Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on October 9, 1998, the Senate, by a vote of 98-0, passed the International Religious Freedom Act. As the sponsor of the International Religious Freedom Act, I am providing this statement which gives some guidance as to what I tried to accomplish in crafting this Act. Background With enactment of the International Religious Freedom Act, there will be a major increase in the amount of information on the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom in foreign countries, in the actions taken by the U.S. government in response to those violations and in the scrutiny of the steps taken by the U.S. government to combat them. Sadly, events around the world demonstrate the need for the International Religious Freedom Act. It has been reported that more than half of the world's population lives under governments that place restrictions or outright prohibitions on the ability to practice one's religion. While the end of the Cold War saw a significant increase in religious freedom in many countries, in others there has been no change. Totalitarian governments either continue to stamp out religion or subject it to state controls through arrest, torture, beatings, imprisonment and unemployment. One such government has used massacre, starvation, and forced resettlement as a tool in the effort to crush resistance in its mostly Christian region. There have been reports of the crucifixion of Christians, although these reports cannot be confirmed. What has been confirmed is the revival of slavery, abduction and mutilation. Displaced refugees have been confronted with forced conversion or starvation. In other countries, reports abound of attacks by extremists or by government forces on Christians, and on their homes, businesses, and churches. Converts to Christianity are imprisoned and tortured. In several countries no overt practice of any religion but the state religion is permitted, and conversion is illegal. These prohibitions affect virtually every religion around the world. The International Religious Freedom Act This is the backdrop which led to the International Religious Freedom Act. The International Religious Freedom Act was crafted with four core principles. First, the International Religious Freedom Act is comprehensive both in the scope of covered violations, and in the full range of tools it provides to address the violations. By crafting a definition of violations of religious freedom that focuses on the most common types of violations as well as the most egregious, the Act attempts to resolve the problem before these violations escalate into torture, imprisonment and even death. Second, the International Religious Freedom Act was crafted to require action while preserving necessary flexibility for the President. The International Religious Freedom Act contains a menu of options, including eight diplomatic and seven economic measures, from which the President must choose for each country that engages in violations of religious freedom. The Act also allows the President to calibrate any economic measure. The President can, for instance, suspend or limit foreign assistance, rather than cut it off entirely. The Act gives the President an additional option of taking commensurate action for any of the 15 options if the President determines that by doing so he can further the policy of the United States set forth in this Act. Finally, the President can exercise a waiver if important national interests require it, or if it would be harmful to those the Act seeks to help. The provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act give the President economic and diplomatic tools to use that will best fit the situation and most appropriately deal with the problem. These tools can be modified based on the level of persecution in the country, the country engaging in the persecution and our relationship with that country. This flexibility ensures that the International Religious Freedom Act will be more effective. The goal of the International Religious Freedom Act is not to punish countries but to change behavior. Third, the International Religious Freedom Act promotes long-term change through several means, including comprehensive human rights and religious freedom training for U.S. officials and representatives, both in the Foreign Service and in the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Act authorizes U.S. assistance for the development of legal protections abroad, broadcasting and scholarly exchanges to promote religious freedom, and awards for meritorious Foreign Service Officers. Fourth, the International Religious Freedom Act establishes several positions to ensure a permanent profile on and attention to religious freedom. It establishes an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom which is a permanent diplomatic position to spearhead U.S. advocacy for religious freedom internationally. The Act also establishes a Commission for International Religious Freedom to ensure accountability, and to provide independent policy recommendations as the Act is implemented. The Annual Report further provides accountability by reporting the actions of the U.S. government. The following is a commentary on several sections of the International Religious Freedom Act. Section 101. Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Liberty: This section creates a high-profile diplomat under the Secretary of State, vested with the authority to continually and forcefully raise the issue of religious persecution in bilateral and multilateral forums. The Ambassador is responsible for ensuring advocacy for, and high-quality reporting on, religious freedom by American Embassies around the world. The Ambassador also is to make policy recommendations to the President and the Secretary of State to advance the right to religious freedom abroad. Section 102. Reporting: This section strengthens existing reporting requirements. The Ambassador is to assist in the preparation of the sections on religious freedom in the State Department Human Rights Country Reports, and embassy personnel are directed to seek out and investigate reports of violations of religious freedom. This section also creates an Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. This report details the status of religious freedom in each country around the world, and provides a comprehensive accounting of the violations of religious freedom, how severe they are and where they occur. The report is to give an indication of trends towards improvements in protecting religious liberty, and trends toward the deterioration of that protection. The report will also include information regarding U.S. government actions taken to promote religious freedom abroad. The U.S. government, when compiling this report, must work with non- governmental organizations (NGOs), when appropriate, to ensure that each report contains the most accurate information. The Annual Report must also include information on the forced conversion of minor U.S. citizens living abroad. It has come to my attention that our government has done little to resolve cases of the victimization of minors who have been taken to a foreign land, subjected to forced religious conversion, and prevented under the laws of those nations from returning to the United States where they would enjoy religious freedom. In some cases, especially for girls, this amounts to a life sentence of living abroad. In some countries, women may not travel abroad without the permission of their father or husband. The State Department should work to secure the rights of its citizens--including those living abroad, and the Commission on International Religious Freedom should monitor these cases. Each year, the Secretary of State, working with the Ambassador, must present this report to Congress by September 1. An Executive Summary highlighting the countries of greatest concern with regard to religious freedom and countries demonstrating significant improvement in the protection of that right is to accompany the report. A classified, more detailed addendum may be provided to Congress. Section 103. Internet Site for Religious Liberty: To assist NGOs around the world, the Act establishes a State Department Internet site posting the Annual Report, the Executive Summary and other international documents on religious freedom. Section 104. Religious Freedom Training: To ensure awareness by Foreign Service officers of the nature and scope of violations of religious freedom, the Act amends the Foreign Service Act of 1980 to require training in human rights, including violations of religious freedom, as standard training for Foreign Service