Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for our nation's economy, transportation is literally where the rubber hits the road. There are few things more important to my home State of Oregon or to the country's economy than how well we build and maintain our transportation system. Transportation is one of the basic ingredients in any economic growth recipe. It is one of the key things that businesses will look at as they consider where to locate. Both houses of Congress recognized this in passing bills to rev up transportation spending over current levels. Providing more money transportation money clearly helps keep us on the road to competitiveness and economic prosperity. But the transportation debate involves more than just economics, as important as that is, it's also about our quality of life. I've always believed that you can't have major league quality of life with minor league transportation systems. In the modern world, a transportation bill is about so much more than just how you get from point A to point B. Congress recognized this when we passed the original ISTEA legislation. For the first time, there was Federal recognition that decisions about where and how to build transportation projects can have tremendous impacts on our communities, our environment and our citizens' quality of life. Through ISTEA, we began to consider the true costs of our transportation spending as part of the process of planning transportation projects. And, for the first time, Federal funds were made available to mitigate the impacts of these projects throught the CMAQ and the Transportation Enhancements Programs. ISTEA recognizes that properly planned and constructed transportation systems are both economically efficient and environmentally sound. Badly designed or badly built systems waste taxpayer money and contribute to traffic congestion that snarls our highways. This causes both additional stresses for commuters and additional exhaust emissions that degrade the quality of our air. Both the Senate and the House bills continue many of these landmark initiatives of the original ISTEA legislation. These were clearly good first steps, but if we're going to improve both our transportation system and our quality of life, we need to do more than spin our wheels. Today, the Congress has recognized that the Federal government's role in funding transportation project also has ripple effects on patterns of development in our local communities. When it comes to transportation, if you build it, they will come and build around it. Uncontrolled development not only hurts our citizens where they live and breathe, it also hits them in their wallets. Several studies have come out that show the costs of sprawling growth are significantly higher than more compact, managed growth patterns. These studies show that taxpayers can save billions of dollars in public facility capital construction and operation and maintenance costs by opting for growth management. Because of the major impacts Federally funded transportation projects can have, there is an appropriate role for the Federal government in ensuring these projects and the development they spawn are both economically and environmentally sound. That role should not be to embroil the Federal government in land use decisions that have historically been State and local issues. We don't want Federal zoning. Instead, the proper role for the Federal government is create incentives to encourage and build on the State and local efforts to address transportation and growth that are already underway. I am very pleased to report that the ISTEA conference report includes a program I proposed to help local communities grow in environmentally sustainable ways by creating incentives for local growth management. I greatly appreciate Chairman Chafee, Chairman Warner and Senator Baucus working with me to include this program in the bill. Chairman Chafee and the other managers of the legislation also deserve enormous credit for how they have built on and reinforced the goals of the original ISTEA law. Thanks to their efforts the bill now before the Senate will enable our national environmental policies to merge more smoothly with our transportation policies. The new Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program provides $25 million per year investigate and address the relationships between transportation projects, communities and the environment. The Program consists of three parts: (1) a comprehensive research program; (2) a planning assistance program to provide funding to States and local governments that want to begin integrating their transportation planning with community preservation, environmental protection and land use policies; and (3) an implementation assistance program to provide funding to States and local governments that have developed state-of-the-art approaches to integrate their transportation plans and programs with their community preservation, environmental and land use planning programs. The research program will create a database on the experiences of communities in uniting transportation, community preservation, environmental and land use goals and decision making processes. This research will also identify benchmarks for measuring the performance of communities' experiences. This information will be a valuable resource to help communities throughout the nation meet their future transportation needs with lower environmental impacts, improved transportation efficiency, lower infrastructure construction and maintenance costs, and in a way that is more responsive to the views of their citizens. The planning assistance provided by this program will mean additional financial resources to States and communities that wish to explore ways to integrate their transportation programs with community preservation, environmental and land use planning programs. Participants in this planning assistance program would be able to develop their own local approaches to meet their needs. And, as their programs develop, they could become eligible in the future for funding to help implement their locally developed solutions. Finally, for States and communities which already have established community preservation or land use programs, the program provides additional financial resources to enable them to carry out transportation projects that also meet community preservation, environmental and land use goals. In providing this assistance, the Secretary of Transportation is directed to give priority consideration to applicants that have instituted policies such as directing funds to high growth areas, urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan expansion, and ``green corridors'' programs. My home State of Oregon leads the nation in developing innovative approaches to manage our growth and to tie transportation policies in to growth management. Our statewide land conservation and development program requires each municipality to establish an urban growth boundary to define both the areas where growth and development should occur and those areas that should be protected from development. This system keeps agricultural and forest lands in productive use and preserves ``green corridors'' for hiking, biking and other recreational uses that are located in or close to urban areas. Our transportation planning and construction efforts reinforce these policies by not only avoiding developing in environmentally sensitive areas but also by helping make the areas where we want development to occur more accessible. Oregon recognizes that it's not enough to tell people where they can't build. For our system to work, we have to make it easier to develop the areas where we want growth to occur. And we don't just give lip service to this principle. We actually put our money where our mouth is to make sure the development we want occurs. The State of Oregon and METRO, the Portland area's regional government, are currently using $3 million of our Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to develop housing and commercial properties around light rail stations. Our folks have even figured out how to use $3.7 million CMAQ air quality funds to help pay for sidewalks, light rail tracks and landscaping in these developments. These policies make the State of Oregon, METRO, the City of Portland, and other localities in our State ideal candidates to apply for implementation grants under the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in response to the majority leader's request for unanimous consent to proceed to the conference report on ISTEA without having all of the conference report papers in hand, I must withhold my consent until I have had the opportunity to review the sections of the report relating to important funding and project matters for Oregon. It is not my intent to delay final action on this major piece of legislation; however, I want to be assured that commitments that have been made are reflected in fact in the conference documents.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his graciousness. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the ranking member regarding the Intelligence Transportation System Program. Would the Senator from Montana agree the policy in the program intended to encourage private sector investment should be implemented in a manner that does not interfere with ongoing technology, deployment, and system implementation in States that have already made a substantial investment in its tests and deployment?

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator from Montana. It is particularly important to encourage transportation innovation. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 8 minutes on the Iran Missile Proliferation Act and have that time charged to Senator Levin who will be offering an amendment. That is pursuant to Senator Levin's desire, as well.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, it is hard to imagine a greater threat to international stability than the rogue nation of Iran coming into possession of weapons of mass destruction. There are three important reasons why the Iran missile proliferation act should be passed at this time. First and foremost, the Iran missile proliferation act is, above all else, a nonproliferation measure. It is intended to halt the spread of missile technology to Iran. With the alarming news that India has tested nuclear weapons and, in reaction to this, Pakistan is now considering testing its own weapons, we see the prospect of a dangerous spread of nuclear technology that only underscores the need for further U.S. resolve in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The second reason this legislation is important now is because of the lack of cooperation on the part of the Russians. Generally, the United States and the Russians have a clear, common interest in halting the spread of advanced weapons technology, including missiles. Although there has been some movement within Russia to halt the spread of missile technology to Iran, there is clearly not enough being done. Coupled with reports that Iran may be actively acquiring biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons, the case for this legislation is clear. Finally, this legislation is needed to bolster our Iran policy and to send a clear signal that the United States will not tolerate the spread of missile technology to Iran. Earlier this week, President Clinton decided to grant a waiver from the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act to a huge energy project by a French firm and others. Many of my colleagues and I urged the President not to grant this waiver; yet, a decision was made to do so. I believe that this sends the wrong signal to the international community with respect to investment in Iran. Foreign investment could enable Iran to rebuild its energy sector and vastly increase its economic strength, allowing it to acquire vast assets that it could use to re-arm and acquire terrible weapons of mass destruction. While I disagree with the President's decision to grant the waiver for the French and Russian energy project, I feel even more strongly about the transfer of missile technology to Iran. Let us make no mistake about it, Iran has become the most serious threat to stability in the Middle East. Israeli and American intelligence have recently discovered that, due largely to technology obtained from Russia, Iran may soon have the capability to begin assembling and testing ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel and other vital targets in the Middle East. Russian companies are providing Iran with crucial technologies, including wind tunnels for the design of missiles, lasers, and special materials for missile construction. There are even reports of over 9,000 Russian advisers working in Iran on a variety of military projects, and Iran tested a Soviet-designed rocket engine last year. Iran, one of America's foremost self-proclaimed enemies, has been linked to numerous terrorist attacks, ranging from taking hostages and hijacking airlines to carrying out assassinations and bombings. Now is the time to send a clear signal to the world community that selling missile technology to Iran is totally unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to support this vital measure, which takes concrete steps to halt the spread of ballistic missile technology to Iran and will act to support the preservation of peace and stability in the Middle East. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. As Senator Smith has said, the people of Oregon are grieving this morning. Our hearts are out to them. This is a time when all of us from Springfield, OR, to Springfield, MA, have to take a few moments out from our daily routine and reflect on what has happened in our home State. This is supposed to be a joyous time of year for kids in high school. They think about summer vacations and plans, time with family. Once again, however, our country has been rocked by unspeakable violence. I think all of us know that young people get upset and they do foolish things. But that is not what this is about. In times past, when young people got angry, they might throw a rock, they might throw a fist, but there was not this pattern of deadly gun violence. And so now it is critically important as we grieve for the people of our home State--my staff has been trying to help, giving blood, assisting others in the community, but it is especially important now to get beyond the kind of finger pointing and the sort of blame game that inevitably takes place here and look to how these tragedies can be prevented in the future. I share Senator Smith's judgment that this is about what is in our heart. It is about taking every possible step in the schools, in the family, through the education and health programs and through law enforcement programs, to protect our citizens and to reach out to those young people in trouble. That way we have a chance to restore safety in our communities and peace of mind for parents who, right now across this country, because of Springfield and the previous tragedies, are going to get up in the morning saying to themselves: What is going to happen at my child's school today? We cannot have that. No Member of the Senate can abide by that. And that, to me, is our central challenge today. Oregonians have come together in the last 24 hours to do what we always do best, and that is to help friends and neighbors in a time of great need. We have seen an extraordinary outpouring of concern in Springfield towards families. It is not possible to find any real comfort at a time like this, but if you can feel hopeful--we have got to get up every morning working to make this a better world and a safer world--we can take some comfort in knowing that communities like Springfield do work. They are getting up this morning and saying that they are going to try to reach out to everybody in that community, to try to do everything possible to heal in Springfield and our home State but, even more importantly, to do everything they can to make sure that tragedies like this do not happen again in Oregon or anywhere else. That is what we need to work for in this Chamber. Government policies can help, and with the government being a better partner, and families and schools and communities rallying, as Springfield has, we can make a difference and we can stop this carnage in our schools. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, I am very hopeful I will not have to object in a couple minutes. And just a couple of matters have to be resolved. I think we can do it quickly.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I offered the amendment in the Senate Commerce Committee to toughen the look-back penalties for one reason. I believe that stronger look-back penalties provide a powerful tool to actually change the course of history and hold the tobacco companies accountable when they pursue youthful customers. A brief review of the history indicates that the tobacco companies won't change on their own. For example, if you look at every previous effort, every single previous effort on the part of the Congress to hold the tobacco companies accountable, the tobacco companies, in fact, have found a way to get around those efforts. That is what happened when the Congress sought to go forward with restrictions on advertising. That is what happened when the Congress legislated warning labels. And that is what happened when the Synar amendment was enacted. Many will remember our colleague who served in the other body. Mike Synar wrote very tough legislation that would, in effect, require that the States carry out the laws to protect our kids when they were targeted. The tobacco companies found a way around that. So the tobacco companies have found a way around every single previous legislative effort on the part of the Congress to hold them accountable. Those who would like to know more about this history can learn about it simply from the documents that have come out since the 1994 hearings in the Health Subcommittee on the other side of the Capitol. Now, the tobacco companies would like us to believe that they will change the course of history and their behavior on their own. Many of the Senators will remember after the original attorneys general settlement the tobacco companies took out very large advertisements in both the Nation's newspapers and in the electronic media. The basic message of those ads that were taken out by the tobacco industry when they were encouraging support for the original settlement, was their message that it was a new day. Tobacco companies said it is a new day. There will be improved corporate citizenship on the part of the tobacco industry, and that the sordid history that came out after 1994 in those various documents was a part of the past. I think the inclination of every Member of the U.S. Senate is to say industry can change. Our colleague, Senator Durbin, made mention of the fact that many of the executives who testified in 1994 aren't alive today. So a number of us were very hopeful that it would be a new day in terms of tobacco industry behavior. But when the Senate Commerce Committee held hearings earlier this year under the leadership of Chairman McCain, we received powerful evidence that things really had not changed. I will cite one example in which I was personally involved. In 1994, when I was a member of the Health Subcommittee on the other side of the Capitol, Henry Waxman brought the Nation's tobacco executives before the Health Subcommittee. It came to light that the Brown & Williamson company at that time was genetically altering nicotine, genetically altering nicotine to give it a special punch and to hook their customers. This was, of course, a flagrant example of subverting the public interest. It was documented by the Food and Drug Administration. At that time, the Brown & Williamson company assured the country that they would not engage in that conduct again. During the course of our preparation for the hearings in the Senate Commerce Committee 4 years later, I and other members of the committee learned from news reports and others that there was evidence that, in fact, Brown & Williamson was again genetically altering nicotine and again engaging in this detrimental conduct that they pledged to the country they would never engage in again in 1994. So when the CEO of the Brown & Williamson company came to the Senate Commerce Committee with the other executives, I asked specifically about what kinds of practices the company was engaged in with respect to genetically altered nicotine. The CEO of that company said, in fact, that they were again selling this product, and in their words, in response to a question I asked that day, they admitted that they were working off ``a small stockpile of genetically altered nicotine,'' engaging in conduct that they pledged the country in 1994 that they would never engage in again. The reason I bring this example up is that if a tobacco company will engage in that kind of brazen conduct, in that kind of conduct when they are under the hot spotlight of the U.S. Congress, as they have been for many months, what are they going to do when the attention of the Congress and the country turns elsewhere? This isn't about conduct of 20, 30, 40 years ago. We know that took place in the past. A number of us were very interested in knowing whether the companies really did want to change of their own accord. Many of those who have opposed tough look-back penalties have used this argument in the past. Companies are changing. These kind of tools of big government are certainly unnecessary, at best. The Brown & Williamson example where they are working off a small stockpile of genetically altered nicotine at this time is certainly strong evidence that these companies have not really changed and it is not the new day that the Congress and the country were told about after the original settlement from the attorneys general. Given that past history, over 20, 30, 40 years, and the most current history, the Brown & Williamson example which, by the way, the Justice Department is now conducting a criminal inquiry into, there have already been pleas in this regard--given that past history and the history present, many of us are not willing to say that it is actually a new day in the tobacco industry. Mr. President, I want the Senate to know why I am particularly skeptical. I was a member of the Health Subcommittee of the other body in 1994, Chairman Waxman, the late Mike Synar, and others, did an extraordinarily good job of questioning the executives. But when it came to my turn during those hearings, I recognized that it had not yet been put on the public record whether these executives believed that nicotine was addictive. So, in 1994, at those hearings, I went down the row with each of the executives, one by one by one, each of them, and asked them whether nicotine was addictive. And each of them under oath at that time said that nicotine was not addictive. I like to think that moment contributed in some way to the important legislation we have before us, contributed to our positions for enacting strong legislation. But it seems to me that set of hearings and the documents that have come to light will only make a real difference over time if we now follow up on those early efforts and pass the strongest possible look-back legislation. That is why I offered a very tough set of additional penalties when companies don't meet their specific targets for reducing youth smoking under the Commerce Committee bill. That is why I am pleased to be able to join Senators Durbin, DeWine, Chafee, and others this afternoon. The bottom line, with respect to our amendment--many of the details have been addressed--but the bottom line is if you do not have aggressive look-back penalties, look-back penalties that really zero in on aggressively the companies in a specific way, you effectively penalize the companies that try to change their behavior twice. You penalize them once through the industry assessment and second through the loss of market while other companies continue to market to children and a future market share. This amendment represents a fairer approach. It does not allow the Congress, in effect, through loopholes in this look-back set of provisions, to place a company that does try to clean up its act, does try to change history, we make sure under our amendment that company wouldn't be placed at a competitive disadvantage when they said, now we are going to change and not seek out children. Let me also say that because the number of teen smokers has actually grown since the original settlement was announced last summer, the changes that we offer today will essentially hold the industry to a reduction level to which they have already agreed. So, in fact, this amendment is stronger than what came out of the Senate Commerce Committee on the 19-to-1 basis. But given what we have seen with, again, the number of teen smokers actually increasing, this, in effect, simply ensures that the industry is held to a reduction level to which they have already agreed. Mr. President, and colleagues, Senators Durbin and DeWine went into a number of the details with respect to how the look-back legislation works. I don't think all of that needs to be belabored at this time. But I would like to say that to me what this amendment is all about is reversing the course of history. History shows that in the past when we would write these laws, the tobacco companies would bring their entrepreneurial and advertising talents to the task then of getting around them. And the tobacco companies have more of that kind of advertising and entrepreneurial talent than anybody else around. They would always find a way to evade the law. Learning from past history with respect to the warning labels, with respect to electronic ads, with respect to the way in which the industry got around the Synar amendment, we are making it clear that we are going to have the tools to rein in the scoff-law companies, those that do not clean up their acts as they have pledged to do. We do so in a realistic way. We do so in a fashion that makes sure that companies that really have changed won't be put at a competitive disadvantage. I would say, finally, Mr. President, and colleagues, to those of you who have talked to me personally about those 1994 hearings, and what happened during the course of those 7 hours where the executives said that cigarettes were like Hostess Twinkies, cigarettes weren't addictive, and they never preyed on children, if you really want to reverse the course of history, if you really want to hold the companies accountable, if you really want to rein in the conduct that we saw demonstrated again in the Senate Commerce Committee when Brown & Williamson admitted that they are now using genetically altered nicotine, if you want to change that behavior, vote for this bipartisan amendment, because this is something that is going to change the course of history and make sure that these companies don't prey on our youngsters in the years ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time--I have offered an important look-back amendment in the Commerce Committee and worked with Senators Durbin and DeWine--that I be allowed to address this amendment after Senators Durbin and DeWine this afternoon.