Ron Wyden

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taking the kind of big-picture approach that can identify ways to lower barriers to home ownership that overlapping and outdated regulations cause.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.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would improve and modernize the current system for accessing information about hazardous chemicals in the workplace. This legislation will make it easier for workers to protect themselves against chemical exposure risks in their workplaces by giving them online access to essential safety information. It will also make this information more quickly accessible in the event of an emergency. Under current regulations, employers are required to have available in the workplace Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) describing every chemical ever used at the site. The MSDS contains information about the chemical and what to do in the event a worker is exposed by ingesting it, having it splash on the skin or in the eyes. Employers typically keep MSDS sheets in hug binders making them difficult to access quickly during actual exposure incidents. As a result, emergency personnel may have to flip through page after page of information to find out how to respond to the specific chemical exposure. This complies with the law, but it's not the best way to get critical information in an emergency. The better approach is to have the information accessible online. This can greatly reduce the time it takes to get essential information on the proper first aid procedures in the event of exposure. In some cases, this faster response can literally mean the difference between life and death. The bill I am introducing today allows--but does not require-- electronic access to MSDS information, so there is no mandate that employers have to switch to an electronic system. This legislation simply updates the current workplace safety system to recognize the widespread use of computers in the workplace. It merely provides an additional option that can yield better protection for workers with less hassle for employers. My legislation requires chemical hazard information to be written in plain English, so that workers and emergency personnel can better understand the risks and what to do in an emergency. The MSDS sheets now in use are typically written by lawyers to protect the chemical manufacturers from liability. Because they are often written in legalese, it is difficult for workers to understand MSDS, especially in emergencies. For example, instead of simply stating, ``Keep this material away from your eyes,'' the instructions on one MSDS say ``Avoid ocular contact.'' Workplace safety information should be understandable to all employees without having to look up every other word in the dictionary. My legislation addresses this problem by requiring information on new hazardous chemicals brought into the workplace to be written in easily understandable English. This legislation has the support of Oregon OSHA officials, industry and union safety officials. A companion bill introduced in the House this week has bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense workplace safety initiative.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that would improve and modernize the current system for accessing information about hazardous chemicals in the workplace. This legislation will make it easier for workers to protect themselves against chemical exposure risks in their workplaces by giving them online access to essential safety information. It will also make this information more quickly accessible in the event of an emergency. Under current regulations, employers are required to have available in the workplace Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) describing every chemical ever used at the site. The MSDS contains information about the chemical and what to do in the event a worker is exposed by ingesting it, having it splash on the skin or in the eyes. Employers typically keep MSDS sheets in hug binders making them difficult to access quickly during actual exposure incidents. As a result, emergency personnel may have to flip through page after page of information to find out how to respond to the specific chemical exposure. This complies with the law, but it's not the best way to get critical information in an emergency. The better approach is to have the information accessible online. This can greatly reduce the time it takes to get essential information on the proper first aid procedures in the event of exposure. In some cases, this faster response can literally mean the difference between life and death. The bill I am introducing today allows--but does not require-- electronic access to MSDS information, so there is no mandate that employers have to switch to an electronic system. This legislation simply updates the current workplace safety system to recognize the widespread use of computers in the workplace. It merely provides an additional option that can yield better protection for workers with less hassle for employers. My legislation requires chemical hazard information to be written in plain English, so that workers and emergency personnel can better understand the risks and what to do in an emergency. The MSDS sheets now in use are typically written by lawyers to protect the chemical manufacturers from liability. Because they are often written in legalese, it is difficult for workers to understand MSDS, especially in emergencies. For example, instead of simply stating, ``Keep this material away from your eyes,'' the instructions on one MSDS say ``Avoid ocular contact.'' Workplace safety information should be understandable to all employees without having to look up every other word in the dictionary. My legislation addresses this problem by requiring information on new hazardous chemicals brought into the workplace to be written in easily understandable English. This legislation has the support of Oregon OSHA officials, industry and union safety officials. A companion bill introduced in the House this week has bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense workplace safety initiative.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a friend and a constituent of mine who is a great legal thinker and writer, a pillar in her community, a respected and valuable Associate Justice on the Oregon Supreme Court, and someone who I believe will be an outstanding federal court of appeals judge--Justice Susan Graber. Let me begin by expressing my thanks and gratitude to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and in particular the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Hatch of Utah for acting on the nomination of Justice Graber and holding a confirmation hearing earlier this year. