Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Ashcroft) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Kempthorne) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor--I believe there is going to be a motion to table--I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to table the Kennedy amendment which will increase the minimum wage by 19 percent. Just 2 years ago we raised it 21 percent. I heard some of the proponents of the amendment say, ``We need to increase minimum wage because if we don't, these people will not be able to make a decent living.'' Frankly, I concur; if somebody needs to live on $5.15 an hour, that probably is not a very good living. But if you follow that philosophy through, then let's increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour or maybe $20 an hour. It just doesn't make sense. What are we doing if we increase minimum wage? Right now, the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. There are 2.2 million people who make that amount. The proposal is to increase it to $6.15 an hour. According to CBO, there are 11.7 million workers who make less than $6.15 an hour. If we do that, we are saying it is against the law for them to work for less than $6.15 an hour--the Federal Government, in its wisdom, has decided that it is against the law for anybody in America to work for less than $6.15 an hour. I think that is a mistake. We are saying it is better for them not to have a job: ``If that job doesn't pay $6.15 an hour, we would rather have them be unemployed.'' The Federal Government makes it against the law. Do I want them to make $6.15 an hour? You bet. Do I want them to make more than $6.15 an hour? You bet. But I would hate to pass a law saying it is against the law for them to work for less than that. That is exactly what we are doing. Maybe this $6.15 an hour works in Massachusetts, but it may not work in rural Montana or in rural New Mexico. I am bothered by the fact that we are telling people if whatever job they have--and maybe it is a beginning job; a lot of minimum wage jobs are beginning jobs; maybe they are working part time in a restaurant, maybe they are pumping gas or sacking groceries or something--but basically the Federal Government is saying, ``We would rather have you be unemployed; if your job doesn't pay this much, we would rather have you unemployed.'' Then they are entitled to receive Government payments, welfare benefits, so on. To me, that just doesn't make sense. To go back on this poverty line and say, ``If you don't make this money, it just is not worth it,'' is hogwash. That is really devaluing the whole process of people starting to climb the economic ladder. We are saying if the job doesn't pay so much, we would rather you be unemployed. Sometimes that first job, even though it doesn't pay very much, is one of the most important jobs an individual can get, because they learn what it means to get a job, to be at work, to be on time. They learn maybe that that job doesn't pay enough, so they need to get a better job. Maybe they need to improve their skills or maybe they need to continue their education. To say we would rather have you be unemployed--whom does that really hurt? It hurts low-income people. It hurts minorities disproportionately. It basically leaves a lot of people with idle time who, frankly, would be better off making $5 an hour and having a job and learning some skills so they can get a better job in the future. Instead, we will be raising the ladder and saying, ``No, we would rather have you be unemployed.'' There they are, a 16-, 17-, 18-year-old person unemployed, maybe getting in trouble, maybe still wanting to have some money or something, so they get involved in doing other things. Sometimes those other things are illegal. Mr. President, you can't repeal the law of supply and demand. If you raise minimum wage, you are going to cost jobs, you are going to put people out of work, and, yes, the Congressional Budget Office says maybe it is 100,000, maybe it is 500,000. My daughter worked, and she was going to college. She was working in a restaurant as a waitress making $5 and something, I think--a little less than $6 an hour. At least she did when she started. I don't want the Federal Government to say, ``We don't want her to have that job.'' I don't want to price her out of getting that job. Unfortunately, she drives a car. I want her to help pay for that car. I want her to put gas in that car. Again, I think learning skills in whatever job level a person is able to start at--the higher the better, that is great. But if it is a minimum wage job, if it is a low-income-type job, if they are able to learn skills from that point, great. Let's not price it out of the ball park. Let's not put those people out on the unemployment lines. Let's not deprive a minority youngster who is 15 years old, or 16 years old, or 17 years old, in Chicago the chance to start climbing the economic ladder. Raising the minimum wage--I understand maybe the proponents' goal, and I share the goal of trying to raise people's incomes, but I want to do it through a free market, not do it through a Government mandate that is going to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. Unfortunately, I think that is the net result of this amendment. If not, let's raise the minimum wage a lot more. I would like for everybody to make $10 an hour. If the economic arguments are valid behind raising this--if we raised it 21 percent 2 years ago, if we are going to raise it another 19 or 20 percent--if there is no negative economic impact, let's make it $10 or $20 an hour. Let's make sure everybody is going to be wealthy. Let's make sure nobody is on the poverty line. Frankly, that won't work. That just flat won't work. Most importantly, let's not deprive young people of the chance to climb the economic ladder. The hundreds of thousands, millions of these people who are making this level wage are people like my daughter. Let's give them a chance as well to start climbing the economic ladder. Let's not price it out. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to table the Kennedy amendment at the proper time. I compliment my colleague from Utah and also my colleague from Vermont for their statements. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to the substitute amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of all of our colleagues, the Senate has resumed consideration of the bankruptcy bill and will hopefully make some progress on the remaining amendments to that bill. However, no further votes will occur during today's session. The Senate, as previously ordered, will have a tabling vote on the minimum wage issue on Tuesday. That vote will occur at 2:20 p.m. The vote at 2:20 on Tuesday will be the first vote of the week in observance of the Jewish holiday, Rosh Hashanah, which occurs on Monday. It is my hope that other amendments will be stacked in sequence to occur after the 2:20 p.m. vote. I appreciate all of my colleagues' consideration. Amendment No. 3602 to Amendment No. 3559 (Purpose: To ensure payment of trustees' costs under chapter 7 of title 11, United States Code, of abusive motions, without encouraging conflicts of interest between attorneys and clients)

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for his leadership in trying to override the President's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban; also, Senator Bob Smith from New Hampshire. Both of those individuals put a lot of energy, a lot of their heart, in an effort to overturn a very cruel practice which, unfortunately, continues today because of the President's veto. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senate again is considering the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. This bill, which prohibits a procedure used to kill unborn children late in pregnancy in a particularly gruesome and painful manner, passed both the House and Senate before being vetoed by President Clinton on April 10, 1996. Last Congress, the House voted to override the President's veto by a vote of 285-137. Unfortunately, we failed in the Senate to override the Presidents' veto. The House voted again last year to prohibit partial-birth abortions by a veto proof margin of 295-136 and again the Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 64-36. However, President Clinton vetoed the ban for the second time. Today, the Senate again has the opportunity to over-ride the Presidents veto and put a stop to this horrific procedure. I rise to state my strong support for this just and very necessary legislation and hope that my Senate Colleagues will join with the House members and override the Presidents' veto. As I am sure all of my colleagues know by now, the procedure banned by this bill--the partial-birth abortion procedure--defies description. I am not going to go into the terrible details of this procedure, which is performed on a living child late in pregnancy. Mr. Presdient, this is a truly shocking procedure. It is absolutely indefensible. In fact, Dr. Pamela Smith, an obstetrician at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, and Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at that hospital, testified last Congress before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution that even when describing the procedure to groups of pro- choice physicians she found that ``many of them were horrified to learn that such a procedure was even legal.'' [H. Rept. 104-267, p. 5] As Dr. Smith further points out, ``partial birth abortion is a surgical technique devised by abortionists in the unregulated abortion industry to save them the trouble of `counting the body parts' that are produced in dismemberment procedures.'' [Letter to U.S. Senators, 11/4/ 95] She says, in the same letter: ``Opponents [have] insinuated that aborting a living human fetus is sometimes necessary to preserve the reproductive potential and/or life of the mother. Such an assertion is deceptively and patently untrue.'' And what about the baby, is the baby exempt from the pain of this procedure? No. As stated in a August 26, 1998, report in the Journal of the American Medical Association: ``When infants of similar gestational ages are delivered, pain management is an important part of the care rendered to them. However, with [this procedure] pain management is not provided for the fetus, who is literally within inches of being delivered. It is beyond ironic that the pain management practiced for [this procedure] on a human fetus would not meet the federal standards for the humane care of animals used in medical research.'' In a July 9, 1995, letter to Congressman Tony Hall, a registered nurse who had observed as Dr. Haskell (who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions) performed several partial-birth abortions described one such procedure: The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet. All the while his little head was stuck inside. Dr. Haskell took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head. Then he opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. President Clinton has claimed that for some women whose unborn babies are diagnosed with grave disorders, this procedure is the only way to prevent serious health damage. But according to the Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT), a coalition of about 500 medical specialists including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, even in cases involving such severe fetal disorders, ``partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility.'' (See The Wall Street Journal, Thursday, September 19, 1996, and PHACT press release dated May 7, 1997.) Not only is this procedure not medically necessary, but it actually is medically dangerous to the health of the mother! According to a recent article in American Medical News (March 3, 1997), Diana Grossheim, on her doctor's advice, opted for the partial-birth abortion technique to remove her 21 week old child who had died in utero. As a result, she now has an incompetent cervix which endangered a subsequent pregnancy and required bed rest from week 23 through the duration of her pregnancy. Furthermore, according to Dr. Pamela Smith, ``there are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially-delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother.'' For example, performing a Caesarean section could produce a healthy mother and living