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the international provisions of the tobacco legislation have been the subject of many hours of discussion and negotiation. The current provisions serve as a strong platform that I hope this body will continue to build upon in the years to come as we seek to protect all children from the diseases and the economic costs brought about by tobacco use. I received letters which demonstrate the breadth of support and the importance the public health community places on maintaining the international tobacco control provisions in the tobacco legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have these letters printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise tonight to take this opportunity to discuss why I believe it is so important that the U.S. Senate pass strong legislation to protect our children from the tobacco companies that are preying on them. I got my real start in public service in Eugene, OR, right after I got out of law school in my twenties in Lane County in Oregon. I started a senior citizens legal clinic. I was able to get almost all of the attorneys in town to volunteer their time, coming to the senior citizens center to help the older people with the varied legal problems that seniors have. At the legal clinic when I was in my twenties I saw firsthand the extraordinary health consequences that smoking has for our citizens. I saw older people come to that legal clinic in Lane County in Oregon racked with emphysema. They were struggling for every breath. I found myself, having organized this legal clinic to help older people, having to console the widows and widowers of cancer victims, families that lost loved ones years and years before their time. I saw then when I set up that senior citizens legal clinic exactly what cigarettes can do to the health and well-being of our citizens and the toll that they take on American families. So when I decided to seek elected office I said that I would put a special focus on my service in the U.S. Senate in trying to improve the health care of our citizens. I said that I wanted to focus on health care issues in a meaningful way, because I came to feel that if a person doesn't have their health care, doesn't have well-being, then they can't really focus on much of anything else. If they and their loved ones can't get access to decent medical care and they are suffering, there really aren't many other issues that a person and a family can focus on. When I came to the U.S. Congress, I said I am going to remember all those seniors that I met at the legal clinic when I got out of law school, and I said if we really are going to take strong steps to improve the health of our citizens, we had to take on these tobacco companies, and that we will take them on even if it was a tough fight in order to make the lives of our citizens better when they got older. And it was just that simple. The older people that I saw in that legal program didn't get started smoking when they were 48 or 55. They got started in their teens. They got started as kids when they were the age of Adam Wyden and his sister Lilly. So I felt then that all other issues revolved around whether our citizens had their health. I remember those older people who came to the legal clinic in Oregon. I said we are going to take steps to make their lives better, and I am going to make that a special focus of my service in the Congress. So when I was elected to the House of Representatives in 1980, I was able to win a position on the House Health Care Subcommittee, a committee that, in my view, turned out some of the most important public health legislation in our country's history under the extraordinary leadership of Henry Waxman. I got to serve with one of the most courageous public officials who has ever served in the U.S. Congress, the late Mike Synar. Against all odds, against all odds when he faced tremendous resistance in his home district, the late Mike Synar was willing to stand up for kids, and, in fact, wrote one of the first and the most important public health statutes to protect kids against the tobacco companies that prey on them, the statute known as the Synar amendment. Of course, the tobacco companies worked very hard to try to get around that because the Synar amendment stood for the proposition that we were going to enforce tough laws to protect our minors at the State level. That was too much for the tobacco companies, just as they sought hard to get around the early advertising restrictions on the electronic news, just as they sought to get around the early warning labels, they sought to evade the mission and the specific requirements of the Synar legislation. So Mike Synar, Henry Waxman, I, and others worked through the 1980s to try to rein in these tobacco companies and improve the lives of our children. A little over 4 years ago we were at the now well-recognized hearing with the tobacco CEOs who under oath addressed for the first time before the U.S. Congress these major public health questions that the Senate has been occupied with over the last couple of days. Mr. President, it was an extraordinary hearing. It went on for more than 7 hours. The executives said, for example, that cigarettes were sort of like Hostess Twinkies. They said that, of course, they never ever would target young people. And for more than 7 hours they said under oath that cigarettes essentially were not something that the U.S. Congress should be focusing on. They said it is just like any other health concern a person might have with sugar or with fat. Why is the U.S. Congress singling out tobacco, was essentially their message over a hearing that lasted more than 7 hours. Chairman Waxman, Mike Synar, and others did, in my view, a superlative job trying to put the key issues on the record. When it came to my initial turn I felt that it was especially important to get the executives' position on whether nicotine was addictive. We had them all in front of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Health. They were under oath. So I simply said I am going to go down the row. I am going to go down the row and ask each one of these executives one after another whether nicotine is addictive. So I began. The first executive said nicotine was not an addictive substance. The second executive said that nicotine was not addictive. The third one raised questions again about why anyone would possibly have reservations about this issue, specifically why we would be asking whether nicotine was addictive. And all of the executives then under oath said for the first time that nicotine was not an addictive substance. They contradicted the Surgeon General, who has come before health committees in the Congress for more than 20 years, and perhaps even more importantly, they contradicted what their own executives were saying for more than 30 years. That, of course, came out after the hearing took place. But what has been especially telling is that, after that historic hearing in 1994 when the executives said nicotine wasn't addictive and didn't target kids, a voluminous record has been made by various committees in the Congress which documents and makes very clear that these executives, in fact, knew all along that nicotine was addictive. There was not any question in their minds about whether it was addictive. Their own documents had proved that. But yet they told the U.S. House of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Health, and myself specifically under oath that nicotine was not addictive. I think that moment contributed in a significant way to our achieving a chance now to pass important legislation to protect our children. But there were a number of other important issues that were brought up that day before the Health Subcommittee that have implications even this evening as the Senate considers this historic legislation. And I would like to just touch on one of those. At that hearing, it came to light that one tobacco company, Brown & Williamson, was in fact genetically altering nicotine in order to give it an extra punch, in order to make it more addictive to children and others who used the product. The Food and Drug Administration under the leadership of David Kessler had essentially brought this to light. The committee confronted the Brown & Williamson Company, and they were under oath and said that they would cease utilizing this high-nicotine tobacco called 1Y. So this was more than 4 years ago. It came to light as a result of the investigative work done by the Food and Drug Administration. After the Brown & Williamson Company was caught using 1Y, this genetically altered, high-nicotine tobacco, they said they would not do it anymore. A number of things happened over the last 4 years. One of them was that I had the honor of being chosen by the people of Oregon to serve in the Senate, and I was chosen to serve in the Senate January 30 of 1996. Having had the additional privilege of being named to serve on the Senate Commerce Committee under the outstanding leadership of John McCain, and our ranking Democrat, Fritz Hollings, I had a chance to participate in the next round of important tobacco hearings under John McCain's leadership. We held a number of them prior to the committee's consideration of the legislation that is now before us. And when Senator McCain asked the executives--and a number of them, of course, are new--to come before the Senate Commerce Committee, I asked Brown & Williamson what was the current status of the use of 1Y genetically altered, high-nicotine tobacco. The reason I asked the question is that I had read news reports that this special, genetically altered, high-nicotine tobacco was in fact still being used by the Brown & Williamson Company even though the company had said under oath that it would no longer use this genetically altered, high-nicotine tobacco. And in fact at that important hearing chaired by our leader on the committee, John McCain, Brown & Williamson said in fact that they are now working off a small stockpile of genetically altered nicotine. There is already a criminal investigation underway. The reason that I bring this to the attention of the Senate tonight is for just one reason. If this company is so brazen as to engage in this conduct, having promised the American people that they would no longer do it again, and now being watched under the scrutiny of the Congress, what will it be like, Mr. President and colleagues, when in fact the hot spotlight is turned away from tobacco? This company has engaged in activity that they pledged to the American people they no longer would engage in, and they told the McCain committee that they are now working off a small stockpile of genetically altered, high- nicotine tobacco and that this product is being used in our country and overseas. The other reason that I bring this to the attention of the Senate, Mr. President and colleagues, is this goes right to the heart of the industry's argument that it is a new day and that they are pursuing a new standard with respect to corporate citizenship. Before the McCain committee, the executives came and said: We realize that what happened in yesteryear was no longer acceptable. We are going to clean up our act. We are going to make sure that young people are not targeted. I think it is the impulse of all of us to say, new executives, new day; let's look at this anew. But when it came to light that Brown & Williamson was again using genetically altered, high-nicotine tobacco after promising the American people and the Congress that they would no longer engage in the practice, that is a pretty blatant contradiction of the claim that things really are different, that it is a new day, and that tobacco companies want to clean up their act. As we consider this legislation on the floor of the Senate, Mr. President and colleagues, the Justice Department continues its inquiry into the use of this genetically altered nicotine, and