Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues for their kind words about our new judge. I will mention, any other statements relating to the nomination will be printed in the Record. I am certain that since he has had such distinguished tutoring, there will be more comments. I am pleased to know that.

Mr. ENZI. Certainly.

Mr. ENZI. Certainly.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 160 on today's Executive Calendar. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of improved, reliable quality care for all Americans. To that end, I am pleased to join my colleagues in debating the dangerous concept of putting into law a definition of medical necessity. The minority argues that putting a definition of medical necessity into the law would assure health care providers absolute autonomy in making all treatment decisions for their patients. They say that is exactly what they want. It is their prescription for high quality health care. Well then, when asked what patients and providers would use as a guide for the choice of treatment options and delivery of care, particularly in such a dynamic and constantly innovating field such as health care, the minority relies squarely on ``generally accepted medical practice.'' The Democrat plan is a trial lawyer's dream. ``Generally accepted medical practice'' is lawsuit bait. But I can tell you that with the Democrat plan ``medical necessity'' would be absolutely necessary because it is the only way to bridge the bureaucracy. This is the bill we are looking at from the Democrats. Who can follow the lines? Each one of those lines represent a lawsuit trap. This is lawsuit bait. Unfortunately, for patients, ``generally accepted medical practice'' is the strict application of medical opinion versus the combination of your doctor's good judgment or opinion and the prevailing evidence- based practice of medicine. The minority approach turns its back on the scientific foundation of medicine. But what other solid ground is there upon which we could build greater quality into our health care system? The minority, for the first time in Federal law, wants to carve this variability into law, and that law will be followed by rule and regulation--more lawsuit bait. This is a Federal one-size-fits-all budget-busting bureaucracy with lots of lawsuit bait and difficulty in following the whole process. Let me share with my colleagues the language from the minority bill. Under the subtitle of ``Promoting Good Medical Practice,''--a good title--lies a provision which, in my estimation, would have the exact opposite effect. The bill reads: A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer in connection with the provision of health insurance coverage, may not arbitrarily interfere with or alter the decision of the treating physician regarding the manner or setting in which particular services are delivered if the services are medically necessary or appropriate for treatment or diagnosis to the extent that such treatment or diagnosis is otherwise a covered benefit. Now, let me loop through the rest of their proposal to demonstrate how they essentially ``ban'' the use of trustworthy science and evidence-based medicine. At the end of the same subtitle, we are offered a definition of medical necessity or appropriateness. It reads, ``medically necessary or appropriate means, with respect to a service or benefit, a service or benefit which is consistent with generally accepted principles of professional medical practice.'' To recap the minority policy proposal, they've suggested that doctors make decisions about their patients based just on opinion, and that health plans would, by law, have to cover any and every treatment opinion prescribed by providers. The minority may argue that their proposal limits what plans must pay for to the terms of the contract. However, their plan requires plans to cover all treatments deemed medically necessary, so this provision would, in fact, encompass the universe of health care, heedless of quality and contract alike. It's my opinion, and a major thrust of the Republican bill, that we should be doing everything we can to help health care providers in their efforts to provide the highest possible quality of care to patients. The minority tells doctors, who are now busier than ever and doing their best to stay atop the innovations in medicine, that ``it's all on you.'' Mr. President, since there has been an effort to infuse real life examples into this debate, it might be helpful for all of the health care consumers at home if we talk about how medical science versus ``generally accepted practices'' actually translates into real life. In the following examples, you'll begin to understand that ``generally accepted practices'' vary from town to town, and the gap gets wider from state to state. This basically means that the quality of your health care may depend more on where you live than on what the prevailing best medical science is on your illness. Here's an example where I can use my home state of Wyoming. The average number of days spent in the hospital during the last 6 months of life for people living in Wyoming was between 4.4 days and 8 days. In contrast, the average number of days spent in the hospital for the last 6 months of life for people living in New York was between 12 and 22 days. This means that there is nearly a 250 percent variation among States for hospital length-of-stay at the end of life. Who's responsible for this variation and what does it mean about the quality of care we're receiving? More importantly, how does this jibe with legislating a definition of medical necessity? Remember, the minority want us, for the first time, to carve this variability into law. The law will be followed by rule and regulation. Does this mean that for health plans that have beneficiaries in Wyoming and in New York that what might be determined a medically appropriate treatment for a New Yorker would be deemed medically inappropriate for a patient in Wyoming? This variation is comprehensive, going beyond hospital lengths-of- stay, from the use of drug therapies to surgical practices. One of the most disheartening and horrifying statistic is regarding women with breast cancer. Despite the solid evidence that women who undergo breast-sparing surgery followed by chemotherapy or radiation and women who undergo radical mastectomies have similar survival rates, it is regional preferences, that is, the general practices of a region, that still prevail in determining a woman's course of treatment. In 1996, women with breast cancer in Rapid City, SD were 33 times less likely to have breast-sparing surgery than women in Elyria, OH. How can anybody look at these variations and view them as the only answer to good medicine? These inconsistencies in the medical care Americans receive are something we all need to address; that includes health plans and doctors, and ourselves. Make no mistake about our potential as Congress to derail the efforts at quality improvement in American's health care if we're not very careful and very thoughtful about what it is we're doing here today. On a positive note, we are seeing signs of improvement when it comes to doctors and health plans working together to improve the consistency and overall quality of health care. For example, according to a 1997 Quality Compass report by the National Committee on Quality Assurance, over 50 percent of elderly heart attack patients in HMOs that submitted data were treated with beta blockers, which can reduce mortality rates by 75 percent in those patients. In the same year, patients in regular fee-for-service plans received beta blocker only 21 percent of the time. This is almost a three-fold difference when you compare a coordinated approach to care with a ``generally accepted practices'' approach. I am very concerned that we need to pass a proposal that responds to these ``consistent inconsistencies'' in the quality and practice of medicine in this country, while also guarding the doctor-patient relationship. After all, outside of family, many of us view our relationship with our doctor as our most trusted. The solution lies in building on the doctor-patient relationship and infusing our health care system with evidence-based medicine. Our bill does that. Our bill does not turn a blind eye to either the strengths or the weaknesses of today's health care system. Our bill takes a look at what we need to preserve and what we need to improve upon, and offers a responsible solution to enhancing quality and ensuring access. Our bill will provide patients and their doctors with a new, iron clad support system that will insure access to medically necessary care. An independent, external appeals process will be available for patients whose plan has initially denied a treatment request that the patient and doctor have decided is necessary. In other words, our bill gets patients the right treatment, right away. And it's based on the independent decision of a medical professional who is expert in the patient's health care needs. In rendering a decision on the medical necessity of the treatment request, the expert review will consider the patient's medical record, evidence offered by the patient's doctor and any other documents introduced during the internal review. This covers the ``generally accepted practice'' standard that the minority offers as a singular solution. Our bill goes