Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of my friend and former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, to be Attorney General of the United States. As a man of the highest integrity, experience, and ability, Senator Ashcroft is uniquely qualified to serve as our nation's premier law enforcement officer and the administrator of one of the federal government's largest agencies. Senator Ashcroft's qualifications for the position of Attorney General have been well documented on the floor and I only need mention them in passing: law professor, State auditor, two-term Attorney General, two-term Governor, and United States Senator from the State of Missouri. Such a record of public service spanning such a period of years demonstrates the great trust and admiration the people of Missouri have placed in Senator Ashcroft over nearly 30 years. What has impressed me about Senator John Ashcroft's record is not only the length of public service, but the breadth of this experience as well. There is no doubt that the ideal candidate for the position of attorney general is someone who has a good grasp of the law and a true dedication to enforce that law. However, the job entails a great deal more than that. In fact, the attorney general needs to be a good manager to oversee the 125,000 employees of the Department of Justice in departments as diverse as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Senator Ashcroft's sixteen years as an executive in Missouri, first as State attorney general and then as Governor, have made him uniquely qualified to manage one of the largest federal agencies. Moreover, his service with us in the United States Senate and his involvement on the Senate Judiciary Committee have prepared him to work closely with Congress in enforcement and development of Federal law. In addition to Senator Ashcroft's remarkable credentials to serve as United States Attorney General for all Americans, I would like to remark on his particular interest and experience in the crime issues facing rural communities. As many of my colleagues know, in the past several years rural America has witnessed an explosion in illegal methamphetamine use, especially among our nation's youth. Nationwide, meth use increased 60% between 1992 and 1999 among America's high school seniors. Unfortunately, the story is much bleaker in our rural communities. In my own State of Wyoming, methamphetamine investigations increased 600% between 1992 and 1998. Like all illegal drug abuse, meth abuse tears at the very fabric of society by destroying families, increasing violent crime, and dashing the dreams and promise of all too many of our nation's youth. While the battle against meth use and trafficking is primarily a State responsibility, there is a role for the federal government by supplying resources for law enforcement training, meth lab cleanup, and education and prevention programs to help parents and teachers teach children the dangers of meth. Senator Ashcroft was a true leader in recognizing and furthering a limited, focused role for the Federal Government in the battle against methamphetamine use and trafficking. In 1999, Senator Ashcroft introduced legislation to combat this problem. While I knew that Missouri had faced many of the same problems faced in Wyoming, I was truly impressed with Senator Ashcroft's understanding of the meth problem and willingness to listen to the problems facing law enforcement in other states. Before introducing his legislation, Senator Ashcroft and his staff made a particular effort to understand the problems facing law enforcement personnel in Wyoming and incorporated our suggestions in Senator Ashcroft's legislation to help address these problems. I have to say that Senator Ashcroft's deep understanding of the greatest crime issue facing our State of Wyoming and his experience as a problem solver both as Governor of Missouri and United States Senator give me great encouragement that he will work with the Congress to address the needs of all states, not just those with large urban areas. I must say that Senator Ashcroft's understanding and appreciation for the issues involved in the area of rural crime stands in stark contrast with my experience with the previous Administration. Law enforcement officials in my State have all too often been given the run around by the Department of Justice and the Office of National Drug Control Policy when they have attempted to pursue additional funding programs or when they have attempted to include additional Wyoming counties to the list of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. In fact, in one conversation, an employee at the ONDCP told a top law enforcement officer in Wyoming that they didn't have anyone at the department that could approve new HIDTAs! I found that somewhat astonishing given that is one of the very purposes of the office of the Drug Czar. Given his track record in the State of Missouri and in the United States Senate, I have every confidence that a Justice Department headed by John Ashcroft will pursue a coordinated approach with the Office of National Drug Control Policy and other agencies to help eliminate the red tape and ensure that our law enforcement personnel in rural states are receiving the resources they need to keep our communities safe and drug free. We have heard a great deal of acrimony from some of the far-left interest groups over the nomination of Senator Ashcroft. Evidently these groups are intent in destroying Senator Ashcroft's reputation even if they are unsuccessful in derailing his confirmation. The attacks by these organizations are entirely unfounded and seem more designed to raise funds for the particular interest groups than to find the truth about our former colleague. I must say that one of the charges that has been most disturbing to me is the insinuation that Senator Ashcroft will not faithfully enforce the laws of the United States because he is a devoted Christian. Not only are such charges entirely unfounded, but they smack of a religious bigotry of the most dangerous Kind. Such bigotry is nothing new, but is should be condemned in any age in which it raises its ugly head. One no less than George Washington warned against the efforts in his own day to banish religion from the public square. In his farewell address of September 29, 1796, President Washington remarked: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. We should pay heed to the words of our first president and disavow any effort to banish Senator Ashcroft, or any other public servant, from public life because of his or her religious beliefs. The founders were well aware of the dangers inherent in applying religious tests to the holding of public office. That is why they included a specific prohibition to any such practice in Article six of the Constitution where they said ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States''. Rather than ask that Senators apply an explicit test such as that prohibited in Article six, the far-left special interest groups that oppose Senator Ashcroft's nomination have turned instead to rumor and innuendo to imply that anyone who has strong religious beliefs such as those held by Senator Ashcroft is incapable of enforcing federal laws with which he might not be in total agreement. Nor surprisingly, these groups have not brought forth any specific examples where Senator Ashcroft failed to enforce the laws when he served as attorney general or governor of the State of Missouri. Instead, all the evidence seems to point to the contrary. Not only did the people of Missouri continue to elect John Ashcroft to positions of public trust, but his fellow State attorneys general and his fellow governors elected him in turn president of their respective organizations. Keep in mind that these organizations are bi-partisan and represent members from a wide spectrum of political and philosophical views. The fact that the State attorneys general and the State governors would choose John Ashcroft to head their organizations is evidence of the trust and respect that his colleagues had for his integrity, his ability, and his willingness to fairly and faithfully enforce the laws as he found them. This record stands in stark contrast to the revisionist history that has been spread in the media by groups opposed to Senator Ashcroft's nomination. I have known Senator Ashcroft both as a colleague and a friend. He is a thoughtful and honorable public servant who has served the people of Missouri and the United States with distinction for nearly thirty years. He is dedicated to consistently and fairly upholding and enforcing the Constitution and laws of the United States. I have every confidence that Senator Ashcroft will bring dignity and integrity to the office of the Attorney General as he has to the numerous positions of public trust he has filled in the past. I urge my colleagues to join my voting to confirm Senator Ashcroft as Attorney General.