Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Coats-Wyden kinship care amendment, which was agreed to by the Senate last night. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Coats, for his assistance with this important amendment. Grandparents caring for grandchildren represent an underappreciated natural resource in our Nation. They hold tremendous potential for curing one of our society's most pressing maladies: The care of children who have no parents, or whose parents simply aren't up to the task of providing children a stable, secure, and nurturing living environment. There is such a great reservoir of love and experience available to us, and more especially to the tens of thousands of American children who desperately need basic care giving. We provide public assistance to strangers for this kind of care, but the folks available to provide foster care homes are in short supply. It is time that States and the Federal Government begin to promote policies that open doors to relatives who are ready, willing and able to care for these children. Some States have already been moving in this direction for over a decade. Over the past 10 years the number of children involved in extended family arrangements has increased by 40 percent. Currently, more than 3 million children are being raised by their grandparents. In other words, 5 percent of all families in this country are headed by grandparents. However, in many places States still lack a system that includes relatives in the decisionmaking process when children are removed from the home. I have heard case after case of relatives who never heard from the child protection agency when a grandchild or other related child was removed from the home. Once the child was taken, extended family members had no contact and no way of finding out what then happened to the children. Sometimes brothers and sisters have been separated and a grandparent has spent years in court trying to reunite their family. I have repeatedly heard the frustration of grandparents whose grandchildren, as far as they knew, disappeared in the night, and once the children entered the State child protection system they literally disappeared from their families' lives. The amendment that we proposed, similar to one that was adopted by the House last spring, and to language that has been in almost every welfare bill since then, would give relatives preference over stranger caregivers when the State determines where to place a child who has been removed from the home. It's time we start developing policies that make it easier, instead of more difficult, for families to come together to raise their children. As we rethink our child protection system, we need to rededicate ourselves to looking to families, including extended families, for solutions. When a child is separated from their parents, it is usually a painful and traumatic experience. Living with people that a child knows and trusts gives children a better chance in the world and gives families a better chance to rebuild themselves. Again, I thank my colleague from across the aisle, Senator Coats, for his help with this amendment.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and others to introduce the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. Methamphetamine is one of the most insidious drugs to hit the streets in decades. In a few short years in Oregon, methamphetamine has become the second most frequently detected drug in workplace drug testing and in motor vehicle driver drug checks. This drug has become not only a scourge on Oregon's streets, increasing crime and creating toxic environmental hazards in the labs where it is produced, but has repercussions throughout the social services system as well. Foster care caseloads have increased because of the meth epidemic, and drug treatment centers are struggling with rising numbers of people needing help to escape the effects of this highly addictive and damaging drug. According to Sheriff Robert Kennedy, who serves the State in Jackson County in southwestern Oregon, methamphetamine arrests in his county have increased 1,100 percent in the past 5 years. This drug has become an urban and rural problem, and is being abused across the economic and social spectrum. Statewide, the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association and others have joined together to fight the public safety and health problems associated with methamphetamine. From the problems associated with cleaning up labs, to stopping the influx of Mexican-manufactured methamphetamine from coming into Oregon, law enforcement officials across the State have told me that meth is quickly becoming a major problem demanding high priority. That is why I am pleased today to join in the effort to help the country's law enforcement officers fight the methamphetamine epidemic. The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act takes on the battle against the drug on a number of fronts. To combat the precursor drugs manufactured across the border in Mexico, this legislation includes a long-arm provision that allows the United States to prosecute people who manufacture methamphetamine precursor chemicals, with an intent to import them into our country. Here at home, the bill significantly increases penalties for illegal trafficking in methamphetamine. Penalties for