Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I further ask consent that following the debate, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. with Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee, 10:30 to 11:00 a.m.; Senator Brownback or his designee, 11:00 to 11:30 a.m.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ENZI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. The Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. and begin the 1 hour of debate on the conference report to accompany the FAA bill. Following that debate, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of the Export Administration Act which will be debated until 5 p.m. By previous consent there will be three votes scheduled at 5 p.m. tomorrow. The first vote is the conference report to accompany the FAA bill, to be followed by the two cloture votes with respect to the Berzon and Paez nominations. Therefore, Senators can expect the next vote to occur at 5 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 1999.'' This legislation is designed to provide a procedure for the orderly and timely resolution of disputes between coal producers and oil and gas operators in the Powder River Basin in north-central Wyoming and southern Montana. This legislation is cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. Mr. President, the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana is one of the richest energy resource regions in the world. This area contains the largest coal reserves in the United States, providing nearly thirty percent of America's total coal production. This region also contains rich reserves of oil and gas, including coalbed methane. Wyoming is the fifth largest producer of natural gas in the county and the sixth largest producer of crude oil. The Powder River Basin plays an important role in the Wyoming's oil and gas production, and this role promises to grow as the exploration and production of coalbed methane increases over the next several years. This region, and the State of Wyoming as a whole, provides many of the resources that heat our homes, fuel our cans, generate electricity for our computers, microwaves, and televisions. In short, there is very little that any of us do in a day that is not affected by the resources of coal, oil, and natural gas. The production of these natural resources is a vital part of the economy of my home state of Wyoming. The production of coal and oil and gas employs more than 21,000 people in Wyoming. The property taxes, severance taxes, and state and federal royalties fund our schools, our roads, and many of the other services that are essential for the functioning of our state. Since Wyoming has no state income tax, our State relies heavily on the minerals industry for our tax base. Given the great importance both the coal and oil and gas industries have to Wyoming's economy, the State of Wyoming and the Federal Government have tried to encourage concurrent development in areas where it is feasible and safe to do so. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. This legislation is designed to provide a procedure for the fair and expeditious resolution of conflicts between oil and gas producers and coal producers who have interests on federal land in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana. Mr. President, this legislation sets forth a reasonable procedure to resolve conflicts between coal producers and oil and gas producers when their mineral rights come into conflict because of overlapping federal leasing. First, this proposal requires that once a potential conflict is identified, the parties must attempt to negotiate an agreement between themselves to resolve this conflict. Second, if the parties are unable to come to an agreement between themselves, either of the parties may file a petition for relief in U.S. district court in the district in which the conflict is located. Third, after such a petition is filed, the court would determine whether an actual conflict exists. Fourth, if the court determines that a conflict does in fact exist, the court would determine whether the public interest, as determined by the greater economic benefit of each mineral, is best served by suspension of the federal coal lease or suspension or termination of all or part of the oil and gas lease. Fifth, a panel of three experts would be assembled to determine the value of the mineral of lesser economic value. Each party to the action; the oil and gas interest, the coal interest, and the federal government, would each appoint one of the three experts. Finally, after the panel issues its final valuation report, the court would enter an order setting the compensation that is due the developer who had to temporarily or permanently forgo his development rights. This compensation would be paid by the owner of the mineral of greater economic value. A credit against federal royalties would also be available against the compensation price in a limited number of situations where the value of such compensation was not foreseen in the original federal lease bid. Mr. President, the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 1999'' has several benefits over the present system. First, it requires parties whose mineral interests may come into conflict to attempt to negotiate an agreement among themselves before either one of them may avail themselves of the expedited resolution mechanism. No such requirement exists today. Second, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to encourage expedited development of federal minerals and that are leased pursuant to the federal Mineral Leasing Act, that exist in conflict areas, and which may otherwise be lossed or bypassed. As such, this legislation encourages full and expeditious development of federal resources in this narrow conflict area where it is economically feasible and safe to do so. Third and finally, this bill provides an expeditious procedure to resolve conflicts that cannot be solved by the two parties alone, and it does so in a manner that ensures that any mineral owner will be fairly compensated for any suspension or loss of his mineral rights. In turn, this proposal will prevent the serious economic hardship to hundreds of families and the State treasury that could occur if mineral development is stalled for an indefinite amount of time due to protracted litigation under the current system. Mr. President, this legislation builds on legislation I introduced last year with Senators Thomas and Bingaman, which passed Congress and was signed into law last November. That bill, S. 2500, ensured that existing lease and contract rights to coalbed methane would not be terminated by a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which concluded that coalbed methane gas was reserved to the federal government under earlier coal reservation Acts. As it turned out, the Supreme Court earlier this year realized we got in right in our bill and held that the coalbed methane was in fact a gas and not a solid, and therefore was not reserved to the government under earlier coal reservation Acts. As such, the protections we provided in S. 2500 were guaranteed to future as well as past oil and gas leaseholders. Mr. President, S. 2500 was an important step in providing certainty and resolution to the question of mineral ownership in Wyoming, and throughout the country. This bill, builds on last year's work by providing a means to resolve ongoing development conflicts between owners of coal and oil and gas in the Powder River Basin. It represents the result of nearly a year of negotiations between the coal and coalbed producers, as well as the deep oil and gas interests, on a method to fairly reconcile mineral development disputes when they occur because of multiple leasing by the federal government. This bill has also incorporated recommendations made by the Bureau of Land Management. I look forward to working with all the affected parties during the second session of the 106th Congress to pass legislation that will put into place a reasonable, balanced method to ensure that we receive the best return on our valuable natural resources in the Powder River Basin.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 1999.'' This legislation is designed to provide a procedure for the orderly and timely resolution of disputes between coal producers and oil and gas operators in the Powder River Basin in north-central Wyoming and southern Montana. This legislation is cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. Mr. President, the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana is one of the richest energy resource regions in the world. This area contains the largest coal reserves in the United States, providing nearly thirty percent of America's total coal production. This region also contains rich reserves of oil and gas, including coalbed methane. Wyoming is the fifth largest producer of natural gas in the county and the sixth largest producer of crude oil. The Powder River Basin plays an important role in the Wyoming's oil and gas production, and this role promises to grow as the exploration and production of coalbed methane increases over the next several years. This region, and the State of Wyoming as a whole, provides many of the resources that heat our homes, fuel our cans, generate electricity for our computers, microwaves, and televisions. In short, there is very little that any of us do in a day that is not affected by the resources of coal, oil, and natural gas. The production of these natural resources is a vital part of the economy of my home state of Wyoming. The production of coal and oil and gas employs more than 21,000 people in Wyoming. The property taxes, severance taxes, and state and federal royalties fund our schools, our roads, and many of the other services that are essential for the functioning of our state. Since Wyoming has no state income tax, our State relies heavily on the minerals industry for our tax base. Given the great importance both the coal and oil and gas industries have to Wyoming's economy, the State of Wyoming and the Federal Government have tried to encourage concurrent development in areas where it is feasible and safe to do so. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. This legislation is designed to provide a procedure for the fair and expeditious resolution of conflicts between oil and gas producers and coal producers who have interests on federal land in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and southern Montana. Mr. President, this legislation sets forth a reasonable procedure to resolve conflicts between coal producers and oil and gas producers when their mineral rights come into conflict because of overlapping federal leasing. First, this proposal requires that once a potential conflict is identified, the parties must attempt to negotiate an agreement between themselves to resolve this conflict. Second, if the parties are unable to come to an agreement between themselves, either of the parties may file a petition for relief in U.S. district court in the district in which the conflict is located. Third, after such a petition is filed, the court would determine whether an actual conflict exists. Fourth, if the court determines that a conflict does in fact exist, the court would determine whether the public interest, as determined by the greater economic benefit of each mineral, is best served by suspension of the federal coal lease or suspension or termination of all or part of the oil and gas lease. Fifth, a panel of three experts would be assembled to determine the value of the mineral of lesser economic value. Each party to the action; the oil and gas interest, the coal interest, and the federal government, would each appoint one of the three experts. Finally, after the panel issues its final valuation report, the court would enter an order setting the compensation that is due the developer who had to temporarily or permanently forgo his development rights. This compensation would be paid by the owner of the mineral of greater economic value. A credit against federal royalties would also be available against the compensation price in a limited number of situations where the value of such compensation was not foreseen in the original federal lease bid. Mr. President, the ``Powder River Basin Resource Development Act of 1999'' has several benefits over the present system. First, it requires parties whose mineral interests may come into conflict to attempt to negotiate an agreement among themselves before either one of them may avail themselves of the expedited resolution mechanism. No such requirement exists today. Second, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to encourage expedited development of federal minerals and that are leased pursuant to the federal Mineral Leasing Act, that exist in conflict areas, and which may otherwise be lossed or bypassed. As such, this legislation encourages full and expeditious development of federal resources in this narrow conflict area where it is economically feasible and safe to do so. Third and finally, this bill provides an expeditious procedure to resolve conflicts that cannot be solved by the two parties alone, and it does so in a manner that ensures that any mineral owner will be fairly compensated for any suspension or loss of his mineral rights. In turn, this proposal will prevent the serious economic hardship to hundreds of families and the State treasury that could occur if mineral development is stalled for an indefinite amount of time due to protracted litigation under the current system. Mr. President, this legislation builds on legislation I introduced last year with Senators Thomas and Bingaman, which passed Congress and was signed into law last November. That bill, S. 2500, ensured that existing lease and contract rights to coalbed methane would not be terminated by a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals which concluded that coalbed methane gas was reserved to the federal government under earlier coal reservation Acts. As it turned out, the Supreme Court earlier this year realized we got in right in our bill and held that the coalbed methane was in fact a gas and not a solid, and therefore was not reserved to the government under earlier coal reservation Acts. As such, the protections we provided in S. 2500 were guaranteed to future as well as past oil and gas leaseholders. Mr. President, S. 2500 was an important step in providing certainty and resolution to the question of mineral ownership in Wyoming, and throughout the country. This bill, builds on last year's work by providing a means to resolve ongoing development conflicts between owners of coal and oil and gas in the Powder River Basin. It represents the result of nearly a year of negotiations between the coal and coalbed producers, as well as the deep oil and gas interests, on a method to fairly reconcile mineral development disputes when they occur because of multiple leasing by the federal government. This bill has also incorporated recommendations made by the Bureau of Land Management. I look forward to working with all the affected parties during the second session of the 106th Congress to pass legislation that will put into place a reasonable, balanced method to ensure that we receive the best return on our valuable natural resources in the Powder River Basin.