of Americans is not addicted before they become adults, ensure that the public health in this country is protected, ensure that we are able to create an environment in which a parent does not have to confront what must be one of the most harrowing moments, the realization that a young son or a young daughter is beginning to smoke and realizing also, as we do today, that that means that this child will die prematurely. No parent should have to endure that moment. No child should have to be subject to the barrage of advertising, the barrage of influences which have forced that child to smoke cigarettes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill and to meet these goals. I look forward, as we all do, to the day in which cigarette smoking is not something that we associate with the youth of this country. I yield my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, in supporting and introducing the HEALTHY Kids Act and thank him for his kind words. I must say, if there is anyone who has been a true leader and true hero in this struggle to date, it has been Kent Conrad, whose leadership helped pull together not only an impressive array of cosponsors but, with over hundreds of witnesses and many, many sessions, he was able to get to the substance of a very complicated and difficult issue: How are we going to respond to the crisis of teenage smoking in the United States? How are we going to protect the public health of America, particularly America's children? Today we are introducing the HEALTHY Kids Act, which will, I believe, do that. Again, I commend Senator Conrad for his great leadership and effort, and I look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to develop legislation that will once and for all prevent the illegal sale of cigarettes to children in this country. We are all aware of the depressing statistics with respect to smoking and children in the United States. Today, some 50 million Americans are addicted to tobacco smoke. Every year, 1 million children become regular users of cigarettes, tobacco. One-third of them will die prematurely of lung cancer, emphysema, or other horrible smoking related illnesses. This is an addiction. Fully three-quarters of smokers want to quit but they cannot because they are addicted. The most disturbing aspect of this addiction is it begins with young people. Mr. President, 90 percent of adult smokers today began to smoke while they were 18 years old or less. In fact, this goes down to children who are 10, 11, 12 years old. It is a shocking, disturbing, and all-too-real aspect of American life and culture. We have an opportunity, indeed an obligation, to do something about it. That is why I am here, along with Senator Conrad, to join in the introduction of this HEALTHY Kids Act. In my home State of Rhode Island, we have a situation in which adult smoking is beginning to stabilize. Unfortunately, teen smoking continues to rise, with a more than 25 percent increase among high school students. That is a bad omen for the future, a bad omen for the country. It is too easy for children to buy cigarettes. It is too easy, in a climate in which the tobacco industry spends upward of $5 billion a year making cigarette smoking appear to be alluring, sophisticated, adult-oriented--all those things which are attractive to children. We know from the record that has emerged over the last several months in court proceedings that this is not a coincidence, we know that children have been deliberately targeted by cigarette companies. They are the replacement customers for the 400,000 Americans who die each year of smoking-related diseases. We have to stop that insidious replacement, that insidious attack on the youth of America. We begin this legislative process in a situation in which the tobacco industry has worked hard to earn the distrust--let me say it again--the distrust of the American people. Over the years they have not been candid. They have deliberately confused, fought against, and frustrated attempts to regulate their product in the marketplace. I recently came across an interesting story about youthful smoking among boys. One of the research scientists said, ``The cigarette smoker is slowly and surely poisoning himself and is largely unconscious of it.'' That report was in Education Magazine in 1909. The tobacco industry has long known that cigarette smoking is harmful to children, and harmful to public health. In 1963, Battelle Laboratories in Switzerland did a series of studies for the British American Tobacco Company, that's the parent of Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The conclusion, after review of these studies by the general counsel of Brown & Williamson, was shown as follows: ``We are then in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug, effective in the release of stress mechanisms.'' Since 1960, the industry has known they were selling an addictive product, and has known they were selling a product that killed people. It has all, though, been obscured and dressed up by advertising that would suggest to everyone that smoking is not harmful; indeed, claiming it is healthful. That is absolutely wrong. Back in the 1920s, the companies that were selling cigarettes were advertising themes like, ``20,679 physicians say Luckies are less irritating.'' Promoting cigarettes, in effect, as a healthful practice and not a harmful practice. Another theme of those days was, ``For digestion's sake, smoke Camels.'' Again emphasizing an illusory therapeutic value that never existed in cigarettes. In 1953, an advertisement read, ``This is it. L&M filters are just what the doctor ordered.'' As if the medical profession was endorsing a product which they knew was harmful and which they suspected, but perhaps did