Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am one of the cosponsors of the amendment. I yield myself 5 minutes for comments.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am an original cosponsor of the Sessions sense-of-the-Congress amendment No. 2166. I firmly believe that the at- home parents who forgo a second income so that one parent can raise their children do deserve some formal recognition by their Federal Government. That is a tough decision for parents to make, but it is one that is being made every day, and it is making a difference to kids. All this sense-of-the-Congress amendment does is to give some extra emphasis to say to parents, if you are making this decision, consider it carefully, consider having one of the parents forgo their income and stay at home and make a better life for the kids. The purpose of it isn't to make anybody feel guilty. The purpose of it is simply to make sure that when we are building basic policy, that basic policy includes families and basic policy includes an emphasis on families, and basic policy makes it possible, in any way that we can do it, of keeping parents with their kids. All forms of day care touch on one of our Nation's most important resources--our children. If Congress is serious about addressing day care, then we must do so in a fairminded way and not exclude at-home care from the debate. It is unfortunate that at-home care has not received its day in the spotlight. There are more families that fit this mold than I think many of us are aware. We have an opportunity through this body to change that and should change it in any way we can. Conditions are difficult for two-income families. It is even harder for single working moms to raise children. Few would argue differently. To be fair, however, we must not imply that families who choose to keep one parent at home with their children are not making any sacrifices. They are sacrificing, too. For years, the subtext of Federal family policy is that everyone should work and that the burden of accommodation should be on those parents who choose to stay at home to raise their children. But if the debate revolves around the quality of care our children receive, we must modify existing Federal policy and end this senseless discrimination. If we are really concerned about the quality of care for our children, then single-income families should be formally recognized. America's tax burden has grown so large in many instances that a second parent has to work just to pay the family's tax burden. A 1993 survey found that more than 50 percent of working women would stay at home if money were not an issue. These parents should not be discriminated against by their own Federal Government simply because they sacrifice greater financial gain for their children. The financial penalty inherent in having one parent stay at home to raise their children is large indeed. I do not believe that a majority of single-income families pursue such an arrangement because they can easily afford it. They do it because they believe it is best for their kids. They do it as a conscious decision. It should not be the work of this body to second-guess their judgments and their values. Parents who decide to forgo a second income so that one parent might be at home during their children's formative years incur quite an expense, as several Members of my own staff can attest. And I am proud of them for the sacrifices that they are making. But I do not think it is fair, when we talk about Federal policy, that we should build a special policy that discriminates against them. We should be encouraging that kind of behavior. It is quite clear that at-home care is beneficial to our Nation's kids. If this viable alternative is excluded from debate, then the message this body sends about the quality of care for America's children is shortsighted, at best. This amendment is geared to provide the recognition that at-home care and the parents who utilize it deserve some recognition. This amendment is supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. That is how families are, and it should pass unanimously. I encourage all Members of the Senate to read this amendment, cosponsor it, and vote in favor of its passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 2168

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. I think it is too early in the process to talk about whether we are going to limit liability or not. I have never accepted any money from the tobacco companies. I am not trying to help the tobacco companies. What I want is for the smokers of America to realize that there is not enough money in all of the assets of all of the tobacco companies to take care of the problems that have already been caused. What the smokers need to be worrying about is how they are going to divide up those assets to take care of the health problems which have already been caused to be sure that they are getting a piece of the money that they have already paid in and will be paying in through higher taxes. We need to wait on the debate to make sure that we are debating the issues on liability and leaving the options open to protect those people who have already been harmed by smoking and those people that will be harmed by smoking. As I said, Mr. President, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg. I have worked with the Senator from New Hampshire on the tobacco issue in the Labor Committee and I can appreciate his position on this aspect of the settlement. However, I oppose this amendment because I believe it is premature for this body to decide the issue of immunity, even in a sense of the Senate resolution, before we have the opportunity to debate tobacco legislation on the Senate floor. First, I would like to explain that my reasons for opposing this amendment are not based on any desire to protect the tobacco companies from legitimate legal actions. I have