Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 Senator Helms be recognized for up to 15 minutes to be followed by Senator Craig for up to 1 hour, to be followed by Senator Hollings for up to 1 hour. I further ask that Senator Kennedy be recognized for up to 30 minutes during today's session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is good to be back in the Chamber again. I have enjoyed a month of traveling around Wyoming. I know that our entire delegation was there on a number of occasions. We met at different places across the State as we listened to the people of the State to see what sorts of things they felt were important to our State and our Nation. I have to mention that at the end of that trip, of course, there was some football. We are back in that season again. I have to explain the tie that I am wearing today. It is probably bright enough for anybody in the Chamber to be able to read it. Last Thursday night, the opening game for the University of Wyoming Cowboys and the Auburn War Eagles took place on ESPN. Many people might have seen it. I have to say that the Auburn Tigers--now called the War Eagles--were extremely impressive. It, obviously, is an educational institution of higher learning, and they did teach Wyoming a few lessons. At the end of the game, Wyoming almost came back. They got a little overconfident and they got one touchdown behind and wound up losing. Therefore, today, I will be wearing an Auburn tie and making some comments about the fine program they have at Auburn. I did get to teach part of an MBA class for executives who came in from all over the United States to learn about the business of this country and how to better perform in business. It is a rather unique class. It has wider participation than most, and people are required to have 8 years of experience before they can take the class. So it was a different level of master of business administration candidates than a person normally gets to talk to--again, absorbing some of the lessons they are learning through the questions that they ask. I was very impressed with the university and the special programs they are offering. Of course, I had to be very impressed with their team. I am now one of the biggest supporters of Auburn outside of the State of Alabama, hoping they go undefeated in the rest of the season, helping Wyoming in their power index and, of course, I hope Wyoming doesn't lose another game this year. I am confident, because of the level of competition involved in this game, that that will be the case. I am proud of the players at the University of Wyoming, and I look forward to a very entertaining year, as well as one of great production as they learn their lessons so they can be the ones who take over the jobs of this country.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I think your side had time and I patiently listened while I was in the chair. Your questions turn into statements. I would like to finish making my statement, if I might. What we are turning into is a country that recognizes that the Federal Government can give us everything and we forget about where the everything came from. It is pretty exciting to get a windfall. I figured out--and this is mostly from talking to my Wyoming constituents--that when a new program around here is proposed, there are people across this country who benefit from it. Maybe they get $1,000. In fact, that turns out to be about the average a person in one of these programs gets--$1,000. Of course, it employs some different people because they administer the program, and they get more than $1,000 a year benefit out of it. They become the main lobbyists for the new program, and they get very excited about getting this new program in place and spending the money. You know, if a person gets $1,000 or more, it is worth a letter or two--more than that, maybe it is worth a trip to Washington. So we hear a lot about the importance of the new programs and everything. What we don't hear about is the taxpayers saying: Whoa, that isn't a program I like or a program I want to fund; that isn't where I want to put my money. Do you know why we don't hear as much from those people? First of all, they are busy earning the tax money that we spend; secondly, it is only costing them about a quarter for a new program. How many letters can you write for 25 cents? You can't. So what we wind up with is a huge lobby for new programs. The President, when he did his State of the Union speech, laid out several billion dollars a minute in new programs--new programs--that he would like to see done. In fact, there were about $750 billion worth of expenditures listed there. Now, we have programs in this country that we are not funding adequately at the present time, programs that we have said are important, such as IDEA, that we bring up every once in a while to get additional funding. We don't do it, but we keep looking at new programs. There are some things that need to be done in this country, and the best way is to get on with the appropriations process, to work through it in the kind of detail it deserves, and to quit throwing in peripheral things just because they can be brought up, which come with points of order and additional votes, each taking about an hour and using up the time of the Senate. It is time we got on with the business of appropriations and visited with constituents about the details of how they think this country ought to run. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am compelled every once in a while to come to the floor to let people know what is happening. I know there are people watching the work of the Senate, and I know those people do not have, for the most part, a program or a scorecard. It is pretty hard to follow the rules of what is going on around here without that. I make an attempt partly to explain to myself what is going on and take the opportunity to share it with other people who might be interested and might be listening. Right now, we are in the closing days of a race for the U.S. President. It does not really have a lot to do with this body; it has a lot to do with our interaction with the administrative branch. Sometimes it is easier for rhetoric to invade the Chambers and to appear to be the most important thing we are doing. What we ought to be doing is the appropriations bills for this Nation. We handle in excess of $1.8 trillion. That is how much we spend on behalf of the American public. We ought to be debating that. We are not. We cannot get unanimous consent to proceed to a debate on an appropriations bill. We cannot move forward to talk about the $1.8 trillion of appropriations for this country. Instead, we have debate on things that we have debated, things that have been decided, for the most part, and, on some occasions, with some finality. Instead, we have people in this Chamber who would rather rehash votes we have already taken and retake them again. I guess the plot is to put fellow Members in a bad light in their constituency: They have already voted on these issues once, let's get them to vote again, and that will be progress for this country. You have to be kidding me. The appropriations for this country are the important things that need to come before this body. They are the things about which we ought to be talking right now, and we ought to be talking about them in some detail. Pretty quickly we are going to run out of time. October 1 is the start of the new fiscal year for this country, and that is when we need to have the appropriations finished. That is when they start spending next year's money. That is when we hope and pray they will be spending it with the conciseness all of us envision. When we are relegated to not being able to proceed on an appropriations bill because we cannot reach unanimous consent, we cannot debate in detail. Later, we are going to have to make massive decisions on this money, and in fact it is my belief the minority would prefer to have the President negotiating these things instead of the way our forefathers envisioned it: that Congress would come up with the mechanism and the plan and the votes to pass appropriations bills that the executive branch would administer. That is not how it is working. The longer we push this process, the more it will be a nonvoted mediated expenditure without looking at the details. The amendments are the way the details get into this appropriations process, and it is not going to happen because we are shoving everything back through this process. We are keeping the appropriations of this Nation from being debated. We are not being allowed to proceed to the debate on important appropriations bills. Instead, we are hearing the rhetoric about how we should have minimum wage, Patients' Bill of Rights, education, and the other important things on which we have already worked, on which we have already voted that are in conference committee. Those conference committees should be finishing. I will tell you what happened on the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am on the conference committee for the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is one of the toughest jobs I have had in my life. A number of us on the committee have spent from about 1 to 6 hours a day working on it, and it is largely nonscheduled time. When somebody discovers a place where there might be a negotiation breakthrough, we get together and talk about it. We work out words. We meet with the House folks, and we try to come to a conclusion. We did that for months and months. Yet we hear on the floor of the delay in getting the Patients' Bill of Rights done. We were making major breakthroughs on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The Democrats in this Chamber bailed out of the process and said: Let's go back to the original House version. Sure, we have spent 3 or 4 months making important changes in this. I don't think they ever said that on the floor. But we had made 3 or 4 months of important changes in major areas. We had virtually wrapped up those areas as being much better than either the House or the Senate bill. That is what a conference committee is about. That is what a conference committee is supposed to do. We were in the process of doing that. The only thing I can conclude from the Democrats going back to the original version of the Patients' Bill of Rights on the House side was that they could see we were making progress that the country would like, and they wanted to keep an issue instead. That is not how Government is supposed to be done. That is not the way we are supposed to do it. We have debated these issues. We are working on these issues. But there is a desire to keep things as an issue instead of a solution, and I can't tell the Senate how much that dismays me. There are a few other bills that could come up in this process, too. We are working on the elementary and secondary education authorization. It is done once every 5 years. The bill has come out of committee. It has been to the floor. We have debated it a few times. The amendments that are brought for that bill are not education amendments. It is all of these other ones that the Democrats would like to vote on and vote on and vote on again because that keeps them as an issue. What we need to do is get some finality to the education issue. We need to have some agreement between both sides that we will talk about education, that we will make education decisions, that we will make education in this country better for every student in elementary and secondary schools. We have to do that. That is our obligation. That is our assignment. That is what America is counting on. We can't get that job done if we keep going back and making political statements about issues on which we have already voted. If there is a vote and you want to use it against somebody, you can put the spin on it and use it against them. You don't have to have five votes on the same issue to spin it that way. That isn't how elections ought to be working in this country, but it does say something about how elections do work in this country. The voters are more discriminating than that. They are able to tell the rhetoric from their desires. As I travel Wyoming--and I am back there almost every weekend--our whole delegation usually goes out on Friday because we don't have votes here, and we travel the State. In Wyoming that means by car. I have traveled 300, 500 miles on a weekend. The average town in Wyoming is about 250 people. The exciting thing about visiting those towns is you get to talk to about 80 percent of the people. You get a pretty good feel for what your