not yet know, was highly addictive. In this Congress, we have tried to rein in the use of tobacco by children, tried to control the access of young people and tried to warn the American public about the dangers of tobacco. In the 1960s, we brought the industry, we thought, kicking and screaming to accept legislatively mandated warning label. Only after the fact did we learn that the industry privately accepted this label as a good fortune because it allowed them to defend themselves in court with the notion that smokers assumed the risk because they read these labels. Only recently, with the evidence that is more and more conclusive each day of the addictive quality of cigarettes, has the industry begun to respond. Today we are here to ensure that the past is not repeated, the past of addiction of young people to cigarettes and the past of a very pliant Congress, not effectively regulating the tobacco industry. That is why the HEALTHY Kids Act is so important. It represents a comprehensive effort to ensure that our children are safe and the public health is protected. One of the important elements of this bill is a price increase of $1.50 a pack. This is not in any way an attempt of retribution on the industry. Rather, it recognizes the fact that a price increase is probably the strongest deterrent there is to teenage smoking. Unlike adult smokers who may already very well addicted, teenagers will respond to price increases. A price increase is one sure way, perhaps the best way, we can ensure that teenagers do not smoke. The second aspect of the act is giving the FDA full authority over tobacco products, all tobacco products. This proposal would not condition their authority; it would give the FDA the authority, the responsibility, the obligation to regulate tobacco as it regulates so many other drugs and so many other products in our society. This legislation also includes strong look-back penalties. The HEALTHY Kids Act would set a goal of reducing teenage smoking rates by 67 percent in 10 years and would hold manufacturers accountable for these tough goals by imposing 10-cent-a-pack penalties on the industry across the board and 40-cent penalties on brand-specific products that do not meet the targeted reductions. There would be no rebate. In the proposal the industry negotiated with the Attorneys General, there would be the possibility of a company receiving a rebate by just trying hard. This legislation would require the goal be met, not simply the effort be made. This would also include comprehensive anti-smoking programs, through advertising, prevention programs, and other means that would help ensure that children do not smoke. These program would also give adults, if they wish to change, access to programs to make sure they can make that transition from smoking to nonsmoking. Because of the money that is generated, we will be able to commit significant resources to programs that are extremely important, programs that have been outlined so well by Senator Conrad: education, child care, health resources. Also, this legislation, importantly, does not curtail prospective liability for the tobacco industry. It would settle the suits that have been lodged by the State attorneys general. Also, it would settle claims with respect to governmental entities, but it would allow individual citizens who have been harmed and who will be harmed by tobacco smoke to bring their case to court. I believe this is a crucial part of the legislation, because without this, the other mechanisms that we develop may well be undermined by sophisticated corporate reorganizations by the industry, by challenges to aspects of the law, and by many things which the tobacco companies have done in the past to remake themselves to comply with Federal statutes. Statutes which Congress thought would control their behavior but which in many cases not only did not control their behavior but gave the tobacco companies additional ammunition to defend themselves against civil suits in the courts. I believe that this liability issue is an important one and one that distinguishes this legislation from others that have been introduced in this Congress. We here today have the opportunity to do what all Americans want us to do, ensure that children do not have ready access to cigarettes, ensure that the next generation of Americans is not addicted before they become adults, ensure that the public health in this country is protected, ensure that we are able to create an environment in which a parent does not have to confront what must be one of the most harrowing moments, the realization that a young son or a young daughter is beginning to smoke and realizing also, as we do today, that that means that this child will die prematurely. No parent should have to endure that moment. No child should have to be subject to the barrage of advertising, the barrage of influences which have forced that child to smoke cigarettes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill and to meet these goals. I look forward, as we all do, to the day in which cigarette smoking is not something that we associate with the youth of this country. I yield my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael S. Pinto, Superintendent of Schools in Middletown, Rhode Island. After 36 years, Superintendent Pinto is leaving the school system where he began his career, bound for a well-deserved retirement. During his tenure in Middletown, Superintendent Pinto has held almost every possible position one can hold in the field of education. He has been a teacher, a principal, a business manager for the school district, an assistant superintendent, and, most recently, the superintendent. Over the years--even when I represented Rhode Island's neighboring