Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I yield from the time 1 minute. I wish that I had 1 hour. This could be the most important thing we debate in this session of Congress. Yes, there is Indian gambling. Yes, there is some limited gambling on the Internet. The wording in this amendment can change the national flow. This can provide for a national lottery by an Internet monopoly--an Internet monopoly. This could eliminate the grocery store sales in each person's State that allows a lottery at the present time, because it would be much easier to pick it up on the Internet. There is a good reason why gambling is limited to on premises for the most part. That is so you can enforce the age requirements. That is so you can check on the different kinds of gaming that there are, so you can check on the dollar limits that there are, so you can audit the process. The Internet is not something you can audit. This will not be a protection for any of the States. Some of our States have had a referendum on whether we want any kind of local gambling, whether we want any kind of State gambling. And it has lost 2 to 1. We do not want gambling in Wyoming. But there is no protection against gambling in Wyoming. There is no protection on age in Wyoming. So kids can take parents' credit cards, get into this national lottery and violate State law. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the popular issue of health care quality. You can't mention health care without pulling on everyone's heartstrings. While several of the measures in both the House and the Senate have 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 Federal one- size-fits-all mandate would have on our Nation's health care system. Health care is as personal as it gets. More importantly, though, our decisions must not be tainted by simple anecdotes. This is not a one- line sound bite issue. Like any Member of this body, I believe that America's health care providers are the best in the world, and I believe that our health care system is the most technologically advanced in the world--the most technologically advanced in the world. Perhaps we don't hear that enough. The reason for that could be that this issue is being used by some folks as a political ad campaign, dwelling entirely on the negatives and failing to illustrate any positives. That is not rational, that is not fair. People are prone to believe something if they hear it enough, even if it isn't true. Repetition doesn't right a wrong, although repetition may lead a person to think a wrong is right. While watching this debate unfold, I have seen people wield surveys and polls around this body like they were weapons of mass destruction. It stands to reason that if you want to make a bill popular, back it up with a survey or a poll. Why? Because you can always get the answer you want by the way you word the questions. Legislating our Nation's health care system in such a fashion is like trying to cross a chasm in two jumps. It is detrimental to everyone's health. I will, however, illustrate how unreliable survey and poll results have been in relation to various health care quality provisions. For instance, in May, a Democratic polling firm showed that 86 percent of those questioned supported the Patient Access to Responsible Care Act or PARCA bill. In the same month, a Republican poll found that more than 90 percent of those questioned favored federal legislation to guarantee protections such as full information about their conditions and treatment options, a list of benefits and costs, as well as access to specialists. But when folks were asked how they feel about their own health plan, an April survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute showed that 53 percent of respondents were extremely or very satisfied with their health plan. And in a November 1997 Kaiser/Harvard survey, 66 percent of Americans in managed care plans said they would give their own health plan a grade of A or B. Such mixed results are more reason to approach any debate of federal mandates with the greatest degree of caution. What would the polls show if people were asked about additional costs? What would the polls show if changes could eliminate being able to see a doctor at all? I will talk in a minute about the frontier, the rural, aspects of that. Yes, another factor that has produced mixed results is the cost of each of these bills. I've seen estimates for a number of pending bills that could raise the price of premiums by at least 2.7 percent all the way up to 23 percent. Why aren't the people being polled about that? I don't believe that you can get quality out of any bill that forces people not to purchase insurance. We'd essentially be driving people away from coverage, not toward coverage. This is why cost estimates for the different proposals are vital. But with mixed results like this, I'm not about to assume that my constituents--who budget their incomes on a day to day basis--will swallow any additional price increases that federal mandates could create. We are always asked that we not judge a book by its cover. Well, don't judge a bill by its title. The devil is in the details. Or, as we accountants like to say, the numbers should make us nervous, or the numbers should show the nightmare. Aside from the morass of misleading information pertaining to this issue, I also have serious reservations about any legislation that would dismantle traditional state regulation of the health insurance industry. While serving in the Wyoming State Legislature for 10 years, I gained tremendous respect for our state insurance commissioner's ability to administer quality guidelines that cater to the unique type of care found in Wyoming. That is critical. I firmly believe that decisions which impact my constituent's health insurance should continue to be made in Cheyenne--not Washington. I cannot emphasize how important it is to consider demographics when debating health care. Wyoming has 465,000 residents living within 97,000 square miles. That is living in a State that is 500 miles on a border. We are one of those square States that couldn't exist if somebody hadn't invented the square. There are 99,000 square miles with only 465,000 residents. The State has an average elevation