further, capturing the other half of good quality health care, which is the evidence-based medicine rooted in science that I spoke about earlier. We would require the expert reviewer to also consider expert consensus and peer-reviewed literature and evidence-based medical practices. Let me say that again; evidence-based medicine, not the varied, town-by-town, tried but not necessarily true, general practice of medicine. Because we feel so strongly about preserving the trusted relationship between doctors and patients by providing them with the best evidence- based medicine in making treatment decisions, we've included another lynchpin in our bill. We establish the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, whose purpose it is to foster overall improvement in health care quality, firmly bridging the gap between what we know about good medicine and what we actually do in health care today. The Agency is built on the platform of the current Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, but is refocused and enhanced to become the hub and driving force of Federal efforts to improve the quality of health care in all practice environments. The Agency will assist, not burden physicians, by aggressively supporting state-of-the-art information systems for health care quality. This is in stark contrast to the minority proposal, which would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Mandate a new, onerous data collection bureaucracy. The Agency would support research in primary care delivery, priority populations and, critical to my state of Wyoming, access in underserved areas. Most important with regard to this research, is that it would target quality improvement in all types of health care, not just managed care. The Agency would also conduct statistically and scientifically accurate, sample-based surveys, using existing structures, to provide high quality, reliable data on health outcomes. Last, the Agency would achieve its mission of promoting quality by sharing information with doctors, health plans and the public, not tying it up in the knots of an expanded Federal bureaucracy. We need to assist the providers on the front lines. Their job is to make clinical decisions. We need to give them the tools to make these medical decisions based on the proven medical advances made every day through our investment in medical research. It would be a huge mistake to put the Secretary and a Federal bureaucracy between doctors and patients. Clearly, medical necessity is a long and complicated issue. It is also where the rubber meets the road on improving the quality of medicine in the purest sense. This is where we all must pony up on the true intent of our proposals regarding medical necessity. This is where we peel away the rhetoric and reveal the true implications of our vastly different standards regarding the quality of care we are willing to demand for Americans. I, for one, am demanding that my constituents get the best care possible, with a solid basis in proven, quality, evidence-based medicine and timely access to the advancements and innovations in health care. Mr. President, I understand and greatly respect the role of doctors and all health care providers in this country. It is for that very reason that I support the creation of a new, independent appeals mechanism to support their efforts in treating their patients. This, in conjunction with strengthening the health care system through strong Federal support for access to evidence-based medicine. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, during the last few months I have patiently watched the minority come to the Senate floor and threaten to hold up the legislative process until they received a full debate and amendment process on the President's Patients' Bill of Rights. On May 25, leaders of the minority put that request in writing by sending a letter to the distinguished majority leader asking for a debate on their bill. That time has arrived. No tricks, no gimmicks. This debate will allow us to determine if the President's bill is everything they say it is. Last Friday, the President, while in Los Angeles, suggested that by debating his bill the Republicans are trying to hide their plan from the voters. This comment begs the question: Why wouldn't the Democrats want to debate their own bill? Aren't they getting exactly what they asked for? They asked for it by holding up the agriculture bill. They asked for it by holding up appropriations. Now they have what they asked for. Perhaps they would rather have an issue to talk about--not legislation. Our presence today and throughout this week clearly illustrates we are not hiding anything from the voters. Who is hiding? My mom can watch this on her television in Sheridan, WY--and she probably is. We have every intention of offering our bill during this debate. Be assured, the Senate will vote on our bill. We are not interested in hiding. We are interested in showing that we have a better bill. If anyone should be nervous, it is the President. If I had to defend his bill, I would be pretty nervous too. I am glad we are debating his legislation. Perhaps all the rhetoric we have heard during the last few weeks, and even today, will be replaced with some substance. Sound policy conquers rhetoric. We are confident of this as the debate unfolds. The bill left standing will be our Patients' Bill of Rights Plus. I commend our leadership for the work they have done to put together our Patients' Bill of Rights. On January 13, 1998, the majority leader created the Republican health care task force, pouring the foundation for a comprehensive piece of legislation to enhance quality of care without increasing the number of uninsured Americans. During the last 18 months, the task force in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has worked together to make our bill live up to its title--a Patients' Bill of Rights our Nation's consumers and patients can be proud of. Aside from the title, the scope of the President's bill and our bill is quite different. I agree it is important we explain the difference between the two measures. The amendments Senators offer this week will clearly show those differences. I am proud of our bill's scope. It respects State's jurisdiction. The President's would apply across the board--a nationalized bureaucracy, budget busting, a one-size-fits-all national approach. I remember the last time this administration pushed a health care package of this size and scope. It was back in 1993 when the President and Mrs. Clinton launched an aggressive campaign to nationalize the delivery of health care under the guise of ``modest reform.'' The sales pitch back then wasn't any different from what it is now, backed with scores of anecdotes illustrated from Presidential podiums across the country. These stories will pull on the heart strings of all Americans and are intentionally aimed at injecting fear and paranoia into all persons covered or not covered by private health insurance. I am in Wyoming almost every weekend. I am quick to ask my constituency interested in the President's bill to look at the fine print. It is no surprise to me that most of them already have. The American people aren't easily fooled. They haven't forgotten the last time the President and Mrs. Clinton tried to slip nationalized health care past their noses. Anyone can put lipstick on a pig, give it a Hollywood-style debate, and hope for a political slam dunk. Expecting the public to close its eye and kiss this pig, however, is an entirely different matter. I remember the reaction Wyoming residents had to the 1993 ``Clinton Care'' plan. I was a State senator at the time. I recall how the President and Mrs. Clinton rode a bus across America, promoting their plan to federalize our Nation's health care system. The people of Wyoming also remember the detour they took when they got to the Wyoming border. Instead of entering our home State, they chose a more populated route through Colorado. That was an unfortunate choice. They missed their chance to receive an education on what rural health care is about. Had they driven all 400 miles across southern Wyoming, they would have seen for themselves why federalized national bureaucracy, one-size-fits-all legislation doesn't work in rural, underserved States. Wyoming has 480,000 people scattered over 98,000 square miles. My hometown of Gillette has 22,000 people--fourth largest in the State. It is 145 miles to another town of equal or greater size, and it isn't even in our State. Many of the people in my State have to drive up to 125 miles one way just to receive basic health care. More important is the difficulty we face in enticing doctors and health care professionals to live and practice medicine in rural areas. I am very proud of Wyoming's health care professionals. They practice with their hearts, not with their wallets. In a rural, underserved State such as Wyoming, only three managed care health plans are available, and that covers just six counties of our State. Once again, this is partly due to my State's small population. Managed care plans generally profit from high enrollment, and, as a result, the majority of plans in Wyoming are traditional indemnity plans commonly known as fee-for-service. In fact, the vast majority of regulated health insurance in Wyoming is handled by the State. Some folks might wonder why I am so concerned about the scope of