Congressional district in the House of Representatives, I was privileged to have the advice of Superintendent Pinto on a variety of issues related to education, from school choice to educational standards. Indeed, I could always count on hearing from Superintendent Pinto about Impact Aid. He is the program's number one advocate. His commitment to Impact Aid underscores his overall dedication to Middletown's schools and students and the cause of education. A measure of his commitment was shown in a recent news article which reported that in the last fifteen years he has had no more than seven consecutive days off. As superintendent, Mr. Pinto has presided over a number of successful initiatives including the fundamental repair of two schools, a new system of measuring student learning, and an optional all-day kindergarten. Superintendent Pinto has consistently sought to share the professional accolades he has received with his colleagues in Middletown. His emphasis on team work has earned him the admiration and respect of those who have worked with him. I thank Superintendent Pinto for his tremendous dedication and congratulate him for all that he has done for Middletown. While the Middletown school system will miss Michael Pinto, I am sure that even in retirement he will continue his work to improve education and better his community. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Chafee today in saluting Superintendent Pinto and wishing him the best in his retirement.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator.

Mr. REED. Reserving the right to object, I don't know what I did, but a few minutes ago I had 5 minutes. There wasn't 5 minutes----

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report on S. 830, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997. This is an important bill with serious implications for the protection of the health of the American people. Although I did not support this bill when it was first considered on the floor of the Senate, I am pleased that significant changes have been made and that this final version of the legislation is worthy of support. This FDA reform bill is the result of ongoing negotiations both prior to and subsequent to the Labor Committee's markup of the bill. Through this process, a number of provisions that seriously threatened public health and safety were dropped or otherwise resolved. I am particularly pleased that improvements made include important protections to the third party review process. Significant changes and additions also include provisions regarding health claims for food products, health care economic claims, a notice of discontinuance when a sole manufacturer stops producing a drug, and a range of other items. The original Senate-passed bill contained a provision regarding the FDA device approval process that posed a serious threat to public health. In effect, the Senate-passed bill would have limited the FDS's current authority to ask device manufacturers for safety data. It would have prohibited the FDA from considering how a new device could be used if the manufacturer has not included that use in the proposed labeling. As a general matter, the FDA does not consider uses that the manufacturer has not included in its proposed labeling. However, there are instances when the label does not tell the whole story. It is these instances--when the label is false or misleading--that my and Senator Kennedy's amendment addressed. I was not alone in my concern about this issue. Indeed, this provision was also identified as worthy of a veto threat by the administration. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services said on numerous occasions that if this provision were not changed, that she and other top Presidential advisers would recommend that President Clinton veto this bill. By accepting the House language on this device labeling issue, the conferees have struck a reasonable compromise that will give the FDA the authority it needs to ensure that medical devices are safe and effective. In this case, the legislative process has worked, and worked well. I commend the conference committee for the sensible compromise they reached on this important issue. The FDA is responsible for assuring that the Nation's food supply is pure and healthy and to provide a guarantee that drugs and devices are safe and effective. The FDA has an immense impact on the lives of all Americans. Indeed, the FDA's mandate requires it to regulate over one- third of our Nation's products. Few Government agencies provide this kind of important protection for the American people. On a daily basis, the FDA faces the delicate balance between ensuring that patients have swift access to new drugs and devices while guaranteeing that those new products are safe and effective. The bill we are considering today contains many positive elements. It reauthorizes the important Prescription Drug User Fee Act, one of the most effective regulatory reforms ever enacted. The legislation also includes a number of provisions that will improve and streamline the regulation of prescription drugs, biologic products, and medical devices. I believe that these important reforms to the operation of the Food and Drug Administration will increase its efficiency and speed the delivery of important new medical treatments to patients. One of the most important elements of this legislation is the aforementioned reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, often referred to as PDUFA. PDUFA established an important partnership between the agency and the industry, and has successfully streamlined the drug approval process. I am pleased that this bill will provide expedited access to investigational therapies. This provision builds on current