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation that I and my colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, introduced on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, that would authorize the sale of certain federal lands near Cody, Wyoming to Park County Wyoming for future use as an industrial park. By purchasing this property, and zoning it as an industrial park, Park County will be able to provide, protect, and recognize an area that is well suited for industrial development, in a manner consistent with uses on surrounding properties, and do so in a way that does not burden other areas in the community whose uses are more residential or commercial in nature. The property in question consists of approximately 190 acres of federal land just north of the Cody City limits. Part of this land is currently leased to a number of light industrial corporations including a gypsum wall board manufacturing facility, a meat processing facility, a trucking company, an oil company, a concrete company, and a lumber company. The property is also currently used as a utility corridor and is encumbered by a natural gas pipeline, several electricity and oil and gas pipeline rights of way, and a railroad easement held by the Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad. This proposal offers a needed shot in the arm for an economy that has not been able to attract a diversity of new jobs based on of a shortage of available industrial property. This shortage was created by a strong federal presence--82 percent of the land in Park County is owned by the Federal Government, with 52 percent of that land designated and managed as Wilderness. This high concentration of federal land drives up the price on available private land making industrial development very difficult. In conclusion Mr. President, I hope my colleagues can join with me in support of this legislation and together we can provide the Cody area with a wonderful community building opportunity.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as I have listened to those Senators who support an increase in the minimum wage speak today--and I've listened closely--what I've heard them repeatedly say is that the minimum wage is not high enough for workers to afford to put food on the table, pay rent or take care of their families. This is a vital point for any American family, so I've listened carefully to see if anyone who supports an increase could explain why folks in rural states and counties have identical living standards of people residing in New York City or Boston or Los Angeles. Interestingly enough, this question has been essentially left unanswered. No one who supports an increase has been able to explain how wages affect workers differently in different states, and why that matters so much when we are talking about increasing the minimum wage. In an effort to ensure that no worker gets left behind and that we are considering all economic scenarios, I feel compelled to stand up here and talk about it--about why the number of dollars a worker gets paid has a drastically different impact from one state to another and even from one county to another. We must consider how increasing the minimum wage can make jobs in rural states and counties even more scarce; and, about how a wage hike can add even more people to the welfare rolls. We have heard the old adage that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Well, here are the facts. It costs over twice as much to live in New York City than it does to live in Cheyenne, WY. That's a fact. A $25,000 salary in Cheyenne has the same buying power as a $51,000 salary in New York, a $32,000 salary in Boston, or a $30,000 salary in Los Angeles. In other words, the average Wyoming worker can buy more than twice as much for the same wage as a worker in Manhattan. Twice as much. To put an even finer point on this staggering disparity, if the average worker in New York City is looking to rent an apartment, she would have to spend a whopping $2,730 per month--that's almost six times as expensive as the average apartment in Cheyenne. An apartment in Cheyenne only costs $481 on average per month. What about buying a home? The price difference between urban cities and rural towns is just as alarming. In New York, the average home costs $533,000; in Boston, it costs $244,000 and here in Washington, DC, it costs $205,000. In Cheyenne, the cost of the average house is much, much less: $116,000. In other rural towns, it's far below $100,000--even $50,000. Let's look at other necessities. In New York, it is 50 percent more expensive to buy groceries than it is in Cheyenne. In Boston, the cost of utilities are almost double what they are in Cheyenne. And in Los Angeles, medical expenses are a third higher than in Cheyenne. My point is this: the cost of living in New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles is drastically higher than it is in rural towns. This is not one person's opinion--it's a fact. And so to propose a wage level increase across the board and from coast to coast has an impact on these empirical disparities. It is like saying that rent for every apartment in this country must not be any higher than an apartment rent in rural towns, or that every bag of groceries must not cost any more than what it costs at a small town grocery store. No one would ever propose that, which is the reason I feel the need to ensure that such economic differences are, at the very least, debated. It is different--supporters of an increase will argue--because the increase just sets a floor, a minimum wage for workers. States like New York, and California, and Massachusetts can tack on to that if they wish. But doesn't that just beg the question? If there is a minimum wage disparity for workers in those states with higher costs of living, then why are we raising the minimum wage in every state just to compensate for those states where it costs more to live? Why are we endangering the economic stability of rural states and counties by not considering this reality? The raw statistics show that job growth in Wyoming is exactly half of job growth nationwide--it's growing, but just not as quick as we would like. Each year, at least 50 percent of Wyoming's college graduates leave the state, unable to find work because there aren't enough businesses to keep pace. What that translates into is this: if the minimum wage increase passes, rural areas cold face fewer jobs than they already provide. What every student who has ever taken an economics course knows is that if you increase the price of something (in this case, a minimum wage job), you decrease the demand for those jobs. Indeed, a survey of members of the American Economic Association revealed that 77 percent of economists believe that a minimum wage hike causes job loss. For states that already struggle just to grow small businesses and increase the number of jobs they produce, such an outcome can be detrimental. And for those parents in Wyoming who tell me over and over again how tired they are of seeing their kids leave the state to attend college elsewhere--simply because there are not enough part-time and full-time entry level jobs to get experience from and help pay for their education. One restaurant owner in a small town told me that he would increase the wage, but that would mean 5 less jobs for bus boys. After the last increase, I also recall college students complaining because college grants--or work studies--were negatively impacted. What happened was that grant amounts weren't increased, so the minimum wage hike resulted in less hours available per student under the grant. Students said that it resulted in a net loss for them. It's because of unforeseen situations like these, I am compelled to bring this issue to the table. The legislation I'm proposing today is an attempt to save rural states and counties from losing even more precious jobs because ``Inside the Beltway'' types think that a minimum wage hike might help workers in higher cost of living states like Massachusetts, California, and New York. This legislation, which I call ``State Flexibility,'' is not a perfect solution. What this bill would do is give some discretion back to the states to decide whether it wants to remain at the increased federal rate of $6.15 an hour, or whether a wage that's 15 percent under the federal wage works better for the economic growth--and the workers--of that state. Here's how the bill would work. First, just so that there is no confusion, it would not prevent any federal minimum wage increases from applying nationally. But this legislation would provide state legislators the ability to set the minimum wage for the state, or a county within the state, at 15 percent under the federal floor. This legislation would also allow a Governor on a ``temporary'' basis to set the minimum wage for a state or a county at 15 percent less than the federal floor for reasons such as high unemployment, slow economic growth or potential harm to the state's welfare-to-work programs. I have listened carefully to the concerns of one-size-fits-all wage hike advocates, who say that the proposed increase is for workers. I agree, which is precisely why I'm advocating this approach--to ensure that welfare-to-work moms and dads living in counties with high unemployment rates aren't excluded. I am confident that nobody in this Chamber wants to leave anyone behind. I've talked quite a bit today about how increasing the minimum wage would affect the small business owner. Having owned a small business in Wyoming for 27 years, I can speak with some experience about just how detrimental an increase would be on small employers and job growth, and how this legislation would offer some flexibility to rural states and counties. But one area that I've been learning more about is how bad an increase would be on folks who have just recently entered the job market through welfare-to-work programs. What I've read has startled me, and as a former small business owner, the statistics pertaining to rural regions of the country make tangible sense to me. So much sense, in fact, that I am more convinced than ever that just increasing the minimum wage is not as sound a policy as advocates suggest. First. Just as a minimum wage increase would slow job creation in rural states and negatively affect people who have been employed in their field for years, college students looking for jobs, or new graduates, it would also severely impact welfare recipients looking for work. University of Wisconsin economist Peter Brandon has actually determined that minimum wage hikes actually increase duration on welfare by more than 40 percent. Second. The Educational Testing Service has concluded that fully two- thirds of welfare recipients have skills that qualify, at best, for entry-level employment, and many fall far below. And what researchers at Boston University have shown is that lower-skilled adults are displaced after a minimum wage hike by teens and students who are perceived as having better skills. Third. Undoubtedly due to the above, research from Michigan State University shows that minimum wage hikes push as many families into poverty (due to job loss, for example), as they pull out of poverty. These daunting statistics sound alarms if we haphazardly push through a minimum wage hike that has a heck of a good sound bite, but an awful aftertaste when the dust settles and a number of workers are left behind. This proposal, however, speaks to this point. If a state legislature or a Governor sees a potential for a detrimental impact on welfare to work programs within that state, they can act to keep the rate at 15 percent under the federal floor. This is simple, rational discretion. This legislation instills the same ideals incorporated in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1998 Workforce Investment Act. Congress and the President entrusted states with administering welfare- to-work and our nation's job training programs. This bill would complement those landmark laws by saying that states can adjust the mandatory wage--ensuring that no worker gets left behind. We must not turn a blind eye when state flexibility matters most. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, my colleagues can be assured that the problem of economic disparities spurred by the lack of consideration by federal mandates will continue until we take a closer look. It's real and it deserves our attention. It is my hope that by discussing this bill, the Senate will begin to exclude the politics from the minimum wage debate and start examining the full spectrum of this issue. I am serious about addressing this and I fully intend to debate it during the second session. The media and interest groups have asked that we not politicize the minimum wage. I couldn't agree more, which is why I ask you to carefully consider not leaving anyone behind. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, now is not the time to consider tax increases to pay for government spending, especially at the same time we are experiencing a non-Social Security surplus, projected to grow as high as $1 trillion over 10 years, and at a time when American citizens are paying taxes at the highest peacetime rate in history. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I stand again in opposition to a proposal from my Democratic colleagues that attempts to renew the expired Superfund tax for the sole purpose of raising revenue to meet budgetary targets. We are once again faced with a policy which advances spending for social programs on the backs of small business owners and municipalities without any attempt to reform the current program. I am puzzled at this current proposal for several reasons. First, it is estimated that the Superfund Trust Fund has maintained a surplus of $1.5 billion. In addition, appropriation committees in the House and Senate have allotted $700 million in general revenue to supplement funding for the program through Fiscal Year 2000. According to an analysis conducted by the Business Roundtable, it is estimated that the Superfund Trust Fund will have sufficient funding through 2002 without the need for further taxes. Even without the imposition of taxes, contributions to the Superfund Trust Fund are plentiful. In 70 percent of all sites responsible parties paid cleanup costs in addition to reimbursing the EPA for its oversight expenditures. These payments, and the collection of all related costs to the EPA, are applied to the Trust Fund. In the remaining 30 percent of cases, the responsible parties pay the EPA to scrub the contaminated site in addition to paying for oversight costs. According to the Chemical Manufacturers Association, only 3 out of 150 sites required sole payment from general revenues because the parties involved either abandoned the site or were bankrupt. The premise behind the initial creation of the Superfund program was to facilitate a rapid cleanup of hazardous waste sites nationwide, with the responsible parties largely funding the site cleanup. This is a relatively simple and logical concept known as the ``polluter pays'' principle. Secondly, the EPA has admitted that the Superfund program is drawing to a close. Under such conditions, there is no compelling reason to reinstate a tax to fund a program which is not only flawed, but is being phased out. I ask my colleagues to heed the advise of numerous business and taxpayer organizations that oppose the reinstatement of the superfund tax in the absence of overall reform. I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the following organizations be printed in the Record: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, The Business Roundtable, American Insurance Association, and Americans for Tax Reform.