Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we need to wean ourselves and get off of this addiction to this and take that money and allow people to put it in their own account. That to me is a challenge. We shouldn't be sitting back and saying, ``Oh, we balance the budget. Aren't we proud of ourselves? We are doing good. We have a unified budget.'' I think we should have a unified budget. But I think we should go back and let's balance the budget without using Social Security. Then let's allow people to take that amount of money and be able to put that in their own account. I might mention that in the 10 years, if we did that, there would be over $1.5 trillion that could go into individual accounts and we would have more constituents that would be happier with us than anything else we would do. We would do more to secure their retirement and their future than anything else we could do. I have even told the President's representatives. I said, if the President really wants to go down in history and show that he has done something significant, this change, this evolution of allowing at least part of Social Security to be funded as a defined contribution in a personal savings accounts would be an astronomically positive impact for not only this generation; I think it would be a positive impact for future generations, which history will record as having truly been a great thing to do for seniors, a very positive thing to do for future generations as well. So I compliment my colleague from Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I tell him that, as a member of that committee, I will work energetically to try to see that we can make this happen as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Pennsylvania for his statement. I also compliment Senator Roth for his resolution. I am happy to cosponsor this resolution. I hope we will have overwhelming bipartisan support for it, and hopefully everyone can understand what we are talking about doing. We are talking about saving Social Security. The President during his State of the Union speech says we want to save Social Security; we don't want to spend one dime of the surplus. Senator Roth is trying to save Social Security. Because we do not just save Social Security by not spending the surplus either in the form of additional outlays--frankly, the President is violating that as we speak because he wants to have a supplemental appropriations bill and doesn't want to pay for it. He is already violating what he said in the State of the Union Address. But I agree. We should save Social Security. This resolution says that we should take the surplus and allow individuals to set up personal savings accounts. I think that is the way to save Social Security. I think that is the way to fund Social Security. Right now we don't fund Social Security. It is an unfunded paying system. One generation pays for retired generations, or working employees today pay the Social Security tax. Social Security taxes are enormous. They have grown, and they have exploded in cost. As a matter of fact, somebody paying Social Security today is paying a total--if you look at Social Security taxes, their contribution today is a total of $10,465 if they have the maximum amount of income, which is $68,400. That is a lot. That actually includes Social Security and Medicare, I might mention. So that is a lot. Social Security is 12.4 percent of $68,000. That is a lot of money. That is over $9,000 that people are paying. If somebody happens to be making $68,000, they are paying a lot. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. They can't open up a bank account and say, ``Here is my money for an investment.'' Basically they are funding a previous commitment. Senator Roth is saying we should take the surplus and allow people to set up their own individual retirement accounts, let them be able to invest in the marketplace, let them be able to enjoy the rewards of compounding interest. Right now the rate of return on Social Security as an investment--some people say 1 percent, some people say 1.2 percent, or 1.3 percent. That is not a very good rate of return. It is pathetic if you consider what the market has done in the last several years. The marketplace--the Dow Jones or Standard & Poors 500--has been compounding in the 20 and 30 percent range for the last 4 years. But to have individuals be able to enjoy this? The answer is no, not in Social Security. Senator Roth has done something else. I really appreciate it, because it is important. He said not only should they be able to invest a portion, but also we should be able to use that money to reduce the unfunded promises that we now have in Social Security. I want to do this proposal for two reasons. One, I want millions of Americans to become millionaires. If we let them take--some people say 2 percent. I think it should be up to maybe 5 or 6 percent, maybe half of their Social Security tax. Of the Social Security tax of 12.4 percent of their income up to $68,000, you would let them put 6.2 percent of their income in for 40-some-odd years before they retire, and you will find that we will have lots of people who started out maybe making $20,000 a year who are going to be millionaires. Senator Roth's example is they put in 1 percent at age 28, and they can have over 100-some-odd thousands. That is 1 percent. Let's get it up, and it can really compound, and individuals can have hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not over a million dollars. I want those individuals to be wealthy, whether they are on the lower end of the income scale or in the higher end. We want them to be independent. Likewise, I want to reduce the unfunded promises that we don't have the money to pay for. I am really concerned about what our kids are going to have to pay for 20 years from now. If we do not do something, as Senator Roth is proposing--Senator Moynihan, Senator Breaux, and Senator Kerrey, and others of us have been