Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior Senator from my state of Wyoming, in the effort to safeguard the integrity of the nation's military memorials from the politically expedient demands of foreign governments--in this case the so-called ``Bells of Balangiga'' war memorial located in Wyoming's capital city of Cheyenne. Though a similar bill was introduced during the last congress, it was not voted on before adjournment. Unfortunately, the issue this legislation hopes to address is alive and well. Many people contend that church bells are not a fitting subject for a war memorial. The circumstances surrounding these particular bells, however, are not normal. As the Senior Senator from Wyoming related, those bells were not used by Filipino insurgents to call the faithful to prayer that harrowing morning. They were used instead to signal the massacre of Wyoming troops as they sat down, unarmed, to breakfast. Of the 74 officers and men in the garrison, only twenty survived. Eye witness accounts had some of the attackers disguised as women, their weapons hidden beneath their dresses. Many others smuggled their weapons into the village hidden in the coffins of children. Under those circumstances, one must conclude that the bells in question were used to kill. Consequently I feel their use as the subject for a war memorial is wholly appropriate. This is especially true in light of the use for the bells originally intended by the Philippine government. As everyone conceded last year, the Philippine government desired the return of these bells in time for their 100th anniversary of independence. Apparently, these bells do not represent a religious symbol for the Philippine government either. Most significant of all, however, is the purpose they currently serve. Contrary to the assumptions of many, they do not memorialize American foreign policies of the time. Nor do they serve as a tribute to our political system, America's turn of the century notions of race relations, or the performance of the American troops who served there during that conflict. Rather, these bells memorialize one thing and one thing only: The tragic and premature deaths of 54 young men who volunteered to do the bidding of the American people. For this purpose I believe these bells serve as a most fitting memorial indeed and I am opposed to their dismantlement. It is time to honor our veterans, our war dead, and the principle that in this country, we do not submit to government by Presidential fiat. I ask the support of my colleagues for this legislation.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague, the senior Senator from my state of Wyoming, in the effort to safeguard the integrity of the nation's military memorials from the politically expedient demands of foreign governments--in this case the so-called ``Bells of Balangiga'' war memorial located in Wyoming's capital city of Cheyenne. Though a similar bill was introduced during the last congress, it was not voted on before adjournment. Unfortunately, the issue this legislation hopes to address is alive and well. Many people contend that church bells are not a fitting subject for a war memorial. The circumstances surrounding these particular bells, however, are not normal. As the Senior Senator from Wyoming related, those bells were not used by Filipino insurgents to call the faithful to prayer that harrowing morning. They were used instead to signal the massacre of Wyoming troops as they sat down, unarmed, to breakfast. Of the 74 officers and men in the garrison, only twenty survived. Eye witness accounts had some of the attackers disguised as women, their weapons hidden beneath their dresses. Many others smuggled their weapons into the village hidden in the coffins of children. Under those circumstances, one must conclude that the bells in question were used to kill. Consequently I feel their use as the subject for a war memorial is wholly appropriate. This is especially true in light of the use for the bells originally intended by the Philippine government. As everyone conceded last year, the Philippine government desired the return of these bells in time for their 100th anniversary of independence. Apparently, these bells do not represent a religious symbol for the Philippine government either. Most significant of all, however, is the purpose they currently serve. Contrary to the assumptions of many, they do not memorialize American foreign policies of the time. Nor do they serve as a tribute to our political system, America's turn of the century notions of race relations, or the performance of the American troops who served there during that conflict. Rather, these bells memorialize one thing and one thing only: The tragic and premature deaths of 54 young men who volunteered to do the bidding of the American people. For this purpose I believe these bells serve as a most fitting memorial indeed and I am opposed to their dismantlement. It is time to honor our veterans, our war dead, and the principle that in this country, we do not submit to government by Presidential fiat. I ask the support of my colleagues for this legislation.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safety Advancement for Employees (SAFE) Act of 1999. Today, as Americans head off to work, 17 of them will die and 18,600 of them will be injured on the job. The fact is that these accidents are occurring not because employers are heartless when it comes to worker safety. On the contrary, even the Department of Labor estimates that 95 percent of employers are striving to create safe workplaces. Nevertheless, America's employers are routinely left to their own devices to comply with thousands of pages of regulations without agency assistance and face steep fines for noncompliance despite their good- faith efforts. The Clinton Administration has responded to this problem by pledging a ``reinvented government'' that partners with employers in the effort to improve occupational safety and health. I agree with the strong statements made by Vice President Gore that ``OSHA doesn't work well enough,'' and that OSHA should ``hire third parties, such as private inspection companies'' to perform inspections. In fact, Vice President Gore's conclusions are at the heart of the OSHA modernization effort that I worked on last Congress. The SAFE Act that I am introducing today embodies a true partnership approach by encouraging employers to voluntarily hire third party consultants to audit their workplaces for compliance with OSHA and safety in general. Those consultants must be qualified by OSHA as legitimate safety consultants. They will work with employers on an ongoing basis to ensure that the employer is in compliance with OSHA regulations. Once the employer is in compliance, the consultant will issue him a certificate of compliance. Under the SAFE Act, OSHA retains full power to inspect employers who have received such a certificate, full power to find violations of OSHA's regulations and full power to order such employers to abate the violations. The bill also provides that good-faith employers who go to the time and expense of hiring a safety consultant and getting in compliance with OSHA are exempt from civil fines for one year. In other words, the SAFE Act strikes a new and healthier balance for America's workers. The SAFE Act's third party consultation provision codifies the Vice President's approach. It will result in tens of thousands of employers, perhaps more, getting expert safety consultations. It will allow OSHA to target its enforcement resources where they are most needed, and unlike other OSHA reform bills, it preserves OSHA's power to inspect any workplace and order abatement as it sees fit. During the 105th Congress, the SAFE Act garnered more support than any OSHA modernization measure in years and successfully passed the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee within a few months of introduction. I hope to build on that success by strengthening the consultation aspect of the bill in the 106th Congress. One of the most important changes to the SAFE Act in this regard is that the voluntary, third party consultation provision now requires employers to work with trained safety and health consultants to develop work site-specific safety and health programs before they receive a Certificate of Compliance. I have borrowed both the idea for this provision and the language directly from one of OSHA's successful consultation programs, the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, or SHARP. SHARP is a consultation-based program available to businesses who want to work with an OSHA consultant and develop a safety and health program in return for one year free from inspections. The key to this program's success is that it is voluntary, it helps employers achieve compliance by working with a trained safety consultant, and it contains incentives to encourage employers to seek solutions to safety and health hazards. The outstanding results of the SHARP program will be amplified by its inclusion in the SAFE Act. Due to the limited resources that OSHA dedicates to consultation, very few employers are able to take advantage of the SHARP program. However, under the SAFE Act, the safety benefits of the program will be available to every employer on a voluntary basis. An important and additional benefit of including OSHA's voluntary, consultation-based SHARP program in the SAFE Act is that it strikes a compromise. For the last several months, OSHA has been moving forward in promulgating a mandatory safety and health program rule applicable to all employers regardless of size or type. The rule is not only mandatory but it is also a ``performance-based'' rule, the elements of which are almost completely subjective in nature. For example, the rule requires a program ``appropriate'' to conditions in the workplace, an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of the program ``as often as necessary'' to ensure program effectiveness, and ``where appropriate,'' to initiate corrective action. Employers are justifiably concerned because the rule offers no definition of these terms to help them in their compliance efforts. They are also concerned because there is no objectivity to the rule. OSHA is answering these concerns by promising that their inspectors will be fair in their application of the rule and flexible in their interpretations. That does not satisfy employers who have safety and health programs in place or are working to develop such programs in a way that meets with OSHA's approval without the threat of fines. The SAFE Act combines the need to promote a safety and health program standard that is sanctioned by OSHA with the need of the employer to know specifically how to achieve regulatory compliance. By keeping the SAFE Act consultation-based, employers will have full access to personalized compliance assistance. Neither will there be a threat of subjective enforcement under the SAFE Act because good-faith employers cannot be penalized for good-faith compliance efforts. The SAFE Act is the workable alternative to encourage and implement safety and health programs that work to improve conditions for America's workers. Another important change to the SAFE Act is that the bill has been streamlined to strengthen the consultation theme by removing provisions that do not relate to consultation. The importance of such streamlining is two-fold. First, by highlighting consultation, the SAFE Act is able to maintain a one-theme message that consultations work and that their availability should be expanded to more employers. Second, by removing other, non-consultation-based programs from the bill will allow for concentrated development of several specific, freestanding OSHA modernization bills in the future. As I introduce the new SAFE Act today, I am hopeful that we can again begin meaningful discussions about what is involved in achieving safer workplaces. I am hopeful that we can take even greater steps away from the adversarial approach to worker safety that virtually everyone agrees is without benefit or substantive result. And I am hopeful that we can actually pass the SAFE Act to achieve greater worker safety and health. The SAFE Act's proactive approach to achieving safer workplaces is revolutionary because it empowers both OSHA and the employer. By passing the SAFE Act, OSHA's own consultation programs will be extended to all employers who truly seek safety and health solutions. The result will mean vastly improved safety for America's work sites.