the President's bill if it doesn't affect Wyoming that much. I am worried because a number of Wyoming insurers offer managed care plans elsewhere. Any premium hike spurred by a federalized bureaucracy, national one-size-fits-all bill would be distributed across the board. We would get an increase when we didn't receive a benefit, thereby causing increases in the fee-for- service premiums in Wyoming. Simply put, my constituents could easily end up paying for services they will never get. Expecting my constituents to pay more dues to the President's national health care system poses a potential threat to exclude them from health insurance coverage altogether. That is entirely unacceptable. Moreover, it further hinders our ability to keep physicians in Wyoming. If the President's bill passes, it will actually drive down the number of health care professionals we have in our State. Our Patients' Bill of Rights is not a federalized, national health care system. It stays within the traditional, regulatory boundaries established and already built in by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, of 1974. ERISA applies to self-insured plans, meaning employers who fund their own insurance plans for their own employees--all 48 million. These plans lie outside the regulatory jurisdiction of the States. Since it is the responsibility of the federal government to regulate ERISA plans, our bill stays within that scope. The President and the Senate minority, however, argue that our bill should apply to all plans and all persons--including those already regulated by the states. Our bill's goal is to improve health care quality through better information and improved procedures as well as rights for consumers and patients, without significantly increasing the cost of health coverage and the number of uninsured Americans. By legislating within the federal jurisdiction of ERISA only--and not usurping state jurisdiction--we accomplish our goal. Unfortunately, that hasn't silenced the claims made by the President and the Senate minority. These claims are no different than those made by the President and Mrs. Clinton back in 1993. He wants nationalized healthcare--plain and simple. Americans have been down this road before. The states, however, have been in the business of regulating the health insurance industry far longer than Congress or any President. The President wants all regulatory decisions about a person's health insurance plan to be made from Washington. The reason this won't work is that it fails to take into account the unique type of health care provided in states like Wyoming. While serving in the Wyoming Legislature for 10 years, I gained tremendous respect for our state insurance commissioner's ability to administer quality guidelines and insurance regulations that cater to our state's consumers and patients. State regulation and respect for their jurisdiction is absolutely, unequivocally essential. I firmly believe that decisions which impact my constituents' state regulated health insurance should continue to be made in Cheyenne--not Washington. You can call Cheyenne and talk to the same person each day, if you need to. But since you can talk to the same person, you do not have to make as many calls. Here you have to spend half of your time explaining to the person the problem that didn't get followed-up on the last time you called. The President and the Senate minority want to crate that all up and ship those decisions back here to Washington. By advocating federalized, national one-size-fits-all health care, done through a bureaucracy, the President's bill would increase the number of uninsured. Perhaps that's something he wants. We know that the President and Mrs. Clinton prefer a national, Federal health care system in lieu of private health insurance. Their 1993 plan is evidence of that. By increasing the number of uninsured, maybe he hopes that these folks will join him in his campaign for a Washington-based health care system. I sure hope that is not the case, but as long as the President continues to dodge that issue, I am forced to assume that this is his position. By keeping the scope of this bill in perspective, we also control that cost which directly impacts access. Affordable access to health care is an even higher priority than quality. If it is not affordable, quality does not exist. By issuing federalized, national one-size-fits- all mandates and setting the stage for endless litigation, the President's bill could dramatically raise the price of premiums-- barring people from purchasing insurance. That is the bottom line for American families--the cost. We all want as much consumer and patient protection as the system can support. There is not a member in the Senate who does not support consumer and patient protection. But if Americans are expected to pay for the premium hikes spurred by the President's bill, they'll most often go without insurance. That is why we must keep the scope of this bill in perspective. The President has repeatedly accused the Senate majority of being in the pocket of the insurance industry. I take great offense to that charge. That same blanket claim was also made during the tobacco debate last summer, even though I never took a dime from the tobacco industry. Just last Friday, the President said that we are being captive to the ``raw political interest of health insurers'' and said that our party's leaders had resorted to delaying debate on his plan for cynical political reasons. How does the President respond to claims that his plan was written on behalf of special interests like organized labor and trial lawyers? I'd sure like to get his thoughts on that. The President's bill would allow a patient to sue their own health plan and tie up state courts with litigation for months or years. The only people that benefit from this would be trial lawyers. The patient, however, would be lucky to get a decision about their plan before their ailment advanced or even took their life. A big settlement does not do you much good if you win because you died while the trial lawyers fiddled with the facts. Folks are not interested in suing their health plan. They watch enough court-TV shows to know how expensive that process is and how long it takes to get a decision made. This is not L.A. Law--it is reality. Our Patients' Bill of Rights avoids all this by incorporating an expedited external appeals process that does not exceed 72 hours. Getting quick decisions saves lives. We insist on a decision before the patient dies! The President apparently has no problem expanding the scope of federal jurisdiction, but he is silent when it comes to increasing access for the uninsured. Our Patients' Bill of Rights delivers on access. It would increase access to coverage by removing the 750,000 cap on medical savings accounts (MSA's). MSA's are a success and should be made available to anyone who wishes to control his or her own health care costs. Moreover, persons who pay for their own health insurance would be able to deduct 100 percent of the cost if our bill becomes law--equalizing the taxes, making coverage more affordable. This would have a dramatic impact on folks in Wyoming. These provisions would, without a doubt, pave the way for quality health care to millions of Americans without dismantling access and affordability due to federally captured state jurisdiction. While the President's bill has been pitched as being essential to enhancing the quality of care Americans receive, I hope that my colleagues will carefully evaluate the impact that any federalized, national one-size-fits-all approach would have on our nation's health care system. As I have encouraged my constituents to read the fine print, I also ask them to listen carefully to this week's debate. I hope they'll see for themselves how the President's legislation effects their home state. Rural states deserve a voice, too. Only our Patients' Bill of Rights would provide them that podium from which they can be heard. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am sorry that in my absence from the floor for a few minutes there was some exception taken to the comments that I made about the Democrats' proposal for this one-size-fits-all, budget- busting Federal bureaucracy bill. I am pleased now to return to be able to talk a little bit more about States rights and to support the scope of the Republican amendment. Among the handful of principles that are fundamental to any true protection for health care consumers, probably the most important one is allowing States to continue in their role as the primary regulator of health insurance--not a Federal bureaucracy. This is a principle which has been recognized--and respected--for more than 50 years. In 1945, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a clear acknowledgment by the federal government that states are indeed the most appropriate regulators of health insurance. It was acknowledged that states are better able to understand their consumers' needs and concerns. It was determined that states are more responsive, more effective enforcers of consumer protections. And, as if we need to re-learn this lesson yet again, it is usually for the best when we let each state respond to the needs of its own consumers. As recently as this year, this matter of fact was reaffirmed by the General Accounting Office. GAO testified before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, saying, ``In