working on it--our kids are going to be inheriting a debt that is twice as large as our national debt. Everybody is bragging around here. We are patting ourselves on the back. ``Hey, we balanced the budget.'' We are balancing the budget on using a great deal of Social Security surplus. That debt right now has accumulated, the Federal debt--usually people say about $3.3 trillion or $4 trillion. The unfunded vested promises that we have in Social Security today is almost $10 trillion, twice as large as our national debt. What this change by going to a capitalist-funded retirement system would do would provide security, provide retirement funds for individuals, and likewise could reduce the Government's obligations in the future--to me that is a very positive thing--so future generations won't have to have a payroll tax that is maybe twice as high as the payroll taxes we have today. I think it is a very positive thing. I might mention--I see a couple of colleagues on the floor who talked about how we should not use Social Security funds to balance the budget. Today the Social Security trust fund, this year 1998, $101 billion more will go in than goes out. That is a surplus. Yet, we are using that surplus just like every administration has used it since we have had Social Security. What I would like to see it do--I might mention the Budget Committee has already passed it. I was interested. I was going to introduce a resolution that says we should pass in 2 or 3 years--3 years, let's say--the budget resolution that doesn't use one dime of Social Security trust funds to balance the budget. I tell my colleague from North Dakota, who has talked about this on more than one occasion, that I am willing to do it. It won't be easy, but we should do it. I tell my colleague that in 10 years the Social Security surplus will be $197 billion, almost $200 billion. I don't think we should use these Social Security revenues to balance the budget. If we balance the budget without that, we can make these moneys available for personal security accounts. Now you are talking about real money. You are talking about $200 billion in the year 2008 alone that can go into personal security accounts that can be invested in the stock market, that can be invested in mutual funds, that can be invested in bonds, that can be invested in T bills. Let the individual decide how he wants to invest it. We allow Federal employees to invest in the stock market, in bonds, and in T bills. Federal employees are able to do this. My colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned that they do it in Chile. They make investments. Surely Americans are capable of making these investments. I think it would be exciting to allow people to be able to invest their own money. It is their money. It is not the Government's money. We have been taking it from them. Shouldn't we allow, out of that 12.4 percent, the individuals to take maybe 4 percent or 5 or 6 percent and be able to invest it for themselves? In exchange for that, they will be a lot more dependent on themselves and a lot less dependent on the Government. This is a mandatory tax. Shouldn't we allow them to have part of that for themselves so they can have an account and look at it on a monthly basis, so it is there, and it is something they can count on, not for an unfunded Government promise that we hope will be there. Demographically, everybody who has ever looked at this problem says we have a real problem. Some people say we don't have problems until 30 years. That is hogwash. We have problems, as Senator Roth mentioned, in 12 years. It is estimated that by the year 2010 or 2012, for Social Security that line of more money going in switches. More money goes out. No later than 2012, more money goes out than in. We will start drawing on the trust fund. What is in the trust fund? Nothing but Government IOUs. That is the promise. The way we finance those--you say they are the same things as T bills or the paper equivalent. It is just an IOU. The way we pay for these is we issue more T bills. In 12 years we have a big problem. We will have enormously high payroll taxes and a lot of debt. You have to issue more debt. I think that is a bad solution. This is the right solution, and I will tell you that millions of people in the private sector have done this. We did it in my company. We went from a defined benefit to defined contribution plan. Our employees love us. I think we should give every American an opportunity to do this for at least part of their Social Security. It doesn't have to be for all of it. Some people say 2 percent. I said maybe it should be half of it--maybe 6.4 percent, 6.2 percent. The Government, the employer portion, can still go to meet current obligations. But, likewise, we would be reducing current or future obligations. I think that is very important. What Congress has done in the past--we have had problems with Social Security--is raise taxes. We raised the base. We raised the tax rate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart showing payroll taxes--Social Security taxes and employer taxes combined. For the record--my colleagues can see this--if you look at Social Security and if you look at disability, Medicare, if you add those taxes together, in 1998, for a person making maximum of the base, the base amount, which is $68,000, it shows they are paying in payroll taxes alone $10,465. That is a lot of money. I am saying we should allow individuals to take part of that, a few thousand dollars of it, and be able to put it into their own account and likewise reduce Government's obligation at the same time. I think it is awfully important. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart that I have prepared that shows the budget deficits and Social Security and how that equates. It shows that we are becoming more and more reliant over the next several years on Social Security surpluses that I mentioned before, which disappear by the year 2012.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), is necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yea.''