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Safety Advancement for Employees (SAFE) Act of 1999. Today, as Americans head off to work, 17 of them will die and 18,600 of them will be injured on the job. The fact is that these accidents are occurring not because employers are heartless when it comes to worker safety. On the contrary, even the Department of Labor estimates that 95 percent of employers are striving to create safe workplaces. Nevertheless, America's employers are routinely left to their own devices to comply with thousands of pages of regulations without agency assistance and face steep fines for noncompliance despite their good- faith efforts. The Clinton Administration has responded to this problem by pledging a ``reinvented government'' that partners with employers in the effort to improve occupational safety and health. I agree with the strong statements made by Vice President Gore that ``OSHA doesn't work well enough,'' and that OSHA should ``hire third parties, such as private inspection companies'' to perform inspections. In fact, Vice President Gore's conclusions are at the heart of the OSHA modernization effort that I worked on last Congress. The SAFE Act that I am introducing today embodies a true partnership approach by encouraging employers to voluntarily hire third party consultants to audit their workplaces for compliance with OSHA and safety in general. Those consultants must be qualified by OSHA as legitimate safety consultants. They will work with employers on an ongoing basis to ensure that the employer is in compliance with OSHA regulations. Once the employer is in compliance, the consultant will issue him a certificate of compliance. Under the SAFE Act, OSHA retains full power to inspect employers who have received such a certificate, full power to find violations of OSHA's regulations and full power to order such employers to abate the violations. The bill also provides that good-faith employers who go to the time and expense of hiring a safety consultant and getting in compliance with OSHA are exempt from civil fines for one year. In other words, the SAFE Act strikes a new and healthier balance for America's workers. The SAFE Act's third party consultation provision codifies the Vice President's approach. It will result in tens of thousands of employers, perhaps more, getting expert safety consultations. It will allow OSHA to target its enforcement resources where they are most needed, and unlike other OSHA reform bills, it preserves OSHA's power to inspect any workplace and order abatement as it sees fit. During the 105th Congress, the SAFE Act garnered more support than any OSHA modernization measure in years and successfully passed the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee within a few months of introduction. I hope to build on that success by strengthening the consultation aspect of the bill in the 106th Congress. One of the most important changes to the SAFE Act in this regard is that the voluntary, third party consultation provision now requires employers to work with trained safety and health consultants to develop work site-specific safety and health programs before they receive a Certificate of Compliance. I have borrowed both the idea for this provision and the language directly from one of OSHA's successful consultation programs, the Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program, or SHARP. SHARP is a consultation-based program available to businesses who want to work with an OSHA consultant and develop a safety and health program in return for one year free from inspections. The key to this program's success is that it is voluntary, it helps employers achieve compliance by working with a trained safety consultant, and it contains incentives to encourage employers to seek solutions to safety and health hazards. The outstanding results of the SHARP program will be amplified by its inclusion in the SAFE Act. Due to the limited resources that OSHA dedicates to consultation, very few employers are able to take advantage of the SHARP program. However, under the SAFE Act, the safety benefits of the program will be available to every employer on a voluntary basis. An important and additional benefit of including OSHA's voluntary, consultation-based SHARP program in the SAFE Act is that it strikes a compromise. For the last several months, OSHA has been moving forward in promulgating a mandatory safety and health program rule applicable to all employers regardless of size or type. The rule is not only mandatory but it is also a ``performance-based'' rule, the elements of which are almost completely subjective in nature. For example, the rule requires a program ``appropriate'' to conditions in the workplace, an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of the program ``as often as necessary'' to ensure program effectiveness, and ``where appropriate,'' to initiate corrective action. Employers are justifiably concerned because the rule offers no definition of these terms to help them in their compliance efforts. They are also concerned because there is no objectivity to the rule. OSHA is answering these concerns by promising that their inspectors will be fair in their application of the rule and flexible in their interpretations. That does not satisfy employers who have safety and health programs in place or are working to develop such programs in a way that meets with OSHA's approval without the threat of fines. The SAFE Act combines the need to promote a safety and health program standard that is sanctioned by OSHA with the need of the employer to know specifically how to achieve regulatory compliance. By keeping the SAFE Act consultation-based, employers will have full access to personalized compliance assistance. Neither will there be a threat of subjective enforcement under the SAFE Act because good-faith employers cannot be penalized for good-faith compliance efforts. The SAFE Act is the workable alternative to encourage and implement safety and health programs that work to improve conditions for America's workers. Another important change to the SAFE Act is that the bill has been streamlined to strengthen the consultation theme by removing provisions that do not relate to consultation. The importance of such streamlining is two-fold. First, by highlighting consultation, the SAFE Act is able to maintain a one-theme message that consultations work and that their availability should be expanded to more employers. Second, by removing other, non-consultation-based programs from the bill will allow for concentrated development of several specific, freestanding OSHA modernization bills in the future. As I introduce the new SAFE Act today, I am hopeful that we can again begin meaningful discussions about what is involved in achieving safer workplaces. I am hopeful that we can take even greater steps away from the adversarial approach to worker safety that virtually everyone agrees is without benefit or substantive result. And I am hopeful that we can actually pass the SAFE Act to achieve greater worker safety and health. The SAFE Act's proactive approach to achieving safer workplaces is revolutionary because it empowers both OSHA and the employer. By passing the SAFE Act, OSHA's own consultation programs will be extended to all employers who truly seek safety and health solutions. The result will mean vastly improved safety for America's work sites.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. This legislation would eliminate the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) special reserve. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has indicated that this is one of their top priorities. We feel this legislation is important because capitalization of the special reserve could potentially destabilize the SAIF. The Special Reserve of the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) was established on January 1, 1999. It was created by the Deposit Insurance Act of 1996 to provide a backup to the SAIF and further protect the taxpayers from another costly bailout of failed financial institutions. The law stipulated that the amount in the SAIF special reserve should equal the amount by which the SAIF reserve ratio exceeded the designated reserve ratio on January 1, 1999. The designated reserve ratio is 1.25 percent of estimated insured deposits. As a result, on January first of this year, about $1 billion was transferred from the SAIF to the special reserve of the SAIF. Now the SAIF, because it does not include the amount set aside in the special reserve, is capitalized at 1.25 percent of insured deposits. The problem with this newly established special reserve is that it has the potential to destabilize the SAIF. Since $1 billion was transferred into the special reserve, thereby reducing the SAIF to the minimum required reserve level of 1.25 percent, the chances that the reserve ratio could drop below that level due to adverse circumstances has increased significantly. If this ever occurs, the FDIC may assess new insurance premiums since the 1996 amendments do not allow the special reserve funds to be used in the calculation of the SAIF. And new premium on thrifts resulting from the special reserve would be unfair and discriminatory. In addition, the special reserve funds cannot be used unless the SAIF reachers a dangerously low level. Current law does not allow the FDIC to access the funds in the special reserve until the reserve ratio reaches 0.625 percent of the designated ratio, and the FDIC expects the ratio to remain at or below that level for each of the next four quarters. This does not allow the FDIC to properly manage the SAIF. The Enzi/Johnson bill also makes conforming and technical amendments requested by the FDIC. These changes would delete provisions of the Deposit Insurance Act of 1996 relating to the merger of the two deposit insurance funds. The Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the SAIF were not merged by the target date of January 1, 1999, because savings associations are still in existence. Therefore, these provisions are unnecessary. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation before a change in the SAIF would create a budgetary impact. It represents an appropriate solution to what could be a major deposit insurance problem.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. This legislation would eliminate the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) special reserve. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has indicated that this is one of their top priorities. We feel this legislation is important because capitalization of the special reserve could potentially destabilize the SAIF. The Special Reserve of the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) was established on January 1, 1999. It was created by the Deposit Insurance Act of 1996 to provide a backup to the SAIF and further protect the taxpayers from another costly bailout of failed financial institutions. The law stipulated that the amount in the SAIF special reserve should equal the amount by which the SAIF reserve ratio exceeded the designated reserve ratio on January 1, 1999. The designated reserve ratio is 1.25 percent of estimated insured deposits. As a result, on January first of this year, about $1 billion was transferred from the SAIF to the special reserve of the SAIF. Now the SAIF, because it does not include the amount set aside in the special reserve, is capitalized at 1.25 percent of insured deposits. The problem with this newly established special reserve is that it has the potential to destabilize the SAIF. Since $1 billion was transferred into the special reserve, thereby reducing the SAIF to the minimum required reserve level of 1.25 percent, the chances that the reserve ratio could drop below that level due to adverse circumstances has increased significantly. If this ever occurs, the FDIC may assess new insurance premiums since the 1996 amendments do not allow the special reserve funds to be used in the calculation of the SAIF. And new premium on thrifts resulting from the special reserve would be unfair and discriminatory. In addition, the special reserve funds cannot be used unless the SAIF reachers a dangerously low level. Current law does not allow the FDIC to access the funds in the special reserve until the reserve ratio reaches 0.625 percent of the designated ratio, and the FDIC expects the ratio to remain at or below that level for each of the next four quarters. This does not allow the FDIC to properly manage the SAIF. The Enzi/Johnson bill also makes conforming and technical amendments requested by the FDIC. These changes would delete provisions of the Deposit Insurance Act of 1996 relating to the merger of the two deposit insurance funds. The Bank Insurance Fund (BIF) and the SAIF were not merged by the target date of January 1, 1999, because savings associations are still in existence. Therefore, these provisions are unnecessary. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to pass this vitally important legislation before a change in the SAIF would create a budgetary impact. It represents an appropriate solution to what could be a major deposit insurance problem.