child. (American Medical News, November 20, 1995) Even Dr. Warren Hern, an abortionist who specializes in late-term abortions, says that even he would not perform a partial-birth abortion because it is unsafe for the mother. He notes that turning the fetus to a breech position is ``potentially dangerous'' and that ``you have to be concerned about causing amniotic fluid embolism or placental abruption if you do that.'' (American Medical News, November 20, 1995) Dr. Martin Haskell, one of the major proponents and practitioners of this technique, states that some 80 percent of these procedures which he has performed were for ``purely elective'' reasons. [Interview with AMA's American Medical News, July 5, 1993] His late colleague and fellow proponent of the partial-birth method claimed in material submitted to the House subcommittee that ``non-elective'' reasons to perform the procedure include ``psychiatric indications,'' such as depression and ``pediatric indications'' (i.e., the mother is young). On January 12, 1997, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a policy statement regarding this procedure stating they ``could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.'' In July, 1997, the ACOG Executive Board supplemented its policy on abortion toward stating, ``ACOG is opposed to abortion of the healthy fetus that has attained viability in a healthy woman.'' The American Medical Association, on May 19, 1997 wrote to support H.R. 1122, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. And, on May 26, 1997, AMA President Daniel H. Johnson. Jr. M.D., stated ``The partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstances in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method.'' The stark fact is that unless this bill becomes law, more innocent unborn children will have their lives brutally ended by the inhumane partial-birth procedure. During last year's debate the New York Times quoted the pro-choice National Abortion Federation, as saying that only about 450 partial-birth abortions are performed each year. Well, everyone now knows that was a lie! In February this year, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition for Abortion Providers, said he lied about the frequency and necessity of partial-birth procedures. He now admits that this procedure is performed 3,000 to 5,000 times a year with the vast majority being performed during the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers. (New York Times, 2-26-97; March 3, 1997, American Medical News.) In addition, two lengthy investigative reports published last year in the Washington Post and the Record of Hackensack, New Jersey, reporters for both newspapers found that the procedure is far more common than pro-abortion groups have claimed, and is typically performed for non- medical reasons. The Record found, for example, that a single abortion clinic in Englewood, N.J., performs ``at least 1,500'' partial-birth abortions a year--three times the number that the National Abortion Federation had claimed occur annually in the entire country. Doctors at the Englewood clinic said that only a ``minuscule amount'' are for medical reasons. One of the abortion doctors at that clinic told the Record, ``Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical reasons: People who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers.'' It is unbelievable to me that this unspeakable abortion procedure even exists in this country, much less that we are having to take legislative action to ban such a procedure. It is further unbelievable to me that anyone in good conscience can even defend the partial-birth abortion procedure. It is a fiction to believe that it is alright to end the life of a baby whose body, except the head, is fully delivered. In order to engage in such a fiction, one has to take the position that curling fingers and kicking legs have no life in them. Those who subscribe to such a fiction, are at best, terribly misguided. As Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop stated: . . . in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late- term abortion as described--you know, partial birth and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. American Medical News, August 19, 1996. Even a Chicago Tribune March 3, 1997 editorial stated: The American people have learned enough about partial-birth abortions to know that they should be stopped. Twenty-eight states have approved a ban on partial birth abortions. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. It is time to end this injustice and the practice of this inhumane procedure. I urge my colleagues to join me in ending this atrocity. Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, this debate offers each Senator an opportunity to set forth, in a very real way, his or her vision for America. from time to time, we are given a stage, a national audience, and a defining moment--a moment in which we must extol that which is good and noble and just, and reject that which is not. I believe that today provides one such moment in this effort to override President Clinton's veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I rise today in strong support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997. with this vote, the Senate will protect unborn children from the barbaric procedure known as ``partial-birth abortion,'' or it will not. The Senate will side with truth, or it will not. The president has vetoed this bill on two occasions now, telling the country that partial-birth abortions are necessary in ``a small number of compelling cases,'' to protect the mother from ``serious injury to her health,'' and to avoid the mother's ``losing the ability to ever bear further children.'' Mr. President, that is not the truth. The evidence is quite to the contrary. The procedure is not limited to a small number of cases, but rather is far more widespread, numbering in the thousands. As one newspaper has explained, ``[i]nterviews with physicians who use the method reveal that in New Jersey alone, at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year.'' The procedure is never necessary to protect the mother's health or