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution concerning religious discrimination in Germany with my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu. The resolution urges the German government to eliminate religious discrimination within its country because I believe, as a matter of general government policy, no religion or belief should be discriminated against. Anytime the government collects or allows businesses to collect and use information that marks an individual as being different, it is discriminatory and it is wrong. This is a human rights issue. An individual or a group should be allowed to worship in private without public repercussions. A letter sent to me from the Department of State in August, states ``Wherever it may occur, discrimination against an individual or group is a fundamental human rights violation, and the United States government is still very concerned about incidents of discrimination in Germany.'' The Department of State Human Rights Reports on Germany have disclosed discrimination based on religion or belief in Germany in such forms as: exclusion from government employment and political parties; the use of ``sect-filters'' (required declarations that a person or company is not affiliated with a particular religious group) by government, businesses, sport clubs, and other organizations; government-approved boycotts and discrimination against businesses; and, the prevention of artists from performing or displaying their works. I also am aware of the possibilities of United States companies based in Germany being coerced by the German government to discriminate against American and other employees based on their beliefs. We have a number of German companies conducting business in the United States. I do not want to see these discriminatory practices imported to our country. This issue of government discrimination is not solely contained within the borders of Germany. The resolution is simple and straightforward. It urges the German government to enter into a constructive dialogue with minority groups subject to government discrimination based on religion or belief. The resolution also calls upon the president to assert the United States' concern to Germany regarding government discrimination based on religion or belief. If the goal of a world functioning under a flag of democratic freedom is to be realized, the leaders of the free world must set the example. Germany is a leader in the European and world communities. Germany also is a strong United States ally. It is my hope that the German government will allow its country men and women to be leaders of a free society where an individual's beliefs are the sole decision of the individual rather than a matter of state. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a letter I sent to the Department of State on July 16, 1999 as well as the Department of State's response to my letter. The material follows: United States Senate, Washington, DC, July 16, 1999. Hon. Marc Grossman, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, State Department, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Grossman: Over the past six years there has been a steady increase in the number of religious freedom violations in Germany. These violations have been noted in the State Department Human Rights Country Reports on Germany and the 1998 report of the State Department Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom. They have also been a matter of concern to various human rights groups. All of these reports have described both government and private sector discrimination against individuals and groups, including American citizens, because of their religious beliefs. Last November, several of my colleagues in the Senate and I wrote to Chancellor Schroeder to express our concerns about this discrimination and the need for dialogue between the German Government and representatives of various religious groups. When we finally received a reply to our inquiry from the German Foreign Office in March, it was accompanied with a copy of the ``Religious Freedom'' section of the 1998 State Department Human Rights Report on Germany with a note stating that the 1998 Report revised ``certain views found in former reports.'' We were quite disappointed that the Foreign Office reply largely ignored our concerns. While I do not share the German view that the 1998 Human Rights Report signaled that the State Department is no longer concerned with religious discrimination in Germany, I find the German Government's perception of the Report troubling. One religious group in Germany that has been the subject of the State Department reports is the Christian Community in Cologne (CCK), an 1,100 member Church headed by an American, Pastor Terry Jones. The 1998 Report stated that virtually no incidents of harassment, discrimination, or death threats have been directed at CCK members since 1992. However, I have seen statements from Pastor Jones, along with other reports and news stories that indicate that the CCK has been the subject of discrimination since 1992. Tax difficulties aside, the CCK has been subject to harassment by government ``sect'' commissions, threats of violence, and members being denied jobs and child custody because of their Church affiliation. The sources of these reports include the 1998 Interim Report of the State Department Advisory Committee on Religious Freedom Abroad; an April 1998 CNN Worldview story; the testimony of a CCK representative at a September 1997 hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE); and a May 1997 Report from the British House of Lords. Also, in testimony before the CSCE in July 1998, a representative from the Center for the Study of New Religious Movements criticized Germany for police raids that have occurred against small, independent Pentacostal churches. The Universal Life Church has also suffered discrimination in Germany. Press reports indicate that members of this Christian Church lost their jobs, not because of any wrongdoing, but because of their commitment to their faith. Another minority group that has been subject to significant discrimination in Germany is the Church of Scientology and its members. The documentation of discrimination against both Americans and Germans based solely on their Church membership seems irrefutable. I especially find the growing governmental use and sponsorship of ``sect-filters'' disturbing. Nonetheless, in spite of all this evidence and documentation, the German Government seems to believe the State Department has revised its views as to the existence of religious discrimination in their country. I have also seen media reports that characterized the 1998 Report as effectively ending earlier State Department criticism of Germany for its treatment of Scientologists. I cannot believe these characterizations of the Human Rights Report are an accurate representation of the position of the State Department on these matters. Clearly, the matter of religious discrimination and persecution in Germany needs to be reviewed and the position of the State Department clarified. That review should include a thorough evaluation of the problem, the extent to which the German government is responsible for these actions, and a determination of the appropriate response for these actions, and a determination of the appropriate response of the United States Government to this serious situation. As I mentioned earlier, the letter sent to Chancellor Schroeder by my Senate colleagues and I expressed the belief that an open and direct dialogue between the German Government and minority religious groups was sorely needed. In particular, I am aware that the State Department had undertaken efforts to establish such a dialogue between the German Government and the Church of Scientology. I applaud this effort. Unfortunately, I understand that the German Government has refused to enter into any such dialogue. Is the State Department considering any steps it can take to encourage such a discussion? Given Germany's strong commitment to democracy, I am troubled by the continuing reports and the evidence of government sponsored discrimination in Germany against minority religious groups. For Germany to abide by its international treaty commitments it must respect the beliefs of all religious groups. At whatever level it occurs, it remains the responsibility of the German Federal Government to ensure that the entire country complies with its international human rights treaty obligations. This should especially be true when American citizens are involved. While I commend the efforts of the State Department to address discrimination in Germany based on religion or belief, it is very important for your Human Rights Country Report on Germany to be clarified so that the position of the State Department on this issue is unmistakably clear. I hope to work with you to resolve these important issues and look forward to your reply to my letter at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, Michael B. Enzi, U.S. Senator.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as I have listened to those Senators who support an increase in the minimum wage speak today--and I've listened closely--what I've heard them repeatedly say is that the minimum wage is not high enough for workers to afford to put food on the table, pay rent or take care of their families. This is a vital point for any American family, so I've listened carefully to see if anyone who supports an increase could explain why folks in rural states and counties have identical living standards of people residing in New York City or Boston or Los Angeles. Interestingly enough, this question has been essentially left unanswered. No one who supports an increase has been able to explain how wages affect workers differently in different states, and why that matters so much when we are talking about increasing the minimum wage. In an effort to ensure that no worker gets left behind and that we are considering all economic scenarios, I feel compelled to stand up here and talk about it--about why the number of dollars a worker gets paid has a drastically different impact from one state to another and even from one county to another. We must consider how increasing the minimum wage can make jobs in rural states and counties even more scarce; and, about how a wage hike can add even more people to the welfare rolls. We have heard the old adage that people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Well, here are the facts. It costs over twice as much to live in New York City than it does to live in Cheyenne, WY. That's a fact. A $25,000 salary in Cheyenne has the same buying power as a $51,000 salary in New York, a $32,000 salary in Boston, or a $30,000 salary in Los Angeles. In other words, the average Wyoming worker can buy more than twice as much for the same wage as a worker in Manhattan. Twice as much. To put an even finer point on this staggering disparity, if the average worker in New York City is looking to rent an apartment, she would have to spend a whopping $2,730 per month--that's almost six times as expensive as the average apartment in Cheyenne. An apartment in Cheyenne only costs $481 on average per month. What about buying a home? The price difference between urban cities and rural towns is just as alarming. In New York, the average home costs $533,000; in Boston, it costs $244,000 and here in Washington, DC, it costs $205,000. In Cheyenne, the cost of the average house is much, much less: $116,000. In other rural towns, it's far below $100,000--even $50,000. Let's look at other necessities. In New York, it is 50 percent more expensive to buy groceries than it is in Cheyenne. In Boston, the cost of utilities are almost double what they are in Cheyenne. And in Los Angeles, medical expenses are a third higher than in Cheyenne. My point is this: the cost of living in New York, or Boston, or Los Angeles is drastically higher than it is in rural towns. This is not one person's opinion--it's a fact. And so to propose a wage level increase across the board and from coast to coast has an impact on these empirical disparities. It is like saying that rent for every apartment in this country must not be any higher than an apartment rent in rural towns, or that every bag of groceries must not cost any more than what it costs at a small town grocery store. No one would ever propose that, which is the reason I feel the need to ensure that such economic differences are, at the very least, debated. It is different--supporters of an increase will argue--because the increase just sets a floor, a minimum wage for workers. States like New York, and California, and Massachusetts can tack on to that if they wish. But doesn't that just beg the question? If there is a minimum wage disparity for workers in those states with higher costs of living, then why are we raising the minimum wage in every state just to compensate for those states where it costs more to live? Why are we endangering the economic stability of rural states and counties by not considering this reality? The raw statistics show that job growth in Wyoming is exactly half of job growth nationwide--it's growing, but just not as quick as we would like. Each year, at least 50 percent of Wyoming's college graduates leave the state, unable to find work because there aren't enough businesses to keep pace. What that translates into is this: if the minimum wage increase passes, rural areas cold face fewer jobs than they already provide. What every student who has ever taken an economics course knows is that if you increase the price of something (in this case, a minimum wage job), you decrease the demand for those jobs. Indeed, a survey of members of the American Economic Association revealed that 77 percent of economists believe that a minimum wage hike causes job loss. For states that already struggle just to grow small businesses and increase the number of jobs they produce, such an outcome can be detrimental. And for those parents in Wyoming who tell me over and over again how tired they are of seeing their kids leave the state to attend college elsewhere--simply because there are not enough part-time and full-time entry level jobs to get experience from and help pay for their education. One restaurant owner in a small town told me that he would increase the wage, but that would mean 5 less jobs for bus boys. After the last increase, I also recall college students complaining because college grants--or work studies--were negatively impacted. What happened was that grant amounts weren't increased, so the minimum wage hike resulted in less hours available per student under the grant. Students said that it resulted in a net loss for them. It's because of unforeseen situations like these, I am compelled to bring this issue to the table. The legislation I'm proposing today is an attempt to save rural states and counties from losing even more precious jobs because ``Inside the Beltway'' types think that a minimum wage hike might help workers in higher cost of living states like Massachusetts, California, and New York. This legislation, which I call ``State