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, I rise today to object to the Clinton administration's continual, I would say, anti-Israel position, but certainly the anti-Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu position. President Clinton, during the 1996 Israeli election, was very involved, and he was very involved in favor of the Labor candidate. U.S. News & World Report quoted an aide in the White House saying: If he could get away with it, Clinton would wear a ``Peres for Prime Minister'' button. He was very involved in the election. His candidate didn't win. Since then, we have seen more anti-Netanyahu, or anti-Israel, statements from the administration that bothers this Senator. Yesterday there was a report in the paper that the United States was pressuring Israel to give up more of the West Bank. And I am wondering where my colleagues were. I remember when they thought that the Bush administration--and particularly Jim Baker--was putting pressure on Israel. They objected very strongly. They spoke out very strongly against that coercion. This administration has repeatedly tried to put pressure on Mr. Netanyahu, or repeatedly snubbed the Prime Minister of Israel, our best ally in the region, the only democracy in the region, and they have almost resorted to a philosophy of, Well, we are going to use snub diplomacy. As a matter of fact, an administration official was quoted in the Washington Post as calling the Clinton Administration's actions towards Mr. Netanyahu as snub diplomacy. There was an incident in November of last year where both planes--the President's plane and Netanyahu's plane--were adjacent to each other, and yet President Clinton couldn't find time to meet with him. This year, in January, Mr. Netanyahu was scheduled to be here in Washington--I will read something that was in the January 20 edition of the Washington Post: Having declined to find time for Netanyahu in November, even as the aircraft parked nose to tail at Los Angeles International Airport, Clinton is continuing what one administration official described as a deniable but obvious pattern of ``snub diplomacy.'' Today's schedule includes no breaking of bread, no visit to the Blair House, no joint public appearance, no touch at all of the usual warmth that greets Israeli leaders on visits of state. The Washington Post article includes this telling quote from an administration official: We are treating him like the President of Bulgaria, who is arriving to a modest reception on February 10. Actually, I think Clinton will go jogging with the President of Bulgaria. So that is not fair. I am embarrassed by this. Then there was a snub by the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, when she returned to Israel in February and expressed publicly that she was ``sick and tired'' of the positions taken by both sides in the peace process. I can understand why she might be upset at the Palestinians, after they continued to embrace violence and refused to change their national charter--which they have agreed to do on at least three previous occasions--that calls for the destruction of Israel, when the Palestinians have yet to reduce the size of their police force, as again they have agreed to do. And when the Palestinians walked away from the bargaining table when Israel was more than willing to work out problems encountered by the first phase of the troop redeployment. But to criticize Israel--for what? They have complied. The Palestinians didn't comply, but yet our Secretary of State treats them as equals. In the meetings that I alluded to before, the administration went to great lengths in January to give the same amount of attention--which is very little--to Mr. Netanyahu as it did to Mr. Arafat. I might mention that Mr. Arafat, not long before, was embracing one of the leaders of Hamas who was directly responsible for terrorism and violence and death on innocent women and children in the Middle East-- embracing him. Yet they were treating Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Arafat as equals. Then the administration remained silent when Mr. Arafat on February 13 was quoted as saying the ``peace negotiators achieved nothing, nothing, nothing.'' And then he goes on a little bit further. I will read this. It says: Reuters reported the same day that Mr. Arafat stated, ``We declared the Palestinian state in Algiers in 1988, and we will declare it again in 1999 over our Palestinian land, despite those who wish it wouldn't happen, and whoever doesn't like it may drink from the Gaza Sea or the Dead Sea. We have made the greatest intifada. We can erase those years and start all over again.'' As a matter of fact, Mr. Arafat said he was going to cross out the peace agreements and unleash a new uprising against Israel. Mr. President, to me those hardly seem to be the words of a man, who is really interested in peace. Did the administration criticize him for those kind of remarks? Not to my knowledge. As a matter of fact, we searched to see if there was any response from the State Department for any criticism for such unacceptable comments. There was nothing. Did they condemn him for those kinds of outlandish statements? No. Did they criticize him for not complying with the peace accord that he agreed to? No. Now we find the administration dragging its feet to fulfill the commitment that Congress has made--by a bipartisan, overwhelming vote in Congress--to move our Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. What has the administration done? Absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing. Have they spent any money for site selection? Or have they done anything to make it happen that we would move our Embassy, as Congress called for, which we are supposed to be doing next year? The answer is no. This administration has done nothing in that regard. Now, what