explained before that I did not accept any money from the tobacco companies during my campaign because I have seen the destructive effects of cigarette smoking my entire life and I have never seen that smoking ever helped anyone. In short, I oppose this amendment because it is too early in the debate to limit our options on the issue of liability. Mr. President, let me make it very clear that we will not help one person suffering from smoking-related illnesses by adopting this sense- of-the-Senate resolution. Rather, we will send a green light to plaintiffs' lawyers that Congress will not stand in the way as they fill their retirement coffers at the expense of the smokers and the American public. By prohibiting any type of current or future immunity for the tobacco manufacturers, we actually do a disservice to the very people we are trying to help. If Congress is really concerned about providing long- term reimbursement for people suffering from smoking-related illnesses, we should look at ensuring that the money will actually go to smokers-- not into the pockets of trial lawyers. Mr. President, I have proposed for some time that we should take a look at a smokers' compensation fund, whereby individual smokers could be reimbursed for their smoking-related medical expenses from an account funded by payments by the tobacco companies. Such a system as this would ensure that real stakeholders in the tobacco debate--smokers themselves, would receive the proceeds from any tobacco settlement. It would also be a good way to help the long term solvency of both the Medicare and Medicaid programs by alleviating some of the burden of reimbursing providers for smoking-related medical expenses. I understand that any such comprehensive reimbursement scheme is not going to be accomplished this year. That is why I support the efforts of the chairman of the Budget Committee in his efforts to ensure that any money received from a tobacco settlement is going to be dedicated to the Medicare trust fund. I applaud his efforts in ensuring that any possible proceeds actually be used to help pay for the smoking-related expenses of Medicare beneficiaries instead of being used for any number of unrelated programs. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment. We should send a message to the American people that any money from the tobacco settlement should be used for smokers--not inflated legal judgments. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for the time to speak on this. I fully support putting that money, if we ever get it, into the Medicare Program. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today in support of amendment 2166 introduced by me and my colleague and good friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions. Our amendment is entitled the ``Antidiscrimination of At-Home Parents Amendment.'' I am proud to lend my support of this amendment that would give at- home parents, who forego a second income so that one parent can raise their children, the recognition by the federal government that they truly deserve. There has been a lot of talk about beefing up the quality and availability of child care across our nation. I, too, have played a role in this debate and feel it's one to be taken seriously. Parents who choose to enroll their kids in day care face a difficult decision-- one based on trust, reliability, the quality of care and, of course, the high costs. Moreover, that decision touches one of our nation's most important resources--our children. Unfortunately, this debate has unfairly excluded married couples who face an even bigger decision--at-home care. There are more families that fit this mold than I think many of us are aware. In fact, only 37 percent of mothers with children under the age of 6 are employed on a full-time basis. The remaining percentage includes a constituency with little representation. That must change. It is true that conditions can be difficult for two income families. I don't refute that. It is very hard for single, working moms to raise children. To be fair, however, we must not imply that families who choose to keep one parent home with their children are not making sacrifices. For years now, the debate on family policy has been centered on single working parents and day care. For years the sub-text of federal family policy has been that everyone should work and that the burden of accommodation should be on those parents who choose to stay at home to raise their children. However, if the debate revolves around the quality of care our children receive, we must modify existing federal policy and end this senseless discrimination. It would seem at times as if all forces conspire against single income families. America's tax burden has grown so large that in many instances, a second parent has to work just to pay their families tax burden. A 1993 survey found that more than 50 percent of working women would ``stay at home if money weren't an issue.'' Most families in which both parents work would much prefer to have one parent stay at home with the children if expenses would allow. The financial penalty inherent in having one parent stay at home to raise the children is large indeed. The few families who pursue such an arrangement don't do it because they can easily afford it. They do it because they believe that it is best for their kids. It should not be the work of this body to second guess their judgement of their values. Most importantly, these parents should not be discriminated against by its own federal government simply because they sacrifice greater financial gain for their children. As you can see, there are a growing number of parents who give up one income so that the mother or father can stay at home and be with their children. Not long ago, this decision to utilize at-home care was commonplace. However, our nation's workplace has changed significantly as more parents move into the