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Justice Susan Graber for appointment as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justice Graber comes before the Senate today with the strong bipartisan support of the Oregon Congressional delegation, with broad support from Oregon's law enforcement community and with strong support from the bench and bar. From all across my home state, from both sides of the aisle in Oregon politics, from judges and litigants alike, I have heard the praise accorded to this dedicated jurist, who has just recently reached her 10th anniversary as an appellate judge --at the ripe old age of 48. I will not dwell long on her outstanding qualifications for this position--a graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School, Susan Graber has excelled at every step of her fine legal career. From the moment she took the bench right up until the present day, Susan Graber remains the youngest--and I think most will agree, one of the most productive--justices of the Oregon Supreme Court. Through her authorship of over 300 opinions in the past 10 years, Justice Graber has garnered praise from the bench and bar as being the epitome of a careful and non-ideological judge whose centrist approach has helped promote a consensus-building and collegial atmosphere on this important court. And Justice Graber's opinions point out another fact--this is an individual who respects and understands her role as a judge. She understands very clearly the difference between being a legislator and being a judge, and her opinions reflect a firm adherence to the law as written by the Oregon Legislature. She knows the role of a judge is to follow, not to make the law, and that is exactly what we need on the federal appellate bench. I am certain that Justice Graber will bring to the U.S. Court of Appeals the same intelligence, thoroughness and integrity that she has brought to her work as a State Supreme Court judge and as a careful and thoughtful student of the law. I want to again thank Chairman Hatch and the Senate leadership for moving us to this point in the process, and I urge my colleagues to confirm this tremendous nominee.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, someone once said that the only thing which truly lives forever is a Government program in Washington, DC. I am introducing legislation today to rein in the growth of those big Government programs and to require the Congress to stop rubberstamping programs in this body. The sunset legislation that I put forward today will require the key programs of Government to face regular scrutiny and stand or fall on their merits. This legislation would give Congress a new and powerful tool to rein in the bureaucracy and create a Federal Government that would be smaller, less costly, and more accountable to the American people. The legislation that I introduce today would establish a special bipartisan, bicameral congressional committee which would be charged with reviewing the key programs of Government every 5 years. Any U.S. citizen of voting age could petition this committee for the termination of these programs. If the committee recommended termination and Congress failed to reauthorize that program within 1 year of that recommendation, it would then become impossible to provide any appropriation for that program without a three-fifths vote in both Houses. In other words, a sunset law would provide a mechanism for shutting the door on unneeded, mismanaged, or failed efforts in Government. This legislation would end the inertia which sometimes carries Federal programs forward in perpetuity. It would be a meaningful, effective check on the continual growth of Government. Mr. President, I think that each of us sees, as we look at the Federal budget and carry out our duties, some programs that we believe have served their purpose and can be terminated, some programs that were mistakes in the first place, some that were well-intentioned and just have not worked out. I look, for example, at programs like the 1872 mining statute which costs the Government about $1 billion per year; the tobacco subsidy programs where we continue to pay out vast sums year after year and then have to encourage, through public education campaigns, individuals not to smoke. I see fighter jet programs that cost billions; the $4.7 billion National Ignition Facility. The list goes on and on. So it is time, Mr. President, to look at new tools to put the brakes on some of this spending. The legislation that I am introducing today will do that by putting an end to programs and providing an end date for those programs that would otherwise sit on the shelf forever. Twenty-four States, including my own, already have statutes like the Federal sunset law that I propose to the Senate today. What has been the experience of those sunset laws? One analysis found that during a 5-year period, as many as 23 percent of the agencies reviewed under States' sunset laws were eliminated, including some legislative dinosaurs that would oversee lightning rod salesmen, septic tank cleaners, tourist guides, massage therapists, rainmakers, horse hunters, textbook salesmen, and even tattoo artists. Sunset laws have given the State governments the chance to streamline and rationalize the myriad of agencies that spring up as governmental bodies respond to the concerns of the moment. I am of the view that the Federal Government needs a similar process to help clean up what former President Reagan used to call ``the puzzle palaces on the Potomac.'' At its heart, the legislation that I introduce today calls for using a sunset concept on Federal programs as a tool for good and careful government. There is a tendency in Washington, DC, to focus exhaustive attention on programs before they are created and then virtually ignore them from that point out. I sat on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee as a Member of the other body, and I saw firsthand that the Congress can spend an extraordinary amount of time and effort trying to pass laws and very little to actually see if what is on the books works. Requiring that each and every program is periodically reauthorized would focus the Congress' attention and the attention of the media on the operations and effectiveness of individual Government programs