constituents think we ought to be doing. They do think we ought to be doing the appropriations process in detail and getting it wrapped up. They also think that some of the votes we have taken lately are very important from a fairness standpoint. One of those issues is the death tax. Practically everybody in Wyoming understands that death is a terrible thing and when you accompany death with a tax bill, it is even worse. That doesn't affect everybody in Wyoming. Those people understand that the death tax does not affect everybody in Wyoming. But they see a basic fairness issue where it does affect other people, and it affects the businesses for which they work. If the small business they work for has to sell off part of it for death taxes and can no longer function and goes out of business, it is their job. They understand that. It is the same with the farms and ranches in Wyoming and the rest of the country. If you have to sell off a significant part of your ranch or farm to pay the death tax, you may not have an economic remainder left. When that happens, you don't have the same culture in this country, and you do not have the same jobs. People lose their jobs. So they see the basic fairness issue of making sure that death is not a taxable event. The bill that is out there for the President to make his decision on doesn't say they avoid taxes forever. There is a capital gains tax in it. When there is a sale of the business or a sale of the land, when there is a taxable event, it gets taxed. That is how it ought to be. It should not be triggered by death and be a second tax on the same property. I had a letter from a constituent who said, if we do the death taxes, isn't that going to increase the gap between the wealthy and the poor? That is a good question. The answer is, no. What we are working on is middle America, the workers, particularly the workers who have been building IRAs and 401(k)s and who have been participating in the growth of the stock market, taking their wage and investing a little bit of it. There are a lot of blue-collar workers across this country who are now millionaires. They took some of their wages and saved it. They aren't in some of the old exclusions we had on death taxes. They are saying: Wait a minute. I worked my lifetime to save this money. I took some risks to make this money. I didn't do it so I could have a great retirement with a lot of vacation places. I did it so my kids would have a better chance, so that my kids would have some advantages, so that my kids would start at a little different level in their job than I started in mine. I want to make sure death taxes don't take it away. If we let middle America, which by the Democratic definition is anybody who pays taxes-- no, that would be the rich. At any rate, if we let middle America keep their money instead of paying it in death taxes and move up into a little higher level, that is the way America has operated. That is why virtually all the people in Wyoming tell me: Eliminate the death taxes. We did that. It is going to be heading down to the President to see if he agrees on it. I hear a lot of the marriage penalty in Wyoming. Again, it is a fairness issue. They want the marriage penalty eliminated. The bill we sent down there was not the Senate bill. The Senate bill would have had a lot more marriage penalty elimination. We went with the House version for the most part. We increased it in the lower levels so the marriage penalty among those paying taxes but making the lower amounts would benefit from it and benefit the most. That is the way the bill is right now that is being sent to the President. Again, we had a debate; we took the vote. That issue was resolved. We hear a lot on taxes about the rich versus the poor and what we need to do with all the surplus. It is not surplus. It is excess taxes. It is tax money that got paid that is in excess of what we had anticipated and what we had planned to spend. There are a lot of exciting things we can do with excess. Everybody wishes they had some. The greatest thing would be to win a lottery. That is kind of an excess sort of thing, unanticipated money that you got, with just a couple of bucks for expenditure. If we just give these out on all the new ideas for spending programs, that is what we will be doing--holding a national lottery.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Wyoming. I thank him for all his efforts in organizing information to be shared with fellow Senators and with the American public.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it has been a difficult week working in the Senate. All of us have had a heavy heart, missing Paul Coverdell. My office is in the immediate vicinity of his, and I keep thinking he will pop out the door on my way to a vote or back. In the Bible, there is a famous story about a man named Paul. God had a special mission for him. Though Paul was not aware of it, God made His presence known when He needed him and called him into service. That Paul had no choice. He answered the call and did as he was asked. God calls us all like that, though some of us never hear it. God called Paul Coverdell like that, too. When Paul heard the call, he listened and he answered. First, He called him to work in the Peace Corps, as there was a need and someone had to fill it. During his service there, he made a difference in a lot of lives. God must have been very pleased with him because then He decided to put him in charge of greater things. Those greater things led him to serve in the Senate. Again, there was a need and, again, Paul was there to answer the call. He was a remarkable force here, an incredible powerhouse of principles and ideas, and they were all in motion whenever he would speak. He had an infectious enthusiasm that seemed to emanate from every fiber of his being as he made his points. His gestures and his facial expressions always drew the listener in and caught their attention as he spoke with passion about his philosophy and his politics. He was a great strategist because he could put himself in someone else's shoes and understand how someone else thought and felt about the issues that came up for debate and discussion. He could see many perspectives, and all at once he had an innate sense of how they would all interplay, how they would connect and collide. That was why he always seemed to have the answers. He knew what his opponents were thinking before they were even thinking it. But the biggest reason for his successes in the Senate was his great devotion to the principles of common sense. He knew that the best answer was the one that made the most sense. All of his hard work and determined effort was aimed at one target: finding common ground, working with his colleagues, and creating a consensus that led to a solution to the problem. When I arrived in the Senate, I found myself on the last rung of the seniority ladder, No. 100. I did not know how lucky I was. After the room selections were made, I got the office that was left, and it turned out to be a great office in disguise. My staff and I moved in, added a few touches to make it more like home, and then greeted our neighbors. Paul Coverdell was the neighbor, along with his staff. He was right next door, so we got to see him often. He and his staff were always walking by or on their way out, and I would see Paul as he left to go home. He was a regular and a welcome sight to all of us. When the bells would ring for us to vote, we seemed to answer that call at the same time. We often came out of our doors at the same time and walked over together. We had a lot of interesting discussions about politics and legislative strategy. I lapped it all up. I was an eager and ready student, and he was a tremendous mentor. Our staffs seemed to bond, too. We were all in this together, and the camaraderie that developed among us helped us take on some issues that needed to be addressed. It is a tradition I have adopted from him that I hope to continue through my years of service in the Senate. Through the years, I remember the times we spent in difficult meetings with emotions running high and pressure coming down from all sides to get something done. That is when Trent Lott would say: ``Let's let Mikey do it.'' I was always relieved to see that he was talking about Paul. I never knew Trent was making a reference to an old-time television commercial, but I knew he meant Paul and not me, which was a relief because Paul always got the job done. Paul Coverdell had a lot of jobs to do in the Senate, and he took them all on eagerly and with enthusiasm because he loved legislating; he loved serving the people of Georgia, the people of this Nation, and his neighbors around the world because he cared so very deeply about each and every person. I heard it said that there is no higher calling than public service. It must be true because it caught Paul Coverdell's attention. In all he did in his life, there is no question that he was a remarkable public servant by any standard. Unfortunately, he will not get to a lot of the landmarks we cherish around here, like casting 10,000 votes, but every vote he did cast was with the greatest thought, consideration, and reflection, and that is the true mark of a legislator. He lived every day with great enthusiasm, energy, focus, concern, and imagination. In fact, I think of him as an ``imagineer.'' That is someone who can see a problem as a challenge and then use a great reservoir of talent, skill, and a little luck to solve it. That is the true mark of a great human being and great friend. Someday when we leave the Senate and return home to begin another adventure in each of our lives, I have no doubt we will take with us at least one or two special memories of Paul that we will cherish for a lifetime. As mortals we cannot see the great plan of the Master's hand for the universe, so we cannot understand why He works the way He does. The word ``why'' does not even appear in the Bible, and there is good reason for that. It is not for us to know the why; it is for us to hear the word of our Lord and to answer the call when it comes. At 6:10 p.m. on Tuesday, July 18, Paul Coverdell heard that call for the last time, and once again he answered it. The only understanding I have is that God must have needed somebody with special talents and abilities, and so He sent for Paul. Now heaven is richer for his having gone home, and we are all richer for having known him and been able to share his life. He will be deeply missed and fondly remembered by us all. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment introduced by the Senator from Arizona, Senator John McCain, to strike funding for the sugar program. I cannot stress enough how important this program is to the sugar beet growers in my state of Wyoming and agricultural communities throughout the nation. The sugarbeet farmers in Wyoming are already facing hard times. Almost one sixth of the sugar acreage in my State was just ravaged by a hailstorm and some fields are facing a complete loss. Since last summer, there has been a 30 percent drop in sugar prices to approximately $0.19 per pound--a 22 year low. And this October, Mexico is scheduled to increase its sugar exports to the American market tenfold, to 250,000 metric tons. And now we are considering dropping the sugar program. This amendment simply kicks these farmers while they are down, taking away what little price stability there is in their business. I would like to share with you a letter I just received from Wade Steiger, a sugar beet farmer in Frannie, Wyoming. Mr. Steiger writes ``Dear Senator, I am currently in the sugar production business in the state of Wyoming and am wondering if I should remain in the business. What I need from you is your best assessment of the current mood in the body politic as to the direction of U.S. sugar policy * * * With the deck stacked against me like this, it would seem foolish to remain in the sugar business.'' Frankly, I'm not sure what to tell him. I know what I would like to tell him. I would like to tell him that we in Congress are committed to making sure that he will be able to get a fair price for his product and that we understand the cyclical nature of his business and that there is a need for a progrma--a no-cost program--that offers a little stability to sugar prices. If this amendment passes, I will have to tell him otherwise. The sugar program has operated at no cost to the federal government since 1996 and the sugar purchase is not an outright payment to producers. This program covers the cost of purchasing surplus sugar which the government can