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am thrilled that we are today confirming Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training and a member of the Small Business Committee, I am very concerned about making sure all businesses in this country, even the very smallest, are able to understand the thousands of regulations they must follow and get the help they need to follow them. I know Secretary Chao shares these concerns and I look forward to working with her on these issue. I am also extremely excited about the managerial and administrative experience Ms. Chao brings to the Department. It is so important that we have good administrative processes in the Department of Labor. The decisions of this Department deeply affect both our nations' workers and the businesses that provide jobs and incomes and help our economy grow. It is absolutely critical that both workers and employers feel that these decisions are not arbitrary and are reached in a fair and impartial manner. I firmly believe Secretary Chao has the experience and skills to inspire confidence in the fairness of the Department's actions, regardless of their popularity. This is a crucial responsibility of the Secretary of Labor, and I believe Secretary Chao has been well trained to fulfill this responsibility. I look forward to helping Secretary with this task, and I welcome my fellow members from both sides of the aisle to join us in this effort. I hope that together during this Congress we can take a careful and close look at some of the existing regulatory and enforcement procedures that Secretary Chao will inherit. We must ensure that good procedures are followed properly, and we must change procedures that are not working. I also look forward to working with Secretary designate Chao to bring the Department of Labor into the 21st Century. We are in a very exciting time of more positive relationships between employees and employers. In this period of record unemployment, employers have learned the lesson that it makes good business sense to keep employees healthy and happy. In order to encourage this progress, we must ensure that our Department of Labor does not thwart the development of workplace arrangements and initiatives that benefit both employee and employer. This will take modern, innovative thinking and I am confident that Secretary Chao is such a thinker. I think President made a wonderful choice when he nominated Elaine Chao to be Labor Secretary, and I am so glad the Senate has demonstrated equal wisdom by confirming her quickly. I look forward to working closely with Secretary Chao and the Department on all the many challenging workplace issues.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Enzi pertaining to the introduction of S. 149 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Export Administration Act of 2001. I am joined by my distinguished colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, and Senator Roberts of Kansas. I thank each of them for their help in drafting and supporting this bipartisan bill. I believe it can be one of the first bipartisan accomplishments of the 107th Congress and President Bush. The EAA of 2001 would eliminate trade barriers while focusing control on those items most sensitive to our national security. Let me begin by emphasizing the need to reauthorize and reform the EAA of 1979. The EAA provides export control authority for commercial or dual-use items--things that can be used in more than one way. For 6 years the Congress has failed to update and reauthorize this important act, with the exception of a 1-year reauthorization of the outdated Export Administration Act of 1979. As a result, our export control laws have been inadequately governed by either the EAA of 1979 or, more often than not, by emergency Presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This situation has effectively allowed the administration, instead of Congress, to set the export control policies of the United States. The bill introduced today would place our export control system on firm statutory grounds and establish a modernized framework to recognize the rapid pace of economic innovation and the realities of globalization. The Export Administration Act of 2001 is a reasonable and balanced bill that will put up higher fences around the most sensitive areas and focus our enforcement efforts on restricting all technology exports to all the true bad actors. At the same time, it takes into account the realities of today's economy, incorporating the concept that items such as computers are very difficult to control. The bill recognizes that items available from foreign sources or available in mass market quantities cannot be effectively controlled. At the same time, we recognize that the President may, in exceptional cases, want to control a very sensitive item even when that item is available from the foreign source or in mass marketed quantities. Therefore, we include a provision to provide the President with this authority. The Export Administration Act of 2001 also strengthens national security in other areas. It enhances the role of the Department of Defense and other agencies by requiring the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense for items included on the control list as well as allowing licensing decisions to be appealed to the next level of review at the request of any participating agency representative. Licensing decisions would be made in part through the use of ``country-tiering'', grouping countries and items according to their assessed risk. The bill would also target end-use checks on those items that pose the greatest risk to national security. The EAA of 2001 provides tough new criminal and civil penalties for export control violations. For example, criminal penalties for individuals could be up to $1 million, or ten times the value of the export per violation. Criminal penalties for corporations could be up to $10 million or ten times the export value of the export per violation. It also authorizes a wording of up to 25 percent of the penalties imposed to a person providing information concerning an export control violation. The increase in penalties, which also include potential jail time and enhancement of enforcement provisions, will provide an effective deterrent to the violations of the act. A number of reviews of technology transfer and export controls were unanimous in their statements that an important requirement for an effective export control program is appropriate authorizing legislation. The Cox committee on technology transfer to China, the joint Inspector General's interagency review of the export licensing processes for dual-use commodities and munitions, and the Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, have all strongly recommended the authorization of the EAA. The bipartisan Export Administration Act of 2001 would accomplish this while balancing the national security and economic interests of the United States. S. 1712, which was the EAA reauthorization bill of last session