there have already been criminal pleas that have been entered into. Now, having said that, and noting some of the great challenges, let me also talk about what I think is a significant success, and I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to do it while Chairman McCain is here and on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President and Chairman McCain, I will tell you that when I left the Waxman hearings in 1994, walking out of that hearing room with the late Mike Synar, I told him that I was not convinced that we would make real headway in this fight to protect our children in our lifetime. I said to Mike Synar, ``We are going to be up against all of the odds. We are going to be up against a lobbyist tidal wave. I am not sure we are ever going to do it in our lifetime.'' We lost the late Mike Synar years before his time, but a lot of us said that we are going to continue that work. And we have the opportunity to do it because Chairman McCain was courageous enough to take on this issue, come to Members of the Senate like myself, come to the public health groups, and say that we are going to focus on this issue until we get it done. He did not minimize how tough a job it was. All he has to do is look down the row of his committee members. He has our good friend, Wendell Ford, sitting a few places away from me. It is going to be a challenge to get Wendell Ford and Ron Wyden to support a bill. We both did in the Senate Commerce Committee. I commend Chairman McCain at this time because we would not be on this floor, we would not have made as much progress, had he not been willing to take this issue on. I say to you, Mr. President, and to the country, we have come a long way. If you had told me 4 years ago, when I walked out of the Waxman hearings, that we would now be debating whether to impose fines of billions of dollars on companies that do not meet tough targets in reducing youth smoking, if you had told me 4 years ago that we would be having a debate on how to do that and impose those penalties, I would have asked you, ``What are you smoking?'' Because I thought there would never ever be an opportunity like that in my lifetime. We have that opportunity because John McCain has focused on this issue and brought together a group in the Senate that certainly does not agree on every single issue--that has been very clear--but does agree on how important it is to focus on this and get the job done. Now, I do want to touch for just a few additional moments on several of the specific issues that have been important to me, and talk for a bit about why that is the case. First, I am certain that many Members of the Senate have not heard about the accountability requirements that are in the legislation that we take up this week. And the word ``accountability,'' for me and most public health specialists, is probably the single most important word in the discussion of this whole subject, because in the past it has not been possible to hold the tobacco companies accountable. For all of the past legislative efforts designed to rein them in--the Synar amendment, the early warning labels, the restrictions on electronic advertising-- the industry would use their marketing and entrepreneurial talent and would find a way around them. So when we focused on enforcement issues in the committee, I began to discuss with Chairman McCain and the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee how we could assure our children and future generations that there would be an ongoing watchdog who would scrutinize the practices of the tobacco companies when they inevitably try to get around the new law that I hope this Congress passes and that I know President Clinton will sign. The tobacco companies, once again, when we get a new law, will put their entrepreneurial and marketing talent to the task of getting around it. They will have scores of slick strategies to employ to try to get around these protections. With the accountability requirements in this legislation, we will have an ongoing watchdog who will be in a position to let us know when the tobacco companies start trying to evade an important new public health law, as they have done every single time for decades. With the accountability requirements, public health officials, the Surgeon General, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control, and the Office of Minority Health, will be involved in looking at company- specific behavior to determine whether a company is trying to evade the requirements of this law. They will be able to recommend at any time that a company that seeks to evade the strictures of this statute ought to have any liability protection they have pulled. Tobacco companies clearly have not been straight with the Congress. All their documents that came out after the 1994 hearings that contradicted what the executive said under oath in 1994 have made it very clear to me the single most important word in this debate--the single most intellectually honest word in this debate--is ``accountability.'' I, again, thank Chairman McCain and his staff. They were under a lot of pressure from powerful interests to essentially strip out these accountability requirements. Once again, Chairman McCain hung in there for the public health, and I want to tell him how much I appreciate that. There are two other issues I would like to touch on briefly, with the first being the issue of the health care of our minority citizens and those in communities inhabited by many minority Americans. For years, again as has come out in documents since the 1994 hearings, the tobacco companies have shamelessly targeted these minority youngsters and minority communities to sell their products. I think it is critically important now that in this legislation there be resources specifically targeted to these minority communities and to minority youngsters who are preyed upon by the tobacco industry. This legislation provides a first step toward addressing the health concerns of minorities by assuring that all of the State efforts for smoking cessation and prevention include minority populations, and that services can be made available through community-based organizations. In the Congressional Black Caucus, for example, Congressman Bennie Thompson has done a yeoman's job in terms of trying to focus both the other body and the U.S. Senate on this issue. I know they have talked about this with Chairman McCain. This issue is not one that we are going to allow to be swept under the rug. It is not right to see so many minority youngsters get involved with tobacco at an early age, and it is unconscionable the way these tobacco companies have targeted our minority communities. In addition to the support for the State plans for smoking cessation and prevention, the Office of Minority Health will be represented on the accountability panel. In my view, this is a significant win for the cause of minority health. We are going to have much to do as we consider these questions through the rest of the debate in the U.S. Senate and in the House. I am particularly troubled about the prospect that some of the focus on improving the health of our minority citizens, and specifically seeing a reduction in smoking among minority youngsters, will get lost if the final judgment by the Congress on this issue is to create a State block grant approach. I don't want to see this issue, which has been neglected for so long, lost in some sort of amorphous block grant where, once again, the health needs of minority youngsters and minority communities get lost. So there are going to be a number of Members of the U.S. Senate who care about this issue, particularly Senators Jeffords and Harkin, and I am looking forward to working with them to strengthen the minority provisions, minority health provisions of this legislation. I know that Congressman Bennie Thompson is going to bring his talents and energy to doing that as the House considers the bill as well. Finally, there is one last issue I would like to raise. I have been talking tonight about the needs of youngsters in the United States. I represent the people of Oregon. I have the privilege of representing them, serving with my colleague, Senator Gordon Smith who, in my view, has been a very strong voice for protecting youngsters in this debate. I appreciate that very much. We are both very proud to represent Oregon, and to work to improve the health of youngsters all across this country. But I come tonight, as well, to talk about an issue that I think ought to strike at our moral conscience, and that is, as I have said, to say that it is critically important that we protect kids in Bend, OR, across the country, in Bangor, ME, and communities in between. But it is also critically important to protect kids in Bangladesh and Bangkok, because a child is a child is a child. And I hope--it is my fervent hope--that when this bill heads to the President of the United States, that we will have put in place extremely strong health protections for youngsters across the world. Let us not say on our watch that to pay for a settlement, a tobacco settlement in the United States, the children around the world lost their health. Let us not sacrifice the lungs of youngsters around the world to pay for a settlement here. Let's protect kids in the United States. That is what we have a sworn obligation to do. But let us not forget youngsters around the world who don't have lobbyists, who don't have lawyers and the great array of talent that so many powerful interest groups have. I will say that if we don't speak for those children all over the world on our watch--the Presiding Officer of the Senate and I are about the same age, I am a little older, I resent that, but a little older-- but on our watch, millions of youngsters around the world will get sick during our lifetime and die needlessly. I know that the Presiding Officer and all our colleagues don't want to see that. That is why I think it is so important that we pass the provisions in this legislation that will protect youngsters around the world when the tobacco companies target them. Make no mistake about it, that is the game plan. The game plan for the tobacco companies is consumption is going down here--it is well documented--and it is going up at a staggeringly high level around the world. The evidence shows, for example, that for every smoker who quits in the United States, two start in China. There are countries around the world that actually are in support of companies that sponsor contests to see how many cigarettes a youngster can smoke at one time. If we don't take the steps to protect these youngsters around the world who are envisaged in the McCain legislation before us, we will have the bizarre situation where a tobacco company in the United States won't be able to slap a decal on some car or something that is utilized at a sporting event, but that same company will be able to participate in these contests around the world to see how many cigarettes a youngster can smoke. I don't think we ought to have that kind of double standard where we say we are going to protect kids here but we are really not much interested around the world. I know that this is an issue that a lot of Members are not familiar with, but we are going to take the time over the next few days and, in the days ahead, to make sure that they are, because I think those kids count, too. The legislation before us today is not all that I would want, and it is not all that Senator Durbin and Senator Wellstone and Senator Harkin and many others who have been interested in this issue would want either. We really had our ideal plan and consideration in the Senate Commerce Committee. Chairman McCain was straight and realistic with us. We knew that we couldn't win that kind of package on the floor of the U.S. Senate, so we vowed that we were going to lay a foundation to protect the health of youngsters around the world, as well as youngsters here, and that is what we have done in this legislation. It wouldn't be my first choice, but to tell you the truth, Senator Hollings, who very graciously worked with us essentially nonstop over the weekend, wouldn't think it is his first choice either. But that is what the legislative process is all about. What this legislation does with respect to kids around the world is very, very important. Make no mistake about it, it is a strong beginning at laying out a global policy to protect kids around the world. It essentially does three things. First, for all time--for all time--it gets the Federal Government out of the business, through the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies, of promoting the sale of tobacco overseas. For the first time, the U.S. Trade Representative will be directed to consult with the Department of Health and Human Services concerning any trade actions related to tobacco. The U.S. Trade Representative will not be acting in a vacuum. They are required to let the Congress of the United States know when tobacco companies approach them on these matters. I think it is fair to say that with respect to the role