methamphetamine trafficking have been too low for too long. This bill will make drug dealers think twice by making penalties for dealing methamphetamine comparable to those for crack cocaine. The legislation also cracks down on trafficking in the precursor chemicals used to produce methamphetamine, increasing penalties and allowing law enforcement increased flexibility to obtain injunctions to stop the production and sale of precursor chemicals when an individual or company knowingly sells these chemicals to methamphetamine dealers. Finally, the act addresses the problem that many methamphetamine producers use legal, over-the-counter drugs, containing precursor chemicals, to manufacture methamphetamine. The bill will confront this in a direct way by limiting bulk quantities of these drugs that can be sold over the counter and, at the same time, creating a safe harbor for retailers so smaller quantities of the drugs can be sold to consumers who need unimpeded access to these helpful and commonly used products. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, every 4 hours, an illicit lab can produce a quarter pound of methamphetamine that sells for $2,000. These labs can be set up anywhere--in cars, hotel rooms, and abandoned buildings. Their byproducts pollute the area of the lab with carcinogenic toxins and, often times, these dangerous chemicals are dumped by the side of the road, in waterways or in other public areas. It is time for Congress to join in the fight against this drug that pollutes our communities, drives crime and violence, and floods our social services systems. I am pleased to join in this effort, and I commend my colleagues for their bipartisan efforts and hard work in crafting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and others to introduce the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996. Methamphetamine is one of the most insidious drugs to hit the streets in decades. In a few short years in Oregon, methamphetamine has become the second most frequently detected drug in workplace drug testing and in motor vehicle driver drug checks. This drug has become not only a scourge on Oregon's streets, increasing crime and creating toxic environmental hazards in the labs where it is produced, but has repercussions throughout the social services system as well. Foster care caseloads have increased because of the meth epidemic, and drug treatment centers are struggling with rising numbers of people needing help to escape the effects of this highly addictive and damaging drug. According to Sheriff Robert Kennedy, who serves the State in Jackson County in southwestern Oregon, methamphetamine arrests in his county have increased 1,100 percent in the past 5 years. This drug has become an urban and rural problem, and is being abused across the economic and social spectrum. Statewide, the Oregon Narcotics Enforcement Association and others have joined together to fight the public safety and health problems associated with methamphetamine. From the problems associated with cleaning up labs, to stopping the influx of Mexican-manufactured methamphetamine from coming into Oregon, law enforcement officials across the State have told me that meth is quickly becoming a major problem demanding high priority. That is why I am pleased today to join in the effort to help the country's law enforcement officers fight the methamphetamine epidemic. The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act takes on the battle against the drug on a number of fronts. To combat the precursor drugs manufactured across the border in Mexico, this legislation includes a long-arm provision that allows the United States to prosecute people who manufacture methamphetamine precursor chemicals, with an intent to import them into our country. Here at home, the bill significantly increases penalties for illegal trafficking in methamphetamine. Penalties for methamphetamine trafficking have been too low for too long. This bill will make drug dealers think twice by making penalties for dealing methamphetamine comparable to those for crack cocaine. The legislation also cracks down on trafficking in the precursor chemicals used to produce methamphetamine, increasing penalties and allowing law enforcement increased flexibility to obtain injunctions to stop the production and sale of precursor chemicals when an individual or company knowingly sells these chemicals to methamphetamine dealers. Finally, the act addresses the problem that many methamphetamine producers use legal, over-the-counter drugs, containing precursor chemicals, to manufacture methamphetamine. The bill will confront this in a direct way by limiting bulk quantities of these drugs that can be sold over the counter and, at the same time, creating a safe harbor for retailers so smaller quantities of the drugs can be sold to consumers who need unimpeded access to these helpful and commonly used products. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, every 4 hours, an illicit lab can produce a quarter pound of methamphetamine that sells for $2,000. These labs can be set up anywhere--in cars, hotel rooms, and abandoned buildings. Their byproducts pollute the area of the lab with carcinogenic toxins and, often times, these dangerous chemicals are dumped by the side of the road, in waterways or in other public areas. It is time for Congress to join in the fight against this drug that pollutes our communities, drives crime and violence, and floods our social services systems. I am pleased to join in this effort, and I commend my colleagues for their bipartisan efforts and hard work in crafting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. WYDEN. This issue is really an interesting issue. I say, it seems to me, in today's economy we can have more noninflationary economic growth than you could in the past. You look at technology, for example, and technology is driving so much of today's economy. I think the Senator is making a very important point with respect to the role of growth and the Fed and the issues that, frankly, are not getting the kind of attention they ought to receive. My sense has been the Government does not even really measure today's modern economy in an accurate kind of way. I served on the Joint Economic Committee for a period of time, and I was concerned that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was not in a position to have the resources, it was not in a position to have the tools to really measure the modern economy. This whole idea about the relationship of inflation and growth, I think, really needs a fresh look. My sense is that because of technology, we can have a higher degree of noninflationary economic growth than we could in the past. I look forward to working with the Senator on these issues. I also say, once again, we are talking about something that is not a partisan kind of issue. Everybody in this body wants to make sure that we grow the economy, that we incent the private sector in a way to have good-paying jobs, and we do not want to fan the fires of inflation. These are not partisan kinds of issues. The Senator, talking about wages and the Fed, he did not mention Democrats, he did not mention Republicans. We are talking about kinds of approaches this body ought to be looking at in terms of the modern economy. When I talk about noninflationary economic growth, I submit that what is driving it is the technological revolution, which, again, is not the special prerogative of Democrats or Republicans. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me say, as somebody who is new here, as a new Senator who campaigned for months on the idea that we have to come together, we have to find common ground, we have to get beyond some of the partisan labels, I want to come today and speak for a few moments about the importance of that approach and why I feel it is the only answer, and how I hope the Senate can get back on track and look at issues that way. First, let me say, I have never considered myself particularly a partisan person. I come from a part of the world, the beautiful Northwest where we have a history of fresh and creative approaches to issues before the Government. Our citizens do not get up in the morning and say, ``Well, whose got the partisan answer? Is it a Democratic answer? Is it a Republican answer?'' They get up and talk about tackling major issues in a way that is fair and responsible and meets the needs of the public. So I have tried to take that kind of philosophy, first as a Member of the House and now as a new Senator, in terms of attacking the need to address the concerns of the public. As the Senator from North Dakota said very clearly, it is obvious that is how the Senate has made progress. Look at this minimum wage issue, for example. It seems to me when workers put out the maximum effort, they deserve a decent minimum wage. The Senate agreed and, fortunately, Senators of both parties came together, and passed an important small business package. My State is just chock-full of small businesses. We have only a handful of big businesses in the State of Oregon. You can almost count the big businesses on one hand, so we are a small business State, and those tax incentives that were passed with bipartisan support are going to make a real difference at home in Oregon and on Main Street in our country. The same kind of bipartisan approach was used in the Kennedy- Kassebaum bill. I think that the health insurance system in our country needs to work for more than the healthy and the wealthy, and yet, so often, when somebody gets sick, the whole system falls apart. For a lot of families, you can only get coverage when you really do not need it, which is when you are well. So the Senate came together, a bipartisan bill was passed, and it is going to make a real difference, because, for the first time, when citizens are trying to get ahead, when they work hard and play by the rules, they will not be limited in terms of their job advancement because they cannot get health insurance as they try to climb up the ladder in the free enterprise system. So there have been real successes since I have been here, when Democrats and Republicans worked together on issues like health and the minimum wage. I am very hopeful that over the next 7 or 8 weeks of the session--and I just remind again our colleagues and our friends that there are only a handful of weeks left in the session. To get real results on issues like welfare and crime and aviation reforms--many of us are concerned about the situation with aviation in this country and want to pass real changes to make sure that the Federal Aviation Administration's mandate is safety first; that there