then turn around and sell at a later date to recoup what is sometimes a large part of the up-front cost. Moreover, the sugar industry has already more than covered the cost of these purchases, with over $279 million paid into the U.S. Treasury during the 1990's in a special sugar marketing tax. Without this program, year-to-year supply changes caused by natural factors will lead to such price fluctuation that the profitability of sugar production would be too volatile for most farmers to stay in business. I believe that the government has a role to play in stabilizing commodity prices, especially when the program operates at no net cost to the taxpayers, as is the case with this program. The U.S. produces beet sugar more efficiently and at a lower cost than any other country in the world, but currently these producers are at a disadvantage on the artificial world market. If every government around the world stayed out of the sugar production business, we wouldn't need a program to keep our farmers competitive. But the fact is that world sugar production is heavily subsidized, and it simply does not make sense for us to send U.S. jobs overseas by destroying our own sugar program. I have the utmost faith in my farmers back in Wyoming, that in a truly free market they could grow sugar more efficiently and profitably than anyone else in the world. But because of subsidies paid to protect less efficient farmers in the European Union, Brazil and other countries, the world dump market prices have averaged only about half of the price it would be in the absence of subsidies. The E.U. remains committed to pouring money into a sugar support program that holds its prices at approximately $.31 per pound. Brazil's sugar production exploded in the past twenty years in the wake of its subsidy to produce ethanol from cane sugar. As Brazil has cut back its ethanol subsidy, the cane has been used to produce sugar and since the mid-1990's, it sugar production has doubled and its exports have tripled--all through its generous subsidies. In their race to produce subsidized sugar, Brazilian farmers have also had the benefit of far lower labor and environmental standards than American sugar farmers. Brazil's cane industry turned valuable forest land into farmland and continues to employ tens of thousands of children in the dangerous work of cutting cane. I believe the time has come to draw the line in this constant attack on rural America. This is not about farm welfare. This is not about protectionism. This is about giving our family farmers like Mr. Steiger a fair shake. I urge my colleagues to support a no-cost program that benefits these farmers and oppose this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Steiger's letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Craig Thomas, regarding a study on snowmobile use within our National Parks. The development of the Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks winter use plan draft environmental impact statement has been a landmark exercise for inclusion and cooperation between state, local and Federal Agencies involved in the land management planning process. While this endeavor has not progressed without flaws, it has established that local and state governments possess the expertise and ability to respond in a timely and educated manner to address issues critical to the development of a comprehensive land-use document. In spite of these efforts, however, the United States Department of the Interior has announced a decision to usurp this process and has chosen to implement an outright ban on all snowmobiles, in virtually all national parks, including Yellowstone. I must admit I am not surprised at the over-reaching nature of this action. In fact, several months ago I predicted that the Park Service would ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park and would extend its ban on snowmobiles to all national parks. I am further concerned that this action will spread to include other public land including the national forests. In fact, discussions with National Forest supervisors surrounding Yellowstone indicate that all it will take is an adverse opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ban snowmobiles altogether. The United States Forest Service could claim that increased snowmobile use on our national forests will impact the Canadian lynx, or some other threatened or endangered species, without proof or documentation to put such a ban in place. After a ban in the forests, we can expect action on BLM lands. After snowmobiles, what next? A ban on automobiles and then even on bicycles? If that sounds farfetched, think back just three years ago when we were assured that snowmobiles would not be banned in Yellowstone Park. Soon, we may even expect that bans on other types of recreation will follow and our public lands will no longer be available to the public. As one of the Senators representing the bulk of Yellowstone, I feel it is my duty to correct some of the misconceptions that surround this proposal by the federal government to prohibit access to our nation's oldest and dearest of national parks. Millions of visitors come to Yellowstone National Park each year to experience first hand the park's unique and awesome beauty. They come from all over the world to see Earth's largest collection of geothermal features and to witness some of the largest free-roaming bison and elk herds in the United States. In a proposal announced March 24, 2000 the U.S. Department of the Interior declared its plan to permanently ban snowmobiles from the park beginning in 2002. This announcement was followed by a later statement, on April 27, 2000, where the Department of Interior expanded a proposed ban to dozens of other national parks across the country. If federal officials and national special interest groups have their way, however, a visit to Yellowstone National Park may become as rare and endangered as the trumpeter swan or black footed ferret. There is little evidence to support claims that this proposal was made to protect the environment or to reduce the impact on Park animals. In fact, later statements by park personnel indicate that the main reason for this ban was to comply with changing Park Service policy which was developed to supersede ongoing efforts to reach a reasonable compromise on national park winter use. As I stated earlier, the decision to ban snowmobiles was announced before the Park Service had completed its review of comments on a draft environmental impact statement created by the park and adjacent states and counties to address concerns over winter use in Yellowstone and its neighbor, Grand Teton National Park. The announcement also came before officials could incorporate revisions and amendments to major studies that the Park Service relied on in drafting the draft environmental impact statement. The Park Service admits these initial studies were seriously flawed and exaggerated snowmobile pollution estimates. The original draft study on snowmobile emissions erroneously computed emissions amounts using pounds instead of grams as is used to compute all standard emission amounts. So what is the real reason for banning snowmobiles from Yellowstone and all other national parks? The Park Service's proposal to ban snowmobiles is all about deciding who will have the privilege of experiencing the Park up close and in person, and who will be forced to stay home. Unfortunately, this will leave an even larger segment of the United States ignorant of how vast and wonderful our parks really are. It is vitally important, therefore, that a true picture be painted for the American public to understand what is really being taken away from them. One poll touted by national environmental organizations claims most Americans favor banning snowmobiles, partially based on an image of snowmobiles as heinous, smog producing, noisy devices used to run down poor, defenseless animals and lacking a conception of the size of the park and the limited number of snowmobiles accessing the park on any given day. The administration failed to inform the public of other alternatives to an outright ban that were in the works. For example: snowmobile manufacturers are interested in cleaner, quieter machines. There was also discussion about reducing the number of snowmobiles that could access the park every winter. Not many people realize that local leaders were very involved in trying to resolve the situation to avoid implementing a full fledged ban. In addition, the snowmobile industry has been working for several years to develop air and noise standards with the Environmental Protection Agency so there is a clear target for cleaner, quieter machines. Industry has stated time and time again that once they have clearly defined standards they will develop the technology to meet those standards (assuming some reasonableness to the standard) One company even gave the Park Service some advanced model snowmobiles to test. Right now, snowmobiles are only allowed on groomed roads, the same roads used by cars in the summer and average less than two-thousand snowmobiles a day. A speed limit of 45 miles per hour is strictly enforced. Any driver who puts one ski off the designated trails is subject to fines and possible arrest. The same goes for speeding. This is a significant point to make by the way, because the Executive order this ban is based on regulates off-road vehicle use on our national parks, and as I just noted, snowmobiles are not off-road vehicles in national parks. What a snowmobile ban really does is deny access for old and young riders with physical limitations that preclude them from snowshoeing or cross country skiing into the park. The only alternative left for those visitors unable to snowshoe or ski into the park will only be able to access the park via a mass transit vehicle known as a snow coach. Because of its size, and the type of terrain, it is incredibly impractical to limit access to Yellowstone to just snow coaches or cross country skis and snowshoes. Yellowstone is made up of approximately 2.2 million acres, most of which is already closed to public access other than by foot, snow shoe or skis, and has less than 2,000 snowmobiles inside the park on any given day. By comparison, the State of Connecticut is slightly larger than Yellowstone Park with more than 3.3 million people, many of which drive a car every day. Perspective is important. On its face, and in the safety of your own living room, the idea of riding a van-sized, over snow vehicle may sound like a romantic mode of travel, but in reality, snow coaches are large, cumbersome vehicles that grind, scrape, and shake their way across high mountain passes. It is impossible to ride in a snow coach for long periods of time. As a result, the proposal to only access the park by means of mass transit further restricts time and access to the park by virtually eliminating all entrances to Yellowstone except for the gate at West Yellowstone, Montana. The terrain and elevation at Wyoming's East Gate is so rugged and high that it is impractical for snow coaches to travel in that area of the park. Sylvan Pass reaches an elevation of 8,530 feet and is surrounded by mountains that rise well over 10,000 feet on one side, and gorges with sheet drops of several thousand feet on the other. This is definitely not a place for a snow coach. Furthermore, by moving the southern access point from Flag Ranch to Colter Bay, the Park Service makes any southern day trip into Yellowstone an impossible 113 miles round trip. This also creates a serious safety problem for Idaho snow groomers who, in the past, filled up their gas tanks at Flag Ranch. Under the current proposal, these facilities will be closed and the groomers will not have enough gas to make one complete round trip. This creates a serious safety problem and shuts off access to more than 60 miles of non-Park Service trails. Once again, I would like to reiterate that the complete banning of snowmobiles is not the only available alternative for national park recreational winter use. For the past three years, I have worked with the communities surrounding Yellowstone to develop a more practical and more inclusive approach to Yellowstone winter use. After holding dozens of meetings with residents and business owners, we have been able to create a proposal that preserves the park's environmental health while at the same time ensuring future access--for everyone. This amendment will enable the Park Service to rethink its actions and hopefully incorporate a more positive approach to winter management. I grew up spending time in Yellowstone