in a way that is simply not done today. It will, in my view, increase the pressure on agency managers to perform and do so in a cost-effective fashion. I suspect that some Federal agencies will function a bit differently when they know that there is a certainty of accountability and potential termination of their program that hangs over them. Mr. President, when any Member of this body has a town meeting at home, they will hear from citizens who are tired of Government programs that don't work and still grow larger each year. Now is the time for the Senate to establish a system to assure that only those parts of Government are kept that work and that there is a renewed effort to terminate programs which simply take up space and waste the taxpayers' money. Our constituents deserve better. The States have found that sunset laws can provide them the opportunity to reduce waste while still keeping programs that work, and I believe that it is high time for the U.S. Senate to pass favorably on the sunset concept that is working at the State level across this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, someone once said that the only thing which truly lives forever is a Government program in Washington, DC. I am introducing legislation today to rein in the growth of those big Government programs and to require the Congress to stop rubberstamping programs in this body. The sunset legislation that I put forward today will require the key programs of Government to face regular scrutiny and stand or fall on their merits. This legislation would give Congress a new and powerful tool to rein in the bureaucracy and create a Federal Government that would be smaller, less costly, and more accountable to the American people. The legislation that I introduce today would establish a special bipartisan, bicameral congressional committee which would be charged with reviewing the key programs of Government every 5 years. Any U.S. citizen of voting age could petition this committee for the termination of these programs. If the committee recommended termination and Congress failed to reauthorize that program within 1 year of that recommendation, it would then become impossible to provide any appropriation for that program without a three-fifths vote in both Houses. In other words, a sunset law would provide a mechanism for shutting the door on unneeded, mismanaged, or failed efforts in Government. This legislation would end the inertia which sometimes carries Federal programs forward in perpetuity. It would be a meaningful, effective check on the continual growth of Government. Mr. President, I think that each of us sees, as we look at the Federal budget and carry out our duties, some programs that we believe have served their purpose and can be terminated, some programs that were mistakes in the first place, some that were well-intentioned and just have not worked out. I look, for example, at programs like the 1872 mining statute which costs the Government about $1 billion per year; the tobacco subsidy programs where we continue to pay out vast sums year after year and then have to encourage, through public education campaigns, individuals not to smoke. I see fighter jet programs that cost billions; the $4.7 billion National Ignition Facility. The list goes on and on. So it is time, Mr. President, to look at new tools to put the brakes on some of this spending. The legislation that I am introducing today will do that by putting an end to programs and providing an end date for those programs that would otherwise sit on the shelf forever. Twenty-four States, including my own, already have statutes like the Federal sunset law that I propose to the Senate today. What has been the experience of those sunset laws? One analysis found that during a 5-year period, as many as 23 percent of the agencies reviewed under States' sunset laws were eliminated, including some legislative dinosaurs that would oversee lightning rod salesmen, septic tank cleaners, tourist guides, massage therapists, rainmakers, horse hunters, textbook salesmen, and even tattoo artists. Sunset laws have given the State governments the chance to streamline and rationalize the myriad of agencies that spring up as governmental bodies respond to the concerns of the moment. I am of the view that the Federal Government needs a similar process to help clean up what former President Reagan used to call ``the puzzle palaces on the Potomac.'' At its heart, the legislation that I introduce today calls for using a sunset concept on Federal programs as a tool for good and careful government. There is a tendency in Washington, DC, to focus exhaustive attention on programs before they are created and then virtually ignore them from that point out. I sat on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee as a Member of the other body, and I saw firsthand that the Congress can spend an extraordinary amount of time and effort trying to pass laws and very little to actually see if what is on the books works. Requiring that each and every program is periodically reauthorized would focus the Congress' attention and the attention of the media on the operations and effectiveness of individual Government programs in a way that is simply not done today. It will, in my view, increase the pressure on agency managers to perform and do so in a cost-effective fashion. I suspect that some Federal agencies will function a bit differently when they know that there is a certainty of accountability and potential termination of their program that hangs over them. Mr. President, when any Member of this body has a town meeting at home, they will hear from citizens who are tired of Government programs that don't work and still grow larger each year. Now is the time for the Senate to establish a system to assure that only those parts of Government are kept that work and that there is a renewed effort to terminate programs which simply take up space and waste the taxpayers' money. Our constituents deserve better. The States have found that sunset laws can provide them the opportunity to reduce waste while still keeping programs that work, and I believe that it is high time for the U.S. Senate to pass favorably on the sunset concept that is working at the State level across this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President. (The remarks of Mr. Wyden pertaining to the introduction of S. 1730 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the pending business, I believe, is the Chafee-Wyden-Graham amendment. I want to take a few minutes to explain to my colleagues what we are pursuing with this amendment. Before Senator Byrd leaves the floor, I want to express my thanks to him for the very extensive input and help that he has given this Member, both on the entire bill and particularly on the provisions that relate to streamlining of the ISTEA permit process both on the transportation and the environmental side. I thank Senator Byrd.