of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Federal agencies that are charged with leading the international trade effort, that never again, as a matter of Federal law, will we have them promoting the sale of tobacco overseas. Second, for the first time, we will require that U.S. health warnings on cigarette packs for exports are carried in a specific way. In effect, we are making it clear that the kind of warning labels, health- specific, that we have in the United States have to apply overseas. If the other governments around the world choose to put another warning on, it has to be substantially similar--substantially similar--in terms of the warning provided to our citizens. It would not be right, as our colleague Dick Durbin has said, to let them off by putting on a warning, ``Well, cigarettes may cause bad breath,'' or, as some have seen in other parts of the world, ``Cigarette smoking may be inconvenient to your neighbor.'' That won't do. Around the world, as a result of the legislation incorporated into the McCain bill that we are considering now on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the warning that is health specific used in our country will have to be used around the world by regulation unless it is substantially similar. Those labels will make it clear that smoking is harmful, and they will be scientifically based. The administration is charged with finding the most effective compliance mechanism and assuring that the labels are in the language of the country of destination. That is extremely important and something long sought by the public health groups. Finally--I guess our colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, took particular issue with this--this for the first time puts resources into the effort to work in an educational fashion around the globe. Several hundred million dollars is devoted to our participation in these global kinds of health efforts which are critically important, because if, for example, we learn about an important educational innovation that really does reach kids--for example, some of the counteradvertising that is already showing real promise in deterring youth smoking--we want to make sure that this kind of information is easily shared with the global network of public health specialists. This isn't going to be sort of sock the Government. This is to make sure that kids around the world don't get sick. If we can prevent those illnesses, those countries will be able to avoid some of the much larger medical bills which often, as our colleagues know--particularly the Presiding Officer of the Senate because of his role in foreign affairs--and avoid coming to our Government to ask for support to deal with it. So again, if we can prevent these illnesses among young people, particularly as it relates to tobacco, my sense is that the Presiding Officer of the Senate will see fewer demands for help with much greater medical bills which will come about as youngsters get hooked and addicted to tobacco. Finally, the bill sets up a system to combat smuggling, and in much the same way the Federal Government today enforces the law against the smuggling of alcohol. And in regard to the smuggling provisions, I particularly want to commend the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, who has long been involved in this issue. The tobacco companies, as a number of our colleagues already noted to me, do not want these provisions in this legislation. They do not want these provisions to ruin their business plans to target kids overseas. That is what the game plan is all about, Mr. President, and colleagues. It is about recognizing that consumption is going down in our country and skyrocketing around the world. With the export provisions, through removing the U.S. Trade Representative and Federal officials from the business of promoting tobacco permanently, through the warning labels, through the funds to participate in educational efforts, we make a very strong start to protect kids around the world. And I again thank Chairman McCain for his help. Mr. President, I want to wrap up with one last point. I think I am the only Member of the U.S. Congress on either side who had the privilege in the last few years to participate in historic hearings in both of the Commerce Committees. I had the honor of serving on Henry Waxman's subcommittee as a Member of the other body and I am now honored to have the chance to serve with John McCain, who has done so much to bring this bill to the floor tonight. I will say that I think we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to protect kids. That is what this is all about. At the end of the day, it is not about all these arcane and technical questions that we are debating on the floor of the Senate. That is not to say those questions are unimportant. They are. They are very important. I will tell you, all of our colleagues who I have heard have been asking important questions. But as we ask those important questions, let us not lose sight of the end game here, which is to protect kids. We have a President who is willing to take on the tobacco lobbies. That is a major reason we have come thus far. We have a chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee who has reached across both sides of the aisle to try to fashion a strong bill. We have public health groups all over this country who have made the case with their volunteers, with their physicians, with their nurses, with all of the individuals who participate in these superb organizations that now is the time, now is the time to act. And that means passing a bill in this Senate. It is not going to be the perfect bill. It is not going to be what any of us would like in an ideal world. That is why I said there are a number of aspects of the export provisions that I was very bothered to see disappear. Senator Hollings has concerns about what is in there-- that is the process of fashioning legislation--but we were able to make a strong start at protecting our kids. And if the Senate passes this bill, and does it in a timely way, we can make a difference for kids here and around the world. But I say, Mr. President, and colleagues--and I will conclude with this--the clock is ticking. It is not exactly an atomic secret that there are not many days left in the session. And delay is the best friend that the advocates of the status quo could possibly have. Delay is the very best friend of the tobacco lobbies that want to engage in business as usual. Delay is a perfect opportunity for all of those who say, ``Tobacco company profits ought to come before the health of kids, that, well, we just have to study this longer. We don't know all the facts.'' I say, Mr. President, and colleagues, that we will have a chance all the way through this process, through the amendments on the floor, and the House considers its legislation and passes it, as we go to conference, we will have a chance to learn more, to refine this legislation and to improve it. That is what we did through the many hearings that were held in the Senate Commerce Committee. That is what has happened through the work done by the Labor Committee, the Judiciary Committee, with so many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But let us not miss this opportunity to pass this legislation. We have to do it soon. The clock is ticking. Mr. President, this bill will be good for our children. More importantly, it will be good for our children's children. It is my fervent hope that this Senate passes this legislation, and does so in an expeditious way. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I voted for S. 1723 because I am convinced that some high technology companies are facing critical labor shortages, which is in turn hampering growth in this important economic sector of Oregon's economy. It is critically important, however, that the final legislation contain additional protections for workers rights. Specifically, we should make certain that no qualified U.S. worker will be laid off simply to be replaced by a foreign worker. Further, we should ensure that employers who want to use this program have taken steps to find qualified American workers. I look forward to continued progress on this legislation as it proceeds to conference.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for the last three years, this Congress struggled with many of the difficult issues in the Amtrak reauthorization bill. We finally reached an agreement late last year and sent legislation to the President for his signature, which he signed on December 2, 1997. In the process, my state, and its neighbors, lost a valuable service on the route of the Pioneer. I fought hard to keep that service running but citizens of eastern Oregon continue to feel frustrated over the loss of this service. I want Amtrak to succeed and I want to make sure that the legislation we enacted last year is properly implemented. The Administration is late in submitting its nominations for the Amtrak Reform Board which was created in last year's bill. Although I hear that the Administration has begun the process of picking candidates for the seven positions that are required by law, I am concerned that the names under consideration will not represent the various regions of the country that make up the Amtrak system. If the restoration of the Pioneer is to receive fair consideration, it must be by a Board of Directors that reflects the regional needs of all sections of the country. My friend, the Majority Leader, who also sits on the Commerce Committee has made clear on more than one occasion that if Amtrak is only a series of regional corridors and not a national system, it will not continue to receive the support of Congress. While I believe the new Amtrak Board should meet the qualifications spelled out in the Act, they should also have a sense of geographical balance. I fear the loss of support for a national system if we wind up with a Board that represents only one region of the country. In particular, the west and mid-western states again appear to be left out of consideration as sources of Amtrak director candidates. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I will be looking for regional balance when these nominations are submitted and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. Before the Senator from West Virginia leaves the floor, let me say I thought he was extraordinarily eloquent. I got a chance to know Senator Randolph a bit as a Member of the House. And the Senator's statement here today really sums up the extraordinary qualities of this great man. I am very pleased to have been able to be here for a few minutes to hear the Senator's very fine speech. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, we had a thoughtful discussion on the floor of the Senate earlier today with Senator McCain and Senator Dorgan especially with respect to the high-tech issues that will be coming up over the course of this week. In a sense, it is ironic that we call it high-tech week here. I am very pleased that Senator Lott and Senator Daschle have been able to get an agreement to deal with these issues. And, in a sense, we are going to be dealing with high-tech issues all year round as we face the 21st century. It is not going to be something that we look at just from time to time, but it will essentially dominate, in my view, debate about public policy in the years ahead. And I am particularly hopeful that this week we will have an opportunity on the Senate floor to debate the Internet Tax Freedom Act which, as our Presiding Officer knows, was debated at some length in the Senate Commerce Committee earlier this year. My sense is that these tax issues are especially important because it is so critical that our country lay out a set of ground rules, a set of principles that will address the question of taxation and the digital economy. Right now, you can live in the Dakotas, and if you want to send a tasty fruit basket from a company in Oregon, you can order it on line, say, from a firm in Virginia, and pay for it with a Florida bank card, and you can end up absolutely baffled with respect to how many jurisdictions may be in a position to impose taxes on this particular transaction. We have already heard in testimony before the committee that the uncertainty surrounding these transactions has caused some businesses to go under. In particular, we heard from a small business in Tennessee about the problem. The Wall Street Journal recently reports in a Peat Marwick survey that many financial executives are uncertain with respect to how transactions will be handled in cyberspace. This has contributed to uncertainty and reluctance to go forward and do business on line. Recently, one of the prominent analysts, a firm by the name of Vertex, cited several States where it was really impossible to know how to proceed with respect to electronic commercial transactions because, in effect, the rules were so fluid that you would have to get an interpretation of tax law that really was not written. So I and others have introduced the Internet Tax Freedom Act. And its purpose is