officers. Training is mandatory for officers with reporting responsibilities and for Chiefs of Mission. Section 105 & 106. Contacts with NGOs: Embassies are required to seek out religious NGOs and meet with imprisoned religious leaders where appropriate and beneficial. These contacts will not only help our government gather the facts accurately as it prepares the Annual Report, but also will prove valuable as our government seeks to formulate policies to promote religious freedom around the world, as described in section 403. A Sense of the Congress directs embassies to craft a strategy for the promotion of religious liberty. Section 107. Equal Access to U.S. Embassies: The Act grants access to U.S. citizens (and, at the embassy's discretion, to nationals) to U.S. missions abroad for religious activities on a basis no less favorable than for other nongovernmental activities unrelated to the conduct of the diplomatic mission. For instance, it is inconsistent that permission be granted by U.S. missions to allow the dispensing and social consumption of alcoholic beverages and the serving of pork products, contrary to local law, while discouraging such permission for holding religious services. The fact that several other foreign consulates afford access to worship for their citizens disproves the suggestion that diplomatic interests preclude similar provision for Americans by the State Department. Many other social and American community activities without discernable diplomatic purpose will no doubt continue, and in most cases should continue. Religious service access requests under section 107 may receive no less consideration than these other activities occurring on U.S. mission premises. Section 108. Prisoner Database and Issue Briefs: To prompt advocacy at every possible opportunity, the bill directs the State Department to maintain country-specific lists of religious prisoners and issue briefs on policies restricting religious liberty, to be provided to executive branch and Congressional leaders for use in meetings with foreign dignitaries. In compiling these lists, the Act gives the Secretary of State the discretion to decide whether including a name on the list harms or helps the prisoner. Sections 201 to 206. The International Religious Freedom Act establishes a United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. This Commission, which is bipartisan in composition and will include both presidential and Congressional appointees, will ensure that the President and the Congress receive independent recommendations--and where necessary, criticism--of American policy in support of international religious freedom. The Commission consists of 10 persons (including the Ambassador at Large, who sits as an ex officio, non-voting member), chosen for a period of two years; the Commission sunsets in four years unless reauthorized. The innovative appointment structure established in this Act ensures that five commissioners will be selected by the President's political party and four commissioners by the other political party, no matter which political party controls the White House or either house of Congress. While this Act appropriately defers to the President's constitutional authority in conducting policy toward foreign states, it is the intent of Congress that the Commission hold policy makers accountable to the purposes of this Act, and, thus, ensure the Act's effectiveness. The Commission will review the ongoing facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom (both from government reports and from other sources) and make policy recommendations. While the Commission's annual report on May 1 will stand as its main formal duty under the sequence of requirements established by the Act, it is the intent of Congress that the Commission be diligent in monitoring violations of religious freedom on an ongoing basis and make its policy recommendations on a timely basis and with an urgency and specificity appropriate to circumstances. Section 301. This section is a Sense of the Congress that there should be at the National Security Council a Special Advisor on International Religious Freedom, who monitors persecution and serves as a resource and policy advisor for executive branch officials. title iv This title requires that the President take action to address violations of religious freedom each year in each country around the world where these violations take place. Section 401. If a country engages in violations of religious freedom as defined in the bill, then the President must, at least once a year, choose one or more of the options listed in the menu of options found in section 405. If the President decides to take one of options 9 through 15, then the President must fulfill the requirements of section 403 and 404, which provide appropriate scrutiny and review of potential sanctions. Section 402. The President must, at least once a year, make a determination as to which countries around the world are engaged in particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The President may make those determinations any time during the year, providing the flexibility to respond quickly and appropriately to occurrences of religious persecution. If the President finds a country to be engaged in particularly severe violations of religious freedom, then the President is required to select one or more of options 9 through 15 or take commensurate action as found in section 405. Once the President makes such a determination, the President is to identify the government agency or instrumentality and the specific officials responsible for the persecution so that sanctions are as narrowly targeted as possible to those entities responsible for the persecution. Any economic action taken pursuant to a determination made under this section cannot be taken until the provisions of section 403 and 404 have been satisfied. However, in keeping with the Act's purpose of changing behavior, the President must first make every reasonable effort to conclude a binding agreement with the foreign country to cease the violations. If such an agreement is concluded, the President is not required to impose a sanction on that particular country for that particular year. The Congress also recognizes that once sanctions are imposed under the International Religious Freedom Act, implementing sanctions the following year could be counterproductive. Accordingly, the Act provides that in such cases, or if a comprehensive sanctions regime is already in place in significant part because of human rights abuses, the President may designate those sanctions as fulfilling the purposes of the Act. It is the intent of Congress that this Act require action abroad specifically and recognizably in response to violations of religious freedom, and that no provisions of the Act exempt the Department of State from recognizing that violations of religious freedom have occurred and taking action in response to those violations. This section includes a provision that any determination made under this Act, or any amendment to this Act, shall not trigger any termination of assistance or activities as outlined in sections 116 and 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Section 403. The consultations outlined in this section are necessary to achieve a coordinated international policy, to adequately ensure the safety of persecuted individuals or communities and to ensure that the economic interests of the United States are considered before our government takes economic action. Many NGOs have operations in the very countries where persecution is ongoing and these organizations can provide valuable insight as to how the problem of violations of religious freedom can best be alleviated, and can help our government better understand specific situations in the country of concern or the potential harm any punitive action might have on their organization or persecuted communities. It is the intent of the Congress that these consultations be the norm. title v This title seeks to promote religious freedom through authorizing assistance for legal protections of religious freedom abroad, international exchanges, international broadcasting to promote religious freedom and through incentives and awards to our diplomatic community to promote religious freedom. Section 601. Use of Annual Report: This section provides that the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom serve as a resource for U.S. officials adjudicating asylum and refugee applications involving claims of religious persecution. U.S. officials may not deny a claim solely because conditions described by an applicant are not referenced by the Annual Report. Section 