Flexibility,'' is not a perfect solution. What this bill would do is give some discretion back to the states to decide whether it wants to remain at the increased federal rate of $6.15 an hour, or whether a wage that's 15 percent under the federal wage works better for the economic growth--and the workers--of that state. Here's how the bill would work. First, just so that there is no confusion, it would not prevent any federal minimum wage increases from applying nationally. But this legislation would provide state legislators the ability to set the minimum wage for the state, or a county within the state, at 15 percent under the federal floor. This legislation would also allow a Governor on a ``temporary'' basis to set the minimum wage for a state or a county at 15 percent less than the federal floor for reasons such as high unemployment, slow economic growth or potential harm to the state's welfare-to-work programs. I have listened carefully to the concerns of one-size-fits-all wage hike advocates, who say that the proposed increase is for workers. I agree, which is precisely why I'm advocating this approach--to ensure that welfare-to-work moms and dads living in counties with high unemployment rates aren't excluded. I am confident that nobody in this Chamber wants to leave anyone behind. I've talked quite a bit today about how increasing the minimum wage would affect the small business owner. Having owned a small business in Wyoming for 27 years, I can speak with some experience about just how detrimental an increase would be on small employers and job growth, and how this legislation would offer some flexibility to rural states and counties. But one area that I've been learning more about is how bad an increase would be on folks who have just recently entered the job market through welfare-to-work programs. What I've read has startled me, and as a former small business owner, the statistics pertaining to rural regions of the country make tangible sense to me. So much sense, in fact, that I am more convinced than ever that just increasing the minimum wage is not as sound a policy as advocates suggest. First. Just as a minimum wage increase would slow job creation in rural states and negatively affect people who have been employed in their field for years, college students looking for jobs, or new graduates, it would also severely impact welfare recipients looking for work. University of Wisconsin economist Peter Brandon has actually determined that minimum wage hikes actually increase duration on welfare by more than 40 percent. Second. The Educational Testing Service has concluded that fully two- thirds of welfare recipients have skills that qualify, at best, for entry-level employment, and many fall far below. And what researchers at Boston University have shown is that lower-skilled adults are displaced after a minimum wage hike by teens and students who are perceived as having better skills. Third. Undoubtedly due to the above, research from Michigan State University shows that minimum wage hikes push as many families into poverty (due to job loss, for example), as they pull out of poverty. These daunting statistics sound alarms if we haphazardly push through a minimum wage hike that has a heck of a good sound bite, but an awful aftertaste when the dust settles and a number of workers are left behind. This proposal, however, speaks to this point. If a state legislature or a Governor sees a potential for a detrimental impact on welfare to work programs within that state, they can act to keep the rate at 15 percent under the federal floor. This is simple, rational discretion. This legislation instills the same ideals incorporated in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act and the 1998 Workforce Investment Act. Congress and the President entrusted states with administering welfare- to-work and our nation's job training programs. This bill would complement those landmark laws by saying that states can adjust the mandatory wage--ensuring that no worker gets left behind. We must not turn a blind eye when state flexibility matters most. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, my colleagues can be assured that the problem of economic disparities spurred by the lack of consideration by federal mandates will continue until we take a closer look. It's real and it deserves our attention. It is my hope that by discussing this bill, the Senate will begin to exclude the politics from the minimum wage debate and start examining the full spectrum of this issue. I am serious about addressing this and I fully intend to debate it during the second session. The media and interest groups have asked that we not politicize the minimum wage. I couldn't agree more, which is why I ask you to carefully consider not leaving anyone behind. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his extra kind comments. I do rise to speak in favor of the conference report that accompanies S. 900, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which is also called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I think there is good reason for it being so titled. Senator Gramm has certainly taken the lead on this. He is one of the most focused individuals I have ever run into in my lifetime. When it comes to working a problem, he has a tremendous memory of not only the things he has been involved in but the things he has read and studied up on for it, and he can recall those almost instantaneously. He has provided tremendous leadership. I am convinced that without that leadership we would not be at this point on this bill. The senior Senator from Texas, the chairman of the Banking Committee, certainly deserves that first spot for his name at the successful completion of this bill. Some of that credit, of course, has to go to his very capable staff as well. He did line up some experts who had some tremendous capabilities, knowledge, background, and ability to express themselves, to explain to others, and the ability to sell the program to each of the staffs who were involved in it, too. Without their dedication and involvement, and the hours they spent on it also, we would not be at this point. Of course, we have been through the conference process. I have been in the Senate 3 years now, and this has been the most complete conference process that I have seen. Part of the reason for that is probably because of the makeup of that conference. The bill on the House side was assigned to two committees, and those committees had a deep desire to be involved in the process. So we went through the House having, first, 42 conferees, plus the entire Senate Banking Committee; and then there was an imbalance that had to be corrected. I thank the House for correcting that. They did that by appointing four more people to the conference. So we wound up with 66 people on the conference. I came from the Wyoming State Legislature, and our whole House in Wyoming doesn't have that many people in it. When they do a conference committee, it is much smaller. Small committees get more done. So it was an incredibly huge, impossible task. Again, with the leadership of the chairman, Senator Gramm, there was some definite action taken that broke the deadlock of daily, deadly, external, lengthy comment sessions that didn't resolve anything. After a few days of that, he again took charge of the process and said we were going to get a small working group of three people, and we were going to put together a compromise bill. I particularly congratulate him for the compromise that was put in at that point. There were a lot of people who were nervous and tense about having the three Republican chairmen involved get together and put together a compromise. There was worry about how much compromise there would be. I think everybody was pleasantly surprised at the way it came out of that rewrite, and that rewrite turned out to be a tremendous key to the process. Without that, we would never be at this point. I have to say this is the first time in over 20 years that the House and the Senate passed a bill in the same session. So it is the first real opportunity that there has been to conference it. Then we had this huge conference committee. The deadlock on that committee was broken by the chairman taking the focus and arranging this group and being extremely careful to include the different views in it, and then having a process where we could debate from that standpoint, taking things out and putting things back in; and, again, there were more committee meetings, more amendments suggested, more decisions made than I have ever seen in a conference committee. I also have to compliment the chairman because I remember sometimes where he was negotiating some critical additional amendments to this thing, and he would leave the room and go work with people to get some changes or to explain why changes should not be made. That is a very important part of the process, too, because we were still working on a critical amendment in the committee. He would be able to come back in from that external negotiation, step right in, and debate the reasons we needed to deal with or shouldn't deal with the issue that was still on the table. It is an incredible challenge. He did it extremely well. He kept the debate focused and moving forward so that we are at a point where we have this conference report. I am pleased that the White House made the comments publicly about this bill and where it is because it shows their understanding of the process and the dedication that was put into the bill as well. I congratulate Senator Sarbanes. He has a very quiet negotiating style, a very unique one. It forces people to do maybe a little bit more than what they would have done if they really understood where he was coming from. He has played a critical role in this bill as well. I appreciate all the effort he has put into it. We are at a point now where we have this conference report. I am convinced that it will be overwhelmingly adopted. I appreciate all the people who have put time and effort into it. This bill breaks down the barriers between banks, insurance, and securities firms. It allows them to affiliate and engage in each other's activities. It is fitting that our financial system be allowed to modernize as we enter the next century. As I mentioned, for over 20 years Congress has attempted to repeal these statutory barriers. These barriers have only limited the ability of financial institutions to offer a variety of services that their customers demand. Financial services modernization will allow one-stop shopping for consumers wanting a variety of financial services-- banking, insurance, and securities--a sort of shopping mall for financial needs. This will increase efficiency and increase competition which translates into more choices and lower prices for American consumers. This isn't a big deregulation. This is an opportunity for people to compete evenly on the playing field. Some opposed to the bill have said they don't believe it goes far enough to ensure the privacy of a person's individual financial information. I have to say this bill will provide the strongest privacy protection ever for Americans. It requires the financial institution to clearly disclose their privacy policies. The disclosure will guarantee customers the ability to see clearly the privacy policies of the institutions allowing them to take their business to another financial institution if they don't approve of the way that they could be or have been treated. It allows the market to adapt to the demands of the consumers instead of the market adapting to government regulations. The market allows for changes in consumer preferences and behavior, while rigid government regulations can easily cause unintended consequences. I have to say that in every committee in the Senate in which we are involved, privacy is the big issue now. We are debating that in every one of them. I am on the health subcommittee of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. We have been trying to resolve the privacy issues there. It is amazing how complicated and difficult that can be. There are things we as consumers anticipate others working in that business or in a business that we think is part of the business will know about us to expedite the work that we are expecting. Consumer choice is the key. The privacy provisions in this bill also require that any bank that is considering sharing your information with an outside company--a third party--allows you the ability to say no to that activity. This opt-out provision also gives the consumer power and choice. I want to tell you, this bill benefits the small community financial institutions. Coming from Wyoming, I have a particular interest in that. We have small community financial institutions that are the heart of our financial industry. It protects them just as it benefits the large financial institutions. It grants small banks the same expanded authority granted to the larger institutions. It requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language. This will be one of the biggest things in the bill in their rulemaking used to implement the bill. This plain language provision was included to ensure that small banks will not have to hire several lawyers to interpret the new rules resulting from this legislation. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows small banks to access advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank System. These advances could be used for small business and small farm lending, in addition to housing. This will enable small banks to serve their communities comprehensively and provides them the liquidity they need to remain competitive. Another priority of small banks that has been included in the report is the prohibition on the chartering of new unitary thrifts for commercial firms. The bill even prohibits commercial firms that do not currently control a thrift from buying an existing thrift. Additionally, S. 900 provides further regulatory relief of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 for small banks. Those small banks under $250 million in assets with an outstanding CRA rating will be examined for compliance only every 5 years, while those with a satisfactory rating will be examined every four years. Most agree that CRA is more of a paperwork burden for small banks than it is for large banks. I believe that small banks and thrifts, by their very nature, must be responsive to the needs of the entire communities they serve or they will not remain in business. That is the sole source of their customers. I am also pleased that the bill does not dismantle the dual banking system--the Federal system--that has served us so well over the years. This competitive regulatory system has many times created innovations which were later allowed by the national banking regulators. Under the dual banking system, state legislatures determine the powers allowed to their state institutions. These powers are tailored to meet the economic needs of the states. An empowered state banking system is elemental to state economic development. Included in the bill is a clarification that the FDIC's authority and the State bank regulator's authority with respect to operating subsidiary powers is not rolled back. I recognize that this report is a collection of compromises. These compromises have not been easily achieved. Some of these compromises relate to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). I do have concerns about this compromise on CRA. However, I am more willing to accept what I consider an expansion of CRA since the sunshine provision has been included. Since some groups are using the name of a federal law, the Community Reinvestment Act, to receive monies from insured financial institutions, it is only appropriate that the Congress is able to see how that law is being used. In sum, I believe this an acceptable compromise at this time. I am pleased to support this conference report and congratulate all who have participated in it and encourage my other colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of any time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, for helping to raise the consciousness of the Senate and the consciousness of the Nation to the increases in productivity that we have gotten through technology and the rate at which it is moving. I thank him for his recognition that we have a bill that will not only solve some of the problems of technology but go hand in hand with our need for national security. This is a bill that has been before the Banking Committee and, before that, before the International Trade and Finance Committee, of which Senator Johnson is the ranking member on that subcommittee. He and I had an opportunity this year to spend a lot of time pursuing a bill to increase our world trade while preserving national security, making sure they run down parallel tracks instead of crossing tracks where the locomotive might wind up in a train wreck. I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, the senior Senator from Texas, for working with me to focus the committee on the need to reauthorize the Export Administration Act. I appreciate the assistance that has given in helping to put together a balanced product that we reported out of the Banking Committee. I am remiss if I do not mention Senators Sarbanes and Johnson again. They deserve our thanks for the constructive and thoughtful input they put into the bill to make it truly bipartisan. I thank every single member of the Banking Committee. We worked together for a period of 9 months to be sure all of the concerns of national security and commerce were covered in this bill on which we are working. The members not only devoted a lot of time to it; they assigned staff to it. We had one of my offices--I don't have very many offices--dedicated to this bill. At any hour of day, and often night, one could walk into that office and there would be a group of people meeting to make sure their concerns and their solutions were being represented. We had some great discourse that led to a solution that I think can pass both the House and the Senate. We worked with the members of the Defense Committee, Intelligence Committee, Commerce Committee, and the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I think the bill is better because of everyone's involvement in it. The first 9 months I was on the job as chairman of the subcommittee I spent dedicated to this bill. At first, I did not envision I would have to put in quite as much work on the issue as I did. I now realize there was a lot to learn about export controls. It has been mentioned there were attempts to reauthorize the Act, which expired in 1994. Since 1994, this country has been operating under Executive orders on something so entirely crucial to the United States. But during that period of time, we have tried to reauthorize it. During that time, 11 separate measures have failed; in fact, they failed to even make it out of committee. But one of the nice things about the Senate is that there is a lot of documentation, even on things that fail. We have gone back and looked at that documentation. We have talked to the people who were involved in the issues each of those 11 times. We were able to find out what the pitfalls were before and have worked to come up with a solution. As mentioned, I visited the Bureau of Export Administration and I observed some of their activities and processes. I sat in on committee meetings. During the time we were working on this, the Cox and Dicks report also came out, and so did the Deutch Commission report that talked about problems that have been identified with foreign countries getting secrets from this country. These commissions and committees looked into ways to solve that. As soon as their reports were filed with the Intelligence Committee, before any public documentation came out on it, I went over to the Intelligence Committee and I read those reports to see if the efforts we were making had any parallel with the suggestions that were coming out from these people who were looking at some very detailed and often secret situations. I am pleased to say, out of the recommendations of Congressman Cox and Congressman Dicks there were 17 different areas of legislative possibility. We covered 15 of those in the act and part of the other two. The subcommittee and full committee held a total of 6 hearings that consisted of 25 witnesses who helped us identify critical areas relating to export controls as well. We also met with various high-tech and industry groups. We met with several Members of Congress. I have mentioned the Departments we met with, and a lot of the other executive agencies it seems have some involvement in exports and securities or both, and we met with them as well. We also had an opportunity to meet with many people in the business community. It has been my goal to have an open-door policy for everyone, and we will continue that policy through the time the bill finally gets passage. Throughout the hearings held this year on the Export Administration Act, there were many calls to reauthorize the expired act. Only a few people have questioned the need for us to reauthorize that act. They asked what problems have been identified with the current system. There are several reasons for reauthorizing the Export Administration Act. The first is the U.S. Government's inability to convince other countries, even our strongest allies, to improve their export control regimes. Only if the EAA is reauthorized can the United States exercise a legitimate leadership role to strengthen the multilateral export controls that seek to curb dangerous dual-use items. We cannot do it by ourselves; we have to have help from other countries. Our ability to convince other countries to impose similar controls on their exports is compromised by the fact that Congress has allowed the EAA to expire. In our June 24 hearing, Richard Cupitt, who is the associate director of the Center for International Trade and Security, agreed with this assessment by saying: The inability of the U.S. Government to craft a firm legislative foundation for its own controls on the export of dual-use goods, technologies, and services over the last decade. . .has compromised U.S. leadership initiatives. Another reason for the reauthorization is the lack of penalties for violations of export controls under the implementing Executive order-- very strict. If the outdated EAA of 1979 had stiffer penalties than the Executive order's maximum penalty of $10,000, we would be in better shape. A reauthorization will also give enforcement officers the authority to use the tools they need to be effective. I now have a person on my staff, who has been loaned to us, who has been working on the export enforcement, so we can make sure enforcement will be adequate. She has run some numbers for us on some of the indictments that have been handed down on things that happened during this period between 1994 and now. You have heard some of those numbers--16 indictments, potential fine of $132,000 on a contract that was $5.4 million. A microdot in the budget--less than the advertising budget spent. Fines need to be increased. Additionally, it is important we deal with the issue of export controls in a comprehensive reauthorization instead of allowing some issues to be addressed by a patchwork of inadequate measures. I suspect over the next few days and over the next few months, if we do not get this passed, you will see parts of the bill that solve a particular problem put on as an amendment to something else to take care of an immediate critical need. There are a lot of them involved in the bill. There is a very delicate balance that is maintained through this bill. All of it needs to go through together. If one person gets everything he or she wants, there is no reason to participate in the rest of the bill. All of them have worked together to make sure their interests were covered as well as being able to live with the other interests involved here. We have received great cooperation from the administration because they understand the need to reauthorize the Act. Under Secretary Reinsch has even said: The EAA is held together right now by duct tape and bailing wire. It is also questionable whether export controls are permitted under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. The bill before us today represents a compilation of thoughtful comments gathered from industry, the administration, Members of Congress, on and off of the committee. However, it is not a hodgepodge of conflicting ideas and competing interests. The bill is interwoven with several basic themes throughout: Transparency, accountability, deterrence, multilateral cooperation, and enforcement. It strikes a balance by recognizing the need for export controls on very sensitive items for national security purposes while relaxing those controls on items that have foreign availability or mass market status and thus are difficult to control effectively. It allows enforcement to concentrate on what can be effectively enforced. It gives each of the departments and agencies an equal stake and a fair shake. The compromise for the interagency dispute resolution process represents a fair procedure that defaults to decision. Yet it provides any department's representative the opportunity to appeal a decision without going through the bureaucratic hassle of convincing his or her boss of the need to appeal a decision in a relatively limited amount of time. Transparency, accountability: The reporting requirements in the EAA of 1999 instill accountability and transparency in the export control process and multilateral negotiations. The criteria for foreign policy control provisions foster an accountable system, very similar to that in the EAA of 1979. The bill encourages the administration to strengthen multilateral export control regimes since multilateral controls are more effective. It also maintains the sanctions provisions for those who violate multilateral export control regimes and contribute to the proliferation of missile, chemical, or biological weapons. The bill remains tough on terrorism, requiring licenses for the export of certain items to countries designated as supporting international terrorism. Additionally, it includes penalties that deter violations of export control law and the authorities to effectively enforce the provisions set forth in the bill. It has been mentioned this is supported in a bipartisan way. This bill came out of the full Banking Committee unanimously. Our country needs this bill, and the people on that committee recognize the need. The more they were involved in it, the more they recognized the need. I want to mention the patience the House folks have had during this process. The problem has been more deeply studied in the House, perhaps, than on the Senate side. The suggestions for what needed to be done came from the House side, but they have been waiting, watching, discussing, following, and commenting on the process we have had on this side. They have spent a lot of time with Senator Johnson and me, to see if the solutions we came up with met the suggestions they have given. They have waited, but they are ready to go. This bill cannot be done piecemeal. It needs to be done immediately for the security of our country and for the furtherance of our commerce. I ask for your support. Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for raising the consciousness on this level and giving us an opportunity to comment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, even now that we've had a moment to pause and reflect, it's hard to believe just how quickly John Chafee was taken from us. His passing, without any warning, caught us all unawares, and it leaves a hole in our lives and our work that will not be easily filled. Like so many of my colleagues, I will always recall John's friendly, courteous personality--the way he listened carefully to what you had to say and explained any differences he had in position or philosophy. His interest in a vast variety of subjects and the knowledge and insight that he shared on them made him both a friend and a teacher to his colleagues in the Senate. I remember my first year in the United States Senate. I was working hard on an issue I really wanted to make some progress on. In an effort to encourage people to clean up environmental hazards, some States had provided a way where businesses could search for problems, identify them, begin to correct them, and then have reduced or no fines depending on the severity of the situation. The language of this regulation varied from State to State. Then the Environmental Protection Agency started coming into the States following these environmental audits and fining people. They were also threatening to take away the State's ability to continue to allow these audits. I drafted a bill to make the environmental audits federally accepted. I wasn't on the right committee for this legislation and I hadn't had an opportunity to get my bill taken up for consideration when the appropriations process came around. So, I submitted my bill as an amendment. Senator Chafee had me meet with him. He explained the appropriations process, and then explained the complexities of taking up my bill as an amendment. He said if I would withdraw my amendment he would hold a hearing in his committee. I withdrew my amendment certain there would be no further action taken on it that session. Shortly after my visit with Senator Chafee, and without any additional urging on my part, he had set a date for a hearing on environmental audits. During the hearing, Senator Chafee's indepth questions helped to bring focus and perspective to the issue at hand. When the hearing was gaveled to a close, everyone had a better understanding of the problem and what we needed to do to correct it. A few months later, Kyoto, Japan became the site for the Global Climate Change Conference. Senator Chafee and I and several others went to Kyoto to reaffirm our position and deliver the message included in the Senate resolution dealing with global climate change. While we were there I attended several meetings with him. I also spent some time outside of the meetings with him. It was a good opportunity to break bread with him and get to know this very fine man a little better. I recall our first night to Kyoto. Several members of the delegation checked on places to eat and they had selected a restaurant. Senator Chafee checked to see how expensive the restaurant was. He thought that was too much money to spend on any dinner. So, he had his dinner in the hotel lobby. I joined him and appreciated very much the evening of discussion that we had on Japan, global climate change, and a variety of environmental issues. Eating our dinner and sharing our views gave me a little more insight into the character of this phenomenal man who sat next to me. John had a remarkable ability to bring people together--and keep them together. He also had a gift for putting into words that one, deep, probing question that got right to the heart of the matter. And, in these days when it is sometime more popular to cling to what is politically correct than what is right--John never wavered in his beliefs and he never compromised his principles. He always stood tall and proud for what he believed in. That's why he was always so deeply respected by this colleagues and his constituents. Something tells me that God must have had a special need for someone with John's unique skills, so He called him home. I wouldn't be surprised if right now, John is chairing a meeting with God's angels in heaven to help get them more organized and focused, too. That would be just like him. In the years to come, I think what I will miss most about John will be his warmth, his laugh, his voice, and his walk before and after the cane. John was both a gentleman and a gentle man and his remarkable persona will be greatly missed. For the moment we will each cling to the instant replay memories we have of him to help to fill the void his passing leaves behind. John, your service in the Senate leaves us all with a good example for us to follow in the way you always gave totally of yourself to your family, to your state, to each of us, to your country and to the world around us. Thanks for all the ways you've served us all. Thanks for all the things you've done. So much of your State, our country, and parts all around this great world of ours bear your mark for your having passed by. Thanks for the seeds that you planted that will effect the future. Because of them, you will never be forgotten.