can be public disclosure of the safety records of airlines in our country. To get this kind of work done on crime and welfare and transportation, we are going to have to have a bipartisan kind of approach, once again, in the Senate. I think it has been very unfortunate. I have seen it over the last couple of weeks and hope that it will not be the practice in the last few weeks in the session that as soon as a bill is essentially introduced--and my friends from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan and Senator Conrad, are very right to say, let's get away from some of these arcane, technical terms--``cloture'' and the like. What the bottom line is all about is that for the last few weeks, as soon as a major bill has been introduced, there has been an effort to immediately cut off the debate. That bars the minority, especially, but certainly Members of the majority may have differing views on some of these issues, and debate, reasonable debate, is what the Senate is supposed to be all about. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] and I both served in the House. One of the things that we thought was possible about service in the Senate was to have a bit more time, a reasonable amount of time, for all sides to have a fair airing of an issue. Sometimes that time is not available in the House, and sometimes the public's business suffers as a result of it. So I think this practice of, in effect, trying to shut off debate, almost as soon as it starts, is something that is especially unfortunate and is going to make it tougher to get the public's business done in the last few weeks of this session. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, let me reiterate my interest and desire in looking at these issues in a bipartisan way. I think, for example, there are a variety of procedural reforms that would be very helpful in terms of the work of the Senate. We know, again, for the last few weeks of the session, one of the practices that is often abused is a Senator puts a hold on a bill and does it all in secret. I think the Senator's procedural rights ought to be protected, but I think there ought to be public disclosure. The hold is not the problem, but I think secrecy is. So what I have been trying to do is work with Senators on both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to try to make a change, to try to get public disclosure when there is a hold that will make the Senate more open, more accountable and more efficient and be in the interest of the public, so that the public's right to know is protected. I am not trying to do that in a partisan kind of way. I am talking to Senators on both sides of the aisle, because I think that is the way we have to do the public's business. (Mr. STEVENS assumed the chair.)

Mr. WYDEN. This crime issue is so important. I share the Senator's view. I just add, this question of violent juvenile crime is especially important. Again, you see Senators of both parties who have done excellent work on this, Senators Hatch and Thompson--I have watched Senator Biden--all of whom have been very helpful to me and my staff in my early days as a Senator. I think they can help us put together a package dealing with violent juvenile crime. In a lot of communities--the adult crime rate is still too high but has sort of leveled off--but the rate of violent juvenile crime has just gone through the stratosphere. In fact, the Justice Department had a study recently that showed, particularly between 3 and 7 o'clock, 3 in the afternoon and 7 in the evening, when you have these at-risk kids, that is when you really have a great portion of the violent crime in America. There is nothing partisan about tackling violent juvenile crime. There are Senators of both political parties that have dealt with it and come up with innovative ideas. There are people like the criminologist, James Q. Wilson, who are advancing approaches that could be backed by both political parties to try to particularly make sure that these violent juvenile offenders are accountable. But we are not going to get the important work done that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about without thoughtful debate that ensures that both sides have a reasonable opportunity. I hope the Senator from North Dakota takes the lead on this crime issue as a Member of leadership, and the kind of bipartisan approach the Senator is talking about will prevail, because issues like violent juvenile crime are issues that we can bring this body together on in a bipartisan way to deal with. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. So, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, I come to take the floor today to say that in these last 7 or 8 weeks of the session, when there is so much important work to be done, let us make sure that the procedural rights of the minority are protected, let us get away from this unfortunate practice we have seen in the last few weeks of literally cutting off the debate almost as soon as it starts, and let's take the kind of approach that folks in my home region, the Pacific Northwest, take, and that is a bipartisan one. I believe that it is possible to get some important work done in these next 7 weeks, to get a welfare reform bill. We have done that in Oregon. Senator Hatfield, my senior colleague, has done yeoman work in terms of our jobs plus program. It has a tough work requirement, but we are also helping with child care and medical care. That kind of bipartisan approach can be an ideal model for helping the Senate to come together, Democrats and Republicans, to reform the welfare system in the last few weeks of this session. But to reform welfare, to get a good crime bill, to have an important transportation bill--the Presiding Officer, Mr. Stevens, for so many years has done outstanding work on these aviation issues. He knows I am anxious to work with him in the days ahead--to really have progress in these last few weeks of the session, we are going to have to protect the rights of the minority; we are going to have to work in a bipartisan way. That is how we best address the public's needs. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. I share the Senator's interest in this Rohatyn analysis. What is interesting is that there really is a link between the growth issue and those concerns of working families that the Senator from North Dakota is right to zero in on. There was a study a couple of weeks ago, a Census Bureau study, that showed that the gap between those at the very top and those at the bottom is widening again and, well, it confirms what a lot of us suspected. But there was also another study that did not get the attention, frankly, it should have, which said that the education gap is widening between folks at the top and folks at the bottom. So there really is a link, a kind of interdependence between the issues that the Senator is talking about. We ought to be looking at a noninflationary economic growth rate that I think is increased beyond where we are today. I think we can get it if Democrats and Republicans in this body come together and pass the kind of policies that will complement that. For example, if you want to attack that education gap, which was the study I mentioned last week, which complemented what the Census Department said, education is really the key. A lot of us here have said that what we ought to do, on a bipartisan basis, is say that when working families are making payments for college or vocational education, let us make that tax deductible. Let us let them write that off, so that we have a tax cut geared directly toward working families trying to deal with that wage crunch that the Senator from North Dakota is talking about. It gives us an opportunity to have the kind of growth that Felix Rohatyn and others are talking about. I think the Senator is very much on target in bringing these issues up. There certainly is not anything partisan about these kinds of questions. I hope that as we go into the last few weeks of the session, this is the kind of approach we should take. I thank the Senator for letting me work with him on this morning's discussion.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator. I would just like to engage the Senator in a colloquy about a provision in this bill giving the Department of Defense the authority to transfer contaminated Federal property before the complete remediation of all the environmental problems at a property. While I believe that it is important that the Department take responsibility for the environmental clean up of its properties, I recognize that there are some properties which have been abandoned and have not received sufficent remedial action. This appears to be the case with an Air Force housing project called Kingsley Annex in Klamath Falls, OR. Kingsley Annex consists of 290 units of housing that are sitting vacant in an area with a serious lack of housing, particularly, low income housing. A local nonprofit, SoCO Development, Inc. is interested in developing this property to be used for low-income housing; however, the property has a lead-based paint problem. The property has remained vacant because it is not high enough on the list of Air Force priorities to receive money for a clean up. At no cost to the Federal Government, SoCO is willing to remediate the problem of lead-based paint and meet the HUD standards for reduction of lead-based paint on federally owned residential property, as well as remediate a number of other environmental hazards on the site. However, they need possession of the property before they can invest in a clean up. In my view it is consistent with this provision for the Air Force to work with groups like SoCO Development, Inc., to use the new authority in this bill to turn over property for purposes such as low-income housing with the conditions that ensure that the environmental problems are remediated.