602. Reform of Refugee Policy: U.S. officials are assisted in processing potential refugees around the world by personnel hired abroad. Unfortunately, such personnel are sometimes influenced by unfairly prejudicial biases that affect their screening and processing of potential refugees. United States refugee policy should not be compromised by local prejudices based on religion, race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. To lessen the possibility of unfair discrimination by personnel hired abroad, and to provide greater oversight of U.S. hiring polices, section 602 requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to develop and implement anti-bias guidelines, and to develop guidelines for entering into agreement with local refugee processing organizations. The Act also requires all U.S. refugee-processing officers to receive the same level of training as U.S. asylum officers, who currently receive more comprehensive training. This training includes instruction on the nature and extent of religious persecution abroad. The Act also requires Foreign Service officers who might have refugee-processing responsibilities to receive adequate training in refugee law and in the nature of religious persecution abroad. Section 603. Reform of Asylum Policy: U.S. officials are assisted in processing potential asylees by interpreters, and other non-U.S. personnel who may be influenced by unfairly prejudicial biases that may affect such processing. To lessen the possibility of unfair discrimination by such personnel, section 603 requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to develop and implement anti-bias guidelines. Personnel of airlines owned by foreign governments known to engage in persecution are prohibited from employment as interpreters. The Act requires training for all immigration inspectors, asylum officers and immigration judges in the nature and extent of religious persecution abroad. Section 604. Inadmissibility of Foreign Government Officials Who Have Been Engaged in Severe Violations of Religious Freedom: Section 604 provides that foreign government officials responsible for particularly severe violations of religious freedom in the last two years, and their families, shall not be admitted to the United States. Section 605. Studies on the Effect of Expedited Removal for Asylum Claims: Under section 605, the Commission on International Religious Freedom may invite outside experts to cooperate with the U.S. General Accounting Office in studying and reporting on the effect of the expedited removal process on potential asylees. Section 701. The Act recognizes that transnational corporations play an increasing role as agents for change around the world and have a great potential for positive leadership abroad in human rights. The Act states the Sense of the Congress that U.S. transnational corporations should adopt codes of conduct upholding the religious rights of their employees.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is my intent to support the nomination of Dr. Henney. After meeting with her a couple of times, and having discussions on these and other issues, I am confident that she will be a very able administrator who will not play politics. In my opinion, she doesn't have a political agenda, and I believe she will try to administer the Food and Drug Administration as a professional organization to make sure that drugs and medical devices are safe and effective for America's population, and that she won't try to implement legislation through regulation. Mr. President, I wasn't the only Senator who had reservations about this nominee. I had reservations until we could get certain clarifications. I received those. I have asked they be printed in the Record to substantiate the progress that was made, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From FDA Talk Paper, Oct. 2, 1998] FDA Partners With Oklahoma To Protect Children From Tobacco The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has contracted with the Oklahoma State Dept. of Health to enforce FDA's new regulation that prohibits retailers from selling cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children under 18. Under the contract, the State of Oklahoma will receive $312,386.75 to conduct approximately 4,500 unannounced retail compliance checks over the next 12 months. Minors in typical dress, accompanied by an adult, will attempt to purchase cigarettes or spit tobacco in retail stores throughout the State of Oklahoma. Information about the compliance checks will be sent to FDA, which will issue a warning for the first violation to retailers found selling to the adolescents. These retailers will be subject to repeat inspections. FDA will seek a fine of $250 for the second violation, $1,500 for the third, $5,000 for the fourth, and $10,000 for the fifth. The first provisions of FDA's final rule to protect children from tobacco took effect Feb. 28, 1997, making age 18 the national minimum age to purchase tobacco products and requiring retailers to check photo IDs of anyone under age 27. These measures are part of a comprehensive program designed to reduce by half the number of young people who smoke in the next seven years. FDA published the final rule Aug. 28, 1996, with provisions that limit access by children and adolescents to tobacco products and reduce the appeal these products have for underage smokers. Children and adolescents have long had easy access to tobacco products. In 13 studies reviewed by the Surgeon General, minors were successfully able to buy cigarettes 67 percent of the time. In fact, 3,000 children and adolescents become regular smokers every day, and nearly 1,000 will die prematurely from a smoking-related disease. On Aug. 14, 1998, a majority of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., ruled that FDA lacks the jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products, reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. However, the Department of Justice is seeking review of this decision by the full Fourth Circuit. Under the court of appeals' rules, unless otherwise directed by the Fourth Circuit, the effect of the decision is automatically stayed, meaning the status quo is maintained until the Court has the opportunity to rule on the government's rehearing request. This means, pending the Court's review, the parts of the FDA tobacco program that have been in effect since February 1997 will remain in effect and that state contracts such as this one with Oklahoma continue to be awarded and implemented. This case involves an appeal of an April 25, 1997, decision from Judge William Osteen of the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, N.C. He ruled that FDA has jurisdiction under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to regulate nicotine-containing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. The court upheld all restrictions involving youth access and labeling, including the two provisions that went into effect Feb. 28. The State of Oklahoma is one of 53 states and territories that are eligible to contract with FDA. FDA will use a portion of the $34 million it has budgeted this year to assist states in enforcing the regulation and to educate retailers and the general public on the new provisions that went into effect in last February. President Clinton has requested $134 million for tobacco regulation in his FY 1999 budget submission to Congress.