has the administration done? In yesterday's paper, the Washington Post, it is reported that President Clinton decided in principle to unveil an American peacemaking package that the Israeli Government categorically rejects. The article reports that the Clinton plan will require Israel to withdraw its troops from about 13 percent of the West Bank, calls for a time-out on Jewish settlements and includes unspecified steps by the Palestinians to address Israeli security concerns. In other words, the administration is trying to dictate to Israel, that yes, you have to give up more land. Our policy, ever since the recreation and recognition of the state of Israel in 1948, has always been to say that Israel has the right--not the United States--to guarantee the security of its land and its people. Yet, this administration is trying to put pressure on Israel. Are they putting pressure on the Palestinians for not living up to their commitments? For the third time, Mr. Arafat signs a document and says they will eliminate in their charter the section calling for the destruction of Israel. They have not done it yet. Why aren't they calling on the Palestinians to comply? Instead they put more pressure on Israel to give up more land. I think it is unconscionable that the United States would use our force, our leadership, our power, and our prestige to try to dictate to Israel that they must give up land that might jeopardize its security. I think that is a mistake. This administration has been doing it, certainly, ever since Mr. Netanyahu's election. They have not treated him with the respect that I think he should be accorded as the elected leader of Israel. Instead, this administration seems to think, we weren't happy with the election, so we are going to undermine Mr. Netanyahu. I resent that. I don't think this President of the United States, or any President of the United States, should be getting involved in Israeli politics and trying to influence elections, as this President did in 1996. Now he is putting continued pressure on the Netanyahu administration and Israel as a country to try to compel or force it to give up additional lands, which might jeopardize its security. Who should make the decision whether it jeopardizes Israel's security, the United States or Israel? Frankly, I think it should be Israel. They are a sovereign nation, and they have the right to defend themselves and to protect themselves. They are willing to engage in the peace process, and that takes two sides to comply. Yes, we can cajole people or encourage participation and compliance. We have encouraged participation, but we haven't encouraged compliance. The Palestinians have not complied with the peace process. They have not done what they said they were going to do on several occasions. So the administration should direct their pressure, their leverage, their leadership on the Palestinians, and particularly Mr. Arafat, to comply and stop this snub diplomacy, and diplomacy by dictating, on a plan that is going to be released, what we think is best, regardless of Israel's security needs. Mr. President, I hope this administration will have a change in policy, in its attitude, and towards the way it has treated Israel over the last 3 years. I ask unanimous consent that a March 26, 1998, Washington Post article be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from establishing regulations that would compel broadcasters to offer free or reduced cost air time to political candidates. It is clear that this type of regulation would result in drastic change to current communications and campaign finance law and thus, exceed the regulatory authority of this agency. Absent a legislative directive from Congress, the FCC lacks the authority to require broadcasters to offer free or reduced-cost air time for political candidates. While in many areas of broadcast regulation, the FCC does possess broad authority to change its regulation to reflect what is within the public interest, that authority has always been specifically granted by an act of Congress. This broad authority does NOT extend to the regulation of political broadcasting. The Communications Act clearly mandates, with respect to candidate appearances on broadcasting stations, certain specific requirements for FCC to enforce on broadcasters for political candidates. The law requires broadcasters to provide candidates with equal opportunities, ensure that there is no censorship of political messages, and provide ``reasonable access'' to federal candidates. As for media rates, the Act specifically states that when candidates buy air time, they will be accorded a stations' ``lowest unit charge'' for the same class and amount of time. It seems quite clear that Congress' inclusion of these specific provisions indicates that in the area of political broadcasting, especially for rates charged for advertising, the FCC does not have the authority to rewrite the Communications Act and impose a free political time requirement which is inconsistent with Congress' specific statement on this issue. Any attempt to affect campaign finance reform through overreaching FCC regulations rather than through the legislative process, regardless of good intentions, is wrong. Any changes or revisions to the campaign finance or communication laws should be made by the people through their elected representatives and not by non elected federal bureaucrats. New regulations from the FCC would further involve the government in protected political speech areas and create a patchwork of agency regulations without any consistent overall reform. Mr. President, during the 105th Congress this body has thoroughly debated campaign reform and free air time for political candidates. Clearly there is not enough support in this body to pass legislation that includes the free air time provisions. This legislative defeat does not give the FCC Chairman the authority, even with direction from the President, to issue regulations giving candidates free time and mandate or bribe the nation's broadcasters to abide by these regulations. Again, if this type of reform is to be implemented, it requires legislative action by Congress. It is not appropriate for a federal agency to mandate this comprehensive reform by regulatory action. The Constitution is very clear. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution vests in Congress all power to ``make laws which shall be used necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers * * *''. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive Branch vested with the power to make the law. The framers of the Constitution understood the threat to our freedom which could be posed by an all- powerfull executive branch. This principle is as valid today as it was when they drafted the Constitution. Any proposed regulations by the FCC which would require broadcasters to give free or reduced-cost air time to federal political candidates raises serious constitutional concerns. This is not the first time that the Clinton administration has tried to bypass Congress and legislate by Executive order. They have attempted to do this on several occasions. And I think they have done so knowing full well they could not get their desired objective through Congress. Let me remind the FCC, that if this type of regulatory action is taken by this agency, I will lead the effort in the Senate to defeat the regulation. The Congressional Review Act, gives Congress the ability to disapprove regulations, when a simple majority believes that the regulation is inappropriate. Every member of this body, Democrats and Republicans, should reject this approach. We should uphold and protect this institution, the legislative branch, and the constitution. And so, Mr. President, I have warned the White House that I am willing to use any appropriate tools at our disposal to stop this egregious abuse of power. I will do what I can to stop the proposed FCC regulations on air time for political candidates. And I will do what I can to block any other attempts by this administration to legislate by executive action. It is my intention to use everything in my power to protect this institution. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am prompted to speak by both a tragic reality, and also what I would think is a promising hope. The tragic reality is that literally millions of religious believers around the world live gripped by the incessant, terrifying prospect of persecution, of being tortured, arrested, imprisoned or even killed for simply practicing their faith. A promising hope, I believe, might perhaps be found in the bill that I am introducing today with Senator Lieberman, Senator Mack, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchinson and Senator DeWine. It is called the International Religious Freedom Act. The International Religious Freedom Act will establish a process to ensure that on an ongoing basis the United States closely monitors religious persecution worldwide. It is wrong for a country to persecute, to prosecute, to imprison, harass individuals for simply practicing their faith, whether that faith is Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Hindu. It is absolutely wrong for them to be persecuted for practicing their faith. This act requires the U.S. Government to take action against all countries engaging in religious persecution. What kind of persecution am I talking about? First, three facts command attention. One reliable estimate indicates that more Christian martyrs have perished in this century than all previous centuries combined. That is a staggering, staggering statement. A recent book reports that 200 million Christians around the world live under daily fear and threat of persecution, including interrogation, imprisonment, torture and in some cases death. Finally, over half the world's population lives under regimes which severely restrict if not prohibit their ability to believe in and practice the religious faith of their choice and conviction. Of course, religious persecution goes beyond facts and figures. It happens to real people in real places. Let me point out just four compelling examples. At this very moment one of China's leading house church pastors, Pastor Peter Xu, is languishing in a Chinese prison under a 3-year term for the so-called ``crime'' of ``disturbing public order.'' Hundreds, perhaps thousands of other believers in China currently suffer similar treatment. Again, at this very moment, 13 courageous Christians are imprisoned by the Communist authorities in Laos. What was their ``crime''? Simply that they organized an ``unauthorized'' Bible study in the privacy of a home. In Pakistan, just a few months ago, Pastor Noor Alam was brutally stabbed to death by anti-Christian assailants. Shortly before that, they had destroyed Pastor Alam's church building. Meanwhile, Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan continue to sufferer under the notorius ``blasphemy laws.'' Or consider Russia, which, as many of my colleagues will remember, just last summer passed a draconian law that will effectively shut down the vast majority of independent churches and other religious organizations and severly curtail the religious freedom of the Russian people. I could go on and on. However, I do want to share just a few highlights of what we humbly but earnestly hope our bill can do to begin to address the scourge of religious persecution worldwide. I should also mention that, in 1996, I was honored to sponsor a Senate resolution on religious persecution, which passed by unanimous consent. In that resolution, the Senate made a strong recommendation ``that the President expand and invigorate the United States' international advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians, and initiate a thorough examination of all United States' policies that affect persecuted Christians.'' What was a mere resolution in 1996, I hope it will