where grandparents camped inside the park all summer. I have been back many times since, sometimes on a snowmobile. In fact, I get there every year. Over the years the park has improved, not been overrun or run down as efforts mostly to get additional funds imply. Anyone who knows and loves Yellowstone like I do can attest to the fact that there is room enough for wildlife, snowmobiles, snowshoers, cross country skiers and snow coaches in Yellowstone, and a reasonable compromise can be reached to include all of these uses, that is unless federal officials don't step in first and ensure everyone is excluded. Wildlife and human enjoyment of the wildlife are not mutually exclusive. Good administration would accommodate both. The study outlined in this amendment would establish a necessary first step in restoring access, not just to the park, but to the land planning process, for those people who will bear the brunt of the Park Service's decision to ban snowmobiles. Clearly, the Park Service's decision in this matter is an arbitrary decision that bypassed local communities, counties, states and even Congress. The Park Service needs the direction provided for in this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Gorton, for helping me address the need for emergency funding for the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes of Central Wyoming. On June 1, 2000, Gary Collins, Director of Tribal Water Engineers Office for the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation in central Wyoming announced the need to evacuate homes down river from the Washakie Dam. The evacuation was the result of a ``first fill'' test being conducted by the tribe for the newly refurbished Washakie Dam. In accordance with first fill protocol and criteria, the dam was filled to the first of two target levels and then held at that first level for a specified number of days to allow inspection of the dam's operation. Because of unusually high seepage at a key structural point--50 gallons per minute at the toe of the dam, however, the tribe implemented its Emergency Action Plan, ordered the down stream evacuation and conducted temporary repairs to stop the flow. The repairs were successful and the immediate danger temporarily abated. While the seep is now under control, the first fill protocol is still to be completed. Under normal conditions, the tribe would have restarted the first fill protocol and would have refilled the dam to test it again for additional seepage or any other problems. There is not enough water, however, to complete the first fill on the Washakie Dam. Wyoming, along with the rest of the west is suffering from a serious drought situation. The first fill test will not be completed until next spring when, hopefully, we will have enough snowfall to generate the water needed to fill the reservoir. As with the first fill of any dam, there is always a concern that some unanticipated event will occur which requires immediate action to protect life and property. The reconstruction project was finished ahead of time, and under budget, but the remaining funds will be inadequate to respond to any catastrophic incident. It makes much more sense to set aside funds up front to mitigate a possible catastrophe, than to spend millions of additional dollars, and possibly lose human life, for a disaster that could have been averted. The decision by Congress to provide emergency funding for incidents before they occur is not without precedent. For example, in 1997 the U.S. Congress provided funds to prevent flooding in and around Devil's Lake in North Dakota. No actual disaster had occurred, but impending weather conditions threatened surrounding communities and we provided the means to avert disaster. I am therefore asking my colleague for his thoughts on what we can do to help out the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes and ensure the safety of the residents living around the Washakie Dam.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment introduced by the Senator from Nevada, Senator Bryan, that would cut funding for the United States Forest Service's Timber Sale program. Our Nation is experiencing a renaissance in Forest Health initiatives. The terrible tragedies suffered in New Mexico earlier this summer have awakened our understanding of the current state of our forests. These forests, that traditionally housed wildlife and produced valuable resources used in building our Nation, have become deadly fire time bombs. The Forest Service itself has reported that more than 40 million acres of our National Forest System are at high risk of destruction by catastrophic wildfire and an additional 23 million acres are at risk from insects and disease. And yet, at a time when national awareness is up, and we have an increased commitment to improve forest health, there are still those critics who would remove the Forest Service's single most effective tool for restoring forest health. The use of modern silviculture practices in regards to Federal timber sales are designed to accomplish a number of goals and objectives in regards to forest management. And they do so in a way that provides jobs for local communities, and money for rural schools and counties. We have also just begun to realize the value that a well-designed and carefully conducted timber sale can have on things like water quality and the future of a healthy water table. The city of Denver had to learn this the hard way. Several years ago a fire swept through the city's watershed and turned the surrounding ecosystem into ashes. Since then, the city has had to pay millions of dollars to dredge and remove silt and other particles carried into its water supply. What the city learned is that fires, not timber sales are the biggest threat to watershed health. The city now actively manages its watershed and conducts regular assessment and thinnings to maintain a healthy, fire resilient forest. Notice I said fire resilient, not fire resistant. Fire can be an invaluable management tool when conducted under the proper circumstances. Those conditions, however, do not exist in Western forests, nor will they exist until our forest managers are allowed to thin out the forests and remove the dense undergrowth and some of the increasingly taller layers of trees that create the deadly fuel ladders that feed catastrophic fires. I am also deeply concerned about the impact this amendment could have on rural economies. The United States is importing more and more wood every year as a result of declines in federal timber sales. This means that the American lumber market is being fed by highly-subsidized timber that was produced under conditions that do not meet our Nation's high environmental standards. As a result, not only do we loose the environmental benefits that federal timber sales can produce, but we are feeling negative social and economic effects as America jobs are lost and moved offshore. The brunt of these losses are felt most keenly in rural areas, where forest products jobs are concentrated. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to add that the Federal Timber Sale Program is not a subsidy for the forest products industry. Federal timber contractors do not receive any special benefit, nor do they pay less money for the timber they harvest on federal lands. Federal timber is sold by means of a competitive bid system. As a result, these auction sales are the most likely of any type of commercial transaction to generate the returns that meet or exceed market value. Because timber sales are designed to generate market value prices, we therefore must conclude that there is no subsidy. Furthermore, the forest products industry has consistently demonstrated that the benefits gained by the public through the Federal timber sale program far outweigh the costs to the Federal treasury. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose Senator Bryan's amendment and to support our National Forest and rural communities. Amendment No. 3884

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. The time has come to stop death from being a taxable event. The repeal of the Federal death tax is one of the top priorities for tax reform in my home State of Wyoming. The reason is simple--Wyoming is made up almost exclusively of small businesses, and the Federal death tax hits small business owners the hardest of any group in society. Many of the small businesses in Wyoming are in the agricultural sector--ranching and farming businesses that have been built up by families working together to help feed Wyoming and America. These farms and ranches not only provide a great service to our State and the country as a whole by helping provide food that we eat every day, but they are an integral part of the western way of the life. All too often, I have heard the painful stories of families who were forced to sell their ranches or farms just to pay the taxes when their parents pass away. The death tax chips away at our very way of life in the West and elsewhere and should be abolished. The death tax discourages thrift and pierces the very heart of the American economy--small businesses. We should never forget that small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. The simple fact is that most businesses in this country are small businesses. Out of the nearly 5.5 million employers in this country, 99 percent are businesses with fewer than 500 employees. Almost 90 percent of those businesses employ fewer than twenty employees. Since the early 1970s, small businesses have created two out of every three net new jobs in this country. This remarkable job growth continued even during periods of slow national growth and downturns when most large corporations were downsizing and laying off workers. Small businesses employ more than half of the private sector workforce and are responsible for producing roughly half of our nation's gross domestic product. By punishing small businesses, the Federal death tax stifles our economy, discourages ingenuity, and threatens the economic security of many of our families. The Federal death tax also tears at the bonds that unite parents and children and families and communities. The family business has historically been one of the primary means for children to learn skills and virtues that help them throughout their entire lives. I know many of the hard-working men and women in Wyoming who run our State's family ranches and farms. The whole family pitches in to harvest the crops, feed the livestock, mend the fences, fix the irrigation ditches, plow the roads, herd the sheep and cattle, and plan for next year's crops or herds. Children learn that hard work and responsible planning are necessary ingredients for success in work as in life. They learn respect for the land that is their livelihood. They learn to appreciate the labor of their parents and grandparents and they realize their own labor is an investment in their future and the future of their children. Unfortunately, we live at a time in America when there are all too many forces in our society telling our children that everything goes and that instant gratification is the only goal in life. It we as policymakers want to curb this trend, if we want to teach our children the importance of personal responsibility, hard work, and investment in their future, we should encourage family-owned businesses which are one of the domestic classrooms for teaching our children these time-honored virtues. I have a little experience in operating a small business myself. My family and I ran a couple of small family-owned shoe stores in Gillette, WY. We didn't have separate division for merchandising and marketing. We didn't have an accounting department to sort out the complicated tax code. We all wore many hats. We had to sell the shoes, balance the books, keep track of our inventory, and straighten out the shelves. We had to sweep the sidewalks when we opened in the morning and at the end of a long day, we had to clean the floors and organize the store room. Let me tell you that we all learned to pitch in to get the job done. We learned to work together and we learned to appreciate the hard work and sacrifices each of us made to keep the store running smoothly. We also learned firsthand the importance of living by the golden rule. If you don't treat your customers well in the retail business they don't forget. This is especially true of folks in small towns where there are always a few people who remember what you did as a kid and who can even tell you stories about your parents and grandparents. The joy is, they also remember you when you treat them well. The family-owned business is an important means we have in America of passing on our heritage from one generation to the next. Our tax code represents our tax policy and we should be ashamed at a code which punishes families and stifles our economy. Every year our tax code forces thousands of families to sell their businesses just to pay the repressive Federal death tax. It is time we correct this injustice by eliminating the death tax. I commend Chairman Roth for his diligent work bringing this bill to the floor. I also commend Senator Kyl, who has been a tireless advocate for the repeal of this tax ever since he came to the United States Senate and who made an important contribution to the legislation before us today. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for America's small businesses by putting the death tax permanently to rest.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment introduced by the Senator from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, to require the United States Forest Service to establish a Federal Advisory Committee Act committee to study and report on the proposed roadless area initiative and proposed transportation guidelines rule. I have serious concerns regarding the process implemented by the United States Forest Service in developing these proposed rules. The House Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health initiated a review on October 28, 1999, requesting documents from the Forest Service and the White House regarding development of the proposed roadless rule. While reviewing thousands of pages of documents provided by the Clinton administration, the committee found that the administration had held a number of meetings with, and used draft language, legal memoranda, and survey research data prepared by, a select group of representatives from national environmental organizations including: the Heritage Forest Campaign; the Wilderness Society; Natural Resources Defense Council; USPIRG, Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, Audubon Society; and the Sierra Club. In addition, the committee found no evidence of any effort to meet with or involve other groups or interested parties, and that the USFS' push to complete the proposed roadless initiative led to the use of poor data and errors in documentation, as is evidenced by letters from the National Forests and regional offices to the Washington Office expressing concern over the accuracy of the information being transmitted. For example, in one letter a USFS employee stated, ``This is an estimate that I hope we are not held accountable for.'' This reliance by a Federal agency upon a select group of individuals for the purpose of obtaining advice or recommendations is a de facto establishment of an advisory committee, an activity that must be conducted in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA requires any agencies that establishes an advisory committee to file a formal charter, publish notice of all meetings in the Federal Register, ensure that all meeting are open to the public, keep minutes for each meeting, designate a Federal officer who must be present at each meeting, and must ensure that membership of the committee represents a cross section of groups interested in the subject--in this case the management and use of national forests. This provision is also contained in the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). Unfortunately, the United States Forest Service's proposed roadless rule was developed without meeting any of the above FACA requirements. Instead, the Forest Service developed this rule in meetings with a small, insular group that represented only one, limited interest. Furthermore, the meetings were conducted behind closed doors and without any public notice. Once again, the Clinton/Gore administration has demonstrated its unwillingness to include those most affected by federal land management decisions in developing land use policy. Instead of finding a way to include state and local governments, industry, recreationists and any other group interested in using and enjoying our national forests, this administration has chosen the politics of divisiveness and has excluded those who will ultimately have to live with the final decision from the development process. The only inevitable conclusion from this kind of politics will be first, exclusion from the process, and finally exclusion from the forests themselves. I support this amendment, and encourage the Forest Service to take this opportunity rethink its current process and to reconsider its proposed actions at a more appropriate level. The decisions being made pursuant these rules would be more responsive to local communities and forest health concerns if they were conducted properly and not in violation of current law. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from Vermont, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The matter of genetic discrimination in employment has taken on new relevance given a number of recent events. Most notably, the Human Genome Project announced this week that the ``rough draft'' of the map of some 3 billion human genes has just been completed. This just became a sexy issue. While there are months, if not years, of research still required to realize the potential of this information, we must be responsive to the range of pros and cons regarding its use. The committee has spent a lot of time developing a bill to address where there do appear to be gaps in preventing discrimination. Those gaps are most apparent in health insurance, where a person's health information, as well as his family's health history, are a determinant in their access to coverage. This is an immediate concern that requires our immediate response. That is why I strongly support the amendment being offered by Senator Frist, which would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating based on a person's genetic makeup. The amendment Senator Daschle has offered also attempts to address genetic discrimination in employment. Unfortunately, this issue is not nearly as clear cut. Until very recently, the prevailing opinion among employment discrimination experts was that genetic discrimination was already captured under the Americans with Disabilities Act (or ``ADA''). In fact, it is still not clear that the ADA does not cover genetic discrimination. Even as recently as March 24 of this year, the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Paul Miller, told the American Bar Association genetic discrimination was covered under title I of the ADA. Specifically, Commissioner Miller said protect against genetic discrimination was provided by the prong of the act which prevents discrimination against people who are regarded as disabled. However, because no court has ever ruled definitively on this issue and because of some related--but not controlling--recent Supreme Court cases, I understand that there may now be some insecurity about whether genetic discrimination is covered by the ADA. And understandably, this insecurity is being increased by the recent announcement of the Human Genome Project. We are sympathetic to this insecurity, and I think we can all agree that employers should not be permitted to discriminate against employees based on genetic information in the same manner that employers may not discriminate based on disability, gender, race, age, and other characteristics. I believe our committee needs to evaluate the conflicting evidence as to whether or not genetic discrimination is already covered under current law, particularly in light of the recent scientific developments. I support holding a hearing on this issue as soon as possible and I understand my colleague Senator Jeffords has scheduled a hearing on this issue for July 11. We should examine not only the question of whether the ADA captures genetic discrimination, but also what the implications are for the numerous workplace and work force issues that will arise based on the availability of genetics. Safety concerns and privacy concerns being the most important. Also, I believe we should consider genetic discrimination in employment in the broader context of the cultural implications and evaluate the historical experience with genetic information. Researching this issue has been a 10-year priority of the Human Genome Project's Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) program. I welcome my colleagues to join the hearing process in a bipartisan effort to address this matter. Given the complexity of this issue, I believe it is critical that we not rush to accept Senator Daschle's amendment without resolving all of these important issues. We may determine that new legislation is necessary to protect against genetic discrimination--and if it is necessary, we will work hard to pass it. But Senator Daschle's amendment simply goes too far. We must be certain that any new legislation is comparable to existing discrimination legislation. Senator Daschle's amendment is not comparable, it is much broader. For example, Senator Daschle's amendment would permit unlimited damages for genetic discrimination. It would also permit parties to completely bypass the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission--the federal body set up to deal with employment discrimination disputes-- and go straight to federal court. This is significantly more extensive than the ADA, the ADEA and title VII discrimination protections. This just makes no sense at all. Under Senator Daschle's amendment, an individual with a genetic marker showing he may at some future point develop a genetic disease or condition would have more protection than a paraplegic. Again I say this makes no sense at all. And it will overtax federal courts and juries with highly complex genetic issues and give opportunistic trial lawyers a jackpot. If Senator Daschle has a valid reason why genetics should have such substantial additional protections, I welcome him to come to our committee hearing and explain them, but we should be very careful not to rush into such significant legislation and treat genetic information differently than existing diseases, disorders, and illnesses. If we accept Senator Daschle's amendment, we are simply not doing our job. Again, I think we can all agree that genetic discrimination should not be permitted, but I think we should also be able to agree not to pass legislation on such a significant and important issue without having all the proper information before us. I urge my colleagues to vote against Senator Daschle's amendment so that we can examine this issue through the proper procedural channels and pass responsible, reasonable legislation if such legislation is necessary. There isn't anybody here who wants to have any discrimination done on a genetic basis, or any other basis, in the workplace or in health care. We are being lead to believe that this is a very simple bill, and that we ought to accept it. ``Simple'' is not 50 pages. Simple is the statement that the Senator from South Dakota made. But 50 pages to explain that means it is a lot more complicated than the explanation we are being given. We don't want discrimination. Quite frankly, I think one of the reasons we are being presented with this is a good example of why you don't legislate on appropriations bills and avoid the entire process. It is a handy way to do it. If I had a bill, that is how I might try to do it too. But it isn't the right way to do it. I hope we will step back a minute and go through the procedure for doing a 50-page bill that covers something as important to people as discrimination in the workplace, or discrimination in any other place. If this bill passes, a person who can find and accidentally disclose a genetic marker will have greater protection in the workplace than a paraplegic would. Not only that--this allows people to bypass the legal system. You can go immediately to court. This will become a turnstile for trial attorneys. This becomes a jackpot proposition. This will clog the courts, if it passes. It will be a heyday. Every single trial attorney will have their own slot machine. That is not what we are trying to do. This isn't an area that just comes under the workplace safety and training subcommittee that I chair. It also comes under the health committee that Senator Frist chairs. It is a topic that our entire committee needs to address and will address. But it has to be done through a hearing process so we don't wind up with some of the unintended consequences that I have just mentioned. As far as the Americans With Disabilities Act, on March 24 of this year, the commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Paul Miller, told the American Bar Association that genetic discrimination was covered under title I of the ADA. I guess that is why this 50-page ``simple'' bill bypasses the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We shouldn't bypass that group. That is a bill for protection and for having a hearing process for individuals. The commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it is covered under title I of the ADA. Maybe there have been some decisions that have come out since. We can't just be doing knee-jerk legislation on an appropriations bill. This is an issue that deserves time and consideration, and a hearing that will produce the kind of bill of which we can be proud-- the kind of bill that has some opportunity for amendment. I know if we were trying to pass a bill of that magnitude and precluded the minority from having any say-so, or any amendment, they would raise a little bit of a fuss, as they have on other occasions, and as we do on occasion. I don't believe there should be legislation on appropriations bills. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I, too, am distressed that we are debating the scope at this point. We had the opportunity to discuss this in a bipartisan way and to come up with good solutions. We were making good progress. We have been making good progress. Unfortunately, the opposition has decided that a national health care plan is the only way to go. A national health care plan has been defeated around here a lot of times. I can tell you that there are a lot of people who do not want a national health care plan. They do not understand a national health care plan. If I even considered one, folks wouldn't send me back again--not the ones from Wyoming. We have a little different atmosphere in Wyoming than they do maybe in Massachusetts or New York or Florida. But the people there want health care as bad as anywhere else. They don't want to be driven out of the market by rising costs for regulations that do not really even affect them. We don't have HMOs in Wyoming, except one small one owned by doctors. The regulations that will work for other States in this country will not work for Wyoming. We have an insurance commissioner. His name is John McBride. The nice thing about Wyoming is if you have an insurance problem you call the insurance commissioner. You can talk to him or to one of the people who work for him. You can call them by their first names. I don't have to call them ``Mr. Commissioner.'' And they will help you get your problems straightened out. They will help out a lot faster than using a national health care plan that results in a chart such as this. Can you picture me telling the folks in Wyoming that the insurance commissioner can't help them anymore, and to just pick the phone up and call HIPAA? I don't know the thousands and thousands of employees who work there. I especially don't know any of the thousands and thousands who they will have to hire to do the kind of job that the scope is calling for by our opponent. A reasonable scope that handles the rest of the people who are not covered by States where they can call the people and get the same person every time so they don't have to explain again their problem every single day is the kind of service people expect. It is the kind of service they can get, but not if we take away States rights. Guess what. It looks even worse for consumers under the HCFA's ``protection,'' according to a release by the GAO on March 31 of this year. The model the Democrats are supporting for implementing the Patients' Bill of Rights is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, affectionately known as HIPAA. I quote from the report: Nearly only four years after HIPAA's enactment, HCFA continues to be in the early stages of fully identifying where enforcement will be required. There are all kinds of stories about the Washington bureaucracy. Under their scope, they want us to give up the State plans in favor of this group that is still trying to figure out where they are going. Is that responsible? No. There are other things that need to be negotiated out in this bill. But that is not an option we are being given when they start piecemeal. Every piece of a Patients' Bill of Rights interacts with the other part. When you jerk out one part of the scope and try to do that without talking about all of the other parts of it that interacts with the scope you wind up with nothing but a mess. To try to do that in a little two-page bill makes it look easy. We have gone from hard on an earlier one to a really easy one now. And neither of them will do it and protect the people in my State. I suggest that it will also not protect people in other States. I am becoming less surprised that after walking away from the conference for the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Democrats are hurling accusations about others not wanting to get a bill done and enacted. That's an incredibly counter-productive reaction to giant steps on our part toward compromise. This conference has been long and time- consuming, but it has been working. There is not a single reason why we should abandon a process that is working. Yet, politics has been invited in, and I think the majority of us here to highlight why that's such a terrible mistake. Choosing this path is a vote to abandon patients in favor of a political issue. Among the handful of principles that are fundamental to any true protection for health care consumers, probably the most important is allowing states to continue in their role as the primary regulator of health insurance. This is a principle which has been recognized--and respected--for more than 50 years. In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a clear acknowledgment by the federal government that states are indeed the most appropriate regulators of health insurance. It was acknowledged that states are better able to understand their consumers' needs and concerns. It was determined that states are more responsive, more effective enforcers of consumer protections. As recently as last year, this fact was re-affirmed by the General Accounting Office. GAO testified before the Health, Education Labor, and Pensions Committee, saying, ``In brief, we found that many states have responded to managed care consumers' concerns about access to health care and information disclosure. However, they often differ in their specific approaches, in scope and in form.'' Wyoming has its own unique set of health care needs and concerns. Every state does. For example, despite our elevation, we don't need the mandate regarding skin cancer that Florida has on the books. My favorite illustration of just how crazy a nationalized system of health care mandates would be comes from my own time in the Wyoming legislature. It's about a mandate that I voted for and still support today. You see, unlike in Massachusetts or California, for example, in Wyoming we have few health care providers; and their numbers virtually dry up as you head out of town. So, we passed an any willing provider law that requires health plans to contract with any provider in Wyoming who's willing to do so. While that idea may sound strange to my ears in any other context, it was the right thing to do for Wyoming. But I know it's not the right thing to do for Massachusetts or California, so I wouldn't dream of asking them to shoulder that kind of mandate for our sake when we can simply, responsibly, apply it within our borders. What's even more alarming to me is that Wyoming has opted not to enact health care laws that specifically relate to HMOs, because there are, ostensibly, no HMOs in the state! There is one, which is very small and is operated by a group of doctors who live in town, not a nameless, faceless insurance company. Yet, under the proposal the Democrats insist is ``what's best for everybody,'' the state of Wyoming would have to enact and actively enforce at least fifteen new laws to regulate a style of health insurance that doesn't even exist in the state! As consumers, we should be downright angry at how some of our elected officials are responding to our concerns about the quality of our health care and the alarming problem of the uninsured in this country. It is being suggested that all of our local needs will be magically met by stomping on the good work of the states through the imposition of an expanded, unenforceable federal bureaucracy. It is being suggested that the American consumer would prefer to dial a 1-800- number to nowhere versus calling their State Insurance Commissioner, a real person whom they're likely to see in the grocery store after church on Sundays. As for the uninsured population in this country, carelessly slapping down a massive new bureaucracy that supercedes our states does nothing more than squelch their efforts to create innovative and flexible ways to get more people insured. We should be doing everything we can to encourage and support these efforts by states. We certainly shouldn't be throwing up roadblocks. And how about enforcement of the minority's proposal? Well, almost one year ago this body adopted an amendment that stated, ``It would be inappropriate to set federal health insurance standards that not only duplicate the responsibility of the 50 State insurance departments but that also would have to be enforced by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) if a State fails to enact the standard.'' Yet here we are one year later where, not only is it being suggested that we trample the traditional, overwhelmingly appropriate authority of the states with a three-fold expansion of the federal reach into our nation's health care, they still insist on having HCFA be in charge. HCFA, the agency that leaves patients screaming, has doctors quitting Medicare, and, lest we not forget, the agency in charge as the Medicare program plunges towards bankruptcy. And guess what, it looks even worse for consumers under HCFA's ``protection,'' according to a new report released by GAO on March 31 of this year. The model the Democrats are supporting for implementing the Patient's Bill of Rights is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, affectionately known as HIPAA. I quote from the report: ``Nearly four years after HIPAA's enactment, HCFA continues to be in the early stages of fully identifying where federal enforcement will be required.'' Regarding HCFA's role in also enforcing additional federal benefits mandates that Congress has amended to HIPAA, the GAO states, ``HCFA is responsible for directly enforcing HIPAA and related standards for carriers in states that do not. In this role, HCFA must assume many of the responsibilities undertaken by state insurance regulators, such as responding to consumers' inquiries and complaints, reviewing carriers' policy forms and practices, and imposing civil penalties on noncomplying carriers.'' And then, the GAO report reveals that HCFA has finally managed to take a baby step: ``HCFA has assumed direct regulatory functions, such as policy reviews, in only the three states that voluntarily notified HCFA of their failure to pass HIPAA- conforming legislation more than 2 years ago.'' Is this supposed to give consumers comfort? First we should usurp their local electoral rights or their ability to influence the appointment of their state insurance commissioner and then offer up this agency as an alternative? I'm sure I could find a single Wyomingite to clap me on the back for this kind of public service. I could go on at length about the very real dangers of empowering HCFA to swoop into the private market, with its embarrassing record of patient protection and enforcement of quality standards. Such as how it took ten years for HCFA to implement a 1987 law establishing new nursing home standards intended to improve the quality of care for some of our most vulnerable patients. But I think the case has already been crystallized in the minds of many constituents: ``enable us to access quality health care, but don't cripple us in the process.'' The next, equally important issue is that of exposing employers to a new cause of action under a Patients' Bill of Rights. Employers voluntarily provide coverage for 133 million people in this country. That will no longer be the case if we authorize lawsuits against them for providing such coverage. This is basic math. If you add 133 million more people to the 46 million people already uninsured, I'd say we have a crisis on our hands. In my mind, a simpler decision doesn't exist. We should not be suing employers. Let me close by saying that the conference has worked in incredible good faith. We have come to conceptual agreement on a bipartisan, bicameral basis on more than half of the common patient protections. We have come to bipartisan, bicameral conceptual agreement on the crown jewel of both bills--the independent, external medical review process. Most dramatically, the bicameral Republicans offered a compromise on liability and scope, to which the Democrats responded with only rhetoric and political jabs in the press. It is absolutely bad faith to have done so. I think it would be regrettable if these continued public relations moves torpedo what, so far, has produced almost everything we need for a far-reaching, substantive conference product. I encourage all of my colleagues to take the high road and support the legislative process our forefathers had in mind, versus a public relations circus.