workforce--making parent's decision to sacrifice one income for their child all the more difficult. This is truly saddening, because the people who can best care for our nation's children are the parents. I have listened during the last few months to members implying that parents who choose to forego a second income to stay home with their children do so at no financial sacrifice. It has even been implied that such parents lead a life of luxury and self-indulgence while working mothers make the real sacrifice for their children. This notion is as offensive as it is unfounded. Parents who decide to forego a second income so that one parent might be at home during their children's formative years incur quite an expense, as several members of my own staff can attest. I have two fathers on my staff that have made this difficult decision. One of those parents on my staff spends four hours each work-day commuting to and from work--only because raising a family on a single, moderate income simply cannot be done here in Washington, DC. I am confident that parents all over the nation are in similar straits. If the Senate is serious about issues facing our nation's children, then it must not exclude parents who choose at-home care for the benefit of their kids. If those parents are left out, then the message this body sends about the quality of care for American's children is short-sighted at best. This amendment is geared to provide that recognition and I encourage all members of the Senate to carefully read it, cosponsor it, and vote in favor of its passage. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the remainder of my time but reserve the time remaining for the amendment. Mr. BROWNBACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, my original intent was to give some comments on amendment No. 2166. Before I do that, since the topic is opened up on the tobacco settlement, I feel compelled to make a few statements based on what has been said on the floor. I am on the Labor Committee and that has been a part of the tobacco settlement debate. I can tell you how far we have gotten on that committee. We have had a filibuster so far on the very issues the Senators from North Dakota have been saying they want to get into the budget. So the progress on this thing has been so disappointing to me. Last week, when I was flying back from Wyoming--I go back almost every weekend, and it's quite a trip to get from there back to Washington--I started working on my laptop computer and listing the reasons why a tobacco settlement might not happen this year. There were three single- spaced pages on why it won't happen this year. I changed it to why it won't happen this year. What we are suggesting here is that we ought to go ahead and spend the money anyway. I can't tell how the negotiations have gone that you have been in, but I certainly never have liked to be in negotiations with anybody where I had already spent the money I might get out of the program. That is why we are taking some precaution with that. That is why we are saying let's put it in Medicare. That is the biggest program that we have to save that deals with health--particularly the health of people in the United States. It is something we have to be concerned about. We put that first. There can be changes made later. But after that, there is some agreement from these three pages, single spaced, and reasons why 100 Senators here may not be able to come to any agreement on why there ought to be a tobacco settlement, let alone how that tobacco settlement ought to take place. Having said that, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes on amendment 2166, the Sessions-Enzi amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I yield the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I thank Senator Bryan for his comments. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to talk about this. I thought we had talked about it last year. I thought that would give enough direction to the Secretary of the Interior that we would not have a problem. I want to mention that this amendment is an emergency. That is why we are attaching it to this bill. The comment period for the rules that he has gone ahead and promulgated will run out before we have another opportunity to debate this. I do not want the Department of the Interior to be spending the money to do the process they are doing which bypasses Congress, and it bypasses States rights. I want to read a portion of a letter that I have from the National Governors' Association. This letter is to confirm Governors' support for the Indian gaming-related amendment offered by Senators Michael B. Enzi, Richard H. Bryan, and Harry Reid to the Senate supplemental appropriations bill. This amendment prevents the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior from promulgating a regulation or implementing a procedure that could result in tribal Class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-state compact, as required by law. The nation's Governors strongly believe that no statute or court decision provides the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior with authority to intervene in dispute over compacts between Indian tribes and states about casino gambling on Indian lands. Such action would constitute an attempt by the Secretary of the Interior to preempt states' authority under existing laws and recent court decisions and would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating gambling compacts with states. Further, the secretary's inherent authority includes a responsibility to protect the interests of Indian tribes, making it impossible for the secretary to avoid a conflict of interest or exercise objective judgment in disputes between states and tribes. That is from the National Governors' Association. I see that Senator Reid is on the floor. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Reid.