simple. That is to give consumers and businesses engaged in electronic commerce a timeout from discriminatory taxes so that our country can develop a fair and reasonable policy on Internet taxation. And we are very proud of the strong bipartisan support that this effort has received. Governor George Bush, for example, from the State of Texas, has recently spoken out on this issue. Our colleague, Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, Steve Forbes--the list of supporters for this effort literally spans the spectrum. I believe that the reason it has been possible to generate such strong bipartisan support for the Internet Tax Freedom Act is that during this period where there will be a bar on discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce, all other forms of taxation that are used in the regular course of business would be allowed to go forward. So during the period when our country tries to develop a set of ground rules for taxation of electronic commerce--all of the property taxes, all of the sales taxes, all of the use taxes, all of the business license fees that are nondiscriminatory--would stay in place. For our colleagues that have been following this issue, it is all laid out very specifically in section 3 of our legislation. For example, under our legislation if Mr. Brown in South Dakota picks up the phone and orders a sweater from J.C. Penney in Illinois he would pay the same sales tax as if he walked into J.C. Penney in Sioux Falls, SD. South Dakota taxes sales of goods over the Internet the same as sales of tangible personal property through more traditional channels. Exactly the same treatment for a transaction, whether it is conducted over the Internet or whether it is conducted through more traditional means. Going further, if you are a chef in Charleston, SC, and you order a new saucepan from Williams-Sonoma in California, under our legislation you would pay the same sales tax as if you walked in to the Williams Sonoma shop in Charleston. South Carolina taxes sales of goods over the Internet the same as sales of tangible personal property through more traditional channels. Now, there has been an effort by some to say that this legislation would in some way harm Main Street. The fact of the matter is that Main Street has overwhelmingly come out for this legislation. I will append to my statement a long list of the business groups that support the legislation, but every Member of the U.S. Senate has received a letter from the Chamber of Commerce in recent days with a ringing endorsement of the Internet tax freedom legislation. And the reason for this very strong support, in my view, is that Main Street business has come out strongly for the legislation. I believe the reason that Main Street businesses are so strongly supporting the Internet Tax Freedom Act is that for them, the opportunity to do business on-line ensures that geography will be irrelevant in the 21st century. A lot of those small businesses on Main Street in rural America--and I represent many of them in the State of Oregon--do have difficulty competing today in the global marketplace. One of the reasons they do is because geography is a very big barrier in terms of their ability to tap the global economy. With the Internet Tax Freedom Act ensuring that they are treated fairly both during this period when there is an effort to come up with new ground rules, and for the 21st century, we give new opportunity to those small Main Street businesses across America. I believe that is why they have endorsed this legislation so strongly. If ever there was an issue that was appropriate for the U.S. Senate to deal with, it is this question. This is what article 1 of our Constitution is all about. We have 30,000 taxing jurisdictions in America. I believe it is fair to say that if a fair number of these taxing jurisdictions go forward and levy taxes on electronic commerce, in a discriminatory way this will do enormous damage to what I believe will be the business infrastructure of the 21st century. Senator McCain and Senator Dorgan, as I said, had a very thoughtful discussion of the potential of Internet commerce in the years ahead. But let us make no mistake about it, if these small businesses all across this country are going to suddenly have to put on accountants and various kind of tax specialists to figure out what kind of taxes they owe in various local jurisdictions across this country, this will damage electronic commerce and the ability of the small businesses to compete in a profound way. If you have a two-person operation, a two-person business operating out of an individual's home, and they are somehow supposed to collect scores of different sales and property taxes across this country there is going to be enormous confusion just as we see the electronic marketplace take off. I know no Member of the U.S. Senate wants to see that happen. The bottom line is that the Internet Tax Freedom Act applies only to those taxes that are not technologically neutral. Only those taxes that single out the Internet would be affected, and every business in America would still have to pay its share of taxes. So if a State has a 3-percent sales tax that a customer has to pay the State when walking into a store to purchase a product, under the Internet Tax Freedom Act, section 3 specifically, the State can, in fact, charge a 3-percent sales tax on goods ordered over the Internet. I am very hopeful that there will be an opportunity to debate this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate. A number of my colleagues, Senator Dorgan specifically, have important issues that they want to raise. I and other sponsors of this legislation have sought to address many of them. But I believe this is one of the most important issues that this Senate could be dealing with because it is going to frame the ground work for the digital economy in the 21st century and it is important that all businesses are treated fairly. It is also important that the U.S. Senate realize the damage that can be done if you continue to see a growth in the kind of confusion that the Vertex Company has pointed out with respect to the inability of businesses to get answers. We will damage Internet commerce if we see more small businesses like the Tennessee businessman who testified before the Commerce Committee that he went out of business because of the confusion on the part of his State with respect to how electronic commercial transactions ought to be handled. No Member of the U.S. Senate wants to see that happen. We have an opportunity to get this issue with respect to the digital economy right. We have a chance to take a timeout from discriminatory taxes, come up with a policy for Internet taxation that is fair and makes sense. Let's not kill the Internet goose that is showing the capacity to lay an extraordinary number of golden eggs. I hope we will have a chance to discuss this issue at great length throughout the course of the week. I especially want to thank my colleagues, Senator McCain, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, who has worked diligently with me on this legislation for more than a year; my colleague, Senator Dorgan, who does have questions about this legislation but has always been very fair in terms of raising them. I am very hopeful we will have a chance to debate and vote on this legislation during the course of this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, last week, the Senate engaged in a particularly important debate about the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I particularly want to commend the leadership and dedication of my colleague from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith. Senator Smith managed this important legislation on the floor with great competence, and the people of Oregon should be proud of how he handled this difficult assignment. Despite my colleague's persuasive efforts, however, I have decided to oppose this treaty. Mr. President, a new era in world affairs demands new forms of international cooperation. There is indeed a clear and immediate imperative to bring the new democracies of Eastern Europe into the family of freedom-loving nations. What is less clear is that the best way to do this is through the new military alliance proposed by this treaty. My reservations about this treaty are three, and I would like to outline them briefly. First, the treaty redefines NATO's fundamental mission from protecting against a known threat into something much more nebulous. The initial purpose of this alliance was to contain communism and staunch the threat of the Soviet Union spreading its sphere of influence over the entire continent. With four decades of sound leadership, consistent vision, and unflinching strength, the alliance succeeded in that endeavor, bringing the West safely through the Cold War, and allowing the people of Eastern Europe to finally reassert their long-suppressed desire for freedom. But what is NATO's role in a new environment, with the Soviet Union relegated to history? I don't think that question has been sufficiently debated, or an answer sufficiently defined, for us to be rushing into this expansion. Is there really some strategic end that would be served by the United States pledging to treat any conflagration in the turbulent realm of Eastern Europe as an attack against our own sovereignty? It may well be that there are circumstances in which the cause of world peace and security would be best served by an American commitment to turn back an aggressor or defend a fragile democracy. But in the absence of a well-defined threat or clearly articulated strategic mission, it is hard to see how this expansion of NATO is anything other than a gamble that an institution created for one purpose is equally suited for the yet-to-be-determined purposes of a new time. Second, I believe that this expansion will have a deleterious effect on our relationship with Russia. At this critical time--when what was once our most formidable adversary stands at a delicate point between the continued climb toward democracy and freedom on the one side, and a fall backwards into heavily-armed nationalism on the other--I'm especially troubled that this proposed NATO expansion will push future Russian leaders in the wrong direction. As the end of this century approaches, Russia is still in possession of one of the world's most powerful military arsenals. A Russia with reborn territorial designs on her neighbors is the greatest imaginable potential threat to European stability and security. That is why it is so vital that we seek ratification and implimentation of the START II treaty with Russia, which would actually reduce the size of its nuclear arsenal. The Russian Duma has so far refused to take this step, but appears to be moving in that direction. If they interepret this expansion, however, as a hostile gesture in their direction, they may well refuse to ratify, leaving us all less safe than we might otherwise have been. The United States has made tremendous strides in our relationship with Russia since the fall of the Soviet system. American diplomacy now should be focused on consolidating those gains, and finding ways to help Russia complete its transition to democracy. Many experts in our own country, as well as many of the most credible pro-Western leaders in Russia itself, have warned us that expanding NATO could inflame nationalist passions, and lead to a turning away from the path of democracy and peaceful relations. That would be the most disastrous of unintended consequences, and must give us pause as we consider this step. Third, the cost of this initiative is anyone's guess, and must compel us to caution as well, particularly considering that the United States already pays a disproportionate share of NATO's costs. If NATO expansion were vital to our national security, then our country would be resolved to pay any price, in President Kennedy's timeless phrase. But we live in a fundamentally different time, one in which each country's security is determined as much by the quality of its schools and the cleanliness of its air and water than by the might of its armies and navies. Committing to an expanded military alliance which may entail far greater costs than the Administration has estimated could diminish our ability to make the investments that will make us safer and stronger. The Senate had an opportunity, through the amendment offered by Senator Harkin, to gain a better sense of the size of this financial commitment. I strongly supported that effort. Unfortunately, it did not prevail, and we are left with burning questions about the size of the financial commitment entailed by this treaty, and the effect that will have on our ability to address those domestic priorities which make us stronger as a nation. What is true for us is true for these struggling new democracies as well. As Senator Moynihan has pointed out so wisely, these countries are under no immediate threat. Their most pressing challenge is the development of growing economies, and the institutions of democracy. But if they join NATO, these struggling nations will be required to spend billions on the latest in military hardware instead of making critically needed investments in areas that lead to long-term benefit: infrastructure, education, environmental health, and many others. Decades of a failed communist system left these countries in economic ruin. I believe it is a testament to their energy and determination that they are slowly overcoming this legacy and building up new, vibrant free market economies. We should, in the name of international security, be doing everything possible to help them through this transition. I do not believe that anyone has properly assessed the impact that joining NATO, and making the necessary investments to participate in that military alliance, will have on our Eastern European friends' ability to continue a successful transition to market economics. And I do not believe we should jump pell-mell into such an enlargement until we have done so. The democratization of Eastern Europe is an exciting and hopeful development. As a child of the Cold War, I am awed by the transitions we have seen. The United States has a special responsibility to nurture freedom wherever it is seeking to plant its roots. But in the final analysis, it is not clear that extending NATO membership to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic is the best way to do it. In this case, the burden of proof is on the proponents. We should not take so solemn a step as committing American lives to the protection of another country unless we are absolutely certain, beyond any doubt, that it is the wisest of possible courses. I remain unconvinced, and so I opposed the measure.