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the amendment that Senator Hatfield and I are proposing is a right-to-know act to help protect Oregonians from the unusual and highly dangerous hazards that the Hanford Nuclear Reservation poses for the people of Oregon. There is no other contaminated Federal property in the country that has caused the serious injuries to residents of another State that Hanford has already caused to citizens of Oregon. And no other Federal site currently poses anywhere near as serious a threat to the health and safety of citizens of another State as Hanford does to our citizens. Because of this special situation, the State of Oregon needs direct access to the same information that the Energy Department is now required to provide the State of Washington under the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement. And Oregon needs to have an opportunity to review and comment on how DOE proposes to clean up the Hanford site. Recognizing the unique conditions present at Hanford and the immediate danger they pose for Oregonians does not set a precedent for other Federal facilities besides Hanford. It will not turn every military base with a leaking gasoline tank into a multi-State cleanup issue. Let me put that concern to rest. First, there is simply no facility in this country--Federal or non-Federal--that compares to Hanford. In fact, Hanford is generally considered to be the most contaminated site in the Western hemisphere. You would have to go to the former Soviet Union to find a site as polluted as Hanford. The extent of the environmental problems is mind boggling. Over the years, 200 billion gallons of toxic and radioactive liquids from nuclear weapons production were dumped at the site. That is enough to cover Manhattan to a depth of 40 feet. The Hanford site currently contains 56 million gallons of high-level radioactive wastes in 177 tanks. Some of these tanks are as big as the Capitol dome. At least 54 of these tanks are known or suspected to be leaking or pose risks of explosion. The site also is currently storing 2,300 metric tons of high-level nuclear fuel rods in leaking basins located only a quarter mile from the Columbia River. And these are just a few of the problems that we know about. Second, there is also no other site in the country that has affected the health and safety of residents in another State the way Hanford has affected the citizens of Oregon. Oregonians living downwind from Hanford have suffered from thyroid cancers and other medical problems caused by airborne releases of radioactive iodine. Starting in the late 1940's and continuing through the 1950's, these releases averaged between 100 and 2,000 curies per month. To put that into perspective, the residents around Harrisburg, PA, were evacuated in 1979 when the Three Mile Island accident released 15-24 curies into the Pennsylvania countryside. The airborne releases from Hanford were 10 to 100 times what were released from Three Mile Island, and these releases were occurring every month. Ongoing epidemiological studies have linked these releases to increased cases of thyroid cancer and other adverse health effects on Oregonians living near the site. Hanford also poses a serious health threat to the more than 1 million Oregonians who live downstream from the site. Radioactive materials have been released into the Columbia River when water from the River was pumped through the sites nuclear reactors to cool them. Other hazardous and radioactive materials that were dumped at the site have and are continuing to seep into the River. The bottom line is many Oregonians are suffering adverse health effects from living near Hanford. And many more are at risk of future harm because of conditions at the site. Finally, our amendment does not set a precedent for Federal facilities nationwide because it only requires information to be provided to Oregon that is required to be provided to Washington under the Hanford Tri-Party Agreement, which is an agreement between the State of Washington, the Department of Energy, and the EPA governing the Hanford cleanup. The linkage to the Tri-Party Agreement puts the site into a special category of Federal facility cleanups, because there are only a handful of sites with comparable agreements in effect or under negotiation. It draws a bright line that divides Hanford and other major DOE weapons production sites from the hundreds of other contaminated Federal facilities around the country. The unique factors involved in the Hanford cleanup justify granting the State of Oregon direct access to information about contamination at Hanford and an opportunity for reviewing plans for cleaning up the site. The State of Washington and its elected representatives in the Senate, Senators Gorton and Murray, recognize the importance of this amendment to Oregon and have no objection to incorporating the amendments in S. 1745. I urge my colleagues to recognize how Hanford has harmed and continues to pose a serious hazard to the people of Oregon by giving our State critical information about conditions at the site and the opportunity to play a greater role in cleanup decisions at the site.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to cosponsor legislation to name a Federal courthouse in my State after a fine soldier, lawyer, and judge, U.S. District Judge James Anthony Redden. This legislation would name the Federal courthouse in Medford, OR, the ``James A. Redden Federal Courthouse.'' Judge Redden has made public service the centerpiece of his life. He served his country in the U.S. Army from 1946 to 1948. He honed his legal skills practicing law from 1956 to 1972 in Medford, OR. He then left his private practice to serve the people of Oregon as the Oregon State treasurer in 1973 and as the Oregon attorney general in 1977. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the position of U.S. District Judge. For 20 years, Judge Redden practiced law in the courthouse that Senator Hatfield and I propose to rename today. Judge Redden and Senator Hatfield have worked together over the years to renovate this courthouse, and now I, as a Member of the Senate, am pleased to join in the effort to rename this courthouse after Judge Redden, a great Oregonian and a great American.