that unanimously passed the Senate Banking Committee last year, was strongly supported by Republicans and Democrats, as well as both large and small exporters. The Clinton administration supported the bill. Even President Bush endorsed the bill in campaign statements that he made. It was prevented from coming up last year because of a crowded floor agenda, but now is the time to replace the current outdated export control system and pass the Export Administration Act of 2001. We have an opportunity. We have an obligation to make sure that we increase exports while we protect national security. The bill was expired for six years. There have been 12 attempts to reauthorize the bill. The biggest reason that it has not been reauthorized is the complexity of detail of the licensing and appeal process. Fortunately, the Cox commission brought to light the need to reauthorize this important piece of legislation. Last year, we passed it through committee by a 20-0 vote. After 12 failures, that is fairly significant. In fact, it is always significant around here when you have something Bipartisan enough that it passes on a unanimous vote. We have worked hard on the bill. We have listened to industry. We have listened to our colleagues. We have listened to the administration. We have listened to those people over past administrations who have worked on the same issue. We have a bill that updates the process for the post-cold war so that the provisions in this will work today and into the future. This is the new version that needs to be passed in this session of Congress. It needs to be passed early. The current extension we got on the bill only extended it until August 20. That is coming up soon, particularly with our legislative calendar needs. I ask my colleagues to work promptly on this bill. We will be talking to everyone who has an interest in it, and coming back to the floor with debate and discussion and a vote that will put this in front of the President for signature so we can have the proper national security and increase in national exports. I thank my colleagues for their support of this most important piece of legislation and look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize the EAA during the coming months. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Export Administration Act of 2001. I am joined by my distinguished colleague, Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, Senator Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Hagel of Nebraska, and Senator Roberts of Kansas. I thank each of them for their help in drafting and supporting this bipartisan bill. I believe it can be one of the first bipartisan accomplishments of the 107th Congress and President Bush. The EAA of 2001 would eliminate trade barriers while focusing control on those items most sensitive to our national security. Let me begin by emphasizing the need to reauthorize and reform the EAA of 1979. The EAA provides export control authority for commercial or dual-use items--things that can be used in more than one way. For 6 years the Congress has failed to update and reauthorize this important act, with the exception of a 1-year reauthorization of the outdated Export Administration Act of 1979. As a result, our export control laws have been inadequately governed by either the EAA of 1979 or, more often than not, by emergency Presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This situation has effectively allowed the administration, instead of Congress, to set the export control policies of the United States. The bill introduced today would place our export control system on firm statutory grounds and establish a modernized framework to recognize the rapid pace of economic innovation and the realities of globalization. The Export Administration Act of 2001 is a reasonable and balanced bill that will put up higher fences around the most sensitive areas and focus our enforcement efforts on restricting all technology exports to all the true bad actors. At the same time, it takes into account the realities of today's economy, incorporating the concept that items such as computers are very difficult to control. The bill recognizes that items available from foreign sources or available in mass market quantities cannot be effectively controlled. At the same time, we recognize that the President may, in exceptional cases, want to control a very sensitive item even when that item is available from the foreign source or in mass marketed quantities. Therefore, we include a provision to provide the President with this authority. The Export Administration Act of 2001 also strengthens national security in other areas. It enhances the role of the Department of Defense and other agencies by requiring the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense for items included on the control list as well as allowing licensing decisions to be appealed to the next level of review at the request of any participating agency representative. Licensing decisions would be made in part through the use of ``country-tiering'', grouping countries and items according to their assessed risk. The bill would also target end-use checks on those items that pose the greatest risk to national security. The EAA of 2001 provides tough new criminal and civil penalties for export control violations. For example, criminal penalties for individuals could be up to $1 million, or ten times the value of the export per violation. Criminal penalties for corporations could be up to $10 million or ten times the export value of the export per violation. It also authorizes a wording of up to 25 percent of the penalties imposed to a person providing information concerning an export control violation. The increase in penalties, which also include potential jail time and enhancement of enforcement provisions, will provide an effective deterrent to the violations of the act. A number of reviews of technology transfer and export controls were unanimous in their statements that an important requirement for an effective export control program is appropriate authorizing legislation. The Cox committee on technology transfer to China, the joint Inspector General's interagency review of the export licensing processes for dual-use commodities and munitions, and the Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, have all strongly recommended the authorization of the EAA. The bipartisan Export Administration Act of 2001 would accomplish this while balancing the national security and economic interests of the United States. S. 1712, which was the EAA reauthorization bill of last session that unanimously passed the Senate Banking Committee last year, was strongly supported by Republicans and Democrats, as well as both large and small exporters. The Clinton administration supported the bill. Even President Bush endorsed the bill in campaign statements that he made. It was prevented from coming up last year because of a crowded floor agenda, but now is the time to replace the current outdated export control system and pass the Export Administration Act of 2001. We have an opportunity. We have an obligation to make sure that we increase exports while we protect national security. The bill was expired for six years. There have been 12 attempts to reauthorize the bill. The biggest reason that it has not been reauthorized is the complexity of detail of the licensing and appeal process. Fortunately, the Cox commission brought to light the need to reauthorize this important piece of legislation. Last year, we passed it through committee by a 20-0 vote. After 12 failures, that is fairly significant. In fact, it is always significant around here when you have something Bipartisan enough that it passes on a unanimous vote. We have worked hard on the bill. We have listened to industry. We have listened to our colleagues. We have listened to the administration. We have listened to those people over past administrations who have worked on the same issue. We have a bill that updates the process for the post-cold war so that the provisions in this will work today and into the future. This is the new version that needs to be passed in this session of Congress. It needs to be passed early. The current extension we got on the bill only extended it until August 20. That is coming up soon, particularly with our legislative calendar needs. I ask my colleagues to work promptly on this bill. We will be talking to everyone who has an interest in it, and coming back to the floor with debate and discussion and a vote that will put this in front of the President for signature so we can have the proper national security and increase in national exports. I thank my colleagues for their support of this most important piece of legislation and look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize the EAA during the coming months. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the passage of the FY 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Had I been given the opportunity to cast a recorded vote on this legislation, I would have voted ``no.'' There were a lot of things slipped in without prior authorization for the spending. I hope in the next Congress we can work with a new administration to clean up the process. Projects should go through a separate authorization process. All Members should have the same opportunity to review the projects in the bill and the public should know what is being funded. There are a number of us who would also like to see biennial budgeting so we have a chance to really evaluate how taxpayer money is being used. We didn't even have a final funding total available to us before the vote. I know funding for labor and health and other related areas increased dramatically in this deal to nearly $13 billion more than last year's levels. These significant funding levels are not a one-time activity in the Congress--it has become an annual ritual. It's just too much. This is money that should be going to pay off the national debt. We must break the pattern of spending our children's future. Some increases in the overall spending package were needed, including more support for education and nearly $36 billion in Medicare payments to healthcare providers. Wyoming rural hospitals and nursing homes will benefit from this effort. There are some very good things in this bill, but looking at the whole picture, the bad outweighed the good. I am also very displeased that budget negotiators left out of the package a previously passed amendment which would have prevented the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from going forward with a massive new repetitive stress injury rule. The ergonomics rule could leave injured workers' compensation systems in ruin, close nursing homes and overshadow existing safety needs. The Senate and House agreed by a bipartisan vote on identical language that would require OSHA to slow its furious rush. The amendment would give the agency time to go back and fix the terrible flaws with this rule that have been brought to light. This new regulation will affect the whole of workplaces in America. It carries serious consequences. I am most displeased that this rule will be finalized and I will work with my colleagues to overturn it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to ask the prime sponsor of the CHIMP Act if it is his intention that the federal share of funding for establishing and operating the national chimpanzee sanctuary system is to come out of NIH's budget?

Mr. ENZI. So this legislation will not require additional funding over and above the NIH's annual appropriation?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for all of the work he has done on bankruptcy. He has shown some real leadership and he has pulled a bipartisan group of people together to get this incredibly important work done. The United States has been saying to other countries that if they were going to get the International Monetary Fund moneys to bail them out, they have to do bankruptcy reform. Guess who are the last ones demanding that other people do bankruptcy reform. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his efforts on this, the people he has brought into it from both sides of the aisle, and I thank the Senator from Alabama for his incredible record, too.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Reserving the right to object----

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I need to address a slightly different issue at this point, to again explain why we are where we are. I began in June with regular speeches about how we were going to wind up in this position: The other side of the aisle was objecting to motions to proceed to appropriations bills and the extended debate we had to have on whether we could debate put the Senate in a situation where we had to do all of our negotiations with the White House, instead of, as the Constitution says, where the Senate will determine in conjunction with the House the expenditures of this Nation. That is exactly what has happened. There has been delay after delay after delay that has pushed the appropriations process to this point. Yesterday, the President vetoed the Treasury-Postal bill. Through a quote from Congress Daily, we learn a top administration official confirmed Wednesday that the President will sign it; we didn't need to make changes to it. There is a lot of speculation why this was vetoed. The President said yesterday there was nothing really wrong with the Treasury-Postal bill, but he just didn't think we ought to have that bill signed until we complete the few other remaining bills. He arbitrarily vetoed the bill after a top administration official said the President would sign it and after the Democratic leadership in Congress had agreed to it. The President keeps moving the goalposts in an attempt to provoke a confrontation with Congress. As a result, it has made negotiations next to impossible. How can you negotiate when the commitments aren't kept, when the rules aren't followed? One most important to me is the ergonomics amendment. That is an amendment passed in the Senate on a bipartisan vote. The exact same amendment was passed on the House side by a bipartisan vote. Labor-HHS has some monetary items that are different between the two sides but not that amendment. A conference committee was formed and they met. The White House said, we don't like the amendment on ergonomics. Both sides of the conference committee said that is not conferenceable. It was the same on both sides. Now, because we get in this little bit of a jam and the President gets a little more leverage in his negotiations, we are now at a point where some of the leadership had said, OK, we won't make it a year's delay before more work can be done on OSHA with ergonomics; it will only be until March 1st. In the last minutes, that goalpost was moved again. The President said, no, I want to be able to put it into effect, and they can take it out of effect if there is a new administration next year. Let me state how difficult a procedure that would be. It would be next to impossible to remove an absolutely ridiculous rule that is landsliding through this place by an agency out of control, that has known what it wanted to do from the very first day that it wrote the rule. It has done every single thing it can to make sure that rule comes into effect. They don't care who doesn't like it. Our ergonomics amendment, which delays it one year, is not about whether we should have an ergonomics rule. It is not a prohibition against an ergonomics rule. It is most definitely not a dispute about the importance of safety for American workers. We need to have safety for American workers, but we need to do it the right way. This amendment was passed in a bipartisan way. It is imperative that Congress insists there be a reasonable amount of time on this rule. The rule was only published a year ago. They are anticipating that maybe they can even squeak by before there is agreement and get this rule