fertility. The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth, which includes former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, has flatly rejected the President's assertion on this point: Contrary to what abortion activists would have us believe, partial-birth abortion is never medically indicated to protect a woman's health or her fertility. In fact, the opposite is true: The procedure can pose a significant and immediate threat to both the pregnant woman's health and fertility. The opponents of this legislation have gone to great lengths to hide the truth from the American people. One has famously admitted to deliberate falsehoods. Others have tried to obscure the facts by using medical terms like ``intact dilation and evacuation'' or ``intrauterine cranial decompression.'' But, no matter what words the other side uses, nothing can change the fact that this procedure is a partial-birth abortion, it is heinous, and it is wrong. I want to close my remarks this morning, Mr. President, by thanking some very special people for their support on this critical issue. I want to thank Margie Montgomery of Kentucky Right to Life. She has worked tirelessly and faithfully on behalf of unborn children. Her years of service have been truly heroic. I also want to thank the Respect Life Committee, and particularly Mel Meiners and Dan Bowling. To illustrate the broad support in my state for ending this inhumane act, they have crafted an amazing Prayer Chain, containing over 3,700 signatures from dedicated people who are praying that we will override President Clinton's veto. I would say, Mr. President, that we could probably take their Prayer Chain and stretch it all the way around the Senate floor. We would then be enveloped by this symbol of commitment to protecting unborn children. This Chain is a moving display of faith and commitment--I am very grateful for having receive it. Let me list a few of the Catholic churches who are responsible for the Prayer Chain: Guardian Angels, Holy Family, Our Mother of sorrows, Resurrection, St. Martin of Tours, and St. Stephen Martyr. The chain is also a product of the efforts of the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Elderly, Holy Angels Academy, and, as I've already mentioned, Kentucky Right to Life. I also want the Record to reflect that I have received over 10,000 letters and cards from concerned Kentuckians urging us to end this barbaric practice. I truly appreciate their support and hope that my colleagues will join me in taking a stand for what is right and just. We must send a clear and principled message to the President and to the nation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague, Senator Domenici, as well as Senator Hutchison, for their leadership on this issue. Mr. President, I want to correct what I hear from my colleagues, the proponents of this amendment, and make a couple of statements that I think are factual. One, I think I heard somebody say on the other side--Senator Durbin-- that there were not any hearings. We had a hearing. I conducted the hearing. I don't conduct hearings very often, but when this issue came up, I knew a hearing was needed. Some people have demagogued this issue and tried to use it for whatever purposes, political or otherwise. I wanted to know the facts. I am chairman of the relevant subcommittee in the Energy Committee so we scheduled a hearing. We had the hearing, I believe, in June of this year. There are just a couple of points that I would like to make. One, in testimony before the House subcommittee, the director of MMS said the purpose of the regulations were not to raise money. She said, that the regulations are to be revenue neutral. I hear all of the list of the groups who are supposedly proponents of the Boxer amendment-- schoolboards and so on--thinking they are going to get a lot more money. The proposed regulations are supposed to be revenue neutral. It is not supposed to raise any money. Proponents are saying, ``Oh well. If we don't pass this amendment, the schoolboard is going to be out of some money,'' and so on. That is false. It is not the case. It is contrary to what the director of MMS has testified to. I don't happen to agree with the director of MMS, or the Assistant Secretary of the Interior in proposing this oil valuation regulation. I think they have gone too far. I happen to like Mr. Armstrong. But I don't think their regulation makes sense. That is one of the reasons we had hearings. One of the things we don't do enough of in the Senate and House is we don't have oversight over our various agencies. A lot of times the agencies propose rules and regulations, and sometimes those rules and regulations don't make sense. They may be well intended, and they may have stated goals of simplicity, clarity, and definability, but they may do just exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, the regulations that MMS has come up with--at least according to the people who work in the industry--the regulations won't clarify anything. They won't even raise the Government any money--maybe not as much money as they are raising right now. What they will raise is litigation. That doesn't help anybody. That doesn't help the Government. That doesn't help the schoolboard. That doesn't help the tribes. That doesn't help the States or anybody, except for maybe the lawyers who are involved in the litigation. Some of us have looked at this. This is one of the regulations that we need to review. I mentioned that we had a hearing. Several of us have had meetings with members of the administration, the Department of the Interior, and MMS proponents of this regulation, and people who work in the industry. We tried to pull them together. Both Senators from Louisiana, both Senators from New Mexico, Senator Hutchison from Texas, and myself have met with MMS and said, ``Can't we figure this out? Can't we come up with workable, definable, clearly understandable regulations on how to determine royalty evaluations?'' We have had interesting meetings. But, unfortunately, sometimes it appears that MMS is not really listening to some of the complaints and really hasn't made the necessary changes to the regulations to make them workable. I would take issue with some of my