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to cosponsor legislation to name a Federal courthouse in my State after a fine soldier, lawyer, and judge, U.S. District Judge James Anthony Redden. This legislation would name the Federal courthouse in Medford, OR, the ``James A. Redden Federal Courthouse.'' Judge Redden has made public service the centerpiece of his life. He served his country in the U.S. Army from 1946 to 1948. He honed his legal skills practicing law from 1956 to 1972 in Medford, OR. He then left his private practice to serve the people of Oregon as the Oregon State treasurer in 1973 and as the Oregon attorney general in 1977. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed him to the position of U.S. District Judge. For 20 years, Judge Redden practiced law in the courthouse that Senator Hatfield and I propose to rename today. Judge Redden and Senator Hatfield have worked together over the years to renovate this courthouse, and now I, as a Member of the Senate, am pleased to join in the effort to rename this courthouse after Judge Redden, a great Oregonian and a great American.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will only say that the Senate on a bipartisan basis is formally on record with more than 80 Senators in support of this proposition. We have a choice, as the minority leader has said. We can let this go down once more or we can have a vote on a proposal that I offer to my colleagues that will impose real fiscal discipline and at the same time assure that Social Security is protected for both workers and retirees in the days ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN. If the Senator will yield, the Senate prior to my coming here has debated and voted on this proposition, last year. In fact, in 1995, there were more than 80 votes on a motion asking the Budget Committee to refashion the leader's amendment to include Social Security protection. This is not a new issue to the U.S. Senate. More than 80 Members of the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, have voted for the alternative that I would like to offer in the form of a constitutional amendment, today.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader for yielding me this time. I take this time to say that I think this is an historic opportunity for the Senate to get this job done right, to get this job done on a bipartisan basis. I do not think anyone doubts how this vote on the majority leader's proposal is going to turn out, today. I believe we could have an alternative ending, however, that would benefit the American people, that would ensure that we get real fiscal discipline, and at the same time provide long-term security for generations of Americans to come. That is why I am hopeful that today we will have an opportunity to vote on a measure that is identical to that offered by the majority leader save for one difference. The alternative constitutional amendment to balance the budget would simply bar the use of the Social Security surplus or Social Security taxes for balancing the Federal budget. Mr. President, and colleagues, it is clear that both political parties--let me emphasize--both political parties have in the past used that Social Security surplus to mask the overall Federal deficit. I think that has to end. I think that the amendment, the alternative described today, would give us an opportunity on a bipartisan basis to tackle this issue responsibly and end it once and for all. It is time to close this road show and give the people what they want. Our proposal would provide that opportunity. Some of my colleagues apparently believe that you cannot balance the Federal budget without cooking the books. They have been trying to highlight various kinds of defects that they allege exist in our measure. I do not think the American people benefit from all of this. I do not think that the country benefits from this. The country benefits from an approach that forces both political parties to keep straight books, to get rid of the accounting fiction, and to make the tough calls with respect to both the Federal budget and the Social Security program. Therefore, Mr. President, I rise now to ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on House Joint Resolution 1, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 54, a balanced budget constitutional amendment that protects Social Security, and that the joint resolution be read a third time, and at the end of that the Senate proceed without any intervening action or debate on passage of that joint resolution.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield just for a question?

Mr. WYDEN. This is about making tough choices, and you can make them in a variety of ways. I said the other day that I thought some of what was going on in this town was like a hot-fudge-sundae approach to dieting. You can have tax cuts, you can have new weapons systems and then somehow say the books are going to balance. It is like having six or seven hot fudge sundaes a day and still lose weight. I think what you offer in your important remarks is, this is about budget discipline, and you are going to suggest a variety of ways to do it.