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, another way to describe this amendment, which deals with the transportation and environmental review process that is central to getting these projects on line and dealing with our transportation issues, is the ``do-it-right-once'' amendment. What we have in this country today is essentially a disjointed process for doing transportation and environmental reviews. In effect, you have one track going down the road trying to address the various requirements essential to OK'ing a project from the transportation side. You then have a separate effort going forward to deal with environmental reviews. Instead of the two efforts being combined at every step of the process, time and money is wasted as these separate undertakings go forward. So what you have is an extraordinary amount of duplication. You have duplication as it relates to the environmental side and as it relates to the transportation side, and you waste an extraordinary amount of time as it relates to getting these projects actually constructed. I think, as every Senator knows, for transportation projects time is money. Delays in approving transportation projects not only increase the cost of these projects; they also cause lost productivity to our economy and added stress for the commuters that are stuck in traffic. This bill is the result of extensive bipartisan discussion. Senator Graham and I began this in the committee many months ago. Senator Smith of New Hampshire has been extremely helpful in this effort and, of course, Senators Chafee and Byrd have been very extensively involved. We have now forged a comprehensive package that will streamline transportation and environmental reviews and bring much-needed relief for these key projects. The bill now will increase the funding for critical highway projects that will ensure that this money is better spent, because we will be speeding up the process for getting the projects built. Let me be very clear to the Senate. We are not talking about changing the environmental laws in any way. I wouldn't support that kind of effort, and my cosponsors of this amendment wouldn't support it either. This effort to streamline transportation environmental reviews, in fact, keeps every one of the environmental laws in place. It simply says that we are going to improve the decisionmaking process by building the consideration of environmental factors into transportation decisions at the front end of the process rather than at the tail end as has so often happens. So if we were to do nothing else in this bill, nothing else but to say at the beginning of an effort to get a transportation project built we were going to start consulting on environmental issues at that time, I think it would be a worthy endeavor. But this legislation doesn't just streamline the process; it complies with the environmental laws, and it ensures that there is early consideration of all realistic alternatives. In the urban areas, that means looking at transit, at bike paths, and a variety of nontraditional transportation solutions. But we don't require pointless consideration of these approaches in places where they don't make sense. Today's changes also increase the opportunities for public involvement. Many of our colleagues have been visited by transportation groups, by State officials, by environmental leaders, saying that they wanted public involvement early in the decisionmaking process. This amendment ensures that is done. In my view, it also increases the chance for early public support when the decisions are made rather than, as happens so often today, having public opposition develop later in the process, which can hold things up for many months. In conclusion, Mr. President, some have argued that you might do even more than this amendment envisages. They say, put transportation officials in charge of everything; put them in charge of transportation and environmental matters. Under that approach, which I think would be a mistake, I think we are not going to end up saving a lot of time in the review process. More likely, it may lead to questionable environmental decisions and considerable delay when these decisions are challenged in court. There is a better route to improving our transportation system. We can make the process faster, cheaper, and better while complying with all of our environmental laws at the same time. I see that the chairman of the committee has returned. I want to express my thanks to Chairman Chafee. When I and Senator Graham brought him this ISTEA streamlining amendment last summer, he gave us considerable time as we sought then to bring together the industry and environmental groups to support it. Also, the ranking minority member, Senator Baucus, who has helped me as a new Senator on a variety of issues, was involved at every step of the way. I thank Senator Baucus for that effort. We are here now as a result of the deliberations that began this summer. This is an amendment that saves time and money and helps strengthen our environmental laws and public support for them at the same time. I urge support of the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, the amendment that was agreed to by the Environment Committee with respect to funding for these critical transportation programs for our country really ought to be called the ``Truth In Transportation Funding Act'' because it ensures that gasoline taxes collected for transportation purposes will actually be spent on those critical transportation projects. For too long in America, the Congress has played a budgetary shell game--pretending to put funds away in various transportation programs but actually slipping those funds into other spending accounts. Mr. President and colleagues, this con game has been closed down. Now Congress is on the way to making the highway trust fund sacrosanct again. Transportation taxes will, indeed, pay for transportation services. This means that the dollars will be used on the ground where they are needed, not squirreled away in some account that never seems to be spent. Today, the Congress will be in a position to bring much-needed relief to citizens who face transportation