finalized and approved. That will be quicker than OSHA has done a rule. That would be record time. They mention this was brought up about 12 or 13 years ago. There has not been agreement on it since that time. It never got published until a year ago. There has been no official action until a year ago. Let me state why we ought to be concerned about this rule and why the delay occurred, in a bipartisan way, for a year. People didn't approve of the way OSHA was handling it, the way they were going about it. OSHA paid over 70 contractors a total of $1.75 million to help with the ergonomics rule. They paid 28 contractors $10,000 each to testify at the public rulemaking hearings. They didn't only pay the witnesses to testify; they didn't notify the public, and then they assisted the witnesses with the preparation of their testimony. Then they brought them in for practice runs for the hearing. Then they paid them to tear apart the testimony of the opposition. That is not the way we do things around here. That resulted in people on both sides of the aisle being extremely upset with the way it was handled. The way that OSHA has handled this gives every indication that the way they wrote it is the way it has to be; that they are not going to pay attention to any of the comments or the additional testimony. They knew they were right when they wrote it and they will be darned if they are going to change it. That is not how we do rules, particularly ones that cost billions of dollars, without getting the desired effect. That is the purpose of a rule, to get a desired effect. This one will not get the desired effect. It is interesting to note the Bureau of Labor Statistics says, without the rule, United States employers reduced ergonomic injuries by 29 percent. What do the hearing records show? With the ergonomics rule they would get zero percent the first year and 7 percent the second year. American business is doing better than that without the rule. How are they doing it? Somebody is helping them to figure out what they need to do. Small business in this country has trouble handling the OSHA rules. They have over 12,000 pages of regulations they have to digest. If you are a small employer, you cannot read 12,000 pages in a year. Any time they get help on knowing what they can do to provide safety in the business, they do it. It is shown time and time again on every kind of injury there is. So we put in the motion to slow down OSHA a little bit, to make sure they took the necessary time to look at the rule and to get rid of this perception that their first idea was the only idea and the right idea and going to be the final idea. Somehow, they have to work past that perception. The amendment is a reasonable 1-year delay. It will ensure that OSHA takes the time to evaluate all 7,000 comments it has received and try to resolve the problems with the rule. It also gives Congress the time to perform its appropriate oversight function. So there is a reason for a delay. Rules in OSHA have been extremely permanent. Any one that has ever passed has had court trials and a number of them have been reversed. But if they make it through the court trial, did you know they have not been revised in the time that OSHA has been around? Do you think technology has changed a little bit? Do you think there is any reason we ought to look at rules that are 29 years old? We probably ought to. Instead, we are rushing into an area here that not only provides a rule without sufficient oversight, but it provides a rule that gets into workers comp. Yes, it gets into workers comp. In its preamble, OSHA specifically prohibits any right to impose on workers comp, and there is good reason for that. Workers comp has been around a long time. There are precedents that have been developed. They are important precedents. Here is the biggest problem with it. You can get paid twice for the same injury. It is kind of a rule of mine: If I can make more by not working than I can working, don't expect me to show up. That is going to cause some major problems for business in this country. It is something that needs to be revised. Again, there is no indication at all it would be revised. So the House folks and the Senate folks--not just the House folks, as has been written up in some of the papers--have been incensed the President is insisting this rule be allowed to go into force but not to be enforced until next year. That is not the way we do it. That is one of the things that is keeping Labor-HHS from being approved now. It should not be the major crux of an appropriations bill, but it is a very important point that we need ensure that any changes made in rules that work on the worker get the proper amount of oversight. That is all we are asking for, an opportunity to do the proper oversight on it and to get an indication of some sort from OSHA that they are going to pay attention to any of the 7,000 comments they received. We are at a point where we need to wrap up this session. We are at a point where we need to get the work done. But that is one item I will stay around here for until next year, if I have to, to be sure we do the job right and not in a hurry. We do not need to rush things. I thank the Senator from Iowa, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to speak today at the passage of H.R. 5178, the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. By passing this bill, we ensure a safer workplace for the men and women who perform the valuable service of taking care of the people of this country. The bi-partisan nature of this bill is a testament to the importance of the problem we have addressed and the fairness and reasonableness of the solution. I want to commend the hard work of my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, and Reid and their staff in crafting this solution. I also want to recognize the efforts of my House colleagues, Representatives Ballenger and Owens and their staff. This truly was a bipartisan and bicameral effort and it is a wonderful example of what we can accomplish when we all work together. We came together over this bill to address the convergence of increased concern over accidental needlestick injuries in health care settings (``needlesticks'' is a term used broadly, as health care workers can suffer injuries from a broad array of ``sharps'' used in health care settings, from needles to IV catheters to lancets) with the technological advancements made over the past decade in the many types of engineering controls that can be used in the workplace to help protect health care workers against sharps injuries. We responded to these two factors by drafting a bill that highlights the importance of using newer, safer technologies but also allows health care employers the flexibility to choose the technology that provides the best protection under the circumstances. I have further elaborated on my views on the substance of this legislation in the Joint Statement of Legislative Intent, submitted with the legislation. The passage of this bill today is extremely significant on several levels. First and foremost, this bill will save lives because fewer health care workers will contract deadly diseases from accidental needlesticks. Almost equally as important, it will also reduce the number of health care workers who are forced to suffer the living hell of not knowing whether they contracted a deadly disease after a contaminated needlestick. The health care workers on the front lines in hospitals, clinics, and other locations are absolutely critical to this country and I hope this bill will provide some peace of mind to these individuals. Finally, I want to reiterate the significance of the bipartisan and bicameral nature of this legislation. I believe this bill brings employers and employees together to improve safety in the workplace and I hope to be able to work with my co-sponsors and my colleagues in the House on more such measures in the future.