become a reality in 1998. While then we acted with words, I hope that this year we can act with deeds. In short, this bill seeks to ensure that the U.S. Government aggressively monitors religious oppression around the world and takes decisive action against those regimes engaged in persecution, all the while maintaining the integrity and credibility of the U.S. foreign policy system. The International Religious Freedom Act establishes an ``Ambassador- at-Large for Religious Liberty'' at the State Department. The Ambassador will be responsible for representing our Government in vigorous diplomacy with nations guilty of religious persecution. In addition, the Ambassador will oversee an annual report on religious persecution which will specify the details on religious persecution around the world. This report will name names. And those countries named will be held accountable. For any country cited in the report, the Act presents a menu of diplomatic and economic options, and the President is required to select from at least one of those actions. Silence or passivity are not options. At the same time, the Act seeks to provide the President maximum flexibility entailing the most appropriate, effective response to that particular situation in a particular country. Furthermore, because we desire good results to follow our good intentions, the Act requires a consideration of how the action taken by America will affect American economic and security interests and, most important, how it will affect the very people that it purports to help. The International Religious Freedom Act has other provisions-- improved reporting, improved training for immigration and foreign service officials, a commission on international religious liberty to provide more attention and expertise on the issue. I invite all my colleagues, and certainly those who are deeply concerned about the plight of persecuted religious believers, to join me in supporting this bill. Not because it might be popular or expedient or convenient to support this legislation, but because it is the right thing to do and because I believe it will make a real difference in protecting the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world, those people who wish to express their religious beliefs and convictions. Mr. President, I thank my cosponsors, particularly Senator Lieberman, also Senator Mack, in addition to Senator Hutchinson and Senator Craig and Senator Kempthorne, for helping us put this legislation together. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from establishing regulations that would compel broadcasters to offer free or reduced cost air time to political candidates. It is clear that this type of regulation would result in drastic change to current communications and campaign finance law and thus, exceed the regulatory authority of this agency. Absent a legislative directive from Congress, the FCC lacks the authority to require broadcasters to offer free or reduced-cost air time for political candidates. While in many areas of broadcast regulation, the FCC does possess broad authority to change its regulation to reflect what is within the public interest, that authority has always been specifically granted by an act of Congress. This broad authority does NOT extend to the regulation of political broadcasting. The Communications Act clearly mandates, with respect to candidate appearances on broadcasting stations, certain specific requirements for FCC to enforce on broadcasters for political candidates. The law requires broadcasters to provide candidates with equal opportunities, ensure that there is no censorship of political messages, and provide ``reasonable access'' to federal candidates. As for media rates, the Act specifically states that when candidates buy air time, they will be accorded a stations' ``lowest unit charge'' for the same class and amount of time. It seems quite clear that Congress' inclusion of these specific provisions indicates that in the area of political broadcasting, especially for rates charged for advertising, the FCC does not have the authority to rewrite the Communications Act and impose a free political time requirement which is inconsistent with Congress' specific statement on this issue. Any attempt to affect campaign finance reform through overreaching FCC regulations rather than through the legislative process, regardless of good intentions, is wrong. Any changes or revisions to the campaign finance or communication laws should be made by the people through their elected representatives and not by non elected federal bureaucrats. New regulations from the FCC would further involve the government in protected political speech areas and create a patchwork of agency regulations without any consistent overall reform. Mr. President, during the 105th Congress this body has thoroughly debated campaign reform and free air time for political candidates. Clearly there is not enough support in this body to pass legislation that includes the free air time provisions. This legislative defeat does not give the FCC Chairman the authority, even with direction from the President, to issue regulations giving candidates free time and mandate or bribe the nation's broadcasters to abide by these regulations. Again, if this type of reform is to be implemented, it requires legislative action by Congress. It is not appropriate for a federal agency to mandate this comprehensive reform by regulatory action. The Constitution is very clear. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution vests in Congress all power to ``make laws which shall be used necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers * * *''. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Executive Branch vested with the power to make the law. The framers of the Constitution understood the threat to our freedom which could be posed by an all- powerfull executive branch. This principle is as valid today as it was when they drafted the Constitution. Any proposed regulations by the FCC which would require broadcasters to give free or reduced-cost air time to federal political candidates raises serious constitutional concerns. This is not the first time that the Clinton administration has tried to bypass Congress and legislate by Executive order. They have attempted to do this on several occasions. And I think they have done so knowing full well they could not get their desired objective through Congress. Let me remind the FCC, that if this type of regulatory action is taken by this agency, I will lead the effort in the Senate to defeat the regulation. The Congressional Review Act, gives Congress the ability to disapprove regulations, when a simple majority believes that the regulation is inappropriate. Every member of this body, Democrats and Republicans, should reject this approach. We should uphold and protect this institution, the legislative branch, and the constitution. And so, Mr. President, I have warned the White House that I am willing to use any appropriate tools at our disposal to stop this egregious abuse of power. I will do what I can to stop the proposed FCC regulations on air time for political candidates. And I will do what I can to block any other attempts by this administration to legislate by executive action. It is my intention to use everything in my power to protect this institution. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am prompted to speak by both a tragic reality, and also what I would think is a promising hope. The tragic reality is that literally millions of religious believers around the world live gripped by the incessant, terrifying prospect of persecution, of being tortured, arrested, imprisoned or even killed for simply practicing their faith. A promising hope, I believe, might perhaps be found in the bill that I am introducing today with Senator Lieberman, Senator Mack, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Craig, Senator Hutchinson and Senator DeWine. It is called the International Religious Freedom Act. The International Religious Freedom Act will establish a process to ensure that on an ongoing basis the United States closely monitors religious persecution worldwide. It is wrong for a country to persecute, to prosecute, to imprison, harass individuals for simply practicing their faith, whether that faith is Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Hindu. It is absolutely wrong for them to be persecuted for practicing their faith. This act requires the U.S. Government to take action against all countries engaging in religious persecution. What kind of persecution am I talking about? First, three facts command attention. One reliable estimate indicates that more Christian martyrs have perished in this century than all previous centuries combined. That is a staggering, staggering statement. A recent book reports that 200 million Christians around the world live under daily fear and threat of persecution, including interrogation, imprisonment, torture and in some cases death. Finally, over half the world's population lives under regimes which severely restrict if not prohibit their ability to believe in and practice the religious faith of their choice and conviction. Of course, religious persecution goes beyond facts and figures. It happens to real people in real places. Let me point out just four compelling examples. At this very moment one of China's leading house church pastors, Pastor Peter Xu, is languishing in a Chinese prison under a 3-year term for the so-called ``crime'' of ``disturbing public order.'' Hundreds, perhaps thousands of other believers in China currently suffer similar treatment. Again, at this very moment, 13 courageous Christians are imprisoned by the Communist authorities in Laos. What was their ``crime''? Simply that they organized an ``unauthorized'' Bible study in the privacy of a home. In Pakistan, just a few months ago, Pastor Noor Alam was brutally stabbed to death by anti-Christian assailants. Shortly before that, they had destroyed Pastor Alam's church building. Meanwhile, Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan continue to sufferer under the notorius ``blasphemy laws.'' Or consider Russia, which, as many of my colleagues will remember, just last summer passed a draconian law that will effectively shut down the vast majority of independent churches and other religious organizations and severly curtail the religious freedom of the Russian people. I could go on and on. However, I do want to share just a few highlights of what we humbly but earnestly hope our bill can do to begin to address the scourge of religious persecution worldwide. I should also mention that, in 1996, I was honored to sponsor a Senate resolution on religious persecution, which passed by unanimous consent. In that resolution, the Senate made a strong recommendation ``that the President expand and invigorate the United States' international advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians, and initiate a thorough examination of all United States' policies that affect persecuted Christians.'' What was a mere resolution in 1996, I hope it will become a reality in 1998. While then we acted with words, I hope that this year we can act with deeds. In short, this bill seeks to ensure that the U.S. Government aggressively monitors religious oppression around the world and takes decisive action against those regimes engaged in persecution, all the while maintaining the integrity and credibility of the U.S. foreign policy system. The International Religious Freedom Act establishes an ``Ambassador- at-Large for Religious Liberty'' at the State Department. The Ambassador will be responsible for representing our Government in vigorous diplomacy with nations guilty of religious persecution. In addition, the Ambassador will oversee an annual report on religious persecution which will specify the details on religious persecution around the world. This