gridlock across our country. The Congress is adding an additional $26 billion of transportation spending to what is now in the Senate ISTEA II bill. This translates for our State into an additional $40 million per year. In our State, transportation dollars are now stretched so thin that the State department of transportation is not developing new projects. We have focused our efforts on merely maintaining existing roads because we did not have funding available to pay for improvements. Until now, there was little hope on the horizon that more funding would be forthcoming. The Environment Committee's amendment is like emergency surgery for Oregon's clogged transportation arteries. If Congress now passes this bill, it will be possible to think in terms of improving the health of our transportation system instead of how to avoid further deterioration. We will be in a position to plan improvements to reduce congestion in an already overtaxed system. We can start to think about the future and how to handle our State's growing population, and many other parts of our country will be able to do the same. Mr. President and colleagues, I have always believed that you cannot have big league quality of life with little league transportation systems. In the modern world, a transportation bill is about so much more than how you get from point A to point B. A strong infrastructure is one of the basic ingredients to any recipe for economic growth. It is one of the key things that our businesses look at as they consider where to locate and one of the principal contributors to our quality of life. I support the Environment Committee's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support the additional funding needed to build the transportation system our Nation will need to compete in the 21st century. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying that I intend, in the days ahead, to take to this floor to discuss other parts of this important legislation. Our State has been a leader nationally in developing an innovative approach to managed growth in our country. This legislation allocates $20 million per year to reward those States and communities that have been willing to take fresh, creative approaches to handling growth. I am also working, and there was discussion in the Environment Committee today, with Senator Graham, Senator Bob Smith, and others, on a way to streamline the process and ensure that the dollars that are allocated for transportation projects are spent in the most effective way. In the past, there has really been a disconnect between the way transportation dollars are allocated and the environmental permits that are associated with actually getting those projects built and on line. We have been working on a bipartisan basis to bring together environmental leaders, builders, and those who were involved in planning our roads, and we believe that we are on our way to coming up with a streamlined system that is going to make it possible for us to save dollars and ensure that the transportation projects are built expeditiously while we still comply with the critically needed environmental laws for our country. I intend, in the days ahead, to talk about those commendable features of this legislation as well. I want to conclude by congratulating my friend, Senator Baucus, from Montana, and Senator Chafee for an extraordinary bit of work. This bill is heavy lifting. There are Senators with very strong views. There are regional differences of opinion. But I think we have been able to forge a piece of legislation that is going to make a difference in the 21st century. I conclude my remarks by especially praising our chairman, who has entered the Chamber, John Chafee, and Senator Baucus, the ranking minority member, because it is their work that has made it possible for us to come to the floor today. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I may speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we now have a seemingly permanent political campaign in America. We have an election the first Tuesday in November, people sleep in on Wednesday, and it starts all over again on Thursday. The money chase simply does not stop. I came to the Senate after a hard-fought and, frankly, less than pleasant campaign against an individual I am proud to call both a friend and a colleague, Senator Gordon Smith. In the final weeks of that campaign, we made a decision to unilaterally take off the air all television commercials about Senator Smith. I thought it was time to talk about issues, time to focus, with the voters, on the real questions that were important to their future. I am of the view that the American people need to know that today is the day when reform will be passed or defeated. The cloture vote on McCain-Feingold is the vote on campaign finance reform. It is the vote for a Senator who wants to address this problem of independent expenditures. It is the vote on the proposition that we need to have more time spent with voters, less time with raising money. Mr. President, I urge passage of the bill. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the additional time.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. That is very gracious.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the American political system is profoundly broken. I experienced this in my recent campaign for this office, which was why I made it my first official act, fifteen minutes after being sworn in to the Senate, to cosponsor the McCain-Feingold bill. We have all seen the phenomenon, in our own campaigns and in others, where they hold the election on Tuesday, you sleep in on Wednesday, and by Thursday afternoon it has started all over again. There is no interval in which to focus exclusively on the public's business. I don't think that anyone in this body likes that situation. I have never heard a group of Senators talking among themselves about how wonderful the seemingly permanent campaign is. Well today we have a chance to do something about it. The McCain-Feingold bill won't fix everything, but it will be the most significant step in the right direction in a long, long time. This bill also takes on one of the greatest threats that has developed in recent years to the quality of our nation's public dialogue, the recent rash of so-called ``independent expenditure campaigns.'' Political campaigns ought to be an opportunity for people who want to serve in public office to not only explain themselves, but to listen and learn. I have tried when running for office to spend as much time as