FDA programs related to AIDS and cancer drugs. Another important element will allow the designation of some drugs as ``fast-track'' medications, thus facilitating development and expediting approval of new treatments of serious or life-threatening conditions. The bill will also require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a data base on the status of clinical trials relating to the treatment, detection, and prevention of serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions. Patients have long needed access to such information, and I am pleased that this bill provides a mechanism to grant it. I am also pleased that this bill contains my amendment requiring that within 18 months of the date of enactment, the FDA must issue regulations for sunburn prevention and treatment products. In August 1978, the FDA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a monograph for over-the-counter sunscreen drug products. To date--almost 20 years later--while progress has been made, this rule has not been made final. Sunburn prevention and treatment products can go far to help prevent sun exposure related to skin cancer. The facts on skin cancer are compelling: one person an hour dies of malignant melanoma; half of all new cancers are skin cancers; one million Americans will develop skin cancer this year, making it nearly as common as all other types of cancer combined. The Food and Drug Administration has a key role in our response to this skin cancer epidemic through the regulation of safe and effective sunburn prevention products that are vital to avoiding skin damage from the sun's rays. Mr. President, I am pleased that this compromise is a bill that I can support. I look forward to working with my colleagues to oversee the implementation of this important legislation and to ensure that its provisions streamline FDA processes while also protecting the public health of the American people. I compliment Chairman Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and many other colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representatives who have worked hard on this bill together to eliminate many other troublesome provisions in the bill as originally introduced. Mr. President, again, I support the conference report on S. 830, the FDA reform bill. The challenge throughout this process has been to balance a more efficient, streamlined, and productive FDA with their obligation to protect the public health. It has been a difficult task, but we made remarkable progress over the last several months. At the committee level, there was a serious discussion and debate. I could not support that version because at that time there were still outstanding issues which I thought could jeopardize the public health and safety. When we reached the floor, there was another serious and productive debate about this legislation. Once again, I felt there were issues that had to be further addressed before I could support the measure. Today, happily, through the work of the conferees and colleagues on the floor today, we have reached a point where we have legislation that both provides for a streamlined, productive, and efficient FDA, and continues to give FDA the authority to protect the public health. With specific regard to the debate on the floor, there was one major issue that I felt was very important, and that was to allow the FDA to have the authority to carefully review medical devices that may be used by the public. The legislation at that time circumscribed significantly the ability of the FDA to look beyond the label, look beyond the listed use by the manufacturer, to contemplate possible other uses that may take place when the product is in the stream of commerce. Fortunately, through the work of the conferees, this situation has been resolved. Indeed, on the floor I offered an amendment with Senator Kennedy. It did not pass, but I think that effort helped spur a concentrated effort during the conference to develop a legislative formula to give the FDA the power to regulate these devices appropriately. We have many, many things to be thankful for in this bill. One issue I would like to address, also, which does not rise up, in some respects, to the major reforms, PDUFA or these issues, but it is critically important; that is, the issue of protecting the public with respect to sunscreen products and sunburn products. I am pleased to note that the FDA has been directed to promulgate regulations within 18 months with respect to these products which are sold to the public to protect them from the Sun. This might seem like an innocent product, but, in fact, we are seeing a remarkable growth in incidence of skin cancer throughout the United States. One person an hour dies of malignant melanoma, skin cancer. Half of all the new cancers developing are skin cancer. One million Americans will develop skin cancer this year alone. So we have to begin to focus our attention on those products which are advertised to protect the American public. Once again, I think this is totally consistent with the role of the FDA. I am pleased that this provision has been included in the legislation. Let me conclude by saying, again, I believe we have struck the vital balance between an efficient, productive FDA and their obligation, historically and statutorily, to protect the public health. We have done that through the work of Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and many others. I personally thank them and applaud them for their efforts today. I would be remiss if I didn't also thank my staff member, Bonnie Hogue, for her help through this entire process. I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I believe I have 5 minutes.