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. The people of Wyoming have always had very strong ties to our land. That is why the words ``Livestock, Oil, Grain and Mines'' appear on our state seal. Those words clearly reflect the importance of our natural resources to the people of my state, and our commitment to using our abundant natural resources wisely and for the benefit of current and future generations of Wyomingites and the people of this country. Congress has determined the need to find newer and cleaner technologies. Wyoming is blessed with an abundance of clean burning coal reserves. It would seem to be a perfect match. We are eager to provide what is needed for our country's present and future fuel needs. But those reserves aren't likely to be developed unless we provide the incentives necessary to make it possible for the coal to be harvested in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak up to 12 minutes, to be followed by Senator DeWine for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we have been talking about the budget and the way that the President of the United States wants to spend Social Security--the surplus. I want to talk to you about that in another line--the way that the White House wants to raise your taxes, and the way they are going to do it in November in a very subtle way. I am going to talk to you about jobs--your jobs--and the effort that is underway by the White House to shift your job overseas. The White House has been denying that. I know that the Energy Information Administration confirms it, and how we will not only shift your job overseas, but we are going to charge more for everything that you buy. Let me explain how this works. The new Energy Information Administration estimate is very important for a couple of reasons. It proves that the White House is using funny numbers on global warming. In my opinion, it also points out that we are spending a lot of time debating the details of a treaty that is fundamentally flawed. I have always said that something not worth doing at all is not worth doing well. The administration has already bought the global warming treaty, and now we are trying to figure out how to pay for it. We are trying to figure out how to make it work. It is as if we decided to sink the mother ship and now we need to figure out the cheapest way to rescue all of the people. Mr. President, it is easy. Don't sink the ship. Sink the treaty. It is like saying that the Titanic is going down and we need to reorganize how the deck chairs are placed. I came to the floor in July and raised serious doubts about the numbers that were dreamt up by the Council of Economic Advisers. The council chairman, Janet Yellen, has testified twice that Kyoto would cost American families somewhere between $70 and $110 per year. I don't know how you feel about it, but the people in Wyoming think that $70- odd to $110 per year more for Government taxes is a lot. But I want to point out that the independent economists put those costs as high as $2,100 per year per household. That is a pretty good, hefty tax. And it is a $2,000 difference from what the administration is saying that it will amount to. I have tried to get the real numbers on this before. I have been stonewalled by the White House. Then I finally got some numbers that were rather unintelligible. I asked questions about them. I got a letter from the White House Counsel's Office that said that public disclosure of the real terms would set an unfortunate precedent that could chill the free flow of internal discussions essential to effective executive decisionmaking. In other words, the White House can't really share the numbers with us because we, the Congress, would have a chilling effect on policy- making? That is our realm. We need to have the data on which to operate. And the White House is the one in charge of providing that data. We have a credibility gap. We have a credibility gap with the administration. I think it is interesting to compare the cost estimates from the White House with the cost estimates from the independent Energy Information Administration, part of the administration. The White House says the annual average increase in household energy would be $70 to $110. I have a little chart. This shows a few of the studies that have been done on global warming. The red line is the administration. You will notice that all of them that have been done are on the very bottom level. This is the one that says it is only going to cost you $70 to $110 a year. The blue line is the Energy Information Administration, part of the administration. This blue line, you will notice, appears at the top of the list. That is what they say it is going to cost you -- $335 to $1,740 per year per family. The White House says gasoline would only go up to $1.31 a gallon. The Energy Information Administration says $1.91 a gallon. How about fuel oil? That is something our friends in the Northeast worry about. The White House says, ``Don't worry, it will only go up to about $1.17 a gallon.'' The Energy Information Administration says it will go up to $1.90 a gallon. Who do you want to believe? The administration's low numbers or the administration's high numbers? You are the one paying the bill; which one would you trust? I wanted you to know what kind of assumptions the Council of Economic Advisers used. How did they get things to look so rosy? It turns out they brought the cost down using two tricks. Their own internal report said they had to figure out some way to bring down the cost or it would not be feasible. They already bought the treaty, now they have to figure out why they bought the treaty. They want the American people to think they got a good deal for you. The two tricks they use are electricity deregulation and emissions trading. That is how they make it seem to cost less, even though I thought we wanted to deregulate electricity to save the people back home money. What we are going to do is deregulate it and use that money to pay for the global warming treaty. I guess now we need to go back and tell them that the money is already spent if we deregulate, and it has to be deregulated because we have to spend the money. That seems to happen a lot around here. Then the emissions trading scheme, that one takes the cake. Each of the cost estimates I have seen include a range of credit trading scenarios. The assumption is the more credits we can buy, the cheaper it will be to meet our Kyoto commitments. That is the assumption: The more we buy, the cheaper it gets. That is like going to the mall and saving money by taking advantage of as many sales as you can. You still spend the money. The Energy Information Administration says the credits will cost us $70 to $350 a term. In people terms, that is 15 cents to 70 cents a gallon of gas, up to an 80 percent increase in your electrical bill. And we thought deregulation would save us some money. The range is as a result of not knowing how many countries will participate. If we have to buy all our credits only from Europe and Russia, they are going to be very expensive. That puts us in the $350- per-ton range. If we get countries like China and India to sell us their emission credits, we can get that cost down to $70. That is the assumption. Do you know why they will sell us theirs for so low a price? They don't have any ceiling. Last year I went to Kyoto. I got to meet with the Chinese delegation. By the year 2012 they are going to be the biggest polluters in the whole world and they will not be a part of the treaty. Why not? They are a developing nation. They cannot be put under those constraints. I asked them when they would be done being a developing nation. They said, ``Never.'' Good negotiating. They even developed a fine system so that if we pollute, we get fined, and the money goes to, guess who, the developing nations. They get the money that way. Now there is another scheme--sell credits. We buy the right to pollute from China and the developing nations. They will sell it to us for just $70 a ton because they have no limit. They are not really selling a quantity. They can sell as many units as they want. They are already polluting; they can continue to pollute. Good deal for us? That is what the White House says we can do. We will pay China so we can have the right to drive our cars and turn on our lights. We will pay China so we can drive when we want to and where we want to. Just pay China and you can turn on all your Christmas lights whenever you want. They will already have the jobs. In theory, China will limit its own emissions at some future level. In the meantime, they will sell us permits, in theory. In theory the whole world would participate and we would reduce the growth of carbon emissions and save the Earth from certain devastation--in theory. I got to meet with those nations that are island nations; if global warming happens, they will be inundated by water. They are not going to be a part of the treaty. If this were a real problem and your country was going to be inundated by water, wouldn't you sign the treaty? Wouldn't you push every nation in the world to sign the treaty? I can tell you, they are not, which tells you what they think about global warming. It is a way to get jobs. It is a way to sell emission credits. The whole world is not participating and the Earth will not be saved because the treaty will not reduce carbon emissions. In fact, we cannot even get the developing world to abide by copyright treaties, what makes anybody think they will abide by an emissions treaty even if they sign it? Oh, no, the joke will be on us. It will be on the American people. We are planning to pay China for a piece of paper that says, ``We reduced our emissions by 1 ton so you can increase yours by 1 ton.'' And we will pay them for that right. That is what it says. What are we going to do if they just take the money and keep on polluting? And they have assured us they would. Are we going to send in troops and demand our money back? The Energy Information Administration has pointed out that this treaty would cost American families between $350 and $1,740 per year. That is what the private economists have been saying. And it will eliminate jobs. I urge my colleagues to get a copy of this report and read it. In November the administration will go to Buenos Aires, Argentina, to continue negotiations on the Kyoto treaty. They plan to work out emissions trading enforcement provisions. These are two critical parts of how this treaty will hurt American families. People need to be mindful of this process. People need to protest this process. Now is the time, not during the negotiations, not after the President has signed and sent a treaty here that we have already said, 95 to 0, does not meet the requirements for the economy in the United States, that it is just selling our economy. A study conducted by DRI-McGraw-Hill estimated Kyoto could cost us 1.5 million jobs. Charles River Associates put that figure as high as 3.1 million jobs by 2010. Even the Argonne National Laboratory, pointed to job losses in a study on the impact of higher energy prices on energy-intensive industries. Argonne concluded that 200,000 American chemical workers could lose their jobs. All of the American aluminum plants could close, putting another 20,000 workers out of work. Cement companies would move another 6,000 jobs overseas. And nearly 100,000 U.S. steel workers would be out of work. Americans have a right to know what is going on, even if the Office of White House Counsel does not think so. They should have a chance to see who is playing with their livelihoods. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to take a minute before the Senate adjourns to thank a few Members who have been very helpful on an issue of critical importance to my state. Yesterday evening, the Senate adopted by unanimous consent, S. 2500, a bill to preserve the sanctity of existing leases and contracts for production of methane gas from coal beds. An affirmative U.S. Government policy has been the legal basis for these contracts for nearly eighteen years and it was the intent of this bill to preserve the existing rights of all the parties in light of legal uncertainties cast by a July 20, 1998, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision. On September 18, I introduced the bill to protect these people, with my colleagues, Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. The affected people live all across America, but most of the actual lands are in the western states, primarily New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. The circumstances faced by interest owners would be severe. Personal and corporate bankruptcies would have led to local bank insolvencies and the multiplying effect on unemployment and loss of confidence in western states would have been devastating. In this time when Congress is working to offer a $4-7 billion aid package to provide certainty for crop farmers, I am pleased that we have been able to reach agreement to provide some certainty for people in the oil patch--and we did it without spending a single federal dime. The 1998 Circuit Court decision has clouded all existing lease and royalty agreements for production of gas out of coal where the ownership of the oil and gas estate differs from ownership of the coal estate. This uncertainty jeopardizes the expected income of all royalty owners and the planned investment and development of all existing lessees. The legislation we passed yesterday addresses that problem faced by owners and lessees by preserving the policy status quo for valid contracts in effect on or before the date of enactment. The legislation applies only to leases and contracts for ``coalbed methane'' production out of federally-owned coal. It does not apply to leases and contracts for gas production out of coal that has been conveyed, restored, or transferred to a third party, including to a federally recognized Indian tribe. It is important to note that many older leases and contracts for gas production on coal lands were negotiated prior to ``coalbed methane'' becoming a term of art. It is, therefore, necessary to clarify that we do not mean to exclude those valid leases and contracts that convey rights to explore for, extract and sell ``natural gas'' from applicable lands simply because they do not include the term ``coalbed methane.'' That is a possible ambiguity that arose very late in the process, after the time when we could have reasonably perfected the bill, but it is important to note because before this year, ``coalbed methane'' has been considered in the field, to be part of the gas estate. We chose the term ``coalbed methane'' because using the term ``natural gas from the coalbed,'' left uncertainty about the gas rights in light of the 10th Circuit ruling. The Department of Interior suggested we use ``coalbed methane'' so as to be very clear regardless of whether the Courts rule ``coalbed methane'' to be part of the coal estate