Mr. ENZI. Yes. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. ENZI. Yes; I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. I will yield time to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to comment on that. I hope we could be a part of working that out. We see this as only an extension of the work that was done last year, so we have no problem in agreeing to continue to extend that work and hope that would be done in a very cooperative spirit. I look forward to working with the other people. But we do anticipate that the States rights will be preserved, and that we will be a part of the process in conference.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a resolution passed by the National Association of Attorneys General at their spring meeting.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment with my colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Nevada, Senator Bryan and Senator Reid, and the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions. This bipartisan amendment touches an issue that is very important to me, and that is the issue of States rights. This amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from finalizing the proposed rules published on January 22 of this year. It would also prohibit the Secretary from proposing or promulgating any similar regulations. In effect, this amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from bypassing the States in the process of approving class III Indian casino gambling. Mr. President, I must admit that I am disappointed this amendment is necessary at all. Last year, I offered an amendment, along with a number of my colleagues, on the Interior appropriations bill. We debated that on the floor. That prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from approving any new tribal-State gambling compacts which had not first been approved by the State in accordance with existing law. Although that amendment provided only a 1-year moratorium, the intent of the amendment was clear. Congress does not believe that it is appropriate for the Secretary of the Interior to bypass the States or to spend money bypassing the States in an issue as important as whether or not casino gambling will be allowed within a State's borders. The debate bore out that intent. I think it was clearly understood. It ended with a voice vote. It was passed by wide bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Secretary did not think, evidently, that Congress was serious when we passed the amendment last year. On January 22 of this year, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, published proposed regulations which would allow the Secretary of the Interior to bypass the State's authority in the compacting process. In effect, these proposed regulations would allow Secretary Babbitt to approve casino gambling agreements with the Indian tribes without the consent or approval of the States. This is precisely what Congress prohibited in last year's amendment. Evidently, Secretary Babbitt did not think we were serious. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to ensure that the proper process is followed in the tribal-State compacting process. There may be those who argue that changes need to be made to the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act. I would not necessarily disagree with my colleagues on that point. However, if any changes are to be made, the changes must come from Congress, not from an unelected Cabinet official. By proposing these regulations, the Secretary of the Interior has shown an amazing disregard for Congress and for all 50 States. Mr. President, I have to admit that I find the timing of the Secretary's actions ironic. Just recently, the Attorney General appointed an independent counsel to investigate Secretary Babbitt's actions in regard to approving and denying tribal-State gambling compacts from Indian tribes in Wisconsin. Although we will have to wait for the investigation to take its course, it is evident that serious questions have been raised about the Secretary of the Interior's objectivity in approving Indian gambling compacts. We should not allow the Secretary of the Interior to usurp the rightful role of Congress and the States in addressing the difficult question of Indian casino gambling. Mr. President, this amendment has the strong endorsement of the National Governors' Association. At their annual convention this year, the Governors adopted a resolution strongly opposing the Secretary's proposed regulations. I have a copy of that letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the rationale behind this amendment is simple: Society as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. A State's law enforcement, social services, and communities are seriously impacted by the expansion of casino gambling on Indian tribal lands. Therefore, a decision about whether or not to allow casino gambling on Indian lands should be approved by popularly elected representatives, not by an unelected Cabinet official. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of the States and the rights of this Congress, as popularly elected leaders, by voting for this amendment. And, Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Gorton, also approves of the amendment. I do ask for your consideration of that amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. I yield such time as Senator Bryan needs, the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record relevant excerpts from a 1996 letter from Attorney General Butterworth from Florida and signed by 22 State Attorneys General. This letter explains that the Attorneys General believe any attempts to circumvent the States in the compacting process violates the language and meaning of the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also have a letter from the Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor of Alaska, who is the chairman of that association, again, reiterating their concerns about bypassing the States rights. I ask unanimous consent that that letter also be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, 40 minutes on a side; 80 minutes equally divided will be agreeable. We were just talking about reducing that by 10 minutes a few moments ago, but I have not had a chance to check with the other side.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2133.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Emrich and Katherine McGuire be granted the privilege of the floor during the course of the debate.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on or in relation to the Enzi amendment at 10:50 a.m.

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, March 26, 1998, and that immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and the Senate resume consideration of S. 1768, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1638 be star printed with the changes now at the desk.