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about giving small businesses the tools they need to be successful in today's competitive marketplace. I am committed to providing those tools by fully supporting the continuation of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Rural Outreach Program. Congressional commitment to small business development has created a network of people nationwide, especially in Wyoming, that is excited and knowledgeable about the SBIR Rural Outreach Program. The SBIR Rural Outreach Program provides an excellent funding opportunity for individuals and small businesses in rural areas that have a passion to explore, develop and commercialize their innovative ideas. Created in 1982, the SBIR Program is a highly competitive program that encourages small business to explore their technological potential and provides the incentive to profit from its commercialization. By including qualified small businesses in the Nation's research & development arena, high-tech innovation is stimulated and the United States gains entrepreneurial spirit as it meets its specific research and development needs. The SBIR Program is designed to target the entrepreneurial sector because that is where most innovation and innovators thrive. However, the risk and expense of conducting serious R&D efforts are often beyond the means of many small businesses. By reserving a specific percentage of federal R&D funds for small business, the SBIR Program protects the small business and enables it to compete on the same level as large businesses. The SBIR Program funds the critical startup and development stages and it encourages the commercialization of the technology, product, or service, which, in turn, stimulates the U.S. economy. Each year, ten federal departments and agencies are required by the SBIR Program to reserve a portion of their R&D funds for award to small business. Such agencies include the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Science Foundation. Following submission of proposals, agencies make SBIR awards based on small business qualification, degree of innovation, technical merit, and future market potential. Small businesses that receive awards or grants then begin a three-phase program. Phase I is the startup phase, awarding up to $100,000 for approximately 6 months support exploration of the technical merit or feasibility of an idea or technology. Phase II awards of up to $750,000, for as many as 2 years, expanding Phase I results. During this time, the R&D work is performed and the developer evaluates commercialization potential. Only Phase I award winners are considered for Phase II. Phase III is the period during which Phase II innovation moves from the laboratory into the marketplace. The small business must find funding in the private sector or other non-SBIR federal agency funding. In 1997, Senator Burns and I cosponsored legislation and Congress established the SBIR Rural Outreach Program to increase the SBIR participation of small businesses located in the states that receive the fewest SBIR awards. The program is limited to funding activities which encourage small firms in those states to participate in the SBIR Rural Outreach Program. The Outreach Program is targeted toward the 25 under-represented jurisdictions in the SBIR program in an effort to provide a secure funding mechanism to states so that they could develop an effective five-year effort to assist small businesses to take advantage of the SBIR program. As you may know, western small businesses have some special impediments to overcome. The SBIR Rural Outreach Program provides an excellent funding opportunity for individuals and small businesses that have a passion to explore, develop and commercialize their innovative ideas. This is especially true in rural states like Wyoming. The Wyoming small business community is one of the cornerstones of our state's economy. Wyoming is the smallest state, with a large number of small businesses. The SBIR Rural Outreach Program is one way for Wyoming's small businesses to access federal funding. Rural states need technology-based businesses that the SBIR program nurtures. The SBIR Rural Outreach Program is one of the few opportunities for Wyoming's small businesses to access federal R&D funding. I believe more innovative and aggressive approaches are needed to help rural states achieve greater participation in this, especially at those agencies that have proved difficult for small businesses to access. There are several outreach activities that have been effective in helping small businesses in rural states compete successfully in the SBIR Rural Outreach Program. For example, the Wyoming SBIR Initiative outreach efforts have led to substantial gains in both the number of proposals submitted, the quality of proposals submitted, and the number selected for award. For example, Wyoming received one Phase I award in 1994. Wyoming, however, received 8 Phase I awards by 1995 and has received a total of 43 Phase I awards by 2000. To date, Wyoming has received approximately $9 million since 1987 for both Phase I and II awards, but there is still more that should be done to assist small businesses in the West. I want to share the dramatic impact that SBIR awards have made on one Wyoming company--Wyoming Sawmills, Incorporated. The company's first Phase I SBIR award was from U.S. Department of Agriculture in May 1997, and it won the follow-on Phase II program in September 1998. The project aims to convert low-grade lumber into construction quality lumber through an innovative laminating technique. Wyoming Sawmills will begin commercial sales of the new product in 1999, and it already has captured related R&D funding based on this SBIR project. In January 1999, the company won a National Science Foundation Phase I award on another laminated wood product concept. Another success story is CC Technology. CC Technology, a Laramie- based small business, has been notified of a $400,000 SBIR Phase II grant award from the National Science Foundation, NSF. During Phase I, the business did research on measuring cyanide levels in gold mining leach pads. For Phase II, a team consisting of CC Technology, Detection Limit, and Aspect Consultant Group has been built to monitor cyanide at both the mining solution levels and at trace levels for environmental compliance. I want to express a special thank you to Chris Busch, from Senator Burns' home state of Montana and who coordinated SBIR efforts in Wyoming for the past five years. Chris Busch did a remarkable job working with people in Wyoming to raise the awareness and participation of small businesses in the SBIR program. Working with small businesses, public organizations, and others in Wyoming and nationwide, Chris got people involved, helped them through the grant management process, and guided them in market development and commercialization. His commitment to small business development has created a network of people in Wyoming that is excited and knowledgeable about SBIR. Chris has helped to plant the seeds of economic diversity in communities that really need it. Chris' activities and commitment of this program are making SBIR work. In closing, SBIR programs work for small businesses in rural states, especially Wyoming. Fortunately, we have several dedicated westerners in the Congress who have committed their time and legislative efforts to expand the successes of SBIR to all parts of the country. It is my hope that my colleagues will see the importance of this particular government program that is truly assisting small businesses nationwide. I look forward to continued bipartisan efforts to benefit our nation's small businesses by strongly supporting the SBIR Rural Outreach Program.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m. today, provided that the Senate has received the papers, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the 1-day continuing resolution, and no amendments or motions be in order, and that the Senate proceed to an immediate vote on final passage of the joint resolution.