or part of the natural gas estate in the future. While the bill has yet to be completed in the House, I want to thank some of the members who have helped us craft legislation that addresses what we intended to cover. Without any of them, we would not have been able to go forward. Because of very limited time, we had to expedite the process, and we could not have done it without an enormous amount of help. Senator Campbell, and his Indian Affairs Committee staff, were supportive in working out the provisions covering the tribes. Senator Murkowski, and his Energy Committee staff, were very helpful in working out the details of the bill and moving it through that Committee. Senator Bumpers, and his com- mittee staff, were very cooperative and provided many helpful suggestions. The Department of Interior Solicitor's office provided good counsel and worked with us through the process. And the people out in the field, the coal companies, who have valid concerns about their existing and future leases to main federal coal, were great to work with. Nothing in this bill should be construed to limit their ability to mine federal coal under valid leases, nor should anything be construed to expand their liabilities to coalbed methane owners covered by the bill. The gas producers and land owners really came together and proposed reasonable solutions to solve the problems. Without their cooperative effort, this bill would not have happened. So again, my appreciation goes out to all the people who helped us remove the possibility of devastating situation--extensive private property takings, retroactive liabilities, and mountains of combative litigation. On behalf of thousands of Wyomingites, thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of S. 2330, the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. As an original cosponsor, I'm confident that this legislation is the logical step to ensure Americans accessible and affordable healthcare. On January 13, 1998, the Majority Leader created the Republican Health Care Task Force to begin pouring the foundation for a comprehensive piece of legislation that would enhance the quality of care without dismantling access and affordability. For the last seven months, the task force met every Thursday--and other times as needed-- with scores of stakeholders prior to writing this bill. Such thorough steps in writing a bill have clearly paid off. We now have legislation that would provide patients' rights and quality healthcare without nationalized, bureaucratized, budget-busting, one-size-fits-all mandates. In 1993, President and Mrs. Clinton launched an aggressive campaign to nationalize the delivery of healthcare under the guise of modest reform. The sales pitch was backed with scores of anecdotes illustrated from Presidential podiums across the country. The stories pulled on the heartstrings of all Americans and were intentionally aimed at injecting fear and paranoia into all persons covered or not covered by private health insurance. I am quick to ask my constituents interested in the President's bill to carefully examine the fine print. It's no surprise to me that most of them already have. The American people haven't forgotten the last time this Administration tried to slip nationalized healthcare past their noses. Folks in this town may be surprised to learn that the American people aren't a bunch of pinheads. Anyone can put lipstick on a pig, give it a fancy Hollywood title, and hope for an election-year slam dunk. Expecting the public to close its eyes and kiss that pig, however, is an entirely different matter. The American people understand what's going on here. They know full well that higher premiums mean no coverage. Why? Because affordable access to healthcare is an even higher priority than quality. If it isn't affordable, it doesn't exist! By issuing 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. The President would be well advised to call his legislation the ``Patient's Bill,'' because a costly bill is exactly what Americans would receive. That's the bottom line for American families--the cost. We all want quality. There isn't a member in Congress who doesn't want quality. But if Americans are expected to pay up to 23 percent higher premiums to get it, they'll most often have to go without insurance. It's that simple. I remember the reaction Wyoming residents had to the 1993 ``Clinton Care'' plan. I was a State Senator living in Gillette, Wyoming at the time. I recall how the President and First Lady rode a bus across America--promoting nationalized healthcare. I also remember the detour they took when they arrived at the Wyoming border. Instead of entering my home state, they chose a more populated route through Colorado. That was an unfortunate choice. They missed an important healthcare point. Had they driven all 400 miles across southern Wyoming, they would have seen for themselves why one-size-fits-all legislation doesn't work in rural, under-served states. Affordable and accessible care is THE life-line for Wyoming residents. I live in a city of 22,000 people. It's 145 miles to another town of equal or greater size. Many of my constituents have to drive up to 125 miles one-way just to receive basic care. More importantly, though, is the difficulty we face enticing doctors and practitioners to live and practice medicine in Wyoming. I'm very proud of Wyoming's health care professionals. They practice with their hearts, not their wallets. In a rural, under-served state like Wyoming, only three managed care plans are available and that covers just six counties. 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. Some folks might wonder why I am so concerned about the President's healthcare package, especially since it's geared toward managed care. I'm concerned because a number of Wyoming insurers offer managed care plans elsewhere. Any premium hike spurred by mandates in the Presidents' bill could be distributed across the board--causing increases in the fee-for-service premiums in Wyoming. Simply put, my constituents could easily end up paying for services they'll never get! 40 percent of my constituents are self-insured--meaning they pay for their own health insurance out of their own pockets. Expecting my constituents to pay more poses a clear and potential threat to exclude them from health insurance coverage. The urban areas get the care--we get the cost. Added cost--that's it--that's all. The Republican plan is the right choice for America. It would safeguard 48 million people out of the 124 million now covered by the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act or ERISA by requiring that group healthcare plans provide enrollees with: access to emergency medical care; point-of-service coverage; access to ob-gyn care; access to pediatric care; continuity of care; and, a ban on patient/doctor ``gag'' rules. ERISA plans, whether fully-insured or self-insured, would also be required to provide enrollees with information about plans and providers such as options, restrictions and descriptions. The Republican Patients' Bill of Rights would also allow a patient to hold their health plan accountable. The President's bill, however, 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 doesn't do much good if you got it, because you died while the trial lawyers fiddled with the facts. Folks aren't 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 isn't L.A. Law--it's reality. The Republican Patients' Bill of Rights avoids all this by incorporating an internal appeals process that doesn't exceed 72 hours. If not satisfied, an enrollee would be able to access an external review by independent medical experts. Getting quick decisions saves lives. The President has repeatedly said that the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights should apply to all health insurance plans. Such claims are no different than those made by the President back in 1993. He wants nationalized healthcare--plain and simple. There is a reason the Republican bill only amends ERISA. It's because the 124 million ERISA enrollees are not regulated by the states. The states, by the way, have been in the business of regulating the health insurance industry far longer than Congress or any President was beating up on managed care. The President wants all regulatory decisions about a person's health insurance plan to be made from Washington--nationalized care. The reason this won't work is that it fails to take into account the unique type of healthcare 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. State regulation and understanding is absolutely, unequivocally essential. I firmly believe that decisions which impact my constituents' health insurance should continue to be made in Cheyenne--not Washington. Congress has an obligation to ensure such quality services to the 124 million ERISA enrollees whose plans are currently absent these protections. In doing so, however, the Republican bill stays within its jurisdictional boundaries and doesn't trample over states' rights. As a result, Americans can gain protections whether they are insured under a state, ERISA, or Medicare regulated plan. I believe that this approach is rational and fair. The Republican Patients' Bill of Rights would provide individual rights with respect to a person's own, personal health information. Access to personal medical records is a delicate matter. Provisions, however, are included to address inspection and copying of a person's medical information. Safeguards and enforcement language has also been added to guarantee confidentiality. In relation to this language, group health plans and health insurance issuers in both the group and individual market would be prohibited from collecting or using predictive genetic information about a patient with the intention of denying health insurance coverage or setting premium rates. The Republican plan would establish the Agency for Healthcare Quality Research. This is not a new federal agency, but rather a new name for the current Agency for Health Care Policy and Research within the Department of Health and Human Services. This agency would be modernized to improve healthcare quality throughout America. The agency would not mandate a national definition of quality, but it would provide information to patients regarding the quality of care people receive, allow physicians to compare their quality outcomes with their peers, and enable employers and individuals to make prudent purchases based on quality. The Senate Labor Committee held a number of hearings in relation to women's health research and prevention. As a result, the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights includes a number of important provisions that represent women's health. These provisions will clearly benefit the promotion of basic and clinical research for osteoporosis, breast and ovarian cancer, the effects of aging and other women's health issues. Finally, the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights broadens 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 their own healthcare costs. Moreover, persons who pay for their own health insurance could deduct 100 percent of the costs if the Republican plan is enacted. This would have a dramatic impact on folks from Wyoming. These provisions would, without a doubt, pave the way for quality healthcare to millions of Americans without dismantling access and affordability. 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 nationalized, bureaucratized, budget-busting, one-size-fits-all bill would have on our nation's healthcare system. As I have encouraged my constituents to read the fine print, I ask my colleagues to consider how the President's legislation impacts you and your home state. Rural states deserve a voice, too. Only the Republican Patients' Bill of Rights Act would give them that voice.