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the concluding sentence of her letter says: If I am confirmed as Commissioner, I would not solicit a manufacturer for RU-486. She also says: As a general matter, I believe the Agency should only solicit product applications in extraordinary circumstances in which there is a clear public health need. Certainly trying to recruit a manufacturer and provider of abortion drugs doesn't fit in that category, and I appreciate her statement she will not solicit a manufacturer of RU-486. It bothers me that the Secretary of Health and Human Services and this Clinton administration have done so much to circumvent the process, to use FDA in the process. I think it is politicizing an agency that is supposed to be focused on its mission to protect the public health and to expeditiously review drugs and medical devices that will save and extend life. Mr. President, I also met with Secretary Shalala a couple of times and wanted assurances from her that the Department of Health and Human Services would interpret the law as written, would enforce the law as written and not try to rewrite it. Unfortunately, we found out that the Department of Health and Human Services was trying to redefine the Hyde amendment which Congress defined. They were trying to redefine it to broaden the exceptions. The Hyde amendment, as most of my colleagues know, says we will not have Federal funding for abortion except for in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. There is not a mental health exemption in that. Many people have tried to put it in. The administration has. But we clearly defined it, Congress defined it as the Hyde amendment, no mental health exception. I have a letter from Secretary Shalala that says this activity will cease and they will interpret the Hyde amendment as written. We also found, Mr. President, that under the Kidcare Program HHS had misinterpreted the abortion language. We made it very clear in three different sections in that law that abortion was not going to be a fringe benefit which we were going to provide for teenagers. We made the language very, very clear. Much to my consternation, we were contacted by officials of the State of Virginia who said HHS was trying to mandate that they have abortion services covered even though it was certainly their wish and option that they didn't want that to be the case. After meeting with Secretary Shalala, and after an exchange of several letters, she finally assured me that wasn't the case. I will insert her letters and mine and Representative Bliley's letter into the Record. But we now have assurances from Secretary Shalala. I will read the last part of her letter sent to me on October 15: States are not required to provide abortion services, including abortion services for which coverage is permissible under title XXI of the Social Security Act, under any of the

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is an administration that had FDA go out and recruit a company that manufactures RU-486, a French company, to donate its patent rights to a group which is an abortion proponent in the United States and then was doing everything they could to expedite the process. RU-486 is an abortion pill which terminates the life of a human embryo between FOUR weeks and NINE weeks. It is NOT a contraceptive as some would have us believe. It is a drug which will stop the beating heart of an unborn child. In January 1993, President Clinton issued a memo to Sec. Shalala directing her to promptly ``assess initiatives by which HHS can promote the testing and manufacturing of RU-486 in the US.'' Thereafter, the FDA engaged in negotiations with Roussel Uclaf, French manufacturer and holder of US Patent rights, regarding the testing and marketing of RU-486 in the US. In May 1994, Shalala issued this press release, I mentioned, announcing the deal and promising FDA would do everything it could to ``quickly evaluate the drug.'' FDA pushed the drug through the review process in a fraction of time required for most drugs. FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research reported that the median total review time for new drug applications in 1996 was 14.8 months. FDA review time for RU-486 was only 6 months. At a time when the agency was struggling to approve drugs which cure diseases and save lives, the Agency was focusing a great deal of time and effort on a political agenda which would end the life of an unborn child. I am offended by that, and I asked Dr. Henney: Are you going to be promoting an abortion drug? Is that what an FDA Commissioner is supposed to do? Is that their purpose? I thought the purpose of FDA was to make sure drugs were safe and effective and that medical devices are safe and effective so people can have some confidence in these products. I didn't know it was the purpose of FDA to recruit companies to bring abortion drugs to into this country. That is clearly not their purpose. After talking with Dr. Henney, she assured me that wasn't her intention. She gave me a letter, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, another area where I have seen FDA become very involved in the political arena deals with the abortion drug RU- 486. I have a press release that is dated May 16, 1994. The headline is: ``Roussel Uclaf Donates U.S. Patent Rights for RU-486 to Population Council.'' The first paragraph says: HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala announced today that French pharmaceutical company Roussel Uclaf, at the encouragement of the Clinton administration, is donating, without remuneration, its United States patent rights for mifepristone (RU-486) to the Population Council, Inc., a not- for-profit corporation. Then further in the press release it says: ``FDA will do all it can to quickly evaluate mifepristone,'' said Shalala. I ask unanimous consent that this press release be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the nomination of Dr. Jane Henney to be Commissioner of FDA. Mr. President, the nomination of the FDA commissioner is one of the most important nominations the Senate has considered this year. The FDA regulates products comprising twenty-five cents of every dollar spent by consumers in this country. It deals with literally life and death issues on a daily basis. Given the significant impact the FDA has on the life of every American, it is important that the Senate exercise caution to ensure the next Commissioner is qualified and capable of leading the Agency. I have let Dr. Henney know, and I let Secretary Shalala know, that I had some concern with FDA as it has been administered for the last few years. The FDA should be a non-partisan science based Agency which focuses solely on its mission to ensure the safety of food and to expeditiously review drugs and medical devices which are intended to save and extend lives. And for this reason I felt I needed personal assurance from Dr. Henney that under her leadership the FDA would focus on its Congressionally mandated mission. FDA is supposed to be an agency that works to improve our health, that works to make sure that drugs and other medical devices are safe and effective. What we have found, under Dr. Kessler's regime, particularly during the Clinton administration, was that the FDA was involved in a lot of political activity. Under the leadership of David Kessler, the Agency too often became a tool of the Administration to push its liberal political agenda. One area where this was particularly offensive was the FDA's attempt to regulate tobacco. Let me give an example of where I believe they exceeded their authority. In my State, just recently--I tell my colleagues, this is going to happen in every State--an FDA talking paper announced that ``FDA Partners With Oklahoma To Protect Children From Tobacco.'' The Food and Drug Administration has contracted with the Oklahoma State Dept. of Health to enforce the FDA's new regulation that prohibits retailers from selling cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to children under 18. I will go on: Under the contract, the State of Oklahoma will receive [$312,000] to conduct approximately 4,500 unannounced retail compliance checks over the next 12 months. It goes on: The FDA will seek a fine of $250 for the second violation, $1,500 for the third [violation], $5,000 for the fourth, and $10,000 for the fifth. So, if a convenience store doesn't comply and they don't check IDs-- and they have to check IDs up to age 27. In Oklahoma, it is legal to smoke when you are 18--but if a youngster, who is maybe 19, working in a convenience store, doesn't check somebody's identification who might be 26 or 27 years old, they can be fined up to $10,000. Somebody might say, ``Where is this idea originating? It is legal for them to smoke, but if they don't check IDs of somebody up to age 27 they can be fined $10,000?'' This is implementing FDA's regulation. FDA's regulation, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. They don't have the authority to write the law. The Constitution says in article I, section 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Where did this regulation come from? It came from FDA, and it came from the FDA Administrator, working with the Clinton administration, to basically implement a very, I think, political agenda. I might mention that the regulations are being contested in court, and most of those regulations are being thrown out. In fact, on August 14, 1998, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress did not intend to give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco. In a 2-1 decision the Appeals Court tossed out a 1997 federal district court ruling that gave FDA only limited power to regulate tobacco. ``The FDA has exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress.'' So said Circuit Judge H. Emory Widener Jr., on behalf of the three-member panel. I happen to favor regulation on tobacco, but I think Congress needs to act on it. The FDA does not have the authority to create it out of whole cloth, which is certainly what they did. I favor some decent regulations. I don't favor the idea of having a team of people making 4,500 unannounced retail compliance checks all over my State and the Federal Government spending over $300,000 implementing this type of plan, or having the regs be so ridiculous we are going to be checking IDs up to age 27. I don t support regulations that allow the FDA to fine people and businesses who don't comply, up to $10,000 per violation, basically, fining them out of existence. That doesn't make sense. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement, an FDA talking paper, which announces this implementing regulation which has the force and effect of fines up to $10,000, be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the letter says they have reviewed it, and assisted suicide is never a legitimate medical purpose. These drugs can only be used for a legitimate medical purpose. The State of Oregon, by referendum, passed a law that says assisted suicide is OK. They had a couple of them. The State of Oregon can do what it wants, but that doesn't overturn Federal law. What if the State of Massachusetts said they were going to legalize heroin? That is a controlled substance. Does that make it legal? No. There is a reason why we have a Federal law dealing with these very strong drugs, and it is called the Controlled Substance Act. And just because one State has a referendum or petition or the legislature passes a bill, it doesn't overturn Federal drug law, period. For some unknown reason, the Attorney General--and I still don't know why--gave one of the most absurd rulings in June, where she said, well, we still believe we have control of the Federal Controlled Substance Act, so assisted suicide is illegal for some States, except for those which have legalized it. Now, that is an absurd conclusion. I guess if you take that to its conclusion, any State can do whatever they want on these substances. That is absurd. Why have a Federal law? Why have a Federal law in any way, shape, or form. Now we have several States--and Oregon is the pioneer in this--like Michigan and other States that are saying they want assisted suicide. I just beg to differ. I don't think that should be the purpose. The whole purpose of these drugs is to alleviate pain. For those organizations that say we are not sure if we support this bill because maybe it would have a chilling impact on pain, that is false. They haven't read the bill. If they want us to help write it in a stronger way--we put very clearly in the bill that these drugs can be used to alleviate pain. We encourage use of these drugs for the alleviation of pain, for palliative care. But they are licensed by the Federal Government and should not be used to kill people. They should not be used for assisted suicide. These are federally controlled drugs. Are we going to give that kind of license? What happens if somebody does it? Tradition has it and history has had it that the Drug Enforcement Agency, if somebody misuses these drugs--one, they have to get a Federal license to distribute the drug, and if they misuse them, they lose that license. I think it is only appropriate to do so. They should not have the ability to distribute these drugs if they are going to use these drugs for assisted suicide. So I say to my colleagues and anybody who has an interest in this that I want to work this out. I met with the Secretary of Health and Human Services today, Secretary Shalala, and we talked about this. We need to make sure that these drugs can be used for palliative care. We also need to make sure that they are controlled by the Federal Government. They should not be used for assisted suicide. Mr. President, let me make a couple of general comments. This is about this administration, and it is about life in general, or maybe their lack of respect for life. On two or three issues, I think this administration seems quite bent on devaluating life. I am talking about unborn children, where the administration has been eagerly trying to bring forth the distribution of RU486, an abortion pill that aborts fetuses up to 9 or 10 weeks, where there is a beating heart; they want to legalize that. There wasn't a pharmaceutical company in the country that wanted to make the drug, and the administration bent over backwards trying to recruit this drug coming into the country. Now, you find the administration, through the Attorney General, coming up with a ruling that is totally contrary to the Drug Enforcement Agency's history of controlling controlled substances and saying, oh, well, we think assisted suicide is OK. Even though the President of the United States says he is against it, his administration and the Attorney General say maybe it is OK if the State says it is even though the drugs are controlled by the Federal Government. So you have the administration recruiting people to bring in abortion drugs for young people--an administration that wants to fund and subsidize abortion for unborn children, and then an administration now that, through the Attorney General's ruling, says we think these drugs that have been controlled by the Federal Government, under Federal law--we think it is OK if States want to legalize the use of these federally controlled drugs for assisted suicide. I don't think that makes sense. I think it is pathetic when you think that the Federal Government's purpose should be to protect people, and they are actually trying to bring in drugs that will kill unborn children. And, then, also at the same time, ``Oh, yes. You can use these very strong drugs to kill senior citizens.'' It is hard to believe that they would take that position. That is the position of this administration. They are wrong. Hopefully, this Congress will vote. I might mention that this is not the first issue that we have had with this. We passed legislation in the last Congress. We passed it unanimously through the Senate. It was my bill, or my language, that said no Federal funds were to be used for assisted suicide. Now we have people saying, ``Well, we want to use Federal drugs for assisted suicide.'' I think not. We are going to vote on it. We are going to have significant debate on it. I look forward to that debate. I regret we are out of time to get a significant debate on it this year. I look forward to working with my colleague from Oregon. I understand trying to represent one's State. I believe very strongly in States rights. But I don't believe so strongly in States rights that if the State of Oklahoma wanted to legalize heroin, or other controlled substances--I don't think that supersedes Federal law. I would tell my colleague from Oregon that if the State of Oklahoma said, ``We think we want to legalize assisted suicide and have it be public,'' I say that is fine, you can do it with any drug that is controlled by the State, but not drugs controlled by the Federal Government, because we don't want Federal Government policy to be that we are going to basically acquiesce in assisted suicide. That should not be Federal policy. Again, there is a Federal Controlled Substance Act. It is not State. The State could do whatever they want. But not with Federal law, not with Federal drugs, not with the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration, which controls the licenses and controls the use of these substances. The act is written OK. The act says these substances can only be used for legitimate medical purposes. I agree with that. If anybody thinks that legitimate medical purpose is assisted suicide, I disagree with that. That is not in the law. The Attorney General's reading of the law is totally contrary to that of the Drug Enforcement Administration. I believe she is wrong. We will give all Members of this body a chance to vote on it in the not-too-distant future--if not this Congress, certainly the next Congress. I thank my colleagues, particular my colleague from Texas, for allowing me to proceed to respond to my colleague from Oregon. I yield the floor. U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC, November 5, 1997. Hon. Henry J. Hyde, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Hyde: Thank you for your letter of July 29, 1997. In that letter, you requested the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) view as to ``whether delivering, distributing, dispensing, prescribing, filling a prescription, or administering a controlled substance with the deliberate intent of assisting in a suicide would violate the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), applicable