brief, we found that many states have responded to managed care consumers' concerns about access to health care and information disclosure. However, they often differ in their specific approaches, in scope and in form.'' Wyoming has its own unique set of health care needs and concerns. But, despite our elevation, we don't need the mandate regarding skin cancer that Florida has on the books. My favorite illustration of just how crazy a nationalized system of health care mandates would be comes from my own time in the Wyoming Legislature. It's about a mandate that I voted for and still support today. You see, unlike in Massachusetts or California, for example, in Wyoming we have few health care providers; and their numbers virtually dry up as you head out of town. So, we passed an any willing provider law that requires health plans to contract with any provider in Wyoming who's willing to do so. While that idea may sound strange to my ears in any other context, it was the right thing to do for Wyoming. But I know it's not the right thing to do for Massachusetts or California, so I wouldn't dream of asking them to shoulder that kind of mandate for our sake when we can simply, responsibly, apply it within our borders. An extra, unnecessary layer of mandates, whether they be for certain kinds of coverage or for a protection that not everybody needs or wants, are so-called ``protections'' we simply shouldn't force people to pay for. If we were all paying for skin cancer screenings that only a few of us need or want, or if we were all paying for any willing provider mandates that only some of us need to assure access, then we'd all be one of two things--either over-charged, not-so-savvy consumers, or we'd be uninsured. As consumers, we should be downright angry at how some of our elected officials are responding to our concerns about the quality of our health care and the alarming problem of the uninsured in this country. It is being suggested that all of our local needs will be magically met by stomping on the good work of the states through the imposition of an expanded, unenforceable federal bureaucracy. It is being suggested that the American consumer would prefer to dial a 1-800-number to nowhere versus calling their State Insurance Commissioner, a real person whom they're likely to see in the grocery store after church on Sundays. As for the uninsured population in this country, carelessly slapping down a massive new bureaucracy on our states does nothing more than squelch their efforts to create innovative and flexible ways to get more people insured. We should be doing everything we can to encourage and support these efforts by states. We certainly shouldn't be throwing up roadblocks. And how about enforcement of the minority's proposal? One of the findings of the amendment reads as follows, ``It would be inappropriate to set federal health insurance standards that not only duplicate the responsibility of the 50 State insurance departments but that also would have to be enforced by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) if a State fails to enact the standard.'' In other words, not only is it being suggested that we trample the traditional, overwhelmingly appropriate authority of the states with a three-fold expansion of the federal reach into our nation's health care, they want HCFA to be in charge. HCFA, the agency that leaves patients screaming, has doctors quitting Medicare, and, lest we not forget, is the agency in charge as the Medicare program plunges towards bankruptcy. I could go on at length about the very real dangers of empowering HCFA to swoop into the private market with its embarrassing record of patient protection and enforcement of quality standards. For example, it took ten years for HCFA to implement a 1987 law establishing new nursing home standards intended to improve the quality of care for some of our most vulnerable patients. According to the General Accounting Office, HCFA missed 25 percent of its implementation deadlines for the consumer and quality improvements to the Medicare program which were required under the Balanced Budget Act of 1977--10 years. Even more alarming is that HCFA is still using health and safety standards for the treatment of end-stage kidney disease that are 23 years old! Equally astonishing is that HCFA has yet to update its 1985 fire safety standards for hospitals. HCFA is a federal bureaucracy at its worst, making it the last place to which we want our consumer protection responsibilities to revert. The message is pretty clear to me. Expanding the role of the federal government well beyond its lawful authority would be a big mistake. The scope of federal authority under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) with regard to the regulation of health care is well understood. Duplicating, complicating and ultimately unraveling 50 years of state experience and subsequent action makes no sense. For those of my colleagues who think no one is bothered by that, I, and the 117 million Americans currently protected by State health insurance standards, beg to differ. Our federal responsibility lies with the 48 million consumers who fall outside the jurisdiction of state regulation. That's our scope; that's our charge. That's what the states are politely reminding us of right now. In March of this year, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners implored us not to make a mess of what they've done for health care consumers, saying, ``The states have already adopted statutory and regulatory protections for consumers in fully insured plans and have tailored these protections to fit the needs of their states' consumers and health care marketplaces. In addition, many states are supplementing their existing protections during the current legislative session based upon particular circumstances with their own states. We do not want states to be preempted by Congressional or administrative actions.'' I'm stunned that their plea is so easy for some to ignore. I will not undo what's good in Wyoming only to offer my constituents what's good for Washington. That's my mandate from them. When we balk at the minority's ``one-size-fits-all'' proposal, it sounds like such a cliche, but the health care needs and wants in this country are a living, breathing example of why a singular approach is a bad prescription for American consumers. No one should be forced to swallow this poison pill. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin the vote on final passage of H.R. 1664, the steel, oil and gas appropriations legislation. Following that vote, the Senate will begin consideration of the State Department authorization bill under a previous consent agreement. Therefore, votes are anticipated. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the lockbox legislation being considered by the Senate. The Senate has tried to bring this important issue to a vote and begin changing the way people think about budget surpluses. Our House colleagues have passed their lockbox legislation and now it is up to the Senate to finish the job. The source of the surplus is a rising inflow of Social Security payroll taxes. Under the current budget rules, this revenue is treated like revenue from any other source--it is put into the general fund and then spent. The lockbox would capture the difference between the inflows to the Social Security trust fund and the payment of benefits to current retirees--reserving it for the Social Security program only. This debate is not only about preserving Social Security, but the entire concept of a balanced budget. In 1997, Congress passed the first balanced budget since 1969. We now have a surplus of $134 billion for fiscal year 1999 and forecasts show a combined surplus totaling $1.8 trillion over the next ten years. That gives Congress the opportunity to work on long term solutions to the fast approaching insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare programs. There are only 28 years remaining before Social Security is forecast to go broke. Medicare will be bankrupt in less than half that time. We must ensure that we capture as much of the surplus as possible to give Congress the ability to develop a new Social Security program that is actuarially sound for Baby Boomers. Without the balanced budget, there would be no surplus to save. That goes for the spending caps, too. Without spending caps, there would have been no enforcement mechanism to prevent Congress from increasing the deficit. The spending caps were the tool that Congress used to ensure a surplus. The lockbox is another tool for fiscal discipline-- like the spending caps--that will help ensure that the Social Security surplus is used for its stated purpose. The Social Security surplus is not ``found money.'' It is money that will provide income for retired Americans. The Administration that said it wanted to preserve every penny of the surplus for Social Security has decided that saving the program means spending $1.8 trillion on unrelated programs. Congress rejected the President's attempt to spend the surplus and double the national debt in the process. We must not spend money that is already earmarked for future Social Security beneficiaries. As an accountant, I have a hard time reconciling the President's plan to what I know about accounting. He wants to spend the same money he is claiming to save. You can't