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I can think of few issues that are more important to the average American than the safety and health of our Nation's workers. During the last 2 years, Congress stepped up to the plate and confronted this important issue head-on. The end result was three separate bills becoming law that amended the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Until this year, in 28 years, the act was amended one time--in 1990--and that was to increase fines. The American workplace has changed quite a bit over the last three decades and I'm pleased that Congress in now changing, too. During the first session of the 105th Congress, I introduced a comprehensive piece of legislation with the support of Senator Gregg and Frist and 20 other Senate cosponsors, entitled the Safety Advancement for Employees Act or SAFE Act. At the same time, my good friend, Jim Talent, introduced similar legislation in the House which received strong, bipartisan support--a rarity for such a polarized issue. It is important to understand that both the Senate and House versions did not attempt to reinvent OSHA's wheel, just change its tires. Treading water for 27 years, OSHA has never seriously attempted to encourage employers and employees in their efforts to create safe and healthful workplaces. Instead, OSHA chose to operate according to a command and control mentality. This approach has lead to burdensome and often incomprehensible regulations which do not relate to worker safety and health and are, quite often, only sporadically enforced. The AFL-CIO publically acknowledges that with only 2,450 State and Federal inspectors regulating 6.2 million American worksites, an employer can expect to see an inspector once every 167 years. In addition to this enormous time lapse, the sheer diversity of safety and health concerns stemming from restaurants to funeral homes across America prohibits an inspector from fully understanding each worker's needs and concerns. OSHA seems more concerned about collecting fines each year than it is about improving worker safety. OSHA proposes over $140 million in fines to be paid by the regulated public each year--over $100 million of that total gets assessed. Even more troubling is that OSHA's existing voluntary and cooperative compliance programs impact a mere fraction of worksites and consume only a small share of the agency's annual budget. Despite OSHA's claim that it is ``putting a lot of resources into compliance assistance and partnership initiatives,'' only 22 percent of OSHA's 1997 fiscal appropriation was spent on federal and state plan compliance assistance. It is difficult for anyone to say that current initiatives are having an impact on the number of workplace fatalities and injuries when OSHA spends so little of its annual funds on preventive measures. It is important to point out that the SAFE Act would not have dismantled OSHA's enforcement capabilities. It was that approach that kept Congress from amending the 1970 statute for so long. Enforcement alone, though, will never ensure the safety of our nation's workplaces and the health of our working population. By encouraging employers to seek individualized compliance assistance from OSHA qualified third party consultants, the SAFE Act would ensure that more American workplaces are in compliance with existing law while allowing OSHA to concentrate its enforcement resources on those worksites that truly need immediate attention. America would be better served by an OSHA that manages its resources more wisely and the SAFE Act was crafted to strike that balance. In addition to establishing OSHA qualified third party consultations, the SAFE Act included additional voluntary and technical compliance initiatives to assist employers in deeming their worksites ``safe'' for their employees. I firmly believe that it is this approach that will ultimately bring a greater number of workplaces into compliance with existing law and help prevent more workers from being injured or killed on the job. The SAFE Act would ensure that federal occupational safety and health standards are based on sound, scientific data that all vested parties can live with. By injecting independent scientific peer review into the rule-making process, future regulations would reflect greater clarity and simplicity--helping businesses to better understand what they are required to do. I also believe that scientific peer review will help speed up the implementation process for OSHA's rules by eliminating conflicts of interest. Under the present system, draft rules can idle in the process for more than 15 years, because no one agrees on the rule's scientific validity. At the same time, annual funding continues to be channeled toward research at the expense of the taxpayer. That must change. Last October, we marked up the SAFE Act in the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and favorably reported the bill out of committee. In the following months, I continued to work with Senators Kennedy, Dodd, Wellstone, and Reed--as well as with Assistant Secretary of Labor, Charles Jeffress, to find common ground that would result in a bill that would pass the House and Senate and be signed by the President into law. A number of good suggestions were made to improve the bill, but remaining differences and the lack of floor time quickly became an insurmountable obstacle. I was pleased to have the opportunity to testify at a hearing chaired by Chairman Talent in the House Small Business Committee. As the House author of the SAFE Act, Representative Talent understood the importance of third party consultations. He invited specialists in occupational safety and health to share their candid opinions of the bill. Having witnessed the testimony firsthand, I was pleased that safety and health professionals--those who have the most education, training, and field experience in abating occupational hazards--embraced this bill so enthusiastically. In both Chambers, the SAFE Act gained considerable momentum after its introduction. The bill stuck to a theme--advancing safety and health in the workplace. Maintaining this spirit of cooperation, it is my intention to promote this theme well into the 106th Congress. Until each of the SAFE Act's provisions become law, this debate is far from over. Despite the Senate's inability to complete its consideration of the SAFE Act, legislative successes were still abundant. Last June, I was pleased to have had the opportunity to pass two bills in the Senate that were authored by Representative Ballenger. One was the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Compliance Assistance Authorization Act, and the other was H.R. 2877, which eliminated the imposition of quotas in the context of OSHA's enforcement activities. Both bills are now law and have already been implemented by OSHA. Following the same lines as the SAFE Act, these two bills were written to increase the joint cooperation of employees, employers, and OSHA in the effort to ensure safe and healthful working conditions. It will never be productive to threaten employers with fines for non- compliance when millions of safety conscious employers don't know how they are supposed to comply. Nor is it effective to burden employers with more compliance materials than they can possibly digest or understand, many of which have no application to their business. To achieve a new, cooperative approach, the vast majority of employers who are concerned about worker safety and health must have compliance assistance programs made more accessible to them and more related to their actual operation. Passage of H.R. 2864 was a good, first step in providing employers just that. H.R. 2877 eliminated enforcement quotas for OSHA compliance inspectors. This bill prohibits OSHA from establishing a specific number of citations issued, or the amount of penalties collected. I believe that inspectors must not face institutional pressure to issue citations or collect fines, but rather they should work to identify potential hazards and assist the employer in abating them. OSHA's success must depend upon whether the nation's workforce is safer and healthier, and not upon meeting or surpassing goals for inspections, citations, or penalties. In July, both the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources and full Senate unanimously passed S. 2112, the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act. The bill was written to bring the Postal Service and its more than 800,000 employees under the full jurisdiction of OSHA. Government must play by its own rules. Although all federal agencies must comply with the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health statute, they are not required to pay penalties issued to them by OSHA. The lack of any enforcement tool renders compliance requirements for the public sector ineffective at best. My first look at this issue occurred when Yellowstone National Park was cited by OSHA last February for 600 violations--92 of them serious. One of those serious violations was the park's failure to report an employee's death to OSHA. In fact, Yellowstone posted five employee deaths in the past three and one-half years. Although there are these and other serious problems noted in the park's safety and health record, overall federal injury, illness, lost work-time, fatality and workers's compensation rates show the United States Postal Service leading the pack in almost every category. Postal workers injuries and illnesses represent 42 percent of the government's lost-time cases. From 1992 to 1997, the Postal Service paid an annual average of $505 million in workers' compensation costs and its annual contribution accounted for almost on-third of the federal program's $1.8 billion price tag. These alarming statistics made my decision to slowly bring the federal government into compliance rather easy. In 1982, the Postal Service became fiscally self-sufficient-- depending entirely on market-driven revenues rather than taxpayer dollars. They should be congratulated for that. Today, the United States Postal Service handles over 43 percent of the world's mail-- delivering more mail in one week than Federal Express and the United Parcel Service combined deliver in an entire year. With annual profits that exceed $1.5 billion, if the Postal Service were a private company, it would be the 9th largest business in the United States and 29th in the entire world. Realistically speaking, the Postal Service is hardly a federal agency. It's better characterized as a self-sufficient, quasi- government entity. It is the only federal agency where its employees can collectively bargain under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. It's the only federal agency that posts annual profits exceeding $1.5 billion. In fact, the Postal Service exhibits almost every characteristic of a private business, yet it never had to fully comply with federal occupational safety and health law--until now. Last month, Representative Greenwood, author of the House bill, took the initiative to pass the Postal Employees Safety Enhancement Act in the House and sent it on to the President. Since the bill's enactment, I learned that OSHA and the National Park Service, have entered into safety pact. I commend both agencies for this commitment to workplace safety and health. It is my understanding that other federal agencies could do the same. I hope that such agreements with OSHA represent a way to introduce third party consultations as a means of bringing a greater number of federal worksites into compliance. The enactment of S. 2112 and the previous two bills marks the first significant step toward modernizing the nation's 28 year-old occupational safety and health law. I believe that these incremental accomplishment were achieved because this Congress is committed to improving conditions for America's workers. We have a long road ahead of us and that road, so far, had been too slow to save American lives. This debate will not end when Congress completes its work this year. I fully intent to press forward--well into the 106th Congress. More hearings on this important issue are necessary. We need a bipartisan effort--making headway in every area we can reach agreement. We need to dedicate some time to reaching that agreement. This will not happen by accident! Good legislation will ultimately be achieved and increased compliance will undoubtedly result if we simply remain committed to it. I want to conclude my remarks by thanking members and staff for making occupational safety and health such a successful issue during the last two years. I want to first thank my House colleague and friend Jim Talent. His impressive knowledge of labor law, complemented by his labor counsel, Jennifer Woodbury, helped bring the SAFE Act to the attention of all House members. I look forward to work on many more bills with Jim Talent in the coming years. I would also like to thank Congressmen Ballenger, Greenwood, and McHugh and their staff. They, too, should be complimented for their efforts. Senators Gregg, Frist, and Jeffords also deserve tremendous thanks. Their staffs spent many hours considering OSHA legislation. Finally, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Labor Committee. Senator Kennedy was especially considerate in listening to my concerns and I want to extend my appreciation to him and his staff. I am confident that this relationship will pick up next year where it left off.