possible listening to what the people I meet at shopping centers and bus stops and ice cream socials have to say. I want to hear what they think and I want to talk to them in a serious way about the fights that I want to wage on their behalf, the issues that I feel passionately about, and the direction I think our country ought to be headed. But in the past few years, new tactics have been developed by a variety of groups on both the left and the right who seek to insert themselves in between candidates and the public they seek to serve. In these races, the candidates at times become mere pawns in some larger battle for influence. In the race that my colleague from Oregon and I ran against each other, there were ads that were run that were probably meant to help me, and ads that were run that were meant to hurt me. I think that Senator Smith and I would both agree that we both would have preferred if all of these ads had never been aired. The McCain-Feingold bill is the best solution available at this time to clean up the excess of these independent expenditures. Democracy is a precious and fragile gift that has been left to us by previous generations, Mr. President. I don't expect that the republic will collapse tomorrow if we fail to pass this bill, but make no mistake about it, the steady erosion of the public's confidence in their leaders is a dangerous trend. We can make a real beginning today. The American people want this system fixed, and they have a right to expect that it will be. Let's not disappoint them again.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Let me also join in the remarks expressed by my colleague, Senator Smith, with respect to our colleague from Wyoming. I know he is sincere in his views. I will talk about what Judge Aiken faced with respect to that Dye case. Judge Aiken had two choices in front of her. Neither were ideal. She chose the one that in hindsight would be different than the one that Senator Smith and I would have chosen. Both of us have been concerned about the case. To her credit--in my view, to her great credit--Judge Aiken has indicated to Senator Smith and me that she would have handled that case differently. Her commitment to tough law enforcement has been proven because since that case she has been a tough judge. She has often exceeded the sentencing guidelines, and she has shown that she is going to be capable of great growth as a judge. I say to our friend from Wyoming, who among us as new Members of the U.S. Senate would not possibly take back a vote early in our career? We are constantly faced with tough decisions in the U.S. Senate, decisions where you have before you a couple of choices, neither of them being ideal. Judge Ann Aiken, in the Dye case, tried to make the call to the best of her ability. In my view, even more importantly, she showed great growth, she showed a willingness to evaluate the facts in light of additional time and additional opportunities to consider her decision. So we are then faced with the question: Do you throw out the prospect of an outstanding career on the Federal bench because of one case, one case where an individual has said, ``If I could do it again, I would have done it differently''? We wouldn't say a Member of this body should be excluded from the possibility of further service in the Senate because they would have cast one vote differently had they had the choice. We evaluate Members of the U.S. Senate on the totality of their records. On the totality of her record, Judge Aiken is an outstanding individual, an individual who will be tough on crime when she serves on the Federal bench. Mr. President, I see Chairman Hatch is on the floor. I know he had to leave the floor during our earlier remarks. I express to him my personal gratitude for all of the help and effort he has given Senator Smith and me on this matter again and again. Chairman Hatch has about as hefty a workload as you can imagine for a human being, but he has made time to assist Senator Smith and me. We are very appreciative of all the good counsel and help you have given us as new Members of the U.S. Senate. In closing, I especially want to express my appreciation to him for that help and counsel. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of a superb State judge, a pillar in her community, a devoted mother of five wonderful sons and a personal friend, an individual who I believe will make an outstanding Federal district judge, Judge Ann L. Aiken. Let me begin by expressing my thanks and gratitude to the Senate Judiciary Committee and particularly to Chairman Hatch and the ranking Democrat, Senator Leahy. Both Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy carry an enormous workload, and I want to express my appreciation to both of them for all the time and good counsel that they have given Senator Smith and myself with respect to Oregon's needs on the Federal bench. I especially want to thank at this time my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, for his truly extraordinary efforts on behalf of Judge Aiken. I think this Senate can see from Senator Smith's eloquence and his commitment to Judge Aiken how strongly he feels about this appointment. He has made extensive efforts with our colleagues to ensure that Judge Aiken would be before the U.S. Senate. I want to express my appreciation to Senator Smith for all of those efforts on Judge Aiken's behalf and to join Chairman Hatch in saying that I do not believe we could be here today without the extraordinary work of Senator Smith. I want him to know how much I appreciate those efforts. He knows Judge Aiken extremely well. Those joint efforts date back for years, as Senator Smith has stated, and it has been a pleasure to work with him on this, dating back to the days when he was president of the Oregon State Senate. Also at this time, I want to thank Congressman Peter DeFazio, a personal friend of Judge Aiken's who has worked with her on many important community activities. Congressman DeFazio has been a vociferous advocate of Judge Aiken's candidacy, and he has done a good job of keeping the debate focused on getting Judge Aiken to this point. And I want to express my appreciation to him. Mr. President, Judge Aiken's journey to be considered on the floor of the Senate has been a long one, and not just in terms of the 3,000 miles she traveled from Oregon for those confirmation hearings. Her journey formally began in 1994, when I put together a bipartisan group of Oregonians to review her qualifications. In January of 1995, I recommended to President