have it both ways--either you spend it or you save it. The lockbox saves it. Otherwise, the President forces us to spend it. The lockbox legislation prohibits spending the surplus on anything but Social Security by requiring a 60 vote point of order against any legislation that spends the surplus. The legislation would also combine the lock with a second provision--the requirement that debt held by the public also decline by the same amount the Social Security surplus increases. That would save the Federal government about $230 billion a year in interest over the next 30 years. That is $230 billion that is available for national defense or even education. If we do nothing, the government will pay over $10 trillion dollars in interest over the next thirty years. The lockbox would help cut the national debt and ensure that future generations are not liable for the fiscal irresponsibility of past generations. It is the national debt that could become a significant roadblock to the economic security of the Baby Boomers. What will the children of baby boomers do when they have to spend all the U.S. tax revenues on Social Security and know that they will never see a penny of it. Would they revolt? Would they end Social Security? This is a reactionary generation coming up, what will their reaction be? The debt reduction provision of the lockbox legislation is the type of farsighted leadership that has been missing in years past. It is also this provision that has earned a veto threat from the President for that reason. It would prevent the President from increasing the national debt as well as the size and scope of government. The Social Security lockbox will protect the Social Security surplus from wasteful spending and ensure that the money will be there to fulfill future obligations. Just as corporations are prohibited from spending their pension funds on regular business expenses, Congress should have the same restrictions on the Social Security surplus. If company executives handled pension funds like the current use of Social Security the executives would be in jail! The temptation to go back to the old tax and spending ways is too great if Congress has access to a growing pot of money. Congress must not go back to the old spending rules. Just because we have a surplus does not mean that the battle has been won. It means that we must continue to be watchful and ensure that the surplus continues to grow. Last night, both Houses of Congress took up legislation that would spend the surplus on programs other than Social Security. The House of Representatives passed legislation that would spend $14.3 billion more than budgeted for airports. The Senate had a procedural vote to allow the consideration of legislation to give loans to the steel industry and small oil and gas producers. That money comes right out of the surplus. It is this type of action that the lockbox is designed to prevent. The lockbox's time has come. Congress must not continue to pay lip service to the concept of preserving the Social Security surplus. We must take the bold steps necessary to ensure that the program is around for the long term. We must not use long term funds to satisfy short term wishes. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this commitment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Mine Advocacy Review Panel Act, or ``Small Mine,'' Act of 1999. Achieving mine safety starts with cooperation. Cooperation is at the heart of the safest workplaces, where employers and employees strive to establish open lines of communication on safety, to provide and wear the right protective equipment, and to give and follow effective training. But cooperation can't stop there. To have safe work sites, there must also be an understanding of what safety rules mean, how they are to be implemented, and what results should be expected. This is the cooperation that should exist between operators and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or MSHA, and it cannot be ignored or undervalued. The bill I am introducing today inserts a new level of cooperation into MSHA's rulemaking. Called the Small Mine Advocacy Review Panel Act, or ``Small Mine'' Act, this bill would mandate that MSHA and panels of small operators discuss newly proposed rules and their potential impact early in the regulatory process. This practice is currently employed by OSHA and EPA and has been of great benefit both for the smaller employers and the agency because it forces both parties to comment and respond in an open forum. I have always believed that the simple act of talking about safety actually leads to safety, and I embrace any approach that forces those who write the rules and those who must comply with them to sit down together and find solutions. The Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training has a strong interest in MSHA's rulemaking procedure as it relates to small operators. In addition, I am well aware that the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs shares this interest as it relates to the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In light of this, as this bill is centered on MSHA's responsiveness to smaller operators on matters of safety and health, Chairman Thompson has agreed to allow this bill to be referred to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. MSHA has had great success when its rulemakings have been cooperative with operators and miners. MSHA's draft Part 46 Training rule was developed in collaboration with over fifteen industry representatives, the Teamsters, the Boilermakers, and the Laborers Health & Safety Fund of North America. By working together, the coalition came up with a draft that everyone agreed on and that was completed by MSHA's internal deadline. A true rulemaking success story. But other MSHA rules, such as MSHA's proposed Noise Rule, have abandoned cooperative partnerships with smaller operators and instead embraced the old ``big brother'' style of regulation. It is in such rulemakings that the Small Miner bill would make a world of difference. The Noise Rule would have so severe an impact on smaller mine operators that it is seriously questionable whether those who wrote this rule have ever actually been to a small mine. The bottom line is that this rule prohibits small operators from supplying miners with personal protective equipment, such as ear plugs, until after they have tried to lower the noise level by buying new and ``quieter'' machines at incredible cost, tinkering with old machines, rotating employees around to different stations, and implementing all other ``feasible'' engineering and administrative controls. All this despite the fact that many routinely-used machines can never be made to run as quietly as MSHA mandates no matter how much money is spent, and that miners will have to be rotated outside their areas of training and expertise. This proposed rule is in strict opposition to both MSHA's and OSHA's current rules which allow miners to wear ear plugs in the first instance. It also totally abandons logic. It's like proposing a rule outlawing employees from using steel-toed shoes and instead regulating that nothing may ever fall on a worker's foot. It just doesn't make any sense. By discussing this rule with small operators early in the rulemaking process, cooperative approaches could have been flushed out and solutions achieved which satisfy both MSHA's regulatory objectives and minimize the burden on small operators. As evidenced by this proposed rule, it is clearly insufficient to have a one time ``comment period'' or even hold public hearings, because the small operator's perspective is so noticeably absent from the rulemaking process. It is not enough to claim that safety is paramount while simultaneously operating in a vacuum to pump out regulations that no one can understand or implement. Compliance must be based on an effective working relationship where the goals set by the regulators are understood and achievable by the industry being regulated. If operators are responsible for complying with MSHA's regulations, then there is no excuse for failing to include them in the process from Day One. By passing the ``Small Mine'' bill, operators and MSHA would be responsible for working together to craft rules that will actually improve safety. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Small Mine Advocacy Review Panel Act, or ``Small Mine,'' Act of 1999. Achieving mine safety starts with cooperation. Cooperation is at the heart of the safest workplaces, where employers and employees strive to establish open lines of communication on safety, to provide and wear the right protective equipment, and to give and follow effective training. But cooperation can't stop there. To have safe work sites, there must also be an understanding of what safety rules mean, how they are to be implemented, and what results should be expected. This is the cooperation that should exist between operators and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, or MSHA, and it cannot be ignored or undervalued. The bill I am introducing today inserts a new level of cooperation into MSHA's rulemaking. Called the Small Mine Advocacy Review Panel Act, or ``Small Mine'' Act, this bill would mandate that MSHA and panels of small operators discuss newly proposed rules and their potential impact early in the regulatory process. This practice is currently employed by OSHA and EPA and has been of great benefit both for the smaller employers and the agency because it forces both parties to comment and respond in an open forum. I have always believed that the simple act of talking about safety actually leads to safety, and I embrace any approach that forces those who write the rules and those who must comply with them to sit down together and find solutions. The Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training has a strong interest in MSHA's rulemaking procedure as it relates to small operators. In addition, I am well aware that the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs shares this interest as it relates to the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In light of this, as this bill is centered on MSHA's responsiveness to smaller operators on matters of safety and health, Chairman Thompson has agreed to allow this bill to be referred to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. MSHA has had great success when its rulemakings have been cooperative with operators and miners. MSHA's draft Part 46 Training rule was developed in collaboration with over fifteen industry representatives, the Teamsters, the Boilermakers, and the Laborers Health & Safety Fund of North America. By working together, the coalition came up with a draft that everyone agreed on and that was completed by MSHA's internal deadline. A true rulemaking success story. But other MSHA rules, such as MSHA's proposed Noise Rule, have abandoned cooperative partnerships with smaller operators and instead embraced the old ``big brother'' style of regulation. It is in such rulemakings that the Small Miner bill would make a world of difference. The Noise Rule would have so severe an impact on smaller mine operators that it is seriously questionable whether those who wrote this rule have ever actually been to a small mine. The bottom line is that this rule prohibits small operators from supplying miners with personal protective equipment, such as ear plugs, until after they have tried to lower the noise level by buying new and ``quieter'' machines at incredible cost, tinkering with old machines, rotating employees around to different stations, and implementing all other ``feasible'' engineering and administrative controls. All this despite the fact that many routinely-used machines can never be made to run as quietly as MSHA mandates no matter how much money is spent, and that miners will have to be rotated outside their areas of training and expertise. This proposed rule is in strict opposition to both MSHA's and OSHA's current rules which allow miners to wear ear plugs in the first instance. It also totally abandons logic. It's like proposing a rule outlawing employees from using steel-toed shoes and instead regulating that nothing may ever fall on a worker's foot. It just doesn't make any sense. By discussing this rule with small operators early in the rulemaking process, cooperative approaches could have been flushed out and solutions achieved which satisfy both MSHA's regulatory objectives and minimize the burden on small operators. As evidenced by this proposed rule, it is clearly insufficient to have a one time ``comment period'' or even hold public hearings, because the small operator's perspective is so noticeably absent from the rulemaking process. It is not enough to claim that safety is paramount while simultaneously operating in a vacuum to pump out regulations that no one can understand or implement. Compliance must be based on an effective working relationship where the goals set by the regulators are understood and achievable by the industry being regulated. If operators are responsible for complying with MSHA's regulations, then there is no excuse for failing to include them in the process from Day One. By passing the ``Small Mine'' bill, operators and MSHA would be responsible for working together to craft rules that will actually improve safety. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to amend the consent agreement to allow me to offer a bill immediately following the adoption of the conference report regarding an across- the-board cut in nondefense discretionary spending to offset the supplemental appropriations conference report. I understand that the conference committee has been disbanded since the House of Representatives has voted to adopt the conference report. Therefore, I understand that it will require unanimous consent for the conference report to be amended. Having said that, I now ask unanimous consent that following the adoption of the conference report, I be recognized to offer a bill that would call for an across-the-board cut in nondefense discretionary funding to offset the supplemental appropriations conference report, and there be 30 minutes for debate on the bill, to be equally divided, and no amendments or motions in order. I further ask consent that immediately following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, without any intervening action or debate. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. Yes. There are a few questions we want to ask in regard to reserving this.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support to Senator Gramm's point of order against the supplemental appropriations conference report. As I have said before, we must provide the offsets for the nonemergency portions of this conference report. There is currently $13.3 billion of nonemergency spending that has not been offset, in violation of the Budget Act. I believe that Congress must protect the Social Security surplus and ensure that the money is there for future generations, not spend it on items that are clearly nonemergency items. We have been spending the last few years talking about fiscal discipline and the spending caps. Now that we have a surplus, Congress must resist the temptation to circumvent the regular appropriations process. Many of the items contained in the report should have been considered by the appropriations subcommittees and debated on the floor of the Senate. Congress must allow the regular process to take place and not sneak things into appropriations bills. I tried to offer legislation that would provide those offsets, but an objection was raised. I want to ensure that Congress does the right thing and preserves the Social Security surplus. This is what the lock box legislation would prevent. This is what my legislation would prevent. I ask my colleagues not to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the supplemental appropriations conference report stands, it is currently $13.3 billion out of balance. Only $2 billion of the spending in this bill is offset and my bill will ensure that Congress follows the rules and not dip into the Social Security surplus to fund all the truly non-emergency items in the supplemental appropriations bill. The legislation that I have introduced imposes much needed fiscal discipline. I have been working for a balanced budget since I was first elected to the Senate and the supplemental begins the process of undoing that work. Congress must not go back to the old spending rules--just because we have a surplus that does not mean that the battle has been won. It means that we must continue to be watchful and ensure that the surplus continues to grow. Some of the items in this bill are true emergencies such as disaster relief in Oklahoma, livestock assistance and Hurricane Mitch relief. However, there are many items that are not emergencies, like $48 million for a new satellite for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $3.75 million for renovations to the House page dormitory. There is $45 million for unanticipated costs associated with the census, to an accountant it seems that there needs to be better cost control to prevent such things. There are millions of dollars in examples of items that are not emergencies but have been designated as such. Many of these items should have been debated in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations process. Even while the economy is strong, I remain concerned about the debt that we are in danger of passing on to our children and our grandchildren. In the past, it seemed we were so tied to the immediate gratification we receive from spending money that we didn't see the danger that looms in the not too distant future--the risk associated with spending ``on credit'' with reckless abandon. We still don't acknowledge that danger. The genesis of this bill was to pay for the current military conflict in Kosovo. I fully support the troops and I was prepared to vote to pay for the costs of supporting our men an women in uniform, but the supplemental goes far beyond what I was prepared to support. Many of these items are best left to the Department of Defense authorization bill or the Soldier's, Sailor's and Airman's Bill of Rights, which passed the Senate and contained a much needed pay raise for the armed services. The pay raise contained in the supplemental jumps the gun. The House should have the opportunity to consider the authorizing legislation before the money is appropriated. Just passing a balanced budget resolution is not enough. Congress must continue to be on watch for attempts to violate not just the letter of resolution, but the spirit through spending bills that are not offset. This Legislation will ensure that the bill fits under the spending caps and that the surplus is protected. As a body, we have been seriously debating locking up the Social Security surplus to ensure that the money will be there to honor America' contract with our senior citizens. Now we have a bill that dips into the surplus to pay for a Christmas tree of items under the false pretenses of an emergency. This is exactly what the lock box was designed to prevent. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the historic legislation passed in the Senate last week, S.900, Financial Services Modernization Act. I want to again commend Chairman Phil Gramm, the Senator from Texas for the outstanding work that he did leading us through the process of passing that landmark piece of banking reform legislation. Senator Gramm is perhaps the most knowledgeable person on U.S. banking law. He was diligent in seeing that the action began last year in the Banking Committee came to fruition this year. He also took to heart the admonition we've given to the entire banking community to keep things in plain English. He simplified last year's bill, reduced it from 308 pages to 150 pages. Before we began the debate on the Senate floor, he even had to undergo a massive demonstration at his house that was aimed not only at him, but at his wife. Which brings me to the subject I wanted to discuss--the Community Reinvestment Act. Mr. President, I ask unamious consent that the May 11, 1999, article in the Wall Street Journal by former Federal Reserve Governor Lawrence B. Lindsey be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. Lindsey points out quite correctly that the CRA provisions in S.900 are very modest. In spite of this, I continue to be amazed that the Administration and its supporters have demonized the bill because of the minor changes it makes to the Community Reinvestment Act, CRA. Yes, included in the bill are changes to the CRA. However, it does not dismantle, destroy or otherwise diminish the CRA. In fact, the amendments included in the bill should only strengthen the legitimacy of CRA. You wouldn't suspect this, though, from the comments of the Administration. They claim that these provisions would utterly destroy the CRA. Since the Administration does not support the bill's structure that favors the Federal Reserve over the Treasury Department, they have instead garnered opposition to the bill over the CRA issue. They have gotten the community development industry to oppose a bill that the Administration opposes primarily because it does not expand the banking policy authority of the executive branch. What I have become concerned about is a government policy that encourages a bank, as Lawrence Lindsay stated, ``to simply pay for a problem to go away.'' S.900 attempts to correct the abuse of the CRA by declaring a bank in compliance with the law if it has earned a ``satisfactory'' rating for three consecutive years. It would require individuals or groups to present some form of evidence to the contrary in order to prevent a merger or acquisition. This will help eliminate extortion, which only amounts to lining the pockets of a few select individuals. It should help ensure that the CRA is preserved for helping the communities instead of funding the extortionists. I urge all to read the whole Wall Street Journal editorial. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Mary 11, 1999] Clinton's Cynical War on Banking Reform (By Lawrence B. Lindsey) Last week the Senate passed a bill over-hauling the regulation of banks, including a provision sponsored by Sen. Phil Gramm (R., Texas), chairman of the Banking Committee, to reform the Community Reinvestment Act. Mr. Gramm's provision has stirred controversy, to say the least. Last month hundreds of ``community activists'' descended on his house, where they pounded on the windows, trampled the landscaping and left the yard covered with garbage. The 20-year-old CRA requires banks to serve their entire community. Regulators take banks' CRA compliance into account when deciding whether to approve applications for mergers or expanded services. In the recent wave of bank consolidation, banks have made billions of dollars of loan commitments and signed agreements with numerous community organizations in order to be seen as complying with CRA. Heavy-Handed Tactics Sen. Gramm has complained that many of these payments amount to little more than extortion sanctioned by federal bank regulators, a claim bolstered by the protesters' behavior at the senator's house. While the great majority of CRA activity is legitimate, some banks and their executives have been subjected to similar personalized and heavy-handed tactics with a demand that they sign agreements that, in effect, fund the protesters. Other banks find their mergers held up by legalistic protests until they pay up. I helped write the current CRA regulations when I was a governor of the Federal Reserve, and I part company with Mr. Gramm on the degree to which the CRA encourages extortion. In fact, those regulations, implemented in 1996, were designed to reduce the potential rewards for such behavior. Most bankers and community development professionals agree that the regulations have been successful in that regard. Yet I think Mr. Gramm is getting a bum rap. Mr. Gramm's proposed reforms are quite modest. You wouldn't know it, though, from listening to the Clinton administration and its supporters. President Clinton himself attacked the Gramm proposal in a February meeting with the nation's mayors. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Ralph Nader all joined the chorus. The attack strategy worked. Regulators with whom I spoke said they believed Mr. Gramm was out to destroy CRA, although when pressed, they admitted they didn't know the details of his proposal. When I spoke to a group of community-development professionals, there was stunned silence when I described how mild Mr. Gramm's proposals actually are. First, he proposes that a bank that has earned ``satisfactory'' ratings from the regulators for three years running be presumed in compliance with the law, unless evidence is presented to the contrary. Second, he proposes that small rural banks be exempt from CRA. The banks that would be excluded under this plan have a total of 2.8% of all U.S. bank assets; the banks with the remaining 97.2% would remain subject to CRA. When we wrote the current CRA regulations, we recognized the burden they placed on small banks and carved out a streamlined examination procedure for them. Mr. Gramm takes this principle only a little further. Why, then, is the administration demonizing Mr. Gramm? As with similar disinformation campaigns in the past, the attack is meant to draw attention away from an issue on which the administration is vulnerable. What is really at stake here is a separate provision of the banking-reform bill, concerning the question of which agency should regulate most banks--the Fed, which is independent of the administration, or the comptroller of the currency, who reports to the Treasury secretary. Mr. Gramm's bill, which passed on a near-party- line vote, favors the Fed. Such a bureaucratic turf struggle is not the stuff over which nonbureaucrats go to the barricades. So the administration has instead rallied the troops with a campaign of exaggeration about the CRA. In short, the community- development industry is being used as a pawn by the administration in a power struggle with the Fed. The worst part of this is that the community-development industry is finally coming of age. All around the country, community-development professionals are engaged in exciting partnership with forprofit organizations to rebuild the physical and social infrastructure of some of America's blighted areas. The best of these are run in a very professional and businesslike fashion; their management teams could compete with any in corporate America. Unfortunately, much of the industry is still quite insecure, with deep memories of being caught between widespread private-sector indifference and an unresponsive federal bureaucracy led by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. And some of the more flamboyant leaders in community development, who cut their teeth in the radicalism of the 1960s, are quick to lead protest marches and demonstrate their feelings. They have been coopted as unwitting foot soldiers in bigger wars, such as the Comptroller-Fed battle and the feud between the mortgage- insurance industry and the secondary mortgage market. In the long run, there is no alternative to a zero- tolerance policy with regard to extortion in CRA or the type of protest that occurred at Sen. Gramm's house. Such behavior poisons the well of goodwill that makes community reinvestment possible. The time has come for those responsible for the success of CRA to break their silence and make clear whether they want community development to be a business success story or just some politician's sound bite. What is needed is a clear way to demarcate those who deliver real community development from those who deliver a mob outside a bank branch or senator's house. The best people to do this are the leaders of community groups themselves. In private, some of the most accomplished practitioners have told me how embarrassed they are about the events at Mr. Gramm's house. They have not shied away from using the term ``extortion'' to describe activity that clearly fits the definition. These people know that their good efforts are made more difficult by the extortionists; who misuse resources and give community development a bad name. pet causes Banks themselves must also make clear that they will not pay for political favors or meet extortionists' demands. The intent of CRA is to ensure that an adequate number of loans are made in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and that those areas have access to bank branches and other banking services. There is no requirement that civic or community leaders must say nice things about the bank or that the bank must contribute to those leaders' pet causes or even their own organizations. It is often too easy for bank management to simply pay for a problem to go away. Regulators should make sure that this doesn't happen, by insisting that CRA-type payments made by bank management go for services rendered--such as loan referrals--and are not de factor political contributions or extortion payments. Regulators would not tolerate a bank management that violated the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act by bribing foreign officials. Nor should they allow bribes to community groups in the U.S. The administration, meanwhile, should stop using America's developing communities as pawns in its own bureaucratic battles.