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I agree with the Senator. I also would suggest that these goals of better environmental quality, both here in the United States and worldwide, and increased international trade are not mutually exclusive.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for that kind word. We have an opportunity to provide balance in this agreement. No one is objecting to the need for better support for investment overseas. No one is objecting to the adoption of commercial laws and agricultural policies that are better, and, in fact, according to this legislation, mirror U.S. policy. But what we are saying is, if you simply create an environment for investment that leads to the opportunity for poor environmental quality--and I also add the environment--in which workers are hardly paid anything for hours of work--15 cents an hour is hardly something that is going to compete with American workers and never should be something that we would see as a goal. We should raise those. But if we do not do that, you have a one-sided agreement. You have an agreement which is a green light for capital to leave the United States and, as a result, move jobs and production to those other countries. This is detrimental to our small businesses, particularly some of our older industries. I don't believe it is inevitable that our old industries, like the jewelry industry, the footwear industry, just inherently can't compete. They can't compete if we allow countries of the world to pay 15 cents an hour, with no real environmental enforcement, turning the other way when there are regulatory problems, et cetera. But if we sought today to insist in our trade agreements that environmental quality is raised, that respect for workers and adequate wages are the order of the day, then I think you would be surprised at the ability of our industry to compete. That is what I believe we are trying to do here today, is put some balance in this legislation, recognize that unless we can enter into negotiations on all the critical issues that affect goods coming to the United States, we will never solve all of the issues that the Senator talked about. Frankly, you can look at so many industries. The footwear industry is a classic example. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, growing up near Brockton, MA, that was the home of footwear manufacture for the whole world. There is nothing left there. It is not because the workers weren't good workers. It wasn't because the managers didn't understand managerial techniques. We allowed countries to ship into our country goods that were produced at 10 cents an hour in conditions which we would not tolerate here in the United States of America. And unless we recognize that we will never get a handle on this issue of the trade deficit, the trade balances that the Senator talked about with Senator Dorgan.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment would, within the context of fast track, direct the President to undertake as a principal negotiating objective to promote the adherence of internationally recognized environmental standards. Essentially, what we have to do to improve the legislation before the Senate is to recognize that environmental quality is an important issue. It is an important issue for us, all of us who breathe the air, swim the waters, eat the bounty of our land, but it is also a very important issue in terms of economic competition because in many respects what we are seeing in countries that are trading with us is a conscious and at times very committed and deliberate attempt to use environmental quality and the lack of environmental quality to gain advantage over American workers. The underlying legislation circumscribes the ability of the President to deal effectively and forcefully with the issues in environmental quality within our potential trading partners. That, I think, is essential. Indeed, the experience of NAFTA should convince us very persuasively that we have to deal with the environment in order to set up a reasonable, fair, balanced trading regime between one country and another. The experience of NAFTA has shown us that there are trading partners who are using the environment, environmental laws, preferential environmental treatment of their companies, to attract and to lure American businesses to their country. For example, the Canadian Province of Alberta, which was one of the only two Canadian Provinces to sign the side agreement with respect to the environment in NAFTA, adopted legislation in May 1996, prohibiting citizens from suing environmental officials to enforce environmental laws. In effect, limiting the authority, the enforcement capability of their own environmental laws. As a result, Alberta has since been advertising its lax regulatory climate as ``the Alberta advantage.'' Now, that might be an advantage for Alberta but it is definitely a detriment to the men and women of America who have to follow environmental laws which we pass in this body. In October 1995, Mexico indicated that they would no longer require environmental impact assessment for investments in highly polluting sectors such as petrochemicals, refining, fertilizer, steel. Now, we all recognize and realize that any company in the United States that was investing or proposing to invest in one of these facilities would have to go through a very rigorous environmental impact assessment process. So when you have a multinational company making a decision of whether to go and respect and follow the law of the United States or go to a country that has announced they don't do environmental assessments, I think it is very difficult to see why some of these countries stay in the United States. At the heart of our fast-track efforts should be a strong commitment to