exceeding 4,000 feet. We have high altitude and low multitude. Most communities have a higher altitude than population. In fact, if you look at one of the Wyoming roadmaps, you will find a list of about 150 cities. We call them cities out there. If you look at the population following the name of the city, you will see that half of them have no population at all. They are a place where the ranchers come to pick up their mail. Even the Postmaster doesn't live in the town where the Post Office is. It is a long way between towns. I live in the sixth largest town in the State. It is 135 miles to the next biggest town--135 miles. The town I am from has 22,000 people. The biggest city in Wyoming is 50,006. We don't have that much population. We have a lot of miles. It is tough to get to doctors. It's in those conditions that my constituents have to drive up to 125 miles one-way just to receive basic care. Moreover, we have a tough enough time enticing doctors to come to Wyoming, let alone keep them there once their residency is finished. Even more troubling is the limited number of facilities for those doctors to practice medicine in Wyoming. Let me just say that if you don't have doctors, or facilities for them to practice in, you sure don't have quality health care. We have even talked here about an overabundance of doctors in parts of the country. In Wyoming, we wish for that affliction. The majority of bills now pending consideration in the House and Senate are primarily geared to overhauling managed health care plans. In a rural, under-served state like Wyoming, managed care plans account for a very small percentage of state-wide health plans and services currently available. This is partly due to the state's small population. Managed care plans generally profit from high enrollment, and as a result, the majority of plans in Wyoming still remain fee-for- service. In terms of legislation, however, this doesn't make a bit of difference. Many fee-for-service insurers in my state also offer managed care plans elsewhere. Those costs could be distributed across the board. Is it fair for the federal government to force my constituents to pay for a premium hike that's caused by federal mandates on managed care? The availability and cost of care for 465,000 rural frontier residents may not mean much to some folks, but it sure means a great deal to me. Is this a problem that can be fixed from Washington? I certainly don't believe so. People from Wyoming understand that life in our state is much different than in California or New York. A one-size-fits-all policy doesn't help states like Wyoming, it only excludes them further from obtaining the type of care they deserve. I encourage my colleagues to look at the fine print when considering legislation in the coming days. You just might agree that getting quality out some of these bills is like trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. And we'll want to spend some time talking about whose blood! Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of the conference report to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. Passage of this legislation marks a monumental step in making the Internal Revenue Service more responsible to ``We, the people,'' the American taxpayers. As the hearings before the Senate Finance Committee demonstrated, the IRS has all too often in recent years taken an adversarial posture against taxpayers. We in the Senate heard reports about IRS employees who were promoted based on the number of liens and collection actions against taxpayers. We heard stories about the IRS targeting low-income individuals and small businesses for audits, since they often did not have the resources to fight the IRS and are therefore forced to settle. We were told about audits and investigations based purely on political motives. We were informed of times the IRS had destroyed businesses, where they had wreaked havoc on private citizens' personal lives and seized assets based on accounting mistakes and clerical errors by the IRS itself. It is time these activities came to an end. This IRS reform bill will make the institution more service oriented and accountable to ``We, the people.'' Through the newly created oversight board, the Service will receive the direction and effective strategic planning it desperately needs. By shifting the burden of proof in factual tax disputes from the taxpayer to the IRS, this bill gives American taxpayers important procedural protections that even criminal defendants have enjoyed in this country for over 200 years. ``We, the people,'' will have due process before confiscation of personal property. The taxpayer will know the charges and have the right of appeal. By expanding the confidential communications to cover accountants and enrolled agents as well as attorneys, this reform bill gives taxpayers greater freedom to seek tax advice from the tax adviser of their own choosing. In requiring the IRS to collect allegations and document cases of employee misconduct and report this misconduct to Congress every year, the IRS reform bill requires the IRS to investigate itself and answer to Congress for any misconduct of IRS employees. This reform bill even simplifies the Tax Code by reducing the holding period for optimal capital gains treatment from 18 months to the standard 12 months. While the IRS reform bill does not provide all the solutions to our country's tax problems, it marks a significant chapter in bringing greater accountability to our Federal tax collection agency and greater respect for hard-working American taxpayers. The IRS reform bill moves us in the right direction, toward a system that is simpler and more fair for all Americans. Yes, ``We, the people,'' have won a big one here. I congratulate Chairman Roth and the Finance Committee. I also congratulate all the folks who shared--even though they were living in fear of their own Government. I am glad we were able to take these steps and look forward to the results. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. No, it would not, Senator.

Mr. ENZI. Yes, it does. Such evaluations are fundamental to measuring employee performance.

Mr. ENZI. Absolutely. OSHA must have the right to discipline such an employee and evaluate him or her accordingly.