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 introduced today by Senator Dorgan. I am an original cosponsor and I encourage each of my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. We had to take a look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop huge loopholes in our current system. We are federally mandating states into a sales tax exemption. We need to preserve the system for those cities, towns, counties, and states that rely on the ability to collect the sales tax they are currently getting. There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep the stability of state and local government--just the stability of it-- not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 is a monumental step forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system. Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably burden the development and growth of the Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of basic competitive fairness and the negative effect our action or inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic sector and employment force in all American society, especially in rural states like Wyoming. In addition, we must consider the legitimate need of state and local governments to have the flexibility they need to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations. If the loophole exists, I can share a method for local retailers to avoid sales tax collection too--but creating this loophole will lead to others--pay attention here. Sales tax collection and federal and state income tax could be in the same boat, if sole tax collection is no longer necessary on Internet sales purely by virtue of the sale over the Internet. Why shouldn't an employee whose check is written on the Internet and transmitted directly to his bank account not owe any income tax? Both would be Internet tax loopholes--tax collection exemptions forced by an all-knowing Federal Government. As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year. In addition, my service on the State and local level and my experiences as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more than one viewpoint. I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support a tax on the use of Internet itself. I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax loophole. Sales taxes go directly to state and local governments and I am very leery of any federal legislation that bypasses their traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force states into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, revenues to state and local governments will fall and property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or States who do not have or believe in State income taxes will be forced to start one. After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 has been introduced. I would like to commend Senator Dorgan on his commitment to finding a solution and working all parties to find that solution. The bill extends the existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005. Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax on interstate sales (regardless of traditional or Internet sales) if States will simplify collections to one rate per State sent to one location in that State. I think that is a reasonable request. I have heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as simplicity for small business, I support one rate per State. I think the States should have some responsibility for redistribution not a business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would put Congress on record as urging States and localities to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single, blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to be aware that States are prohibited from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales if the States have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system. Further, the bill would authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes States to require all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. We introduce this bill because we do not think there is adequate protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology virtually every day. What we know as the Internet today is not what we will be using by the time the moratorium is finalized. More and more people are using the Internet everyday. Mr. President, I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of several Senators to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It has a lot of growth potential. The new business will continue to create millions of new jobs in the coming years. The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants do not have to go where the people are. For people in my State, that means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small manufacturers in rural America, especially in my State. We have seen some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and how you want it. I was the mayor of a small town, Gillette, WY, for 8 years. I later served in the State house for 5 years and the State senate for 5 years. Throughout my public life I have always worked to reduce taxes, to return more of people's hard-earned wages to them. I am not here to argue in favor of taxes. There were times in Gillette when we had to make tough decisions. I was mayor during the boom time when the size of our town doubled in just a few years. We had to be very creative to be sure that our revenue sources would cover the necessary public services--important services like sewer, water, curb and gutter, filling in potholes, shoveling snow, collecting garbage, and mostly water. It is a tough job because the impact of your decision is felt by all of your neighbors. Hardly any of these problems is solved without money. When you are the mayor of a small town, you are on call 24 hours a day. You are in the phone book. People can call you at night and tell you that the city sewer is backing up into their house. I was fascinated how they were always sure that it was the city's sewer that was doing it. Therefore, it is important that we do not cut towns out of a historic source of revenue. They provides services you really depend on. Remember you cannot flush your toilet over the Internet. The point is that the government that is closest to the people is also on the shortest time line to get results. I think it is the hardest work. I am very concerned with any piece of legislation that mandates or restricts local government's ability to meet the needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 would designate a level playing field for all involved--business, government, and the consumer. If the loophole exists, I can share a method for local retailers to avoid sales tax collection too--but creating this loophole will lead to others--pay attention here. Sales tax collection and federal and state income tax could be in the same boat, if sole tax collection is no longer necessary on Internet sales purely by virtue of the sale over the Internet. Why shouldn't an employee whose check is written on the Internet and transmitted directly to his bank account not owe any income tax? Both would be Internet tax loopholes--tax collection exemptions forced by an all-knowingly federal government. I do strongly support this bill. The current system of collecting revenues for those towns and states should be preserved--preserved on a level playing field for all involved. I do not think we have all the answers, or we would not be asking for this bill. So whatever we do, we have to have a bill that will preserve the way that small business and small towns function at the present at the present time. Our bill is critical for towns, small businesses, and you and me. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 introduced today by Senator Dorgan. I am an original cosponsor and I encourage each of my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of this bill. We had to take a look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop huge loopholes in our current system. We are federally mandating states into a sales tax exemption. We need to preserve the system for those cities, towns, counties, and states that rely on the ability to collect the sales tax they are currently getting. There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep the stability of state and local government--just the stability of it-- not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 is a monumental step forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system. Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably burden the development and growth of the Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of basic competitive fairness and the negative effect our action or inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic sector and employment force in all American society, especially in rural states like Wyoming. In addition, we must consider the legitimate need of state and local governments to have the flexibility they need to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations. If the loophole exists, I can share a method for local retailers to avoid sales tax collection too--but creating this loophole will lead to others--pay attention here. Sales tax collection and federal and state income tax could be in the same boat, if sole tax collection is no longer necessary on Internet sales purely by virtue of the sale over the Internet. Why shouldn't an employee whose check is written on the Internet and transmitted directly to his bank account not owe any income tax? Both would be Internet tax loopholes--tax collection exemptions forced by an all-knowing Federal Government. As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year. In addition, my service on the State and local level and my experiences as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more than one viewpoint. I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support a tax on the use of Internet itself. I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax loophole. Sales taxes go directly to state and local governments and I am very leery of any federal legislation that bypasses their traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force states into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, revenues to state and local governments will fall and property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or States who do not have or believe in State income taxes will be forced to start one. After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 has been introduced. I would like to commend Senator Dorgan on his commitment to finding a solution and working all parties to find that solution. The bill extends the existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005. Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax on interstate sales (regardless of traditional or Internet sales) if States will simplify collections to one rate per State sent to one location in that State. I think that is a reasonable request. I have heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as simplicity for small business, I support one rate per State. I think the States should have some responsibility for redistribution not a business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would put Congress on record as urging States and localities to develop a streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single, blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to be aware that States are prohibited from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales if the States have not adopted the simplified sales and use tax system. Further, the bill would authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes States to require all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it. We introduce this bill because we do not think there is adequate protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology virtually every day. What we know as the Internet today is not what we will be using by the time the moratorium is finalized. More and more people are using the Internet everyday. Mr. President, I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of several Senators to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It has a lot of growth potential. The new business will continue to create millions of new jobs in the coming years. The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants do not have to go where the people are. For people in my State, that means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small manufacturers in rural America, especially in my State. We have seen some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and how you want it. I was the mayor of a small town, Gillette, WY, for 8 years. I later served in the State house for 5 years and the State senate for 5 years. Throughout my public life I have always worked to reduce taxes, to return more of people's hard-earned wages to them. I am not here to argue in favor of taxes. There were times in Gillette when we had to make tough decisions. I was mayor during the boom time when the size of our town doubled in just a few years. We had to be very creative to be sure that our revenue sources would cover the necessary public services--important services like sewer, water, curb and gutter, filling in potholes, shoveling snow, collecting garbage, and mostly water. It is a tough job because the impact of your decision is felt by all of your neighbors. Hardly any of these problems is solved without money. When you are the mayor of a small town, you are on call 24 hours a day. You are in the phone book. People can call you at night and tell you that the city sewer is backing up into their house. I was fascinated how they were always sure that it was the city's sewer that was doing it. Therefore, it is important that we do not cut towns out of a historic source of revenue. They provides services you really depend on. Remember you cannot flush your toilet over the Internet. The point is that the government that is closest to the people is also on the shortest time line to get results. I think it is the hardest work. I am very concerned with any piece of legislation that mandates or restricts local government's ability to meet the needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act of 2000 would designate a level playing field for all involved--business, government, and the consumer. If the loophole exists, I can share a method for local retailers to avoid sales tax collection too--but creating this loophole will lead to others--pay attention here. Sales tax collection and federal and state income tax could be in the same boat, if sole tax collection is no longer necessary on Internet sales purely by virtue of the sale over the Internet. Why shouldn't an employee whose check is written on the Internet and transmitted directly to his bank account not owe any income tax? Both would be Internet tax loopholes--tax collection exemptions forced by an all-knowingly federal government. I do strongly support this bill. The current system of collecting revenues for those towns and states should be preserved--preserved on a level playing field for all involved. I do not think we have all the answers, or we would not be asking for this bill. So whatever we do, we have to have a bill that will preserve the way that small business and small towns function at the present at the present time. Our bill is critical for towns, small businesses, and you and me. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this is truly one of the highlights of my Senate career, an instant replay memory I will recall and cherish for a long time to come. For today I was able to read and have approved the nomination of my college roommate to serve as Ambassador. It's something we would have never dreamed we would be a part of back in the days when we were rooming together just down the street from the United States Capitol at George Washington University. I first met Edward Gnehm, Jr., or ``Skip'' as everyone has come to know him, years ago and we quickly became friends. In fact, Skip was my fraternity brother and he is the only brother that I have ever had--of any kind--in my life. He was my roommate for three years and he's been my friend ever since. As I hit the books and studied about accounting and business, he was working on learning the nuances of International Relations in the hope that it would help him become a career Ambassador for the United States of America. I watched him work and dedicate his every waking moment to his dream. You can't help but be inspired by someone who has that kind of dedication. He was a brilliant guy, but he was also modest about it. He had high expectations for his college years--his teachers did, too. Skip's hard work and determination allowed him to exceed and surpass them all. None of us who knew him were surprised by his success. We graduated from college and then, as the years passed, we took on the challenges of our lives. For me, a career as a small businessman gave way to a second career in politics. For Skip it was one post, one assignment after another, as his work took him literally all over the world. So much of what I know about the world and the people of different countries comes from having seen so much of it through my friend Skip's eyes. He first served in Katmandu, the capital of Nepal. He also worked in many parts of the Middle East. As Ambassador, he faced danger and showed a unique kind of bravery in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein's Army took up residence across the street. Through it all, Skip never wavered, and he never lost sight of what he most wanted to do--and that was to serve his country to the best of his ability. That may sound a bit corny to some, but that's all right. In this day and age we need more like him who are dedicated to God, country and family and who live that philosophy from the heart every day. It's called walking your talk and Skip knows all about that. I know that about him because I know him so well. I canoed with him in the swamps of Georgia. You get to know a lot about someone when it's the two of you sharing the experience of being lost in the midst of some mysterious aspect of God's creation. Those are quiet times that lead to thoughtful reflection and a shared focus on the things that are important in life. Another of the things we have in common was our incredible good fortune in picking a spouse. Skip and his wife Peggy and I and my wife Diana have built a relationship based on trust, cooperation, communication and understanding. That kind of bond has helped Skip and Peggy to serve their country as Ambassadors overseas and it has helped Diana and me to serve the people of Wyoming here in the Senate. He and I have sons and daughters who are the same age. His son, Ed, is married to the daughter of the couple who introduced me to my wife, Diana. They met at my swearing-in ceremony. The two dads were part of my wedding. And I was there to see their children's marriage in Wyoming. He recently had a break in his assignments which brought him back to Washington where he served at the State Department. It was always good to see him and to watch him continue to serve in so many different capacities with the same strength, courage and professionalism he brought to any task. On other assignments here, he worked with the Defense Department as State Department Liaison, with Senator Kennedy on foreign relations issues and he has also held several other posts. He has served in the United Nations. Although he was doing well ``back home'' Skip wanted to get back on the road and head out for another adventure, another challenge in his life. Now, with the action taken by the Senate today, he has received his next call. I want to thank all of those who made Skip's placement possible. First, let me acknowledge the efforts of Craig Thomas, my friend and colleague from Wyoming, who held hearings on Skip's nomination. He went beyond the call of duty to get his part of the job done in a timely fashion. Senator Helms, too, deserves our appreciation for his expeditious work with the full Committee to get the nomination brought before the full Senate for our consideration. Now, all those years of planning, preparing, and public service have paid off. For Skip, it means another post in an already distinguished career. For us, it means we have a truly dedicated career officer who will be serving us in Australia. I can't think of a better Ambassador and representative of the people of the United States than Skip Gnehm. He will love being there and Australia will love coming to know Skip. It's another perfect match!

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Thurmond and Helms as cosponsors of my amendment.

Mr. ENZI. One minute. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the final minute to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. ENZI. I yield myself 1 additional minute. Work restriction protection is prohibited by the OSHA Act. Very clear wording in the OSHA Act says you cannot get into workers comp, but they are going to with this rule they are trying to push through by December. I do not know why December is so critical to them. Maybe I do. They are trying to get this thing pushed through at all costs, and without paying attention to what people are saying to them about things that are wrong about the rule that they are doing. We need a little time to take a look at the rule, particularly in light of how well businesses are doing at fixing ergonomics. Again, I encourage the Department to help people figure out ways they can improve the safety. All we would be doing if we passed this rule is we would be giving OSHA a bigger club to beat people up with, not an answer to the ergonomics problem. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. I yield myself 3 minutes. The other side today has spent most of the day avoiding the ergonomics debate. Part of the debate was on the floods in North Dakota. That is because they do not have an answer to what we have been saying all day. We, too, are concerned about worker safety. We have been doing things for worker safety. Companies in this country have been doing things for worker safety. In fact, I appreciate the ranking member of my subcommittee mentioning today a couple of companies in his State that have made tremendous strides in worker safety, including ergonomics. I am so pleased to report that according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, last year there was a 24-percent decrease in ergonomics accidents. Companies are doing something. They are doing what they can think of. If the same $1.8 million that has been spent on getting testimony for this rule had been used and focused particularly on small business to make sure they had the information to make the ergonomics changes in their work site, we would have even more workplace safety. But, no, we have been paying contractors to testify. Has the Department disclosed that? No. They think these people have been volunteering their time, just like everybody else. Not only that, they edited their text for them. They had mock sessions so these experts could do it correctly. Then they paid them to rip the opposition. That is not testimony. That is the expertise that we ought to have in the workers comp department. This will have a drastic effect on Medicare and Medicaid. We place limits on what we pay on Medicare. We are not raising those caps through the rule. So we will force people to violate some of the Medicare and some of the nursing statutes that we already have. Then the work restriction protection--my goodness, we want the United States to get into a workers comp program? Ask your States how much of a problem they are having administering workers comp, and see if you think that OSHA can do the job. See if you think they can. Incidentally, it was mentioned that there was testimony in our committee in that there was no opposition from the States. I presented a letter. I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record. It is from the State of New York Department of Labor, saying they were opposed to it. I also ask permission that a similar letter from the State of Pennsylvania, be placed in the Record.