regulations, rulings, or other federal law subject to DEA enforcement, notwithstanding the enactment of a state law such as Oregon's Measure 16 which rescinds state penalties against such prescriptions for patients with a life expectancy of less than six months.'' I apologize for the delay in responding to you. As you know, the CSA authorizes DEA to revoke the registration of physicians who dispense controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose. Historically, DEA's experience with the phrase ``without a legitimate medical purpose'' has focused on cases involving physicians who have provided controlled substances to drug addicts and abusers. The application of this phrase to cases involving physician- assisted suicide presented DEA with a new issue to review. Since receiving your inquiry, my staff has carefully reviewed a number of cases, briefs, law review articles and state laws relating to physician-assisted suicide, including the documents referenced in your letter. In addition, my staff has conducted a thorough review of prior administrative cases in which physicians have dispensed controlled substances for other than a ``legitimate medical purpose.'' Based on that review, we are persuaded that delivering, dispensing or prescribing a controlled substance with the intent of assisting a suicide would not be under any current definition a ``legitimate medical purpose.'' As a result, the activities that you described in your letter to us would be, in our opinion, a violation of the CSA. Because physician-assisted suicide would be a new and different application of the CSA, a number of issues remain unresolved. For example, suspicious or unnatural deaths require a medico-legal investigation. The first priority in such an investigation would be a comprehensive forensic inquiry by a state or local law enforcement agency, which is traditionally supported by the efforts of a medical examiner, forensic pathologist, and/or coroner. At the conclusion of this stage of the inquiry, the evidence often is submitted to a grand jury or similar process for a determination of potential criminal liability of the person who assisted in the death. This initial determination as to the cause of death is not DEA's responsibility. Rather, DEA would have to rely on the evidence supplied to us by state and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. If the information or evidence presented to DEA indicates that a physician has delivered, distributed, dispensed, prescribed or administered a controlled substance with the deliberate intent of assisting in a suicide, then DEA could initiate revocation proceedings on the grounds that the physician has acted ``without a legitimate medical purpose.'' In addition to moving to revoke a physician's registration for dispensing controlled substances ``without a legitimate medical purpose,'' please also be aware that the CSA provides a number of other grounds upon which DEA might revoke the registration of a physician who assisted in a suicide. For example, DEA will revoke the registration of any physician whose state license to practice medicine has been revoked for assisting suicide. Similarly, DEA has authority to revoke the registration of any physician whose acts in assisting a suicide result in a conviction under state controlled substances laws. DEA must examine the facts on a case-by-case basis to determine whether a physician's actions conflict with the CSA. If the facts indicate that a physician has acted as set forth in your letter, however, then DEA would have a statutory basis to initiate revocation proceedings. I trust that this response addresses your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas A. Constantine, Administrator. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas. I want to make a couple of comments in regard to the legislation that my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, alluded to dealing with assisted suicide. Mr. President, I introduced legislation to correct a mistake that Attorney General Reno made in June of this year when she overruled the Drug Enforcement Act and its interpretation that controlled substances could not be used for assisted suicide. Let me make sure that everybody understands the picture of this. The Controlled Substance Act is a Federal law. It is not a State law; it is a Federal law. It is a Federal law that controls very strong drugs-- drugs that are illegal, drugs that can kill, drugs that are very addictive. They are controlled by Federal law. They can't be used except for legitimate medical purposes. That is what is defined in the Federal law in the Controlled Substance Act. They can only be used for legitimate medical purposes. What constitutes a legitimate medical purpose? History has it that a legitimate medical purpose is, or can be, the alleviation of pain, to reduce pain, give comfort. It can be used for palliative care, but it is never--let me restate this--the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is in charge of enforcing this act, has never been used for assisted suicide. These drugs are strong drugs. If they are abused, used in heavy quantities, they kill people. Unfortunately, some people want to use these drugs for assisted suicide. The Drug Enforcement Administrator, Mr. Constantine, a year ago, in November, wrote a letter to Congress and said that assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my statement a letter from Mr. Constantine, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague from Missouri.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on rollcall No. 295, I voted yea. It was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 30 seconds?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have given accolades to a couple of my colleagues for their service in the Senate, including Senator Bumpers. I see Senator Ford is on the floor. I have had the pleasure of serving with Senator Ford for 18 years on the Energy Committee. We worked together on a lot of things. And, in my opinion, some of the most significant legislation that passed Congress, in my tenure, we have worked together on. One was the Natural Gas Deregulation Act that President Bush signed after about 6 years of negotiations and hard work, but probably one of the most difficult pieces of legislation that we have passed. And if you go back on the history of natural gas regulation and deregulation, it was a very, very difficult task. It was a pleasure for me to work with Senator Ford in that respect. We worked together on other issues as well. I compliment him for his 24 years of service in the Senate. Anyone that spends almost a quarter of a century of service in the Senate, I think, is to be complimented. I compliment him for his leadership and for his representation of the people of Kentucky. Again, it was a pleasure and honor for me to serve with him. I compliment him and wish him every best wish as he returns to his State of Kentucky. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to make several comments concerning some of the negotiations that are going forward. I remind my colleagues in the Congress that the Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the authority and the responsibility to appropriate money, to pass bills. As a matter of fact, article I of the Constitution says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . . Not in the executive branch, in the Congress, in the people's body. It also says under article I, section 9: No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law. Again, made by Congress. I think some people in the administration think that they are Congress now, that they can write appropriations bills. That is not constitutional. The President has his constitutional authority, and if he wants to veto appropriations bills, he has a right to do so. Let him exercise that right. He doesn't have a right to write appropriations bills. For some reason, some people have gotten this idea that the administration is an equal partner. They are an equal branch of Government, but we have different functions in Government. The executive branch can submit a budget, they can confer, they can consult, but Congress passes the appropriations bills, and we need to do so. Now we have the President making ever-extending demands: ``Well, I'm not going to sign that bill if you don't spend so much money.'' Fine. Very good. He vetoed the Agriculture Department appropriations bill because he said we didn't spend enough money and didn't spend enough money under the guise of emergency agriculture assistance. He requested $2.3 billion for emergency assistance. We appropriated $4.2 billion, and he vetoed it and