Mr. WYDEN. It seems to me that what you are saying is this is just about budget discipline.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from South Carolina and North Dakota. Mr. President, colleagues, as of now everyone knows what is going to happen when the Senate votes on this measure. The script on this issue has been published. It is played, and it is almost like yesterday's news. There probably is more likelihood that Michael Jordan is not going to show up for the playoffs than there is going to be a surprise on this issue. I am here today to say that it does not have to be this way, my colleagues. I have introduced along with Senator Hollings, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Daschle a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that is identical to the measure introduced by Senator Dole, save for one change. Our measure simply says that you cannot go out and raid the Social Security trust fund. You cannot go out and take $600 billion, money that belongs to working people, to young people, to seniors, and use it to balance the budget. I call our effort--and it has really been led by Senator Hollings for all these years. I think that we are the straight bookkeeping crowd. We are the crowd that wants some truth in budgeting. We are the folks who are saying it is time to end this accounting fiction which has been perpetrated, as Senator Hollings has said, in direct contravention of section 13301 of the Budget Act. The Budget Act is clear. There is no ambiguity about it. It says that you cannot use Social Security funds to mask the overall Federal deficit. You cannot do it. Both political parties unfortunately have done it. So what we want to do in our straight bookkeeping kind of effort is to try to make sure in the interest of both the cause of balancing the budget and protecting the Social Security program that we do what the law requires, and we do what is in the public interest. I happen to think that, if you do it as we propose, what is going to happen is you are going to have to make tough choices on both the budget and Social Security more quickly. I have come from a round of town meetings--and I am sure all of our colleagues have--at home. One of the things I heard consistently is that lots of folks feel that the Congress has put off the tough choices--put them off until after the election, put them off for years. If you do what we propose, you bet you have to make some tough choices, and you have to make them earlier. Maybe we are going to have to say no to some pork barrel spending programs. I believe that if you wall off the Social Security program, as we propose, that you do not let the surplus be used for balancing the budget, and you are going to see when the Social Security stands, as it should, separate from the Federal budget that we have to make some changes there too. We have a Social Security advisory commission that is going to report fairly shortly. They have a number of recommendations. They are going to be tough for people to swallow. But let me say that at a time when more young people think that they are going to see Elvis than think they are going to get a Social Security check that we are going to have to make some tough choices with respect to Social Security. So with our proposal--by making sure that the overall deficit is tackled responsibly and tackled more quickly--by walling off the Social Security program, as the Congress intended in the Budget Act, we believe that the country will get the discipline and tough choices that are needed, and get them earlier. I want to announce also this afternoon that it is my intention, after further consultation with the minority leader, Senator Daschle, and Senator Dorgan, to ask unanimous consent after the Senate has voted on the measure of the majority leader--it is my desire and my intention-- to ask unanimous consent that our measure, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget without raiding Social Security, be considered immediately after the vote on the measure offered by the majority leader. I think it is time to talk about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget that has some legs. I think that we have had enough of this exercise in failure. The script has been written. We do not have to conclude this debate with a debate that fails. We can conclude it in a manner that will bring us real truth in budgeting, will ensure that the books are kept, and will allow us to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. So let me be clear on this. I and those that support this measure are willing to write into law that there would be a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. This is not a statute. This is a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. And it is identical to the measure offered by the majority leader save for one respect. It is my intent to ask unanimous consent to have that measure considered immediately after the vote on this measure offered by the majority leader. I hope that measure will be considered. I believe that, if it is considered, we will get a minimum of 70 votes on that particular measure. My source for that appraisal is that on February 10, 1995--Senator Hollings was here, I was not--but on February 10, 1995, on a measure that in effect recommitted a constitutional amendment to balance the budget to committee to do exactly what Senator Hollings and I propose now--that particular measure got more than 80 votes. I would like to conclude my remarks in really a bipartisan kind of fashion by picking up on what the majority leader said early this week. The majority leader said early this week, ``If the President wants a balanced budget, we will have a balanced budget.'' I am here to say that, if the majority leader wants a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we will have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It is a measure that will get a minimum of 70 votes on this floor. It is a measure that will write into law a specific constitutional amendment to bring about the discipline the American people want, and it will be bipartisan. But it also will be one that will keep faith with our working people and with our seniors who are paying those whopper payroll taxes--15.3 percent between the worker and the employer. Millions of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. They want a balanced budget, but they do not think we ought to do it by raiding the Social Security Program. The measure we hope to get a recorded vote on after the measure proposed by the majority leader would give us a chance to meet the desires of the American people for a balanced budget but one that also ensures that their Social Security is protected. I thank my good friend from South Carolina for yielding me this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, this amendment has been agreed to by both the majority and the minority. It simply says, if a polluter engages in action that violates our environmental laws and that action results in a penalty or a fine, those actions would no longer be deductible under our tax law. Senator Kerry of Massachusetts joins me in this. I thank Senator Domenici of New Mexico and Senator Exon for support of this amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be so modified.

Mr. WYDEN

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