Mr. ENZI. In light of this agreement, the first vote today will occur at 4:30 p.m. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ENZI. This was cleared on both sides.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Arizona in requesting the business of the Senate be allowed to go forward. We have seen many filibusters all year. That is what has gotten us into this situation where we are past October 1 and still working on the budget. I think we ought to be doing the business of the Senate. My predecessor, Alan Simpson, who had this seat in the Senate, said several times, an accusation that isn't answered is an accusation accepted. There are a couple of things I have to clear up from this morning. First, we did all this work on a balanced budget without the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Yes, we did. But the debate on the balanced budget constitutional amendment is what made the people of America rise up and tell every single one of their representatives that they wanted the budget of this country balanced. And it was the heat the people of this country put on the Congress that led Members to balance the budget. That wouldn't have happened without the debate on the balanced budget. That is the reason we have what is being referred to as a ``surplus'' today. It isn't a surplus. It is tax overcharge. We have collected more from the people than we had planned to spend. We ought to refer to it as that. I could not begin to cover all of the accusations that were misaccusations. Another real important one I have to cover is the Reaganomics attack. Yes, giving the money back to the people, as Reagan suggested, resulted in a 30-percent increase in revenue to this country. So why do we have such a big deficit? Because people spent it. We cannot spend more than we take in. It is a pretty basic principle of economics. Reaganomics increased revenue. The other side, who was in control of the Congress at that time, outspent what he was able to bring in by increasing business in this country. The balanced budget amendment increased the economy of this Nation. Everybody agrees balancing the budget has done that. If we get back to a position where it isn't balanced, people will lose confidence in the economy, and we will be back where we started, with ever- increasing deficits, particularly if we dramatically increase spending each year. I notice the Secretary of the Treasury took an unusual approach yesterday and got into the debate on Social Security. The Social Security issue does come down to: Whom do you trust? Every year that I have been here, there has been a promise that there will be Social Security reform. I went to a White House conference. I have to say it was one of the best planned, best organized, and best done conferences I have ever seen. One of the reasons was that Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, were invited to be a part of it. When it finished, there was a special part for everybody from the House and Senate to participate in--again, Republicans and Democrats. We sat down with the President and we agreed there needed to be Social Security reform and that reform had to have the fingerprint of everybody on it, that it could not be used as a Social Security scare. We have saved bill No. 1 for the President's Social Security reform. Every year that I have been here, the President in his State of the Union speech has said: The most important thing for this country is to solve the Social Security problem. We saved bill No. 1 for him. We never got a solution. The President of the Senate, who is the Vice President of the United States, has been a part of these efforts. He says he has delivered on all his promises. That is a promise that was made. That is a promise that has not been kept. Social Security has not been reformed. There has been another effort involved in this, too, and that has been a bipartisan commission--again, Republicans and Democrats sitting down to talk about how to save Social Security. They came up with a plan. They had to have a supermajority to have that plan actually presented to us, and the President's nominees to that committee were the ones who objected and made it one vote short of being a request that could be presented to us. Again, a bipartisan solution. That bipartisan solution is what you are hearing Governor Bush talk about. It is something that has been presented in a number of plans here in the Senate, but it needs the endorsement of both Republicans and Democrats, and the elimination of a veto threat at the Presidential level, to be able to solve that problem. Why do we need to solve it? You have heard how far we extended it and how we are getting extra money into the Social Security trust fund. The money in the Social Security trust fund is IOUs, T-bills. Now we are using the Social Security surplus to pay down the private debt for the United States. Do you know what that does? That lets us spend more money. When we have private debt out there, we pay the interest on a regular basis. When we spend Social Security surplus to pay down the national debt, the private part of the national debt, we increase the Social Security debt and we just put in IOUs to pay the interest. Why is that important? Sometime the debt will come due. You hear a lot of different numbers about when the debt comes due: 2013 is the magic time when the baby boomers move into the group of recipients of Social Security and start jerking out enormous amounts of money from Social Security--2013. They say Social Security is secure until 2037. That is until the last dime is drawn. It will not work that way. Here is why it will not. In 2025, the ones of us who are here--with the exception of maybe one or two--will not be here. There will be a different generation that will be in the Senate and in the Congress. These will be people who have paid into Social Security their whole life and will realize they will not get a dime out of it. Here is another little problem. When it comes appropriations time, all they are going to do is decide how big the check for interest is going to be, because the national debt will be so huge at that time that we will not build a road, we will not do anything for the military, we will not do anything for education--we will pay interest. How excited do you think the people of this country are going to be to just be paying interest on a debt from the last century and to have no benefit coming their way? I suggest there could be a revolution in this country, an end to Social Security. Future generations may not feel the same need to take care of their parents and other elderly in the country because they themselves are not going to get any benefit. It is not going to be there to take care of them. So it needs to be solved now. We are also talking about prescription drugs. This is a very complicated issue. There are at least six plans out there, any one of which could provide prescription drug coverage for seniors. It is something in which we are all interested. It is something that needs to be done. We need to be sure that every person in this country can get the prescription drugs they need, and we need to be sure every person in this country doesn't have to make a choice between food or their prescription drugs. There have been two plans proposed. They are quite different. One of the things I like to use is this chart. I think it lends a little validity to the decisions between the two principal plans. One is provided by Governor Bush, one is provided by Vice President Gore. Those are the two main ones. I have to tell you, the biggest difference between the two is that Governor Bush's plan provides for choice, your choice. Vice President Gore's plan calls for a national plan. The decisions will be made in Washington. You will not have the flexibility. Since we are talking about how some of Mr. Gore's drug proposals work, I suggest they lack a little sincerity and are going to make life much harder for working Americans. Here are some thoughts on the Medicare prescription drug plan. This is the biggest secret out there. Mr. Gore's plan would cover 2.6 million fewer low-income Americans than the plan offered by Governor Bush and introduced in the Senate by Republicans. That is because Mr. Gore's plan offers low-income subsidies only up to 150 percent of poverty, while Mr. Bush's plan would help seniors up to 175 percent of poverty. Mr. Gore's plan would not even become effective until 2002. On top of