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Climate Change Energy Policy Response Act would bring the debate on global warming and climate change out of the arena of mass speculation and back to the refuge of sound, practical science. This legislation I am cosponsoring with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Larry Craig, would not only move our Nation toward a healthier environment by requiring Federal agencies to establish clear goals for addressing climate change concerns, but it also seeks to protect rural economies that are currently threatened by policies based on scare tactics developed by professional global warming special interest activists and the politicians that cater to their agenda. One thing that should be pointed out is that for many of the people who attend global warming conferences and who circulate global warming propaganda, global warming is an occupation. This is how they make their living. I make my living by ensuring the people of Wyoming and the United States get a fair deal. Committing our Nation's valuable resources and our children's futures to policies that unduly burden our communities is, to me, not only unfair, it's unconscionable. This bill would direct the Secretary of Energy to coordinate and establish Federal policy for activities involving climate change. It would require increased peer review of the science used to create that policy and it establishes important objectives for the science such as understanding the Earth's capacity to assimilate natural and manmade greenhouse gas emissions and to evaluate natural phenomena such as El Nino. I also am cosponsoring companion legislation that would put the power of addressing global warming issues into the hands of those most affected by climate change initiatives. It does this by amending the Internal Revenue Service Code to provide incentives for voluntary reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and for the development of global climate science and technology. This would permanently extend a tax credit for research and development involving climate change. It also would apply tax credits for greenhouse gas emission reduction facilities. This rewards industry for investing in cleaner technology without punishing it for thinking beyond short-term profits. Our entrepreneurs, small businesses and the employers and employees of large companies have the ability to protect and preserve the environment without sacrificing the global economy. The goals of environmental health and economic stability are not mutually exclusive. For example, voluntary, incentive-based programs, in combination with private efforts, have been largely responsible for the success of wetlands restoration. We made developing and preserving wetlands an asset instead of a burden and as a result we have more wetlands now than before we enacted the incentive-based programs. Resorting to Federal regulations, on the other hand, has produced hostility and confusion on the part of private citizens. Why? Federal regulations are typically cost prohibitive and are promulgated with a single-minded purpose that sacrifices America's ability to respond to future challenges via proactive incentives. It is my hope that proponents of government-knows-best policy and special interest mandates will set aside their rhetoric and walk with us on the practical path of real, reasonable environmental progress.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Wyoming's greatest public servants of this century and to support legislation introduced today by my colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, to designate the federal courthouse in Jackson, Wyoming as the Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse. When he was elected to the United States Senate in 1966, Clifford Peter Hansen had already distinguished himself as a dedicated advocate for the State of Wyoming. Born in Zenith, Teton (then Lincoln) County, Wyoming, on October 16, 1912, Cliff Hansen attended public schools in Jackson, Wyoming and graduated from the University of Wyoming in 1934. In that same year, Cliff married his sweetheart, Martha Elizabeth Close. For the past 65 years the couple has worked side by side to Wyoming's great benefit. As a successful cattle rancher and industry representative, Cliff has served as an officer of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the American National Cattlemen's Association, and the Livestock Research and Marketing Advisory Committee. He also served as both the Columbia Interstate Compact commissioner and the Snake River Compact commissioner. In 1943 Cliff began his first term as a public official where he served for eight years in the capacity of county commissioner for the people of Teton County. During those same years Cliff became a member of the Board of Trustees for the University of Wyoming where from 1955 to 1962 he served as board president. Then, from 1963 to 1967 Cliff and Martha served as Governor and First Lady of the State of Wyoming. In 1966 Cliff was elected to the United States Senate where he served from January 3, 1967 until December 31, 1978 when he resigned and was replaced by my immediate predecessor, Former Senator Alan K. Simpson. He passed legislation that still provides for and protects Wyoming. One of those, federal mineral royalty sharing, is a major source of revenue for the state. In April 1979 Cliff was awarded the William A. Steiger Award for public service in commemoration of his service to the people of Wyoming and the nation. This, however, was not the end of Cliff's dedication to public service. In 1996, the University of Wyoming celebrated the dedication of the Cliff and Martha Hansen agricultural teaching center that was made possible by the couple's generous donations to the school. One of the best testimonials about Cliff, however, can be found in the statement by one of his former employees. For the past three decades, the State of Wyoming has benefited by the fine service of Correspondence Coordinator Carroll Wood. Carroll was first hired by Cliff and has since worked for a total of three Wyoming senators including myself. On the subject of Cliff Hansen, Carroll writes: ``Thank God for Cliff Hansen. He gave me the opportunity to work for him and I have survived three different senators from Wyoming. I am indeed in his debt for his confidence in me and I will never forget the love he has shown me and my family.'' Mr. President, I too thank God for Cliff Hansen. He has dedicated his life to the people of Wyoming and is truly one of the giants of the State. Cliff and Martha Hansen are role models for my wife, Diana and I. Their continuing concern and consideration for other is unmatched. Naming this courthouse after Cliff would provide a small tribute to one who has done so much.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Wyoming's greatest public servants of this century and to support legislation introduced today by my colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, to designate the federal courthouse in Jackson, Wyoming as the Clifford P. Hansen Federal Courthouse. When he was elected to the United States Senate in 1966, Clifford Peter Hansen had already distinguished himself as a dedicated advocate for the State of Wyoming. Born in Zenith, Teton (then Lincoln) County, Wyoming, on October 16, 1912, Cliff Hansen attended public schools in Jackson, Wyoming and graduated from the University of Wyoming in 1934. In that same year, Cliff married his sweetheart, Martha Elizabeth Close. For the past 65 years the couple has worked side by side to Wyoming's great benefit. As a successful cattle rancher and industry representative, Cliff has served as an officer of the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the American National Cattlemen's Association, and the Livestock Research and Marketing Advisory Committee. He also served as both the Columbia Interstate Compact commissioner and the Snake River Compact commissioner. In 1943 Cliff began his first term as a public official where he served for eight years in the capacity of county commissioner for the people of Teton County. During those same years Cliff became a member of the Board of Trustees for the University of Wyoming where from 1955 to 1962 he served as board president. Then, from 1963 to 1967 Cliff and Martha served as Governor and First Lady of the State of Wyoming. In 1966 Cliff was elected to the United States Senate where he served from January 3, 1967 until December 31, 1978 when he resigned and was replaced by my immediate predecessor, Former Senator Alan K. Simpson. He passed legislation that still provides for and protects Wyoming. One of those, federal mineral royalty sharing, is a major source of revenue for the state. In April 1979 Cliff was awarded the William A. Steiger Award for public service in commemoration of his service to the people of Wyoming and the nation. This, however, was not the end of Cliff's dedication to public service. In 1996, the University of Wyoming celebrated the dedication of the Cliff and Martha Hansen agricultural teaching center that was made possible by the couple's generous donations to the school. One of the best testimonials about Cliff, however, can be found in the statement by one of his former employees. For the past three decades, the State of Wyoming has benefited by the fine service of Correspondence Coordinator Carroll Wood. Carroll was first hired by Cliff and has since worked for a total of three Wyoming senators including myself. On the subject of Cliff Hansen, Carroll writes: ``Thank God for Cliff Hansen. He gave me the opportunity to work for him and I have survived three different senators from Wyoming. I am indeed in his debt for his confidence in me and I will never forget the love he has shown me and my family.'' Mr. President, I too thank God for Cliff Hansen. He has dedicated his life to the people of Wyoming and is truly one of the giants of the State. Cliff and Martha Hansen are role models for my wife, Diana and I. Their continuing concern and consideration for other is unmatched. Naming this courthouse after Cliff would provide a small tribute to one who has done so much.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud today to join the Senator from Pennsylvania and a large majority of my other colleagues in support of S. 1692, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1999. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill by a sufficient margin to withstand President Clinton's promised veto. We are debating an issue that has an important bearing on the future of this Nation. Partial-birth abortion is a pivotal issue because it demands that we decide whether or not we as a civilized people are willing to protect that most fundamental of rights--the right to life itself. If we rise to this challenge and safeguard the future of our Nation's unborn, we will be protecting those whose voices cannot yet be heard by the polls and those whose votes cannot yet be weighted in the political process. If we fail in our duty, we will justly earn the scorn of future generations when they ask why we stood idly by and did nothing in the face of this national infanticide. We must reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of human life in all its stages. We took a positive step in that direction two years ago by unanimously passing legislation that bans the use of federal funds for physician-assisted suicide. We can take another step toward restoring our commitment to life by banning partial-birth abortions. In this barbaric procedure, the abortionist pulls a living baby feet first out of the womb and through the birth canal except for the head, which is kept lodged just inside the cervix. The abortionist then punctures the base of the skull with long surgical scissors and removes the baby's brain with a powerful suction machine. This causes the head to collapse, after which the abortionist completes the delivery of the now dead baby. I recount the grisly details of this procedure only to remind my colleagues of the seriousness of the issue before the Senate. We must help those unborn children who are unable to help themselves. Opponents have argued that this procedure is necessary in some circumstances to save the life of the mother or to protect her health or future fertility. These arguments have no foundation in fact. First, this bill provides an exception if the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother and no alternative procedure could be used for that purpose. Moreover, leaders in the medical profession including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop have stated unequivocally that ``Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both.'' A coalition of over 600 obstetricians, perinatologists, and other medical specialists have similarly concluded there is no sound medical evidence to support the claim that this procedure is ever necessary to protect a woman's future fertility. These arguments are offered as a smoke-screen to obscure the fact that this procedure results in the taking of an innocent life. The practice of partial birth abortions has shocked the conscience of our nation and it must be stopped. Even the American Medical Association has endorsed this legislation. In a letter to the chief sponsor of this bill, Senator Santorum, the AMA explained ``although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act now meets both these tests . . . Thank you for the opportunity to work with you towards restricting a procedure we all agree is not good medicine.'' I have based my decision on every bill that has come before this body on what