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in submitting this resolution condemning the subsidized sale of European barley into the California barley market. Today several of us met with the European Union Ambassador, Mr. Hugo Paemon, to express our extreme concern about this shipment and about the future it bodes for the trade relationship between the United States and the European Union. Quite frankly, Mr. President, I think that we were heard but I am not sure, in the American vernacular, that Mr. Paemon quite ``gets it.'' Mr. President, I want to suggest that whether this is just a skirmish, or whether it is the first battle in what many believe could become a rapidly escalating conflict over trade in agricultural goods, for barley producers in Oregon and across America, there has been no more serious matter in the past decade. My language is strong, Mr. President, because it is very important that Senators understand that if this shipment proceeds it sets an extremely dangerous precedent for our agricultural trade practices. There is a very real concern in Oregon that if we allow this shipment of grain, the shipment of which would simply not be possible without an extraordinary level of European Union subsidy, then we will have opened the door to further shipments that could have devastating effects on our domestic commodity prices. For my colleagues who have not yet heard about this issue, a shipment of European Union barley, at a restitution subsidy rate of $51 per metric ton, that was originally targeted into the Saudi Arabian market was not sold. In search of a buyer, this shipment was subsequently sold into the California feed barley market at a price well below the then- current market price. Mr. President, the United States is the world's largest producer of feed grains and the world's largest exporter of feed grains. Were this European barley not subsidized at half of its value, we would not be having this discussion because there is no way it could have been priced competitively with domestic feed barley. I met this weekend with barley producers in Klamath Falls, Oregon. These folks are already seeing very tough barley prices this season, down about $5 a metric ton from what they have normally received over the decade. They are taking some hits as a consequence of our national policy through the Farm bill of phasing out income maintenance programs. And now the European Union is sending us a heavily subsidized shipment that is causing collapse of the market. Enough is enough. This European Union shipment, because it has the capacity to flood the California market for the next 9 months, has caused prices to drop $10 per ton in one week. One individual who operates a grain elevator in the Klamath described telling a local producer that he had lost some $20,000 in 48 hours as a result of this dumping of this subsidized barley into California. These farmers ask, correctly, that if ever there was a time for the federal government to come to the defense of American agriculture, now is that time. We face collapse of our American barley market because of this relatively unique occurrence; now is the time to go to the mat in defense of our producers against wholly subsidized foreign dumping. Mr. President, we should also recognize, and thank, the larger wholesalers of barley in California who passed up this sale, which to them represented I'm sure a very lucrative marketing opportunity. These companies understood the damage that the sale would do to their customers and most reliable suppliers, the U.S. barley producers. But surely if this sale is allowed to go forward, and other fire sales are allowed to follow, those firms will no longer be able to afford that posture. Mr. President, as a supporter of free trade, and of providing fast track authority, if we are to retain our credibility with American farmers then we must show the ability to act forcefully when faced with these sorts of irritants to free trade. There is no precedent for this sale, and if we allow it to go forward then those of us who believe in the promise of freer trade will have some difficulty explaining to our farmers that greater trade freedom is in their best interest. Mr. President, It is very important to all Oregon producers that the U.S. Senate act quickly to respond to this unprecedented attack on one segment of our agriculture industry. I urge the swift adoption of this resolution.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for standing up for the rights of patients in health maintenance organizations. This is an issue of enormous importance, and I think it is clear the Senate ought to be spending time talking about how real patients are suffering as they try to make their way through the health care system. I wish to tell the Senator that I very much appreciate his addressing this issue today.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, the poster that is next to me today is a photograph of one of the most important doors in the world. It is an entry to the World Trade Organization, an organization where decisions are made on an ongoing basis that affect the lives of millions of Americans and billions of citizens around the world, decisions that are directly related to their ability to have good- paying jobs, decisions related to their health, their safety and their well-being. Mr. President, these are decisions, as our colleagues can see from this photograph next to me that recently appeared in the New York Times, that the World Trade Organization makes behind closed doors. In fact, they seem to think it is so important to do their business in secret that the World Trade Organization has posted it in five languages--five languages--just to make it clear that the public, not just the public in the United States, but citizens around the world, are barred from learning of the deliberations that go on behind those doors at the World Trade Organization. I do not come to this floor as a protectionist. In fact, I have voted for every market-opening trade agreement that has come before the Senate and, during my years in the other body. Trade, open and expanded trade, is the lifeblood of the Pacific Northwest. In my home State of Oregon, one out of every five jobs depends on international trade. But I am concerned because the World Trade Organization's decisions have enormous implications for the daily lives of our citizens, and I do not think it is right that those decisions are made behind closed doors. I do not think that a new focus by the World Trade Organization on openness is inconsistent with the principles of expanded and free trade. If the World Trade Organization had open meetings and could hear evidence from outside experts, it is possible some of their decisions would have turned out differently. Take, for example, the recent case the United States lost involving shrimp imports. The World Trade Organization overturned a U.S. ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle excluder devices. If expert witnesses had been allowed to demonstrate the effectiveness of these devices in protecting an endangered species, I expect that the World Trade Organization would have upheld U.S. law. But experts were shut out of those proceedings. Environmental groups, just as so many business groups have done, condemned that ruling saying, ``Three unaccountable trade bureaucrats sitting behind closed doors in Geneva should not have the power to make up rules that sabotage global environmental protection.'' The World Trade Organization holds more than 150 scheduled meetings a year, and hundreds of others. According to World Trade Organization rules, the Ministerial Meeting, which is to be held at least once every 2 years, shall ordinarily be held in private. The meetings of the General Council are also held in private. All other World Trade Organization meetings follow the same rules. In fact, one observer noted the World Trade Organization carries out all its activities in strict confidentiality in meetings closed to the public, including the press and nongovernmental organizations. Next month, the world's major trading nations will meet in Geneva for the second ministerial conference. They will also be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the world trading system. I urge the President of the United States, if he chooses to go to Geneva, to use that opportunity to call for an end to the closed meetings of the World Trade Organization. A few weeks ago, with the bipartisan support of our colleagues, the Senate adopted my amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that simply tells the President to instruct the U.S. Representatives to the World Trade Organization to open the organization's doors to the world's public. Today I am joined by several of my colleagues in a letter to the President urging that he attach a top priority to opening up the World Trade Organization. On a bipartisan basis, Senator Abraham, Senator Kerrey, Senator Connie Mack, Senator D'Amato, and Senator Rockefeller have joined me in urging that the United States not accept closed markets overseas, but also not accept closed doors in Geneva. Eliminating the secrecy of meetings takes on a greater sense of urgency in light of the growing power of the World Trade Organization. Just this year, the World Trade Organization is working behind closed doors on new rules on trade in agriculture, financial services, information technology, government procurement, and many other areas. As the World Trade Organization becomes more enmeshed in global standard-setting and multinational regulations, the agency's secrecy becomes even more disturbing. For example, an important industry group, the American Insurance Association, has publicly criticized the closed- door nature of the road to Geneva. The type of secrecy that is employed at the World Trade Organization would not be tolerated here in the United States. In our country, when a Federal agency proposes a new rule or regulation, it must seek public comment. We hold hearings. There is debate in the press. But that fundamental openness is missing in Geneva. The World Trade Organization doesn't have to seek public comment on its actions. It doesn't have to allow the public to watch its deliberations. And this is wrong. The World Trade Organization ought to be held accountable for its decisions and actions. They should not be allowed to withhold from the public information about their activities in meetings. The press has a special place in the gallery here in the U.S. Senate. In Geneva, the delegates vote by secret ballot about whether to release a statement after the meeting is over. The President of the United States, to his great credit, has called for greater openness in the World Trade Organization's dispute settlement process. This was listed as a principal U.S. trade negotiating objective in the fast track legislation of last year. In recent testimony before a House committee, senior U.S. officials said that the United States will seek greater transparency in the settlement process in the World Trade Organization. And Mickey Kantor, President Clinton's first trade negotiator, has said, ``These are very important issues. But it is like they are being dealt with somewhere in a closet and no one is watching.'' Agricultural trade is just one area where private decisionmaking at the World Trade Organization has enormous public implications. Since the 1980s, food imports to the