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senators from Mexico, Mr. Domenici and Mr. Bingaman, have until 6 p.m. tonight to file the Valles Caldera Preservation Act for purposes of introducing the bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bill, as modified, before us. I cosponsored S. 1868, the ``International Religious Freedom Act'', sponsored by the honorable Senator from Oklahoma because I have become concerned with the trends or continued policies of religious discrimination and persecution in certain countries. I applaud his efforts to work with all interested parties in forming a consensus bill with 29 cosponsors--one that even prior opponents can support. He has been persistent in his efforts to form a bill that addresses the legitimate concerns of most of the bill's previous detractors, including the Administration. I must also commend the senior Senator from Pennsylvania for focusing Congress' attention on this important issue. I feel it is extremely important, as a nation that firmly believes in the freedom of an individual to practice his or her religious belief, that our foreign policy reflect and promote this basic right of individuals. The manner in which we deal with other nations should include, but not be exclusive to, the way these nations honor the religious liberty of their citizens and visitors. I believe this bill as amended, strikes a responsible balance between the national security or economic interests, and the importance America places in the freedom of religious thought and practice for all throughout the world. The goal of promoting religious liberty in other countries is entirely consistent with the United States' policies of promoting human rights and democracy throughout the world. Many Europeans first settled this continent for the very reason of gaining freedom of religious thought and practice. We can look to William Penn as just one example of an individual in American history that strove to promote the rights of individuals to practice their religion without interference. His goal was to create a land of religious toleration--that land was called Pennsylvania. He even drew up Pennsylvania's colonial Constitution, which included in its first article the protection of the freedom to worship according to one's own conscience. To this day, America continues to be a beacon to the world, guaranteeing the freedom to worship as one desires. As a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles, it especially saddens me when I learn about the increase in the persecution of Christian individuals worldwide. However, it is not just Christians in certain parts of the world that are being punished simply because of their beliefs--it is also those who practice Islam, Judaism, and just about every other religion or belief. Our Founding Fathers made it clear in the Declaration of Independence that the basic Laws of Nature and of Nature's God are entitled to all individuals. This guiding document, a unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America, says that: . . . all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The ability to practice ones religious beliefs without undue government interference is a fundamental right--an unalienable right. The American Founders believed in this right so much that they included the freedom to exercise one's religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The basic right to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion has also been declared by many other countries, as evidenced by the member signatories of the Helsinki Accords and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I believe this legislation will promote ideals that America stands for--specifically the freedom of religion--in the international community. This bill is especially important because religious persecution takes many forms and even seems to be on the rise in some parts of the world. The bill before us will deal with countries that disregard the basic right of individuals to believe as they choose in a manner that is consistent, yet flexible--one that allows the President to choose from a variety of measures to address the injustices of the violating country. It allows a flexible response from the Administration, which recognizes that religious persecution takes many different forms, with varying degrees of severity. The bill's flexibility also recognizes the importance of a foreign policy that can be both pro-active and reactive to our national security and economic interests. The one action in dealing with violators of religious freedom that would not be allowed by this bill would be that of inaction or silence. If we, as defenders of freedom, are silent in matters so fundamental to our political belief system as religious liberty, then we are no better than the perpetrators of this unjust persecution and discrimination. This bill would help create a consistent U.S. foreign policy with respect to how we deal with countries that do not respect individuals' freedom of thought and conscience. I urge my colleagues to join with me and the 28 other cosponsors to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my friend from Arkansas. This amendment addresses the issue that is being changed by the Senator from New Hampshire. The second- degree amendment would change things back to the way that they were. We have to take a look at the Internet sales tax issue for people who might be using this piece of legislation to develop huge loopholes in our current system. I am not talking about changing the system. I am talking about preserving for those cities, towns, counties, and States that rely on sales tax the ability to collect the tax they are currently getting. We are talking about a 2-year moratorium. Do you know how much the Internet will change in a 2-year period? Right now, with the current technology in the Internet, there are ways I could eliminate every single bit of retail sales tax in the United States, every day, if this bill passes. And I don't think that is our intent. I don't care if we have 30 amendments; if it needs 40 amendments, we will have to have 40 amendments. The number of amendments has nothing to do with the issue that we are addressing. There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep the stability of State and local government--just the stability of it--not increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. We introduce these amendments because we don't think there is adequate protection now. An increase in catalog sales, I agree, is a topic for another time. It is very important we don't build electronic loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology virtually every day. What we know as the Internet today is not what we will be using by the time this report comes out. More people are using it every day. It is fascinating to me that one of the biggest areas of increased use of the Internet is by senior citizens. It probably has something to do with the quality of entertainment. If they do use computers, they are spending an average of 6 hours a day on the Internet. Part of that is purchasing; part of that is learning. The stated purpose of this bill is: To establish a national policy against state and local government interference with interstate commerce on the Internet or interactive computer services, and for other purposes. Let me repeat that: To establish a national policy against State and local government interference. . . . Mr. President, I recognize this body has a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I understand the desire of the bill's sponsors to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It has a lot of growth potential. The new business will create millions of new jobs in the coming years. The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants don't have to go where the people are. For people in my State, that means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They don't have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big city folks. They don't have to travel all the way to Asia to display their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small manufacturers in rural America, especially in my State. We are just beginning to see some of the economic potential in the Internet. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and how you want it. We should probably take another look at using it on the Senate floor, but we need laptops for that; I will save that issue for another day. Having said that, I do have concerns about the bill before the Senate today. I come to this debate having been the mayor of a small town, Gillette, WY, for 8 years. I later served in the State house for 5 years and the State senate for 5 years. Throughout my public life I have always worked to reduce taxes, to return more of people's hard- earned wages to them. I am not here to argue in favor of taxes. There were times in Gillette when we had to make tough decisions. I was mayor during the boom time when the size of our town doubled in just a few years. We had to be very creative to be sure that our revenue sources would cover the necessary public services--important services like sewer, water, curb and gutter, filling in potholes, shoveling snow, collecting garbage, mostly water. It is a tough job because the impact of your decision is felt by all of your neighbors. They can look you in the eye. One of the biggest problems with local government is the ``Oh, by the ways.'' You go to dinner and somebody says, ``By the way, I have a little problem. Don't get up and solve it. Tomorrow morning will be fine.'' And tomorrow morning they know if you solved that problem. Hardly any of those problems is solved without money. When you are the mayor of a small town, you are on call 24 hours a day. You are in the phone book. People can call you at night and tell you that the city sewer is backing up into their house. I was fascinated how they were always sure that it was the city's sewer that was doing it. When they call to say that the power is out, they don't want a delay before it is fixed. When they call to tell you a neighbor has stolen a D-8 Cat and is tearing up the street and driving over sports cars and mailboxes and ripping up sprinkler systems, you have to go to work. Those are exciting things that happen from time to time in cities. The point is that the government that is closest to the people is also on the shortest time line to get results. I think it is the hardest work. I am very concerned with any piece of legislation that mandates or restricts local government's ability to meet the needs of its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes that will take away all of their revenue. It may not seem like a big restriction, it may not exceed the $50 million limit that Congress set in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, but it does establish a national policy against State and local government. It does take an affirmative step to tie the hands of local government. Congress has to be very careful when we pass a law like this. We have to realize the effect of all of those people living at the local level--not the Federal level. I have not met anybody who lives on the Federal level; they all live at the local level. I am also concerned about the bill's impact on small businesses. My wife Diana and I owned a shoestore on Main Street, Gillette, for 28 years. My wife did most of the managing on that. She greeted the people, she sold the shoes, ran the cash register, swept the floor, all the things that have to be done by a small business. We recognize the advantage of the Internet for these small businesses, these home-based businesses that were mentioned earlier. Yes, we understand the complications of trying to keep track of every kind of sales tax that is levied across the whole United States regardless of what kind of jurisdiction it is in. That is current law. That is current collection, to some degree, particularly if you have a presence in the State where the product is being sold. What is a ``presence'' in the State? Internet goes into absolutely every State. There is now the easy capability to set up another corporation in another State that does not have sales tax and still make the sale local, with immediate delivery, and avoid all sales tax through the Internet. That is going to be a problem. The problem with small business is, we talk about whether a business is 500 employees or just 150 employees. That is not the kind of small business I am talking about. I am talking about sweeping the sidewalk, carrying out the trash, filling out the myriad reams of required Federal paperwork. It really doesn't have much application to your business--probably five employees or less. These are the people who sponsor Little League, the basketball camps, the yearbooks, and all of the other things that happen in municipalities. They donate the raffle prizes and uniforms and they support all kinds of community activity. Every kid in town comes to the local small business and asks for help. Fortunately for America, they donate, and they donate gladly. They serve on the parade committees. They serve on the fair committees. They are the volunteers in the church and in the school and in local government. They are not only the neighbors, they are the customers for a small town for any retailer. We buy mail-order goods often because they are cheaper; there is no sales tax. That is a part of the pitch that is used. That is like a 5- to 7- to 9-percent reduction. Congress is now going to decide to prohibit local governments from taxing certain businesses--easy businesses to set up, easy businesses to locate in a State that has no sales tax whatever. We haven't seen anything like this before in the history of the United States, but we are about to see the biggest boom in the Internet that we have ever seen. We need a few amendments to this bill to provide some protection for the current system. I am not talking about expanding, I am talking about the current system. Are we going to be in the business of picking the tax winners and the tax losers? I am talking about the towns where the people of America live. We know who the losers will be. It will be the small retailer in your town, the one that you rely on to run down and pick up the emergency item. I do support this amendment. The commission should be allowed to study all of the issues with the Internet, all of the issues related to taxation. They definitely ought to be able to look at those that change with the technology so that the current system of collecting revenues for those towns and States can be preserved. I don't think we have all the answers, or we wouldn't be asking for this bill. I don't think we are going to have all the answers on the technology that is going to transpire in the next 2 years. So whatever we do, we have to have some amendments that will preserve the way that small business and small towns function at the present time. This amendment will help Congress to make a decision in the future. It restores language that would be taken out with the Gregg amendment. It is critical for towns, small businesses, and you and me. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Oregon for their cooperation and the careful work they have done on the bill with the acceptance of the amendments that I and a number of other people worked on. I appreciate that. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Agriculture appropriations conference report. I commend Senator Cochran for his hard work in putting together this bill to fund our Nation's agricultural and nutrition programs and to provide emergency assistance to America's farmers in this difficult year. I am disappointed, however, that some provisions that would have benefited our Nation's family ranchers who are also suffering from low commodity prices were dropped from the final conference report. Although these measures were unsuccessful this year, I am confident that they will come before the Senate again next year and I intend to work hard for their passage. In particular, I am disappointed that the amendment to require the labeling of imported meat was dropped from the final package. I strongly believe that we need to require foreign meat products to be clearly labeled as such. I support free trade, but in order to have free trade you need to have full disclosure. American consumers have a right to know if the meat they are buying has been produced in our Nation. American stockgrowers have a strong record of producing top quality products, and the American consumer should have the ability to identify these top quality products in the grocery store. I am also disappointed that the amendment to establish a price reporting pilot project was dropped. Many of my constituents who are family ranchers are very concerned about the current state of the packing industry, notably the increase in packer concentration. I share their concerns. Although I generally do not favor government mandates on any industry, I believe that the price reporting amendment would have provided us with more transparency to determine what effect the recent trend towards consolidation in the packing industry has had on cattle prices. In addition, I think we need to add fairness to our meat inspection programs by allowing State-inspected meat to move across State lines. We already allow Canadian and Mexican meat products to be sold in our Nation based on a promise that their standards are the same as ours. There is no reason for our government to trust foreign inspectors and not State inspectors. We need to level the playing field for meat inspections to help out our small packers. Allowing small packers to ship their products across State lines is not only fair, it would also increase competition in the packing industry. Unfortunately this important issue was not considered this year at all. So Mr. President, while I will not object to this Agriculture appropriations bill because I recognize how important it is to America's farmers, I am disappointed that it did not do more to address the financial problems facing our Nation's ranching industry. Family ranchers are struggling with the lowest beef prices in over 20 years. Their problems are not now and never have been addressed by huge government spending programs. But Congress should take action to provide free and fair competition in the livestock industry. The three measures I have just outlined would do just that, and I will work hard to make sure that they receive the careful consideration of Congress next year. water quality research

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we just held a vote to proceed to debating the Internet tax bill. I did not vote to proceed to that bill, and I would like to take a minute to explain why I do not currently support the legislation that is before us. It doesn't have anything to do, as was said before, with whether we are high tech or not. I have been trying to get permission to bring a computer on the floor of the Senate. I work with the Internet. I understand how web sites work. I understand the advantages we could have with more utilization of computers. I understand how the Internet works, and I understand some of the spectacular advantages that we are already enjoying in this country, and some of the ones we could be enjoying to a greater level. I am not trying to keep that from happening. There was mention in the motion to proceed that there was very little opposition. That is because it is a motion to proceed. There would be a much stronger opposition if the bill were to be voted on right now, without some of the requests that we have made for amendments--amendments that I think are simple enough that they could have been agreed to as part of a package. I want to say right up front that my vote was not a vote in favor of taxes. I want to reduce taxes. I want to stop new taxes--particularly at the Federal level. That is a goal we should all work toward. Federal income taxes, FICA taxes, unemployment taxes, and user taxes are always at the top of the list of burdens on working Americans and small businesses. I want to tell you that this bill doesn't reduce any of those taxes. This bill is an easy way for us to look good. We get to be the tax cutters by placing mandates on the other levels of government. We are tying the hands of local government to be able to finance itself, and we make ourselves out to be the good guys. I wish all the Members who voted for cloture today would get as serious about reducing Federal taxes as they seem to be about reducing local taxes. This bill will create an unfair playing field. Congress does have a constitutional responsibility to regulate interstate commerce, and I understand the desire of the bill's sponsors to protect and promote the growth of Internet commerce. But I am concerned that we are picking the tax winners and the tax losers. I want to tell you, the local Main Street retailers will be the losers, unless we have some corrections in this bill. There is also nothing in this bill to protect against fraud. The barriers to entry are so low in the Internet commerce and so hard to track that it is difficult to draw comparisons with catalog companies. Catalogs can be tracked. Those orders can be tracked. The Internet is a whole different problem. The fraud that can exist in it can go so far as to have a retailer in a town set up an Internet web site in a State that does not have sales taxes. And when you go to purchase in that store, you would purchase through their other corporation in that tax-free State and free yourself from paying any sales tax. That is nice if you do not have to pay sales tax, except most of the States in this Nation rely on some form of sales tax for education money. Some States, including mine, rely on sales tax. There is no income tax in Wyoming. There is no income tax in several other States. There are provisions in the bill for States that do not have income tax to be represented on the commission. I think it is imperative that there be a provision in this Internet bill that those States which do not have an income tax but do have a sales tax also have representation on that committee. There should also be a requirement for legislative suggestions from the commission. Right now the commission in this bill is required to give a report. A report on what? I think it ought to be much more specific than that and actually get into the instructions for legislation, the actual wording for the legislation that would ensure an end to the moratorium and be sure that we have something we can actually use. There should be a strong reporting requirement for the commission. I look forward to debating this bill in the coming days. I am not opposed to the idea, but I think we have to move closer to the House version of the bill. The House bill does empower the commission to look at the remote sales issue. It does require the commission to produce legislative recommendations. These are important components of the bill that are necessary to keep it fair for small retailers and small governments. I come from government that is closest to the people. I was a mayor for 8 years, and I served in the State legislature for 10. In Congress, we make decisions every day that affect the lives of millions of people, but they do not live at the Federal level. They live at the local level. In local government, you make decisions every day that affect the lives of your friends and neighbors, ones who know you and know what you are working on. There is a big difference. I am very concerned with any piece of legislation that mandates or restricts local government's ability to meet the needs of citizens, and this bill does exactly that. It may not seem like a big restriction, and it may not exceed the $50 million limit that Congress set in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, but it does establish a national policy against State and local government interference. It takes an affirmative step that ties the hands of local government. What am I asking here? I am asking that we actually talk about some of the amendments that we need to have that maintain the status quo for State funding--not increases the tax, not decreases the tax, maintains the status quo. There are States that rely on this tax at the present time, and I will do everything I can to make sure that we do not take away the possibility, or the right, for those States to continue to operate. We have to plug the loophole of the possibility for fraud, the possibility for fraud during the 2 years that there is a moratorium. If that gets established and allowed, we will have some of that happening for the rest of the time, and States again relying on the money will not have it. That is a brief explanation. I will have an opportunity, I am sure, to expand on those considerably, but we do have concerns. That is why we are trying to make sure that we have an opportunity to have those addressed and to make sure they are addressed up front. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr ENZI

Mr ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the action of my State's Governor in proclaiming September 18, 1998, as Wyoming's POW/ MIA Recognition Day. Over 2,000 Americans are still missing in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and over 8,000 on the Korean peninsula. Those heart rending facts make this a most fitting gesture indeed. These men gave everything they had to give in causes whose worthiness can be empirically verified: By comparing the prosperity of South Korea with the evil devastation to its North; By comparing the poverty and tyranny of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia with what might have been as evidenced in Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore. We must never forget the sacrifice of those who have no headstones in our national cemeteries. Hence the importance of efforts such as Governor Geringer's, which remind the Nation of our continuing and unfulfilled responsibility to account for the remains of these men for the sake of their families and our national conscience. I commend Governor Geringer for his proclamation and I urge the President to intensify his efforts at retrieving the remains of America's missing-in-action. In comparison with their sacrifice, this gesture is humble indeed, but sincere and important nonetheless. Surely a grateful America can perform this small task.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the President and the Senator from Utah. I rise today to share my thoughts about another proposed increase in the minimum wage. Having been a small business owner for 27 years, I want to be sure that my concerns regarding the full economic impact that that Federal one-size-fits-all mandate can have on rural States like Wyoming are made known. This complex economic issue demands careful consideration. I want to say right up front, I favor an increase for all wages. But that increase should be sparked by a strong free market economy, not by a Federal mandate that would be detrimental to small businesses and to the existence of hundreds of minimum-wage-paying jobs in Wyoming that are already few in number. I travel throughout Wyoming almost every weekend. I regularly hold town meetings and attend ice cream socials as a way of listening to my constituents' concerns. I want to point out, Wyoming residents are thick-skinned individuals and they are not shy about sharing opinions-- they show up and they share. I was not surprised to hear from them that another increase in the minimum wage could close small businesses and eliminate jobs--two things that are already tough to come by in Wyoming. As a former shoestore owner, I have always felt that the minimum wage represented a starting wage--better referred to as an entry-level wage. I hear people trying to equate it with a ``living wage.'' It is a minimum wage. It is an entry-level wage. An entry-level wage in Wyoming changes quickly as the individual worker gains experience and improves his or her skills in the workplace. Almost two out of three workers who start at the entry-level wage earn a higher wage within 6 months--more skill, more money. Every job works that way. There are just different entry-level rates--more skill, more money. Kids with no skills have to gain experience in the workplace if they are to understand why hard work is a fundamental step to life's success. Moreover, college students seeking part-time jobs to help supplement their education are going to find it even more difficult to obtain work when the number of these available jobs is cut. Are the economic realities that impact these kids being considered by this amendment? I will gladly welcome any explanation based on Wyoming's labor market. Only 480,000 people live in Wyoming, fewer than any other State in this country. That is not bad; we have plenty of elbowroom. Wyoming still remains a State of high altitude and low