effect it will have on those generations still to come. We in the Senate have deliberated about what steps we can take to make society a better place for our families and the future of our children. We as Senators will cast no vote that will more directly affect the future of our families and our children that the vote we cast on this bill. When I ran for office, I promised my constituents I would protect and defend the right to life of unborn babies. The sanctity of human life is a fundamental issue on which we as a nation should find consensus. It is a right which is counted among the unalienable rights in our Nation's Declaration of Independence. We must rise today to the challenge that has been laid before us of protecting innocent human life. I urge my colleagues to join me in casting a vote for life by supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. All of us in this body have had significant life experiences that help to shape our political philosophies. Nearly 4 years ago, I had a torn heart valve and was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery. I had never been in a hospital except to visit sick folks before. I have to tell you that I am impressed with what they were able to do, but I have also been impressed with what doctors do not know. That is not a new revelation for me. Over 26 years ago, a long time ago, my wife and I were expecting our first child. Then one day early in the sixth month of pregnancy, my wife starting having pains and contractions. We took her to the doctor. The doctor said, ``Oh, you may have a baby right now. We know it's early and that doesn't bode well. We will try to stop it. We can probably stop it.'' I had started storing up books for my wife for 3 months waiting for the baby to come. However, the baby came that night, weighing just a little over 2 pounds. The doctor's advice to us was to wait until morning and see if she lives. They said they didn't have any control over it. I could not believe the doctors could not stop premature birth. Then I could not believe that they could not do something to help this newborn baby. Until you see one of those babies, you will not believe what a 6-month-old baby looks like. At the same time my wife gave birth to our daughter, another lady gave birth to a 10-pound baby. This was a small hospital in Wyoming so they were side by side in the nursery. Some of the people viewing the other baby said, ``Oh, look at that one. Looks like a piece of rope with some knots in it. Too bad.'' And we watched her grasp and gasp for air with every breath, and we watched her the whole night to see if she would live. And we prayed. Then the next day they were able to take this baby to a hospital which provided excellent care. She was supposed to be flown to Denver where the best care in the world was available, but it was a Wyoming blizzard and we couldn't fly. So we took a car from Gillette, WY, to the center of the State to Wyoming's biggest hospital, to get the best kind of care we could find. We ran out of oxygen on the way. We had the highway patrol looking for us and all along the way, we were watching every breath of that child. After receiving exceptional care the doctor said, ``Well, another 24 hours and we will know something.'' After that 24 hours there were several times we went to the hospital and there was a shroud around the isolette. We would knock on the window, and the nurses would come over and say, ``It's not looking good. We had to make her breathe again.'' Or, ``Have you had the baby baptized?'' We had the baby baptized in the first few minutes after birth. But that child worked and struggled to live. She was just a 6-month-old-3 months premature. We went through 3 months of waiting to get her out of the hospital. Each step of the way the doctors said her ability to live isn't our doing. It gave me a new outlook on life. Now I want to tell you the good news. The good news is that the little girl is now an outstanding English teacher in Wyoming. She is dedicated to teaching seventh graders English, and she is loving every minute of every day. The only problem she had was that the isolette hum wiped out a range of tones for her, so she cannot hear the same way that you and I do. But she can lip read very well, which, in the classroom, is very good if the kids are trying to whisper. But that has given me an appreciation for all life and that experience continues to influence my vote now and on all issues of protecting human life. Life is such a miracle that we have to respect it and work for it every single day in every way we can. I think this bill will help in that effort, and I ask for your support for this bill. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple moments to welcome my former pastor from Gillette, WY, to the Senate Chamber. I thank him and his wife Carolyn for making the journey to Washington to visit with us and some people with whom we have become acquainted through books we have read. Dr. Phillips came to Gillette in 1983, and he has a doctorate but prefers to be called ``pastor.'' It made a significant impression on our community. He also taught us the difference between going to church and worshiping. That has been a lasting legacy and pulled people together, unified them. But, more importantly, he provided an individual ministry to me and to the other people in the congregation. He has been an instructor and a conscience. He has stretched the imaginations and minds of the people in our congregation but most especially my mind. Diana and I have had the blessings of this wonderful couple as they have been in Gillette; they have inspired us from their position and also were friends to us as just normal people, which can sometimes be very difficult for ministers. Unfortunately, Gillette has lost his services; he is now in northern Colorado where he is a minister to ministers. He is with the Presbytery. He goes around and shares with people who sometimes have difficulty sharing with the members of their congregation. He provides a special service there. Throughout all that time, he has been sharing books which in turn have challenged me, stretched me, and helped me to do the job here. So I thank both of them for their contribution to my and Diana's life, the life of our family, and also to our education through the years. I thank ``Pastor'' Phillips. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, each week, each of us meets with dozens, even hundreds, of constituents from our home States. For some States, thousands of constituents will travel to Washington to advocate positions on issues of concern. Being a Senator representing a sparsely populated States means meeting with everyone of those constituents who visits the Capitol. It is always good to see the folks from home. Two weeks ago was old home week for me. It was a special time for me to reminisce about my service in the Jaycees. The Jaycees--now called the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce--State presidents held a meeting in the Nations' Capitol to talk about their organization's priorities. Debra Jennings, State president of the Wyoming Junior Chamber of Commerce, and Larry Wostenberg, the sole candidate for next years's State president of the Wyoming Junior Chamber of Commerce, were in town and I was fortunate to meet with them. I'm a former Wyoming State Jaycee president. I served in 1973-74. That year and the activities that led to that year played a big role in forming my leadership skills. I took leadership classes, then I taught leadership classes. As president, I emphasized that the Jaycees was not a service organization. The Jaycees were and are a leadership organization. The purpose has been and is to teach young people leadership skills. Members participate in the complete service projects to learn leadership skills. My first project was a Christmas shopping tour. We raised money in order to take kids recommended by welfare shopping to buy presents for the other members of their families. We picked them up at their home. We took them shopping, took them to a restaurant where they wrapped the packages and had a little celebration, and then delivered them home. We also spent the year gathering toys, repairing them, and purchasing additional toys that were given to the kids we took on the shopping tour. Through activities such as the shopping tour, I developed leadership skills that helped me move up in the ranks within the Wyoming Jaycees--first as a committee chairman, then the local president, and State chaplain. At one point in my experience, we noticed that many young businessmen were devoting so much time to the Jaycees that it was breaking up their families. I was part of a project for having one night a week devoted to families and family discussion. The name of that program, which became a national program, was ``Family Life.'' I spent a year traveling to chapters and State meetings extolling the virtues of strong families. It is my understanding that 25 years later the program is still intact and still being conducted. Another favorite program of that time was one called ``Do Something.'' It could just as easily have been labeled ``Do Anything.'' Chapters across the Nation were encouraged to survey their community, figure out what needed to be done and do it. They were encouraged not to do formal surveys. They were encouraged to have each Jaycee ask his neighbors and the people in his community what they thought the community needed, then to do it. The emphasis was on talking to each other, then taking action, and it worked. Never underestimate the ability of young people to achieve. Remember they haven't had enough experience to know yet what can't be done. As a result they find that anything can be done and they do it. Most of them haven't been taught yet that only government can get things done. So, they learn first hand that only individuals working together get things done. Jaycees gave me my start in politics in a strange way. I was a businessman operating a retail shoe store who was too busy to worry about politics. I had never anticipated going into politics. At the State Jaycee convention as I was finishing my year as State president, Senator Alan Simpson was our guest speaker. At that time he was a State Representative and majority floor leader. I gave my speech on Jaycee leadership training. He gave his customarily humorous speech. After the dinner he took me by the elbow, led me off to the side and said, ``On this leadership thing, it's time you put your money where your mouth is. You need to get into politics. You ought to run for mayor of Gillette.'' Gillette, the community where I was from, was just beginning a boom. I was only 29. Not a good age to run for office in Wyoming. In addition, I had only lived in Gillette for 5 years. Nowhere near being a Gillette native. I wanted to see more city planning. Not an exciting or good issue to run on in the West. But the young people moving to Gillette in droves saw the need for an organizing force with new ideas, and I was elected. You could call that a ``Do Something'' project. I took a quick informal survey of what needed to be done followed by enlisting the help of everyone. The United States Jaycees puts out an officer and directors guide. It's a manual for chapter management and leadership training. I've had a copy of that Officer and Directors Guide and a copy of the ``Do Something'' manual on my desk since 1975. I've found that you can run a city with them, that you can solve State problems with them, and that you can organize a United States Senate office and do legislation based on them. Last week the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce--Jaycees--were in town learning leadership. They were learning about projects that will teach leadership and they were learning about laws that will affect their future and the future of this country. They have programs for getting young people into business. They have a national business network to help them when they are in business. They have a gun safety education program available to all youth. They have a program for teaching investing. And they get into some social issues, called ``Touch one child and you touch the world'' that helps provide care for infants affected by HIV/AIDS. They have a program called, ``Wake up. Live Big. Be Smoke Free.'' It's the Jaycees against youth smoking. The Jaycees are about people to people dialogue and communication. Neighbor to neighbor. Delivering a message by those who are trusted. Yes, these young people will make a difference. They have a message for us on Social Security. They've been holding townhall meetings across the country and have been surveying the Nation. They've been searching for solutions to our Social Security dilemma. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, a resolution that started them on this quest on March 16, 1996. It was revised and reauthorized September 23 of this year. I also have an opinion editorial by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare written by Mike Marshall who is the past president of the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce, entitled, ``Jaycees want Social Security Saved.'' I also ask that that document be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. My fellow Senators, we've heard from the people on retirement. We've heard from the people almost ready to retire. We've heard from the baby boomers. Now we are hearing from the people at the beginning end of the spectrum of working for Social Security. These people will be paying into the system for 30 to 45 years and they want to be sure they get something back too. Perhaps the serious condition of the Social Security system as an investment program can best be understood through an example. Let's suppose that only 2 percent of the present 15 percent is contributed from every paycheck to Social Security. If invested in the private markets, this 2 percent would produce the same result at retirement as the entire 15 percent gives them now. That's not much of a future for the current Social Security program. It would cause a revolution as these young people move into decisionmaking situations. If we listen to them now, if we work with them now, if we make changes in the system now, Social Security as we know it can be saved and extended for the benefit of our Nation's young people for years to come. If we wait very long, we will see pain. Please resolve with me now to join the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce in their quest to ensure the future economic solvency of the Social Security system for present generations and those to come. I thank my colleagues. The documents follow: Call for Legislation To Ensure the Future Economic Solvency of the Social Security System (Revised and Reauthorized September 23, 1999) Whereas, the membership of The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce as well as most Americans are concerned about the economic future of Social Security System. Whereas, payroll deductions will have to be dramatically increased or benefits significantly decreased unless Social Security is reformed; and Whereas, we need to meet our Social Security promises to existing and future retirees; and Whereas, the number of retirees will almost double by the year 2030; or Whereas, The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce has conducted surveys at seventy-five Social Security Town Hall Meetings in forty different states; and Whereas, The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce has testified before congress to address these concerns; and Whereas, as a result of The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce's Social Security Town Hall Report, an overwhelming majority approved the establishment of individual retirement accounts; and Whereas, The U.S. Congress has introduced legislation for the establishment and maintenance of individual retirement accounts; and Whereas, The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce has invested considerable time and resources in the solvency of the Social Security System; and Whereas, The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce sees the need to get the average young American involved in the interest of their government; and Whereas, The United States Junior Chamber of Commerce should actively promote getting out the vote to secure these aims: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce Executive Board of Directors: recognizes that Social Security is in need of immediate revision; recognizes that the future of Social Security is a vital concern for young people and future generations in the United States; recognizes the need for capitalization of the social security system; recognizes the need for personal retirement accounts; recognizes that a percentage of budget surpluses should go towards the solvency of Social Security; recognizes a need for a national ``Get Out the Vote'' campaign; gives authority to the USJCC staff to pursue a course to reform Social Security in local Junior Chamber communities and at the national level and organize a ``Get Out the Vote'' campaign.