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, add my congratulations to the Senator for his 10,000th vote. At this point in my Senate career, that is really an incredible number. I have known Senator Biden for a long time. I was the State Jaycee President when the U.S. Jaycees recognized him as one of the 10 outstanding young men of this country in Mobil, AL. I can't tell you how incredible it was to get to meet him at that point and how even more incredible it was when I got to join this body and meet him here after he must have done 9,000 votes. I read about him in the newspaper and have gotten to work with him, and I have enjoyed that experience.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider en bloc all nominations reported by the Armed Services Committee today and the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, and the Coast Guard nominations on the Secretary's desk. I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed, the motion to consider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank everyone for their indulgence. I note it is now after 9 o'clock, so the pages will not have to have class tomorrow.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a star print of S. 74, with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to make brief comments about the bill. I congratulate all of the people that have been involved in passing this bill today. It is a significant piece of banking legislation. It is a significant piece of legislation for this country. It will make a difference to consumer safety, to banks, to insurance companies, to securities companies, to all of the financial institutions of any form in this country. I want to congratulate the staff people who worked on that bill. They were tireless, they were diligent. They have worked for longer hours than I have seen people work. I want to congratulate my fellow Senators on the Banking Committee for not only their tireless effort, but the way they debated, brought issues and amendments to the floor, and worked through the process together. This could have been a much more lengthy process than the 3 days that it took. I particularly want to commend the ranking member on the committee. It has been a tremendous education working with him through these days. I want to congratulate the chairman, as well. I point out the contrast between the ranking member and the chairman: One is very quiet and one is very vocal. But together they worked through this issue, helped to expedite the votes that we took, helped to expedite the debates, and worked together well so we could reach this point. I have to make a few comments about the chairman who is one of the most tireless and focused people that I have seen. I know he was an economics professor and I appreciate the amount of research he did for this, and saw that as an example of the effort he probably put in when he was teaching. I listened to him speak. I think I would have liked to have had him as one of my professors. He can take things that are very detailed and make them interesting. If banking can be made entertaining, he does it. He has a unique use of charts and words that help to paint a picture. Unlike some economists, he is not doing the ``on the one hand and on the other hand,'' he is very decided in his opinions. I have to mention that in Banking Committee after one of our hearings he was asked how the procedure would go on this bank reform. It was a leftover issue from last year, and a number of people were concerned and wanted it to progress. So they asked him how it would work. He said: We are going to have a number of hearings on it, and then following the hearings we will draft the bill, and then I want Senators to have an opportunity to talk to their constituents, to talk to their banks, to talk to all of their insurance agents and to talk to their securities dealers and companies. Following that, we will have a markup. He said: On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday we will have hearings, the draft will be available on Friday, and Tuesday we will do a markup. We did have the hearings on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. The draft wasn't available until Monday so we did not do the markup until Thursday. That has to be some classic action on a bill. It was not just a matter of taking the bill from last year, it was a matter of simplifying that. He insisted that since we had language in there that was to simplify banking language and to force the banks to operate in plain language, it was only fair that we do that too. It changed the bill from a 308-page bill to a 150-page bill. We have had the opportunity to debate that. There are still some things to be worked out. I look forward to the conference committee. Even if I am not on it I will observe it, because I am sure it will be educational. With the intellect of the chairman and the ranking member, it will be a fascinating study and well worth watching. It is one that everybody who is hoping the playing field gets leveled and specified will be holding their breath about.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to address what we have been looking at in the Banking Committee now for a couple of years. We have had very detailed hearings, where both Alan Greenspan and Secretary Rubin have presented their case. I have to admit, during most of those everybody has said: What kind of a turf battle are we looking at here? The comments have been kind of mixed because it is an extremely difficult area to understand. It is an area between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. But it is an area that affects the ways that banks will operate. We are trying to design, under this bill, a mechanism for the American banking system to succeed, to provide for security and soundness for the banking system, to provide for safety. Now, is that done under the Treasury or is it done under the Federal Reserve? As one of those accountants, I suggest that the Treasury handles the accounting function very well. They do an excellent job of auditing our banks. They do an excellent job of overseeing the accounting aspects of the bank. But the Federal Reserve does the outstanding job of overseeing the banking policy for our country. If we begin to establish a system where the administration, who can reflect to times of election, has control over the banks and the banking establishment and the banking policy, our country could be in trouble. If the banking policy is established by the administration with the benefit of the Federal wire and the Federal funds and the lower loan rates, our country could begin to react more to elections than to the economy. We have had a fantastic system that has brought our economy to new heights, and it has been working under the Federal Reserve System. Let's not shift all of this around and allow the banks to have another technique where they can put businesses under their bank and have transactions--and I think everybody realizes that the transactions, while there are generally accepted accounting principles for how those are done, they are not nearly as much in the open under a subsidiary as they are under an affiliate. We have some accounting techniques here that provide daylight for the banking industry which provide safety and soundness for the banking industry and the consumers. I suggest that Alan Greenspan and whoever holds that position has to have enough ability to control the economy of the banks and the power of the banks to keep the economy of this Nation going. This is an issue that is extremely difficult to understand. After all of the hearings we have held on it, it is possible to see it still is under a cloud of misunderstanding. I hear the terms brought out about how foreign banks are involved and how foreign banks are allowed to operate. The foreign banks are not the ones providing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation money. They are not the ones insuring the money of the consumers of this country. I opt for the safety and soundness provided by the Federal Reserve. I ask that you defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.