Mr. ENZI. Yes, I agree with the analysis of my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2877, which is at the desk.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the two bills just passed by the Senate were authored by my good friend, Congressman Ballenger. H.R. 2864, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Compliance Assistance Authorization Act, and H.R. 2877, a bill to eliminate the imposition of quotas in the context of OSHA's enforcement activities, are intended to help increase the joint cooperation of employees, employers, and OSHA in the effort to ensure safe and healthful working conditions. These bills are the first in a series of efforts to modernize the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, a law which has only been amended one time, in 1990, and that amendment was simply an effort to raise the amount of the fines. So this is the first substantial change in 27 years. Since its inception, OSHA has consistently relied upon an adversarial approach rather than placing a greater emphasis on a collaborative strategy geared toward increasing worker safety and health. Agency officials have admitted that 95 percent of the employers in the country do their level best to try to voluntarily comply with the law. Unfortunately, OSHA inspectors still treat employers as adversaries, issuing them citations for what they haven't done and not assisting them in complying with regulations to make the workplace safer. Positive changes in the relationship that exists between employers and OSHA are long overdue. It is not productive to threaten employers with fines for noncompliance 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. 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. Creating true partnerships between businesses and OSHA will ultimately empower the honest employers to improve worker safety while allowing OSHA to concentrate its enforcement efforts on the small number of employers who constitute the ``bad actors.'' I firmly believe that H.R. 2864 is a good first step in accomplishing just that. H.R. 2877 would eliminate enforcement quotas for OSHA compliance inspectors. This language would prohibit 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 to 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 inspection citations or penalties. Congress' approach to OSHA is different this session. During my tenure in the Senate, I have committed much of my time to the advancement of workplace safety and health. This commitment is shared by my House colleagues, Representatives Ballenger and Talent, who are both authors of other commonsense incremental legislation. It is our belief that OSHA has operated since its inception as a reactionary regulator, inspecting work sites primarily after a fatality or injury has occurred. In 1994 and early 1995 alone, three-quarters of the work sites in the United States that were the scene of serious accidents had never--had never--been inspected by OSHA during the decade. Even more troubling is that OSHA officials acknowledge that their inspectors do not investigate most lethal work sites until after accidents occur. Thus, a worker essentially has to get hurt or killed in order for OSHA to act. We all want prevention. We don't want accidents. We don't even want near misses. A near miss is an accident about to happen. While it is important for OSHA to retain its ability to enforce law and to respond to employee complaints in a timely fashion, the agency must begin to broaden its preventive initiatives in an effort to bring more workplaces into compliance before accidents and fatalities occur. These bills are the first of several rational, incremental steps in making OSHA a preventive regulator, not a reactionary regulator. As the Senate author of S. 1237, the Safety Advancement for Employees Act, or SAFE Act, it is my hope that this important legislation will also be considered in the same sensible light. This bill was derived from the thoughts, suggestions, and good ideas of employees, employee representatives, employers, and certified safety and health professionals prior to even its original draft--comments that helped us keep out a number of past contentious provisions. I listened carefully to these concerns, and, as a result, the SAFE Act was crafted to promote and enhance workplace safety and health rather than dismantle it. What is left out of that bill may be as important as what is in the bill. The contentious parts from the past are not there. The two provisions that we passed tonight are there. The spirit of cooperation must overpower polarization if true improvements in occupational safety and health are to be achieved. It is essential that stereotypical rhetoric be set aside, with the understanding that an overwhelming majority of employers cherish their most valuable assets: their employees. Without the employee, management would ultimately have no production, no profits, and no business. It is logical to surmise that by promoting cooperation, good business will ultimately prevail. We cannot rest as long as there are injuries or deaths on the job. We need everyone involved in safety. I urge my Senate colleagues to continue along this path. Much remains to be done in the area of workplace safety and health. There are currently 6.2 million American work sites being inspected by 2,451 Federal and State OSHA inspectors. Under these conditions, it will take OSHA 167 years to visit every workplace before an accident or fatality occurs. That is entirely unacceptable. We must continue to advocate cooperative compliance initiatives, incentives to the employers to look at the job before an accident happens, initiatives that are strictly in line with preventive regulation. We must see that OSHA does not get an IRS image. We must see that everyone goes home whole. I will continue to advocate this type of an approach in the coming weeks when additional measures will be considered. I urge my colleagues to both note the change in attitude on the House side and the Senate side on the work being done on OSHA, and I urge my Senate colleagues to help us work on these bills. I thank Senator Frist, who is the subcommittee chairman, and Senator Wellstone, who is the subcommittee ranking member. I thank the chairman of the Labor Committee, Senator Jeffords, and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Kennedy. I, in fact, thank all of the Labor Committee members on both sides of the aisle for the time and care and interest that they have shown in the OSHA issue. I give special mention, of course, to Congressman Talent, who has taken the SAFE Act on the House side and worked diligently on it and held hearings and just been a great promoter of the new attitude on improving workplace safety. I also congratulate Chairman Ballenger on the first change in the OSHA Act in 27 years. I would be remiss if, last but not least, I did not thank my excellent staff for the diligence, care, and persistence that they have put into all of the research and all of the meetings we have had with any group that was willing to meet with us across the entire country. That is what has resulted in being able to take this first step and what will result in future steps. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2864, which is at the desk.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative assistant, Mr. Spear, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the evening.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly endorse the amendment of my friend, the Senior Senator from Kansas. This amendment would simply require the housing of male and female recruits in separate barracks during recruit training. It amazes me that this amendment is even necessary. Every attempt to return common sense to our military's recruit training policies has been obstructed by this administration--even those attempts initiated by the administration itself. Didn't the Secretary of Defense already convene a panel of distinguished military and civil rights experts to study this serious problem? Didn't this commission--the Kassebaum Commission--unanimously point out the critical importance of--among other things--giving each gender its own recruit housing? Hasn't the administration had over five years to make their misguided gender neutral policies work without success? Sadly and inexplicably, the answer to all these questions is yes. Now we have another commission. Are we going to continue to appoint and pay for commissions until we reach an answer that we like? Are we going to find it easier to appoint a commission than to make a decision? I believe this tactic is called paralysis by analysis. I also believe that the appropriate time to criticize a commission is before they report, not after. A few days of orientation for new recruits before they are kicked into the hormonal situation that we are putting them in would be helpful. Mr. President, the administration's arguments in favor of their social engineering are misleading, contradictory and quite unprecedented. How are they misleading? The Secretary of Defense has tried to garner support for his gender neutral training policies on the grounds that the military simply cannot do without women. The fact, however, is that no one on any side of this debate is advocating that women be purged from our military, and it is patently offensive to me that he would indicate that we are. We fully understand the importance of women to the functioning of our military. All we are trying to do with this amendment is to give both genders a training environment in which they can realize their fullest potential. How are the administration's arguments contradictory? They argue that the military must train as it fights. They argue that since men and women serve together, they must train together, and be housed together. Yet one of the things discovered by the Kassebaum commission is that while male recruits are required to throw a hand grenade 35 meters, female recruits are only required to throw it 25 meters. Is the Secretary of Defense implying that our military intends to make sure our female soldiers are always 10 meters closer to the enemy than our male soldiers? Though this amendment would not address issues of training such as this, this type of thinking is indicative of the contradictory quality which pervades all aspects of this administration's recruit training policies--to include housing. How are the administration's arguments unprecedented? It is surely unprecedented to place a political agenda of social engineering above the simple requirements of national security. Five years of gender neutral training barracks have resulted only in lowered morale, one sex scandal after another, recruiting shortfalls for every branch but the Marine Corps which does not engage in this incredible practice, and a refusal of this administration to face these problems. It is noteworthy that eighteen months after the sex scandals at Aberdeen, the Kassebaum Commission found that the policies which precipitated them had still not been corrected. The Army, like the Navy and Air Force, have proven singularly unsuccessful in solving the problems associated with these misguided policies--policies which deny the existence of any emotional dynamics between young men and young women. This is less a reflection on the earnestness with which our military leaders have tried to implement these policies, than it is an indictment of these unworkable gender neutral policies themselves. Mr. President, this amendment represents a common sense step in the right direction. It is sorely needed and I encourage all members to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar, No. 654. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered, read a third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 416, H.R. 3035.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered, read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Labor Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2202, and further that the Senate precede to its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. and resume consideration of the defense authorization bill. Under the previous order, Senator Wellstone will immediately be recognized to offer an amendment regarding DOD schools under a 30-minute time agreement. At the expiration of the debate time, the Senate will proceed to vote on or in relation to the Wellstone amendment. Following that vote, there will be 10 minutes for closing remarks with respect to the Inhofe amendment regarding BRAC, with a vote occurring following the debate. There will then be 10 minutes for closing remarks with respect to the Harkin amendment relative to VA health care, followed by a vote in relation to that amendment. Therefore, three votes will occur beginning at 10 a.m. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the previously mentioned debate times be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, following those votes, it is hoped that the Members will come to the floor during Thursday's session to offer and debate amendments, with the understanding that the bill will be concluded during Thursday's session. Also, the Senate could be asked to consider, under short time agreements, the clean needles bill, the reading excellence bill, the drug czar reauthorization bill, any available appropriations bills, and any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action. Also, the Senate can be expected to consider, prior to the Independence Day recess, the higher education bill. Therefore, Members can expect a busy session Thursday and Friday of this week.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 25. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 2057, the defense authorization bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and finally that any statements regarding the legislation appear at the appropriate place in the Record.