Clinton, with the strong bipartisan support of the Oregon congressional delegation, that Ann Aiken be named to the Federal bench. As Senator Smith has noted, Judge Aiken's support for this nomination spans the political spectrum. Liberals are for Judge Aiken, conservatives are for Judge Aiken, moderates are for Judge Aiken, Democrats, Republicans; across all political boundaries, Oregonians have lined up behind this outstanding judge. It is my view that these many endorsements are pouring in because of the hard work and thoroughness that has marked Ann Aiken's career to date. And I would especially like to reference her work on crime. Mr. President, and colleagues, this is an especially important issue to me. Before I came to the U.S. Congress, first as a Member of the House, I was co-director of the Oregon Gray Panthers, a senior citizens group. And I found that many of these older folks were afraid to have meetings after 4 or 5 at night because of their fear of crime. And so I vowed, as a Member of Congress, that I would put a specific focus on law-enforcement issues in my service in the Congress. As a Member of the House, I joined Senator Specter in authoring the career criminal law, a law which prescribes tough punishments and no parole sentences for career criminals. Last Congress, I joined Senator Hatch in his efforts, his yeoman's work, to deal with the scourge of methamphetamines. And I have repeatedly--repeatedly--voted to impose the death penalty on heinous crimes in our society. So I take a back seat to no individual with respect to support for tough law enforcement. And I want to tell my colleagues in the U.S. Senate that Judge Aiken did not win all that support from law- enforcement groups in Oregon by accident. She won the support of the Association of District Attorneys and the Police Officers' Association because of her toughness on crime. As my colleague, Senator Smith, has noted this morning, repeatedly she has sought to impose the toughest possible sentences. And because Judge Aiken has a true mastery of the Oregon sentencing guidelines, she frequently is able to impose sentences that are significantly longer than any other judge on the bench. She has worked for a new approach to juvenile justice that ensures that young people who commit crimes have to face consequences. It would change the juvenile justice system as we know it. Youngsters would understand that the justice system is based on personal responsibility and individual accountability when they perpetrate those offenses. And the changes that have been made came about because Judge Aiken worked on a bipartisan basis with leaders of our State like Senator Smith to get that done. So she did not win all that support from law enforcement by accident. And she would not have the bipartisan support of her two U.S. Senators today were it not for the fact that she took a tough and fair approach with respect to law enforcement. Judge Aiken is also a person who knows how to squeeze an hour out of a minute. Not only does she maintain a rigorous judicial schedule, but the list of task forces that she has chaired and the boards on which she has served number in the dozens. She has been on the board of directors of Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), a program in which we take special pride in our State because it allows us to advocate for young people in our society and focus on trying to help them get their lives on track. On top of all this, somehow she finds time to be a caring and involved mother for her five boys. How she manages to juggle all these activities is beyond my comprehension, but the fact that she can serve as a judge, a community leader, and a devoted mom all simultaneously is yet more evidence of her fitness and her ability to serve as an outstanding Federal district judge. Ann Aiken is also an expert on family law. She has been a leader in the founding of a model program for youngsters known as the Relief Nursery. In that effort, she has brought together leaders from across her community to help families that were about to crack apart. Recently in fact, the successes of the Relief Nursery in keeping families together were profiled by Peter Jennings on World News Tonight. I am certain that Judge Aiken will bring to the Federal bench the same fairness, toughness and integrity that she has brought to her work as a State judge and a specialist in family law. And I am certain that Judge Aiken will bring to the Federal court the intellect, intensity and drive that has made her one of our State's most respected jurists. Let me wrap up by saying, as Senator Smith has touched on as well, this nomination is particularly important since Oregon already has two vacancies on the district bench and will be facing a third in April of this year. Failure to fill these openings in a timely manner is going to put an enormous strain on the Federal courts in Oregon. It is time to act and time to act swiftly. My colleagues, you have before you a tough judge and a fair one, one committed to seeing that justice is carried out in an impartial way no matter what the accusation is. She is going to make an exceptional Federal judge. She will bring honor to her community and her country. Therefore I urge you, as Senator Smith has, that the Senate move today on the candidacy of Judge Ann Aiken. She is a judge of extraordinary ability. She has earned this post. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, from the time controlled by Senator Leahy, I yield myself up to 15 minutes.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, by focusing on Social Security reform, educational quality, and strengthening the rights of health care patients, last night's speech zeroed in on the issues that I have been hearing Oregonians talk about during the course of 12 town meetings this month. Certainly a budget surplus, no matter how you count to create that surplus, is not going to bring us into some sort of budget nirvana if it is followed by more years of deficits. And I thought what was especially constructive about last night's speech was it zeroed in on the critical questions of retirement and health care that clearly drive the budget and the deficit for the long-term. The fact is you cannot have long-term budget discipline unless you deal with Social Security and health care, and I think last night we heard a call to arms, to dig in on a bipartisan basis on those key issues. Now, with respect to Social Security--and I am sure it is the case for all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--I can report that