said, ``We want to spend $7 billion.'' In a period of a couple of weeks, he more than doubled his demands. He has a right to veto the bill; fine. He doesn't have a right to write the bill. Many people in his administration, maybe the President himself, seem to think, ``We are going to write the bill; we're just not going to sign it; if they don't give us more money, we are going to shut down the Government.'' Fine, he can shut down the Government. I stated to the press, and I will state it again, this Congress will pass as many continuing resolutions as necessary, and it may last all year. We may be operating under continuing resolutions all year long. I personally don't have any desire, any intention of funding all of the Presidential requests that are coming down the pike, for which, all of a sudden, he is making demands. I hope that our colleagues will support me in that effort. I am not in that big a hurry to get out of town. I heard the President allude to that in a very partisan statement that he made yesterday with Members of Congress: ``We need to keep Congress in.'' Mr. President, we will stay in. We will pass resolutions continuing Government operations at 1998 levels, this year's levels. We will pass that as long as necessary. We passed one for a week. We passed one for 3 days. We may have to pass another one. We may have to pass it for the balance of this year, maybe into next year, whatever is necessary. But I do not intend on being held hostage. The President said, ``Well, give me more money; I want to spend the surplus, whether it be for education, whether it be for Head Start.'' He has a whole laundry list. He calls them investments, but, frankly, they are a lot of new social spending. I don't have any desire to spend that money. I am quite happy and willing to stay here all year, all year next year, if necessary, but I don't want us to succumb to his demands. I have no intention of succumbing to his demands. I am, frankly, bothered by the fact that at this stage in time, the President is really ratcheting up the partisan rhetoric. Frankly, that is not the right thing to do if he wants to work together. It is interesting, the President made a very nice bipartisan speech saying, ``Yes, I compliment the Congress, they worked together and we passed the International Religious Freedom Act.'' I was involved with that. We worked with the administration. We did do bipartisan work. It took bipartisan work. But you don't get that kind of cooperation on the budget when you have the President making all kinds of partisan statements. I will give you an example. In his radio address given to the Nation today, the President said: This week, unfortunately, we saw partisanship defeat progress, as 51 Republican Senators joined together to kill the HMO Patients' Bill of Rights. One, I just disagree with that. The majority of Republican Senators-- as a matter of fact, unanimous Republican Senators--said, ``We are willing to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights,'' not defeat one. ``We are willing to pass one.'' We made that offer to our colleagues on the Democratic side. We made it several times in June and several times in July. We said we were willing to pass this bill. As a matter of fact, we wanted to pass it before the August break. We made unanimous consent requests and said, ``We will pass either your bill or our bill. You have the best bill that you can put together. You worked on yours for months; we worked on our bill for months. Let's vote, let's pass it, let's go to conference with the House.'' But, no, the Democrats wouldn't agree with it. The Democrats kept us from passing a Patients' Bill of Rights. You don't pass a bill this complicated the last day of the session. Senator Daschle offered some amendment and said, ``Oh, let's run this through.'' That was nothing but for show. Yet we even find an e-mail from the House Democrat events coordinator that said, ``Hey, let's put on a real show; let's have everybody get together; Senator Daschle can orchestrate this; we will have a bunch of colleagues.'' Sure enough, they had a bunch of colleagues go over in some show of support on the last day of the session. Bingo. If they wanted to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, they should have said ``Yea, we agree, we will pass them, find out where the votes are.'' The Democrats would never agree to a unanimous consent request to pass Patients' Bill of Rights. They are the ones who killed the bill. When the President said, ``. . . we saw partisanship defeat progress . . .'' he forgot to say the Democrats wouldn't agree to a process to pass the bill, which we offered in June and several times in July. He forgot to mention that. It kind of bothers me because, again, he says, ``We want bipartisanship,'' and he makes a partisan statement on a national radio address. I have also heard the President state, ``We can't have a tax cut because we're going to reserve every dime of the surplus to protect Social Security.'' All the while--he knows it and we know it--he has his staff members running around the Congress saying, ``We want more money and we want to declare everything an emergency so it won't count on the budget, so it won't be part of the budget agreement'' that he adopted and agreed to in 1997. ``We want more money.'' The totals are right in the $18 billion, $20 billion-plus range. ``We want more money for a lot of things and, oh, yes, it is all off budget; it doesn't count; it's an emergency.'' What a great game. Again, I remind my colleagues that the Congress is responsible for passing appropriations bills, and we need to pass them. If he vetoes them, fine, he can shut down the Government. We can pass continuing resolutions, and we can do that as much as necessary. The President in his weekly radio address said: Our Nation needs 100,000 new, highly qualified teachers to reduce class size in early grades. He said, ``We need more teachers, more buildings.'' The President said: So again today, I call on Congress to help communities build or modernize 5,000 schools with targeted tax credits. Mr. President, I want more money for education. I want a lot better education, but I really don't want the President of the United States or some bureaucrat in the Department of Education deciding which school in Oklahoma gets a new teacher or which building in Oklahoma is going to be rebuilt or which classroom is going to be modernized or updated. Why should we have that decision made in Washington, DC? Why should Federal bureaucrats be involved? Maybe our schools in Oklahoma need more teachers or maybe they need new buildings or maybe they need new computers. Why don't we trust Oklahomans to make that decision? Why don't we trust the parents and the teachers and the school boards? No, this administration does not trust local school boards, local teachers, parents, Governors to be making that decision. He wants to mandate it from Washington, DC. This is a new demand. Guess what? We have had votes on these issues. He did not win. The President's program did not win. We had two or three votes earlier this year. He did not win on the school building program; did not win on the 100,000 new teachers. But yet this is a new demand, that he is going to try to get it, he is not going to sign the bill unless we fund it. I am going to tell you right now, at least as far as this Senator is concerned--and maybe I do not control the conferences--but I do not have any intention to ever fund those programs. I think decisions on hiring teachers and building school buildings should be made in the local school districts, by the local school boards, by the parent/ teacher associations, by the Governors--not by those of us in Congress or, frankly, by some bureaucrat in the Department of Education. So maybe we will be here for a long time. Again, the President has the right to veto the bill. Fine. Let him veto the bill. Maybe we will be operating on continuing resolutions for the rest of the year. If that is what happens, that is what happens. I will, again, repeat that we will pass enough continuing resolutions as necessary to keep Government open. Maybe we will have to pass one every day. Maybe we will have to pass one every week. Maybe we will have to pass one every month. But we are not going to shut Government down. We are not going to demand anything. We will pass the continuing resolutions to keep Government operating at fiscal year 1998 levels as long as necessary. We will stay here. We are happy to stay next week. We are happy to stay the following week. We are happy to stay all year, if that is necessary. But I hope, and I believe, we are not going to succumb to this last-minute