report will name names. And those countries named will be held accountable. For any country cited in the report, the Act presents a menu of diplomatic and economic options, and the President is required to select from at least one of those actions. Silence or passivity are not options. At the same time, the Act seeks to provide the President maximum flexibility entailing the most appropriate, effective response to that particular situation in a particular country. Furthermore, because we desire good results to follow our good intentions, the Act requires a consideration of how the action taken by America will affect American economic and security interests and, most important, how it will affect the very people that it purports to help. The International Religious Freedom Act has other provisions-- improved reporting, improved training for immigration and foreign service officials, a commission on international religious liberty to provide more attention and expertise on the issue. I invite all my colleagues, and certainly those who are deeply concerned about the plight of persecuted religious believers, to join me in supporting this bill. Not because it might be popular or expedient or convenient to support this legislation, but because it is the right thing to do and because I believe it will make a real difference in protecting the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world, those people who wish to express their religious beliefs and convictions. Mr. President, I thank my cosponsors, particularly Senator Lieberman, also Senator Mack, in addition to Senator Hutchinson and Senator Craig and Senator Kempthorne, for helping us put this legislation together. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. cdbg emergency funds for disaster areas

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to move to table the amendment. But let me make a couple comments. My colleague from Massachusetts is entitled to his own opinion but not entitled to his own facts. And the facts are that to pay for this, it takes money out of the HI Trust Fund that is used to pay for peer review organizations. So it is cutting money out of Medicare to pay for this. I read the letters by some of the support groups--some of which I consider supporters of mine--that have said, ``Let's oppose this amendment. We want more money for HCFA bureaucrats or HCFA enforcement.'' But they did not know the money was coming out of Medicare. I read almost every one of them. Not one said, ``Let's transfer the money from the HI Trust Fund to pay for more employees at the Health Care Financing Administration.'' And so it is coming from Medicare. It is coming from oversight on peer review organizations. We should not do that. So, Mr. President, I move to table the Kennedy amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment because we are still raiding Medicare, we are still taking money out of Medicare. I will take a little issue. My colleagues said, ``Oh, those Republicans, just a couple years ago, they were trying to cut $276 billion out of Medicare to pay for the tax cuts.'' In the budget deal that passed that the President signed, we had exactly--exactly--the same savings in Medicare over the same number of years that the President signed that he vetoed 2 years before. One year, last year, he said, ``Oh, yes, we saved Medicare for 10 years''--we didn't, in my opinion--but it is the exact same savings in dollars that he vetoed 2 years before. I just make that comment. What we are doing now is raiding Medicare, raiding the HI fund, taking money from the peer review organizations that are supposed to make the fund work better, make sure it is not abused, get some of the fraud out of the system. We are taking that out so we can hire more bureaucrats. Now we are only going to hire half as many. Instead of hiring 65, I guess we are going to hire maybe 32 or 33 for an agency that already has over 4,000. Senator Gramm mentioned, hey, if they want to, they can borrow some of those 4,000. This administration has been pretty good about borrowing attorneys. They have attorneys from every agency coming in to help with the President's legal defense fund. They do that a lot. The previous administration had six people in legal counsel. Now they have 24, and one report is 48. So, surely, they could borrow a few people from HCFA with 4,000 employees to help meet this so-called ``urgent need.'' So, whether we are talking about $16 million or whether we are talking about $8 million, I think it is a mistake to expand this bureaucracy, and that is exactly what we would be doing, intruding and basically telling the State of Massachusetts--the State of Massachusetts has not complied yet. I don't know why they have not. There may be a good reason. The State of California has not because the Governor vetoed the bill. I don't know how many armies of bureaucrats we need from the Federal Government to go in and tell the Governor of California he should sign this bill or veto the bill, or the Governor in Missouri or the Governor in Massachusetts. I just don't think that is really what we need. I will tell my colleagues, if it is ready to regulate these plans, you don't need 65; you need hundreds--you need hundreds--and that wasn't what we passed in Kassebaum-Kennedy. We said we were going to keep State jurisdiction and State control and regulation of health care. I urge my colleagues to vote against this second-degree amendment that will add, basically, to my amendment $8 million for a new bureaucracy of HCFA. I don't think we need it, I don't think we can afford it, and I don't think we should be raiding Medicare to pay for it. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would ask my colleague from Massachusetts, if I can have the attention of the sponsor of the amendment for a second. Will Senator Kennedy answer my question: Did you cut both halves? The amendment had two pieces to it, $10 million and $6 million. You cut both in half?