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I join Senator Thomas in the introduction of S. 1722, a bill to increase the federal statutory acreage limitation for domestic trona producers. This legislation will bring the federal statutory acreage limitation for trona more in line with acreage limitations for other mineral commodities and will allow American trona producers to remain competitive in the international marketplace well into the twenty-first century. This legislation will make a small but important change in the federal Mineral Leasing Act that would allow the Secretary of the Interior, at his discretion, to permit a person or corporation to hold sodium leases on federal land of up to 30,720 acres in any one State. This is a two-fold increase over the current discretionary acreage limitation of 15,360 acres. The current limit was established over 50 years ago while the acreage limitation of other minerals, including coal, potassium, and oil and gas, have been increased considerably during that same time in order to meet the needs of these industries. By increasing the federal acreage limitation for trona, Congress will take an important step to ensure future productivity and international competitiveness of an industry that has great importance for the State of Wyoming and the United States. This legislation will in turn benefit the federal government through continued royalties derived from soda ash mined on federal land. Mr. President, the State of Wyoming has long depended on the mineral industry as a vital part of its economy. Since one-half of our state is comprised of federal land, private companies must temporarily lease portions of this land in order to extract minerals that benefit the entire country, and indeed, the entire world. The mining of natural soda ash, or trona, is an integral part of the state's economy, especially for those who live in southwestern Wyoming. This trona is mined and converted to refined soda ash (sodium carbonate) which is used in the production of glass, detergents, pharmaceuticals, and other sodium chemicals. Currently, three of the four trona producers in Wyoming are operating mines on federal leaseholds that contain total acreage close to the discretionary sodium lease acreage ceiling. By increasing this federal limit, we will give Wyoming producers the certainty they need to continue and expand their substantial capital investments in the State of Wyoming and allow America to remain competitive in this important mineral industry. This acreage increase represents a modest, responsible modification to the Mineral Leasing Act that takes modern economic realities into account without deterring the entry of new companies into the domestic market for mineable trona. I urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of this modification to the Mineral Leasing Act in order to ensure stability, growth, and continued international competitiveness of America's trona industry.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I join Senator Thomas in the introduction of S. 1722, a bill to increase the federal statutory acreage limitation for domestic trona producers. This legislation will bring the federal statutory acreage limitation for trona more in line with acreage limitations for other mineral commodities and will allow American trona producers to remain competitive in the international marketplace well into the twenty-first century. This legislation will make a small but important change in the federal Mineral Leasing Act that would allow the Secretary of the Interior, at his discretion, to permit a person or corporation to hold sodium leases on federal land of up to 30,720 acres in any one State. This is a two-fold increase over the current discretionary acreage limitation of 15,360 acres. The current limit was established over 50 years ago while the acreage limitation of other minerals, including coal, potassium, and oil and gas, have been increased considerably during that same time in order to meet the needs of these industries. By increasing the federal acreage limitation for trona, Congress will take an important step to ensure future productivity and international competitiveness of an industry that has great importance for the State of Wyoming and the United States. This legislation will in turn benefit the federal government through continued royalties derived from soda ash mined on federal land. Mr. President, the State of Wyoming has long depended on the mineral industry as a vital part of its economy. Since one-half of our state is comprised of federal land, private companies must temporarily lease portions of this land in order to extract minerals that benefit the entire country, and indeed, the entire world. The mining of natural soda ash, or trona, is an integral part of the state's economy, especially for those who live in southwestern Wyoming. This trona is mined and converted to refined soda ash (sodium carbonate) which is used in the production of glass, detergents, pharmaceuticals, and other sodium chemicals. Currently, three of the four trona producers in Wyoming are operating mines on federal leaseholds that contain total acreage close to the discretionary sodium lease acreage ceiling. By increasing this federal limit, we will give Wyoming producers the certainty they need to continue and expand their substantial capital investments in the State of Wyoming and allow America to remain competitive in this important mineral industry. This acreage increase represents a modest, responsible modification to the Mineral Leasing Act that takes modern economic realities into account without deterring the entry of new companies into the domestic market for mineable trona. I urge my colleagues to support the swift passage of this modification to the Mineral Leasing Act in order to ensure stability, growth, and continued international competitiveness of America's trona industry.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Reid's amendment No. 1852 as offered to S. 1650. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, I have had the opportunity to follow this issue first-hand. Make no mistake, ensuring the safety of our Nation's health care workers is a priority--as it is for all of our Nation's workforce. How we can best capitalize on occupational safety, however, is the basis for my opposition to this amendment. I do not feel that this amendment is appropriate on a spending bill. Nor is our agreeing to future legislation--sight unseen. Moreover, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is already examining this matter and has not commented to my request as to why legislation is now warranted. ``Sharp'' injuries by exposed needles have a long history. Not only has Senator Reid been interested in occupational injuries caused by unprotected syringes, but Senator Boxer has also shared her concerns as well. As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction, I am a bit disappointed that my colleagues have yet to approach me on this issue. I am always eager to discuss occupational safety with members of this body. Instead, I first learned of this issue when the San Francisco Chronicle ran a series of articles in April, 1998. One article depicted a nurse practitioner who tried to catch three blood-collection tubes as they rolled toward a counter's edge. At the same time, she held a syringe in her right hand that had just drawn blood from a patient infected with HIV. The exposed needle pierced the side of her left index finger. Working with HIV infected patients is dangerous business, but the risk compounds when medical devices designed to improve health care end up doing just the opposite. At the request of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other interested groups representing health care workers, federal OSHA announced last year that it was issuing a formal request for information pertaining to injuries caused by unprotected syringes. Senators Jeffords, Frist and I wrote to Secretary Herman. We sought answers concerning potential enforcement action by OSHA with regard to medical devices that could conflict with FDA's traditional and statutory jurisdiction. The FDA is statutorily charged with the nationwide regulation of medical devices. All syringes are defined as Class II medical devices in Section 513(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. According to Sections 510(k), 519(e) and 705(a), the FDA has the statutory jurisdiction to review, approve and recall medical devices as well as to disseminate information regarding the potential health dangers caused by any medical device. FDA's jurisdiction over medical devices pertains to the patient. Since OSHA's jurisdiction covers workers, the agency is already moving forward to modify its Bloodborne Pathogens Standard to include regulation of medical ``sharp'' devices. In terms of worker safety, we are talking about nurses, doctors and other health care professionals and workers that regularly use or handle these medical devices. The regulatory lines between the two agencies are difficult to define in this setting. Moreover, the question of reusing medical devices designed for one-time use only is also a matter that requires careful consideration. Generally speaking, safer devices cost more money-- raising the potential for re-use by providers. The FDA has not yet indicated that it will begin to examine this issue, but it is certainly a matter of importance that includes the very medical devices we're debating in this amendment. A medical device that has been determined by the FDA to meet the ``reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy'' standard of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act can be lawfully marketed. Nonetheless, it is conceivable, given its authority over the domain of worker safety and health that OSHA might prevent the use of that medical device in the workplace, thereby creating an environment of confusion for the regulated public. This confusion could result in diminished worker safety and health and jeopardize patient safety as well. At the very least, this duplication of effort promises to waste the scarce resources of both the FDA and OSHA. I recognize Section 4(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and the problems inherent in conflicting regulations which are promulgated by different federal agencies and affect occupational safety and health. Although OSHA arguably might have sufficient jurisdiction to proceed in the indirect regulation of the aforementioned medical devices, I feel that it would be the best course for OSHA and the FDA to delineate boundaries of jurisdiction and coordinate efforts pertaining to the regulation and use of these medical devices. This is of particular importance because the FDA has the specific scientific expertise in the evaluation of medial devices-- not OSHA and not the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Despite Secretary Herman's assurances that agency cooperation is ongoing, I am not convinced that these boundaries have been properly addressed at this time. This amendment does nothing to address the lack of communication between these agencies. There are currently two manufacturers that are actively marketing protected syringes. If OSHA is instructed to regulate this matter by statutory instruction, I am concerned that a shortage of supply could occur. Not only does this raise questions of anti-trust, it also places providers in the difficult position of being held liable for using medical devices that are short in supply. The market and what it can currently sustain would not be a matter of consideration if this amendment passes. Moreover, providers (hospitals) could be put in a position to determine what devices are safe and effective if their participation is not adequately included in this process. As OSHA moves forward on its own accord in a fashion that could lead to its regulation of medical devices, Senator Jeffords and I continue to wait for a formal explanation from the agency as to how legislation would impact their current efforts to flush out many of the concerns I have raised. We are still waiting for that response. Moreover, Chairman Jeffords has voiced his interest in examining this issue within the authorizing committee. In doing so, we would be better positioned to address this emotional and complex issue rather than haphazardly legislating on an appropriations bill. I am committed to finding ways to enhance worker safety. If I thought legislating through the appropriations process was such a wonderful option, I have a few bills that I wouldn't mind spending a little time debating on the floor of the Senate. In terms of improving occupational safety, I respect the role of our committee to examine these complex issues. Last Congress, I had the opportunity to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 three separate times. That was the first time the Act had been amended in 28 years. All of the bills were carefully considered prior to passage and not one of them were tagged to an appropriations bill. I ask that this issue be handled by its authorizing committee and not be attached to the underlying bill. I am committed to doing just that. amendment no. 1869 (Purpose: To increase funding for the leveraging educational assistance partnership program) At the end of title III, add the following: leveraging educational assistance partnership program Sec. . (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts appropriated in this title to carry out the leveraging educational assistance partnership program under section 407 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) shall be increased by $50,000,000, and these additional funds shall become available on October 1, 2000.