multitude dominated by miles and miles of miles and miles. We can still call the wrong number and know who we are talking to. But my State's labor market has produced a set of statistics that worry us. Wyoming ranks 50th in new economic growth, 50th in the creation of new jobs, and 50th in technical industries. That is not a change. We lack the population needed to lure high-turnover jobs. We lack critical mass where there is enough population for businesses to feed on each other. While other States are celebrating budget surpluses, Wyoming politicians argue over every available penny, knowing that a $200 million shortfall is expected within the next 5 years. To put that in perspective, a 1 cent statewide sales tax only raised $50 million a year for the State. Having served in the State and the legislature for 10 years, I have dealt with this reality firsthand. Folks need to understand why another increase in the minimum wage impacts States like Wyoming differently than Connecticut or Massachusetts. The Nation's economy may be strong, but my State hasn't shared that fortune. It takes a long time for rural States with sparse populations to benefit from these trends. I am not going to buy into the notion that another minimum wage hike is necessary just because the Nation's economy is doing well. There is more to it than that. Despite Wyoming's economic portfolio, the absence of intrusive State taxes ensures that family incomes go a long way. It would go even further if I could say the same for Federal taxes--however, we will save that debate for another time. Wyoming residents pay no State income tax, a five-cents-on-the-dollar sales tax, bare-bones ``sin'' taxes and fuel taxes, and some of the lowest property taxes in the country. In fact, a Wyoming family of four making $50,000 per year pays about $2,500 total in State and local taxes--including sales tax. In Connecticut, that same family of four pays $10,000. That is an incredible difference. Connecticut folks pay four times as much in local and State taxes. Labor Secretary Herman stated in a letter to Chairman Jeffords of the Senate Labor Committee describing how another minimum wage increase would make an ``enormous difference in the lives of workers and their families'' and that it would ``mean an additional $2,000 a year * * *'' I guess if I had to pay over $10,000 each year just in State income tax, a Federal minimum wage hike might not sound too bad. However, those folks should be screaming for lower taxes--not higher wages! Those East Coast families have to make up to four times as much to cover State and local taxes. Wyoming's low taxes give the dollar plenty of mileage, despite lower wages. Even where the availability of housing is scarce, it's still affordable. My youngest daughter now attends the University of Wyoming in Laramie where rental property is tough to come by. Still, a person can rent a single-family home there for less than $400 per moth. A one- bedroom apartment in a modest Washington neighborhood often exceeds $1,000 per month. That is a monumental difference. Similar to taxes, East Coast workers need to make up to 2\1/2\ times as much to cover housing. I made a few phone calls to some local ``fast food'' restaurants and I learned that each of them started their employees above the minimum wage. I was quoted wages starting from $5.25 per hour at the Burger King in Falls Church to $6.00 per hour at an Alexandria McDonald's. The labor market and cost of living determine these pay rates, not Federal minimum wage laws. But in Wyoming, where these same factors are much different, the wages are dictated entirely from Washington where folks pay 4 times as much for State and local taxes and 2\1/2\ times as much for housing. To no surprise, the Burger King in Casper, the McDonald's in Cheyenne, the Taco Bell in Laramie and the McDonald's in Sheridan all start their employees at this entry-level wage. Remember, those who show some interest don't stay at that entry- level wage long. Remember, those who show some interest don't stay at the entry-wage level. Another mandated, one-size-fits-all minimum wage hike may sound like a good deal for Wyoming's entry-level employees, but it isn't Each time the minimum wage is increased, these jobs that put money in the pockets of kids--and sometimes senior citizens, too-- become extinct. That is not just Wyoming. This chart shows that although the growth and the overall economy did accelerate, it agrees with the other charts. It accelerated in 1996 and 1997. The job growth at eating and drinking places fell sharply after the wage hikes. In 1995, job growth in the whole economy was 2 percent; eating establishments, 3.9. In 1996, after the wage increase goes into effect, the economy grows by 2.8 percent, and the kids working in restaurants only have a growth of 2.2 percent. After outpacing overall employment growth each year in the 1990s, job growth at eating and drinking places fell sharply in 1996 and 1997. This chart shows the total employment and the eating and drinking employment. So both of them show the same trends. Another chart shows what the new job opportunities at eating places were in 1994 and 1995 versus 1996 and 1997. The rate of growth allowed for 532,800 jobs in 1994 and 1995. Then the minimum wage kicked into effect. The growth was only 281,600 jobs; we lost over 250,000 jobs in that market alone. That is a quarter of a million kids who didn't get a job. Despite Wyoming's sparse population, the number of jobs are even fewer. The complaint I hear from my constituents is not about low paying wages, but the lack of jobs. Folks in my State are tired of seeing their kids leave Wyoming to attend college elsewhere simply because there are not enough part-time and full-time entry-level jobs to help them get a little experience and pay for their education while they go to college. Since the bulk of jobs in Wyoming are provided by small businesses, another increase in the minimum wage will only increase that disparity. Another minimum wage increase would hike all wages. I'm in favor of all wages being increased, but not at the cost of critical jobs. If the entry-level wages have to go up, the workers earning slightly more than the minimum wage would have to earn more too. This isn't just a debate about entry-level wages. Not only would small businesses have to pay its employees a higher wage, but the price of products that the business purchases at wholesale costs and sells at retail prices will undoubtedly have to go up--causing customers to purchase less as a result. Lower sales means less jobs. Downsizing would result. If that fails, the business folds--often quickly by Wyoming's standards. This is basic macroeconomics and a simple explanation on why Federal mandates can hurt the very people they are intended to help. Unfortunately, people don't work at the Federal level. They work at the local level--even for those who work for the Federal Government. Not only have I heard the argument that our economy won't be hurt by another increase since it is already so strong, but the argument is also portrayed to sound as if another increase is long overdue. Over the past 10 years, the Federal Government has walked all over States like Wyoming by subjecting them to national, one-size-fits-all mandates, all kinds. In 1989, the Congress and President Bush negotiated an agreement that provided for three increases in the minimum wage over a 12 month period. By April 1, 1991, the minimum wage rose from $3.35 per hour since 1981 to $4.25 per hour. Congress didn't stop there, however. On May 22, 1996, the House passed a tax bill to assist small businesses, entitled the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. On May 23, the very next day, the House passed another bill that increased the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour over two years. These two bills were combined into one package and sent to the Senate where it passed. I was still a small business owner in Wyoming at that time, but I was still appalled by the action Congress and this President took under the guise of ``small business protection.'' That takes us to today. Now the Senate is talking about another increase in the minimum wage--$1 over the next two years. I am a member of the Senate Labor Committee that has jurisdiction over this matter. The committee has not had one, single hearing discussing the impacts of another minimum wage increase. The committee has not considered any legislation that would increase the minimum wage. Rather than discuss the impacts that the pending legislation would have on States like Wyoming, the committee process was shunned. Instead, we're now debating this issue as a matter of election year theatrics. Politics does not constitute sound policy and this attempt to increase the minimum wage again simply confirms that notion. I am not interested in playing games with the minimum wage. This is a complex, economic issue that must be carefully considered. If the minimum wage goes up, then so does the poverty level. But wages are already going up because of full employment. A quick downturn in the economy would escalate unemployment. This would be a lose-lose situation. Phony wage hikes drive prices up--so we trick the worker into thinking he or she is getting more--but the bills still can't be paid at the end of the month. Government dabbling in a free economy is phony economics. Congress has a duty to weed out political schemes from impacting our Nation's market and labor force. States like Wyoming deserve better than that and I'm not going to sit idly by and allow my constituents' concerns to be silenced. This matter should receive a fair hearing and additional consideration by the respective committees and must not be excluded. This is the last-minute election year pitch; nothing more. I strongly oppose this attempt to pass a minimum wage increase, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, and Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, to introduce a very important bill for our western States and for others that have a lot of federally-owned coal. We have been working with other members, members of the Energy Committee, and with the Department of Interior to put together a good consensus bill. On July 20, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a final en banc decision, ruled that methane gas produced out of coal seams is part of the coal itself, and not actually a gas. That means instead of belonging to the owner of the oil and gas, as it has for the past 80 years, it may now belong to the owner of the coal. In Wyoming, the owner of the oil and gas is often different from the owner of the coal--which in most cases is the Federal Government. What does that mean? In my home county, the Federal Government owns only about 55% of the oil and gas, but it owns 95% of the coal. That means, in many places where these two resources occur together, there are separate owners. This decision is poised to strip away a majority of the private ownership of gas in Campbell County. It could be an immediate transfer of $250 million over thirty years from private owners to the government--a loss of income and economic activity that will destroy the economy in my home town. The effects will be widespread because this decision would overturn a decades-old U.S. Government policy. This Interior policy has acted as the basis for thousands of gas contracts across the west. People have been using since 1981 to govern the development of their contracts and leases. Today, the Circuit Court's decision places all of those contracts in legal limbo. That limbo threatens the livelihood of entire regions in the States like Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, and Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, to introduce a very important bill for our western States and for others that have a lot of federally-owned coal. We have been working with other members, members of the Energy Committee, and with the Department of Interior to put together a good consensus bill. On July 20, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a final en banc decision, ruled that methane gas produced out of coal seams is part of the coal itself, and not actually a gas. That means instead of belonging to the owner of the oil and gas, as it has for the past 80 years, it may now belong to the owner of the coal. In Wyoming, the owner of the oil and gas is often different from the owner of the coal--which in most cases is the Federal Government. What does that mean? In my home county, the Federal Government owns only about 55% of the oil and gas, but it owns 95% of the coal. That means, in many places where these two resources occur together, there are separate owners. This decision is poised to strip away a majority of the private ownership of gas in Campbell County. It could be an immediate transfer of $250 million over thirty years from private owners to the government--a loss of income and economic activity that will destroy the economy in my home town. The effects will be widespread because this decision would overturn a decades-old U.S. Government policy. This Interior policy has acted as the basis for thousands of gas contracts across the west. People have been using since 1981 to govern the development of their contracts and leases. Today, the Circuit Court's decision places all of those contracts in legal limbo. That limbo threatens the livelihood of entire regions in the States like Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

Mr. ENZI

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