United States have doubled. At the same time, while most imported food is wholesome, public health scientists are saying they are seeing more outbreaks of disease linked to imported food--raspberries from Guatemala; carrots from Peru; strawberries, scallions, and cantaloupes from Mexico--the list goes on and on, and some point to the illnesses from this produce as an unintended byproduct of the fact that the safety issues are not debated in the open at the World Trade Organization. So, our message is simple. The decisions of the World Trade Organization on food safety or other key standards should not be made behind closed doors. The World Trade Organization has the regulatory power to decide whether an Oregon wheat farmer can sell his wheat overseas and whether an Oregon cattle rancher can sell his beef in Europe. A November 28, 1997, WTO report on relations with nongovernmental organizations found that the World Trade Organization restricts the availability of documents on these and many other important issues for our constituents. The World Trade Organization's dispute settlement process is binding. Last November, an opinion piece in the Journal of Commerce stated: World Trade Organization dispute settlement process operates largely in the dark with confidential briefs, closed hearings, unsigned opinions and non-transparent, ad hoc panel appointments. Clearly defined rules on procedure, conflicts of interest and other ethical issues for litigants and judges are not established. Opening dispute settlement to public view, as the President has called for and as our bipartisan group of Senators calls for today, is essential to maintaining the integrity of the process. Last December, 129 Members of the Swiss Parliament criticized the World Trade Organization for its lack of democracy, calling for greater transparency. The Swiss should know. They have a front row seat on the proceedings in Geneva, and even they believe that it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with information about these important proceedings. I close with this last comment. The call for openness at the World Trade Organization is a pro-trade position. It will strengthen this organization. Sunshine will be beneficial to the cause of free and expanded trade, a cause that I have consistently voted for in my years in the U.S. Congress. But if there is a continued lack of accountability, if there is a continued obsession with secrecy, I believe that is going to undermine the cause of expanded trade in the world. I am very hopeful that as we look to bring more openness to the World Trade Organization, we will see the importance of doing the public's business in public all through the world. Mr. President, many of our colleagues are aware that I am trying to bring more openness to the U.S. Senate, with Senator Grassley, by barring the right of a Senator to put a secret hold or objection on business here in the U.S. Senate. So I am very hopeful that this year will see changes, changes in the rules in the U.S. Senate, that will bring more openness to the way decisions are made here, changes at the World Trade Organization so there is more openness and more accountability in the way decisions are made there. I hope I will be able to come back to this floor in the months ahead without this poster, and say the World Trade Organization has taken down the ``private'' signs and shown the public how it is making its decisions and why. Doing the public's business in public is more likely to generate confidence in the important decisions that are made at the World Trade Organization and here in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today we confirmed an outstanding lawyer, a knowledgeable and diligent servant of justice and great judicial nominee from my State of Oregon. It was a great honor to present to the Senate the name of Mr. Garr ``Mike'' King to be a United States District Judge for the District of Oregon. Mr. King comes before the Senate today with the bipartisan support of the Oregon Congressional delegation, and with broad support from both Oregon's law enforcement community and our state's legal community. Mr. King has served as a member of the Oregon State Bar Association since 1963 and has distinguished himself as one of the finest attorneys in the state. During this period of time, Mr. King has developed a sterling reputation for integrity, hard work, intelligence, and diligence. In addition to his outstanding career as an attorney in private practice, Mr. King also has served as Multnomah County Deputy District Attorney and was elected to the Board of Regents of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He helped draft the Oregon Rules for Civil Procedure, authored the arbitration rules for Multnomah County and served as an arbitrator through the American Arbitration Association. He has been active in the U.S. District Court Mediation program since it was initiated and has worked quite closely with the Court to improve the federal mediation system. Mr. King is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps who served his country with honor from 1954 to 1957. He has lived in Oregon for the past 35 years and is a proud father of seven children who is deeply involved in his church and community affairs. As those of my colleagues who were at Mike's confirmation hearing can attest, I think he single- handedly managed to fill about half of the hearing room with family members from all over the country, and I believe that speaks volumes about the kind of caring, concerned and committed family man Mike King is. As with previous recommendations that I have made for the federal bench, the recommendation of Mr. King was preceded by an extensive bipartisan screening effort undertaken by a committee of leading Oregon attorneys. The selection committee was appointed with input from all the members of the Oregon Congressional delegation and the Governor's office. All applicants reviewed by the committee were evaluated on three criteria: judicial temperament, fitness to serve on the federal bench, and legal qualifications. Mr. King was rated very highly by the committee, and after personally interviewing him, I found him very well qualified for this position. I want to again thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch for moving us to this point in the process. I am very grateful for both the amount of time and good counsel you continue to give me in the consideration of my region's needs on the federal bench. I also thank my colleague, Senator Smith, for his efforts on behalf of this nominee. Senator Smith and I have now worked together in support of two other fine candidates to the federal bench, both of whom have been confirmed by the Senate. I am certain that Mike King will bring to the federal bench the same intelligence, legal skill and integrity that he has brought to his work as one of our state's most respected attorneys.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the cooperation of the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, in working with me on this matter. My purpose in offering the original amendment in Committee was truth in budgeting. The truth I am seeking has been masked by inflation. With inflation being lower than anticipated, the CBO and GAO estimate there is as much as a $3 billion inflationary windfall surplus in the budget for 1999, and as much as a $26 billion surplus over the next five years. My concern is the American taxpayer never sees this inflationary windfall and probably doesn't even know it exists. The money is not accounted for by the agencies and is not returned to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, the windfall appears to end up as walk-around money in the pockets of bureaucrats. That is why I am pleased that together with the Chairman of the Budget Committee we will request the General Accounting Office to tell Congress by May 15 the exact amount of the inflationary windfall for FY99, how the agencies intend to use the inflationary windfall and how CBO can go about making this calculation for future years. Our request will also direct the GAO by August 15 to develop for us a methodology for correctly calculating inflationary estimates that is applicable to both defense and non-defense spending and how the agencies expect to use the additional funds. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the record the GAO's chart for FY99 Economic Adjustments as well as the CBO's March 24, 1998 letter to me on the inflationary windfall.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, In Oregon and across America, people are starting to think that ``affordable housing'' is the biggest oxymoron since ``jumbo shrimp''. Decent houses have become unaffordable for many working moderate-income families. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Affordable Housing Barrier Removal Act.'' This bill encourages all governments to streamline regulations to help bring home ownership within the reach of middle class families who can only dream of it today. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) says that housing is affordable if all costs--mortgage, utilities, property taxes and insurance--consume no more than 30 percent of household gross income. Yet in Clackamas County, Oregon, for example, the median family income is $49,600, while the average cost of a house is $200,000. This makes it virtually impossible for many people, especially young families, to obtain all the benefits of home ownership. While many factors contribute to real estate prices, one of the main things that drives prices higher is the proliferation of government rules and fees. In Portland, fully 5 percent of the average home price of $155,400 comes directly from permit fees and so-called ``system delivery charges,'' some of which may serve worthwhile purposes, but should be re-examined as a total package. All of these added costs are eventually passed onto the buyer and often keep families from buying homes they could otherwise afford. The federal government has a role to play in the affordable housing debate. It can promote community goals of environmental protection, access for people with disabilities, and better transportation planning, in the context of their financial impact on home buyers. This bill, the Affordable Housing Barrier Removal Act of 1998, would do this by encouraging the formation of Barrier Removal Councils in every local jurisdiction that receives HUD block grants for community development. Mr. President, back home in Oregon I have assembled a housing task force to advise me on housing policies. My task force told me that communities need to sit down and examine the issue of affordable housing before the bricks are set and the mortar is poured. That's why these Barrier Removal Councils are important. These councils would be charged with taking the kind of big-picture approach that can identify ways to lower barriers to home ownership that overlapping and outdated regulations cause. In other words, we need to look at the forest as a whole, not just one tree at a time. This bill is similar to legislation I introduced last week to establish a special bicameral Sunset Committee in Congress to review every federal program every five years. Programs, regulations, and laws tend to pile up because legislatures at both the local and federal levels generally work to address specific problems, one at a time, often forgetting to examine the cumulative effect of prior laws. There is a need to set up mechanisms to examine regulations affecting affordable housing in their totality. This bill would also call for a special national conference every two years to discuss regulations that may be barriers, and creates a national clearinghouse to provide information to communities on the work being done to remove barriers in other parts of the country. This legislation will help home buyers by improving some of the ways the Federal Housing Administration--the lender for many middle-income families--operates. It allows them to make loans to more people, by redefining the areas they operate in. And it simplifies the convoluted process that FHA uses to determine the down payment that a family is expected to make. You should not need Bill Gates' money to afford a home and you should not need his math skills to figure out how much your house is going to cost. Finally, Mr. President, our bill asks the federal government to take the impact on home buyers into account by requiring all federal agencies to include a housing impact analysis, except on policies where there is no impact. The Housing Impact Statement focuses the attention of agencies on the question ``how does this policy affect home prices'' every time it tries to solve a problem by instituting a new regulation. It is always important for government at every level to understand the consequences of its actions. This is an effort to try to instill that good government philosophy into the housing area. Home ownership has always been part of the American Dream. It is everyone's responsibility to keep it from just being a dream for working families.