that, Mr. Gore's plan would also displace the coverage that 70 percent of the current Medicare recipients already have. For those seniors whose employer offered a retirement benefit, there is now no incentive for the company to continue that coverage, leaving the senior with no option but the HCFA-run program. For all the stock Mr. Gore puts into the agenda, and the advice of the AMA, he apparently has not been concerned by their assertion that the HCFA--that is, this national organization that will run his prescription drug plan--is the IRS of the new millennium. I, for one, do not see the sincerity in putting more people on the Titanic. As my friend from Texas often says about putting people on programs under the care of HCFA, it would be a disaster. If Mr. Gore had sincere concerns about the health and welfare of seniors, he would focus on real solutions that stabilize the Medicare program, offer seniors comprehensive health care, and enable seniors to select coverage, including prescriptions, that meets their needs and budgets. That is a commitment Governor Bush has already made. Governor Bush would provide immediate drug coverage for those seniors who right now cannot afford it. He doesn't cross his fingers and take his chances with HCFA. Instead, he builds on the existing drug assistance programs in the States. Here are a few statistics about the immediate impact of the proposal. Half of women beneficiaries who are currently without coverage would gain immediate coverage. Almost three- fourths of the minority seniors currently without coverage would gain immediate coverage. And the most frail of our seniors, those over 80 years old, would improve their access under the Bush plan. Another important part of the Bush proposal is that States will not be restricted from offering low-income subsidies above 175 percent of poverty. Under the Gore plan, there is no option for States to pool funds and ease the expense of drug coverage for even more seniors. Why is this chart important? This chart was done by the Washington Post. People who understand newspapers in this country understand what the Washington Post does will not be favorable to Governor Bush. They have a tendency to be favorable to the other side. So when they do a chart, a person ought to pay a little bit of attention to it. This is from the article that came with the chart: Bush details Medicare plan, September 5: Texas Governor George Bush today proposed spending $198 billion to enhance Medicare over the next 10 years, including covering the full cost of prescription drugs for seniors with low incomes. Bush's plan was modeled on a bipartisan proposal by Senator John Breaux, Democrat from Louisiana, and Senator Bill Frist, Republican from Tennessee. This is the commission I was talking about. Bush's plan proposes ``fully subsidizing people with incomes less than 135 percent of the poverty level and creating a sliding scale for people with slightly more money. But Gore would stop the sliding scale at 150 percent of the poverty level, while Bush would extend it to 175 percent. As I mentioned, a lot of States like that flexibility. A newspaper that normally would not give good reviews, gives a good review. One problem is the cost over the next 10 years would be $198 billion. The chart they did comparing the two shows $158 billion. They were charging him with $40 billion more in costs than what their chart actually shows. I hope people will pay some attention to the comparisons. I ask unanimous consent that the chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the comparison shows pretty conclusively that you get more benefits under the $158 billion plan than you do under the $253 billion plan. The $158 billion plan goes into effect right away. The other one does not go into effect until 2002, and people have to pay, under the Democrat plan, $600 whether they get any benefits or not. It is my understanding the $600 has been subtracted from the $253 billion to make that cost a little bit lower. So it is a another tax for a proposal that provides for Federal control as opposed to your control. HCFA versus your decisions: Talk to your doctors about HCFA and how it participates and interacts with them. Talk to them about the crisis that HCFA has already caused in this Nation in medical care and ask yourself: Do I want to give them the added burden of a prescription drug plan and only give myself one option? That is what we are looking at here. I hope you will do some comparisons and see the difference and concentrate on this bipartisan solution to providing prescription drugs. The one thing about the Governor from Texas with which I have really been impressed has been his ability and effort to work with both sides in the Texas Legislature. I used to be in the Wyoming Legislature. I know how important it is for people to work together. It is a little different atmosphere than we have in Washington. How did Governor Bush do that when he moved in and had a Democrat legislature? He sat down with them one on one, face to face, and talked to them about his priorities and their priorities, and they worked together. What excites me is following the history of Presidents, they tend to repeat what they have done successfully before, and I am really excited about that because I see a Governor coming to Washington and sitting down with both sides, one on one, face to face--a long process; there are 535 of us, but it is doable. That is what is needed in Washington: more effort across the aisle, effort like the Medicare Commission that has provided a solution for prescription drugs that can be done. I thank the Chair and yield my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from California.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks we have had several debates on this floor that dealt with national policy, and, of course, with the debates on television, there are many issues related to national policy. I take this opportunity to relate how those policy issues are being viewed in Wyoming. I know that is kind of the melting pot and the test center for the United States. I say that in all sincerity because I talk to these people every weekend when I go home, and I know it is a real center of common sense with a real concern about a lack of national policy on some very important issues. They talk about foreign policy and how we don't appear to know how to go into a war. They talk about energy policy, the price of gasoline, and how long we have been addressing that. They talk about Social Security policy. They hear about the lockbox, and they have watched six or seven filibusters against the lockbox to protect Social Security. They hear about needing to save Social Security first and then not seeing any action on that. I want to suggest, too, that our country needs policy. We are not talking about hindsight; we are talking about foresight. We are not talking about polls; we are talking about leadership. There were a couple of editorials in Wyoming that dealt with the recent tapping of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. One of them was in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, which is the main paper in Cheyenne, WY, the State capital of Wyoming. It starts off by saying: President Bill Clinton's decision to direct the Department of Energy to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is viewed by the White House as a way to lower fuel prices and reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil. Nice try, Mr. Clinton. Each day, the world oil market produces 77.1 million barrels of oil and consumes 75.6 million barrels. The United States consumes 20 million barrels per day. The additional 30 million barrels is equal to about a 36-hour supply. * * * * * Higher energy prices fall squarely on the shoulder of the American people, the government's strangle-hold on refineries and the White House. * * * * * Let's not forget our country's thirst for oil. Since 1991, the amount of oil imported by the United States has increased an average of 5.3 percent per year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire editorial be printed in the Record. I hope everybody will read it. It gets into more detail about policy and suggests some things that need to be done.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I have a few articles on U.S. policy that I would like to have printed in the Record and make a couple of comments on them.

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.