the environment, not just because it is the right thing to do but because it is the most consistent way that we can make our companies as competitive as we can with companies around the world. There is another example in Mexico. After NAFTA, a series of multinational companies built a technology center in Ciudad Industrial. Now, these are state-of-the-art factories, state-of-the-art facilities, but what they are doing is taking all their waste and dumping it right into the sewers without any treatment or hardly any treatment at all, something we could not do in the United States, something you couldn't do in Europe, but something that is done every day there. Again, an advantage to these companies in terms of costs they must pay for environmental quality and inducements for companies like that to leave countries like the United States and other countries that have high environmental quality standards and go overseas to these particular areas. We have to take strong, purposeful steps to ensure that environmental quality is at the heart of our trade policy. Again, it is not just altruism or idealism. It is cold, hard, economic facts that we have to recognize. You don't have to go very far to find examples of how multinational companies are taking advantage of lax enforcement around the world in environmental quality. In today's New York Times on the front page there was a story about the Nike corporation. In January of this year, Ernst & Young, the auditing company, prepared a report to Nike about one of the factories in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. It found that the workers there were exposed to carcinogens that exceeded local legal standards by 177 times. That is, 77 percent of the employees suffer from respiratory problems. Moreover, when they looked further into the plight of these employees, it found that they were working 65 hours a week for a grand total of $10. That is 15 cents an hour. If you look at those low wages, together with lax environmental standards, that is a very potent combination that makes it very difficult for our manufacturing companies in the United States to be competitive at all. Now, some proponents of free trade say that is one of the consequences of free trade, that lower wages will attract investment. But the benefit to the people in America is low-cost goods. Nike sneakers are about $125 a pair or $150 a pair. These are not exactly low-cost goods. Last year, Nike made $800 million on total sales of $9.2 billion. The workers in Vietnam certainly are not benefiting from this great, tremendous, volume of sales, and in fact, American consumers are not benefiting from low-cost sneakers. They are very high-priced, prestige sneakers. What has happened is that our footwear manufacturing industry has been decimated. Growing up in Rhode Island, I was quite familiar with surrounding communities, particularly Brookline, MA, where most of the shoes in the world at one time were made. Those factories are empty and idle and those workers have gone off to do other things, but not to compete in the footwear industry. It is absolutely critical to recognize the reality of international trade where environmental quality--I should say the lack of it--is a strong competitive inducement to move capital into these countries. The result in some cases is very frightening, not only in terms of the impact on our workers but certainly the impact on the workers who are working in these facilities. Let me summarize the Ernst & Young report as reported in the New York Times. They painted a dismal picture of thousands of young women, mostly under age 25, laboring 10\1/2\ hours a day, 6 days a week, in excessive heat and noise and in foul air, for slightly more than $10 a week. The report also found that workers with skin or breathing problems had not been transferred to permanent chemical-free areas, and half of the workers that dealt with dangerous chemicals did not wear protective masks or gloves. We could say well, gee, I feel sympathetic to the worker and as a humanitarian and as a kind, decent person that shouldn't happen, but that is their country. That is their culture. Those are their decisions. But it is hard when, as I do, you go into a Rhode Island jewelry factory, for example, and look at individual entrepreneurs whose families have built a business over two generations, who invested their sweat and their time and their fortune to try to build a big company, good company, and you find out that they have to pay a minimum wage, they have to ensure that their workers, if they are exposed to chemicals follow rigid procedures, they have to ensure that their waste is pretreated, and you ask those business men and business women how they are doing, and they say poorly because of international competition. Then you know that reports like this are not merely academic journalistic humanitarian conclusions. They strike at the very heart of whether small business men and women in this country can continue to compete. They are not asking for protective tariffs. They are not asking for us to withdraw from the world trade as some of the proponents of this legislation might suggest. But what they are saying is, give us a chance to be competitive on an even basis. When you negotiate treaties, raise the standards, the environmental standards and the working conditions so that we can try to use our talents, our ingenuity, our skill, and our resources to be competitive. If you don't do that, not only are you doing a disservice to these people who are trapped in these 10-hour days, in poor health- threatening environments, you are striking at the very competitiveness, the very survivability of so many small businesses around this country, particularly in my part of the world.