in my State more young people think that they are going to have a date with an extraterrestrial than think they are going to get a Social Security check. They look at these whopper payroll taxes that they are paying today, more than 6 percent for the worker, more than 6 percent for the employer, millions of Americans paying more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes, and they see that essentially their retirement contribution in the past has gone to a great extent to operate the budget. I think it is fair to say--and there has been a considerable amount of discussion of this in the last few weeks --that the budget surplus in America is to a great extent the Social Security surplus in America. I think last night we learned that the real challenge ahead--the President essentially called for what amounts to a year-long national teach-in on retirement finance in America--is to be straight with people. We are going to have to talk about the tough choices and in particular how we protect the millions of Americans for whom Social Security is a lifeline, vulnerable folks who every month are balancing their food costs against their medical bills and medical bills against their pharmaceutical bills, and the question is, how do we take care of those vulnerable folks and still get ready for this demographic tsunami--75, 80 million baby boomers that are going to retire early in the next century. But it seems to me that if we spend the next year working on a bipartisan basis to dig into these issues, look at a variety of different approaches--I am particularly attracted to the idea of trying to stimulate more private saving; I think there are a variety of ways in which that can be done--we will have said on our watch, on our watch, Madam President--and I have enjoyed serving with you on the Senate Committee on Aging--we will be able to say that on our watch we did not duck the tough and difficult questions. And certainly they are just as difficult with respect to health care as they are to retirement finance. I come from a part of the United States where we have perhaps the highest concentration of managed care in the country. In fact, in my hometown of Portland, more than half of the older people are in HMOs, are in managed care, and the challenge always is, even in a hometown like mine where we have a lot of good managed care, how do you hold the cost down while still protecting the rights of patients in those health plans. I am of the view that a lot of those folks feel powerless today. Frankly, they feel powerless throughout the health system, whether they are in an HMO or a fee-for-service plan or one of these hybrids that is a little bit of each. And I think that we as a body differ on lots of aspects about health care. Certainly you can differ on the role of the Federal Government, State government, tax policy, and a variety of issues, but I, for the life of me, cannot understand why any of us would not support what we heard last night with respect to patients being told about all their options in the health care system. Disagree all you want about the kind of services that ought to be part of a health plan but let us not disagree on the fundamental right to know what treatment might be available to you and what your options are. The same with the right of appeal, the right to make sure that if you felt you did not get a fair shake from the health care system you would have an opportunity to be heard and you could have another chance to make sure that your claim for services was addressed in a fair way. This issue, the question of protecting the rights of patients in health plans while holding costs down, is the essence of our challenge in health care. Of course you can hold costs down if you don't give people any care. That is a walk in the park. Anybody can do that. That is not the kind of health care system we want. We want one that both holds costs down and protects the quality of health care in our country. We have been able to achieve some of that success in my home State. I am convinced we can do it in every community in Oregon and across the country, but it is going to mean, as we heard last night, stepping forward, stepping up to the key issues. Madam President, what I was especially pleased about with respect to last night's speech was the call for bipartisanship. I think that is critical to taking on these key issues such as retirement and health care. Again, in our home State, that's the kind of government that we are trying to practice. I can tell you that my colleague in the U.S. Senate, Senator Gordon Smith and I, after we ran against each other for the seat to replace Bob Packwood--of all people, we could probably have come here and quarreled about all kinds of issues. We have not wanted to make that part of our service. We wanted to make part of our service tackling these issues on a bipartisan basis, in a way that makes sense for Oregon and our country. That is why, as new members of the Budget Committee, we joined in the last session in terms of Medicare reimbursement reform. As the Presiding Officer of this body knows, regarding much of the Medicare reimbursement system, since its inception the program has actually rewarded folks for being inefficient and penalized States for holding costs down. Senator Smith and I thought that was particularly unfair to our constituents, who have done so much heavy lifting to get the health care system back on track. We worked with other Senators, leaders on both sides, and were able to make some very dramatic changes in that reimbursement system. It has an eye-glazing name called the AAPCC, the Average Adjusted Per Capita Costs, but it's the guts of reimbursement. And I am convinced that when, on a bipartisan basis, colleagues can work for those kinds of changes, and we were successful last session, we can certainly rise to the challenge that we were given last night and move ahead with respect to reform as it relates to health maintenance organizations--consumer rights, like the right to full information and the right to appeal. So I am optimistic, as we go forward in the days ahead to tackle these issues, Madam President. I think we have an opportunity on our watch to say that we did not duck, that we understand that these issues, with respect to retirement and health care financing, are the biggest issues that in the past folks in politics ducked. We cannot afford to do that any longer. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues on those questions in the days ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.