politicization of, ``We want more money. Let's spend the surplus.'' I have even heard, in the President's radio or in his speech yesterday--``We've got the first balanced budget in 29 years. Our economy is prosperous. This budget is purely a simple test of whether or not, after 9 months of doing nothing, we're going to do the right thing about our children's future.'' ``We want more money'' is basically what he is saying. I also heard him say we should save the surplus for Social Security. Now he is talking about new investments. In his speech yesterday, he said we need new investments for everything I have mentioned, but he also runs through a whole list of other new spending, social spending, that he is trying to crowd through in the last minute. I do not have any intentions of succumbing to these demands. I hope my colleagues will not. I just say this, with all respect, how the President could demagog that we cannot have a tax cut because of the Social Security surplus and then in the next minute, propose to spend the so- called surplus on all these investments is beyond me. I just have no intention whatsoever of going along with that. I think we should abide by the budget. I do not think we should squander the surplus with new Federal spending. Some of us were interested in tax cuts because we knew that if we did not allow taxpayers to keep their money, that Congress and/or the administration would say, ``Well, let's have more spending.'' There is a real propensity around the place to spend money. I just hope that our colleagues will resist that temptation. I hope that they will resist these new overtures by the administration that seems to think they should be an equal body with Congress in writing appropriations bills. I think we should have legitimate negotiations but, frankly, that does not make people equal partners. We have equal branches of Government with divisions of powers. Again, the Constitution says that Congress shall write the laws and Congress shall appropriate the money. We need to get on with our business and do that, send the appropriations bills to the President. If he vetoes them, fine, then let's pass a continuing resolution to keep Government open.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues on their fine remarks about our colleague, Senator Bumpers. I already made a speech complimenting him for his service to the Senate. I noticed my speech had several things in common with the speech of Senator Daschle. I alluded to the fact of Senator Bumpers' sense of humor, which all of us have enjoyed, Democrats and Republicans, and I also referred to the fact that he had the longest microphone cord in the Senate. He has used it extensively, and we have all enjoyed that as well.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am disappointed that our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle really have tried to play politics with this issue. Many of us were very, very serious about trying to pass a positive bill that dealt with HMO organizations, with health care. We studied the issue for a long time. Senator Daschle said after they realized the polls, they introduced the bill in July. We worked 7 or 8 months trying to put a bill together that would be a responsible, positive bill to meet certain objectives. One, not increase the number of people in the uninsured category. Unfortunately, I think that would have happened under the Kennedy bill. It would have dramatically increased the cost of insurance and, therefore, dramatically increase the number of people who are uninsured. We said, What can we do that would be a positive impact on helping people have affordable health care and maybe provide some coverage and protections for those people who don't have it from their States, and so we put together a package to do that. We didn't come up and say, hey, trial lawyers, what would you like? Under the Democrats' bill, really, it was a bill that would greatly enhance attorney fees. It gave people the right not only to sue the HMO and the health care provider, but also the employer as well. The net result is that lots of employers would have dropped plans, increased the number of uninsured. That would not have helped anybody. It would have been a serious mistake. We didn't want to pass legislation that would increase the number of uninsured by 1 million people. That would have been a mistake. So we were willing to take it up. Our colleagues have said, wait a minute, we want to vote today. Today may be the last or second to last day we are going to be in session. In June or July, we offered to do this. Or we tried to get it done this September where we would have a reasonable time limit, where we would vote and pass legislation. Unfortunately, I think Senator Kennedy and others didn't want to do that because they didn't have the votes. Their proposal didn't have the votes. It had a lot of rhetoric, but it didn't have the votes. They never would take yes for an answer. We were willing to take up their proposal. We were willing to take up our proposal. We were willing to have a couple of amendments on each side. They could have drafted those amendments any way they wanted to. They could have addressed every issue they wanted to, and we could have passed legislation. We could have done it in time to go to conference with the House and maybe work out a responsible and reasonable bill that could be enacted into law. Unfortunately, they wouldn't take yes for an answer. So they played games trying to turn it into an election year issue. I can see it right now. People will try to run ads--maybe in my State-- and say, ``Nickles opposed Patients' Bill of Rights.'' But the truth is, we had 50 cosponsors on this side of the aisle who cosponsored a Patients' Bill of Rights that, in my opinion, and the belief of the majority of the body, was far superior to the bill that was proffered by our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle. It is unfortunate to me that they wouldn't take yes for an answer. They wouldn't agree to a unanimous consent request that would have allowed us to pass legislation and, instead, resorted to some type of shenanigan where they tried to get a vote and then have the galleries filled with people in the House. And so, ``Oh, yes, we are really working to do this,'' when all they were looking for was an election year ad not to pass real legislation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for his statement but also for his leadership. I have already complimented Senator Lieberman for his leadership and his partnership in making this happen. But also I mentioned last night Senator Specter worked tirelessly on this; Senator Coats did as well. Senator Feinstein came in and negotiated with us and I think made some important changes. I also just quickly would like to thank a couple of staff people. Cecile Shea of Senator Lieberman's staff worked tirelessly on this legislation; John Hanford of Senator Lugar's staff and Steve Moffitt of my staff have put in maybe more hours on this piece of legislation than most any I have seen. Others who helped were Laura Bryant and Willie Imboden. Also, I thank Senator Helms for his support and leadership, as well as Congressman Wolf for leading the effort in the House of Representatives. They have assured us that they will pass this legislation as soon as they receive it. So I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. And I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I spoke at length on this bill last night. I mentioned that we have had a lot of cooperation and effort on behalf of a lot of Senators to help make this bill a reality and hopefully to soon become law. Principal among those is Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, who is not just a principal cosponsor, but a tireless worker on behalf of individuals throughout the world who have been suffering from religious persecution or who desire religious freedom. Senator Lieberman has been working on their behalf. I am privileged to work with him on this bill and I yield him such time as he desires on this bill.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think the regular order is we are back on the International Religious Freedom Act?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the majority leader announced several things we accomplished yesterday. It was a pretty productive day. Today I hope will be even a more productive day. Because it is one of the last days of our legislative session, but also because it is the majority leader's birthday, we want it to be a very productive day.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3694, the intelligence authorization bill.