colleagues who said, ``Well, these big oil companies, they are cheating, they are selling to an affiliate, and they lowball the price, and they make more money, and the Government is being cheated.'' I do not think that is the case. If it is the case, the government has every right to take the company to court, and maybe they can win. What we want to do is have clarity. We want to have definability. We want people to pay exactly what they owe in royalties--not a dime more, not a dime less. And that is our objective. It is easier said than done. And the MMS came up with some proposed regulations. They said, ``Oh, well, we will put out some prices that are on the exchange, and that will be what the royalty will be based on, on that given date.'' But wait a minute. What if there is an arm's length transaction where somebody actually bought and sold? Maybe they didn't buy or sell at the same price posted on the exchange. Market valuation on some exchanges is based on some transactions, but you have some transactions below it and some above it; you have some transactions that might be a little higher because of a little different weight of oil or different grade of oil or a transportation problem or a little different sulfur content. There are lots of variables in the equation. So to have some bureaucrat say, well, I am going to pick this market index or this posted price somewhere and that will be the value of what the Federal Government will be paid on instead of the actual value of an arm's length transaction, that doesn't make sense. I will tell you, in my own State we have several different prices on different types of oil. We have Texas crude; we have Oklahoma sweet, Texas sweet; we have Cushing prices; we have a lot of different prices, posted prices, and so on. So I just mention to my colleagues, I don't think the oil companies are trying to cheat anybody. I think the proposed regulations are not clear; they need to be clarified. We need to work with MMS to try to come up with better regulations that are clear and work. They haven't done it yet. And their proposal leaves a lot to be desired. Their proposal would result in more litigation, and that is not going to help any schoolboard in the country. And so I think we have the responsibility in Congress as maybe the countervailing branch of Government, the branch of Government that listens to our constituents when we find a regulatory agency that is not listening, that is not working, that is not promulgating regulations that will work, to get their attention. We have an obligation to make them work with us to come up with something that is reasonable and sound. And if they continue to come up with regulations that will not work, that do not make sense, then we should stop that. This is called checks and balances. It is called balance of power. We cannot allow regulatory agencies to run amok. And so I think we have a constitutional responsibility to try to make some progress in this area. If we find regulatory agencies that are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, we should hold them in check. That is what this provision, that the Senator from California is trying to strike, strives to do. This provision doesn't say that MMS cannot go further on their proposed regulations. It basically says let's put out regulations that are reasonable and sound. And many of us have tried to facilitate meetings to make that happen. My colleagues on the other side said that this proposed rule exempts 95 percent of the companies. Independents are not covered. Independents tell me they are covered. The regulations are written for all oil producers; 100 percent of all oil producers are covered by these regulations. Some of my colleagues have said: Oh, no; it just applies to those companies who are selling to marketing affiliates. Guess what. More and more companies today are selling into a company that maybe they have a little piece of or something--a natural gas marketing company, an oil marketing company, and so on. They are banding together in these types of organizations. And so this regulation certainly reaches, I would say--I don't know what percentage, but according to the independent petroleum producers--I happen to think they would know more about it than anybody else--it says 100 percent. The independent producers say in a memo, ``Percentage of oil producers impacted by the proposed oil royalty rule, 100 percent.'' I happen to think they know what they are talking about. And so again I compliment my colleagues, Senator Hutchison and Senator Domenici, for including this provision in this bill. I think they are right in doing so. I think MMS needs to work with Congress and with the affected parties to make sure that every company pays exactly what they owe--no more, no less. If colleagues are interested in trying to raise money, they should try to raise the royalty rate, and we can have a debate on that. That is certainly within their rights. I don't think they will be successful, but they have the right to try that. But to try to raise the royalty rates by changing the regulations or trying to change the regulations in a way so that they will raise money is a tax increase by a regulatory agency, I reject that emphatically. Congress has the power to raise taxes, not some unelected bureaucrat in the Minerals Management Service. To all the arguments that our colleagues from California and others made, that this proposed regulation is going to raise so much money and it is going to help schools, and so on--no; what we have to do is make sure that every company pays exactly what they owe--no more, no less. The current system is not correct. It needs to be improved. However, the regulations proposed by the MMS do not fit the bill. They need to be revised. We are trying to get their attention so they will revise those rules in a workable, definable, understandable way that is clear, so that everyone will know exactly what should be paid and will pay that much and no more. Mr. President, again I thank my colleagues for their efforts, and I urge my colleagues to support our effort to defeat the amendment of our colleague from California. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Certainly.