Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I rise today to make a couple of observations. One is that it is very apparent that there is a concerted attack on Kenneth Starr, the court-appointed independent counsel investigating several serious allegations against the Clinton administration. Some of those attacks were made today on the floor of the Senate. I believe a previous attack was made earlier in the week in the Senate. And I think Mrs. Clinton joined in the attack on Judge Starr. So, there appears to be a concerted attempt by the President, his staff, his wife, and others to attack Kenneth Starr as the independent counsel. I just think that is inappropriate. Just for the information of my colleagues, I have known Ken Starr. I understand that he clerked for the Supreme Court for Chief Justice Warren Burger when he got out of law school. I got to know him when he was assistant and chief of staff to Attorney General William French Smith during the Reagan administration. That is the first time I got to know him. And I remember him when he served as Solicitor General of the United States and argued cases on behalf of the United States before the Supreme Court. I happened to sit in on one or two. In one case that I remember in particular, he did a very fine job. He represented the United States very well. I don't remember anybody ever making any allegations that he was a right-wing conspirator at that time. He served as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, and he served with distinction. I don't remember hearing one scintilla of negative comments of his service there. He was chosen--and this is interesting--by the Senate to review Senator Packwood's diaries that dealt with a sex scandal in the Senate. That was a very sensitive issue and not an easy one. And probably not a job that he had any interest in doing either. But it shows that, yes, he handled that, and he handled it very professionally. I think everyone in the Senate would have to acknowledge that. Judge Starr has taught constitutional law at New York University Law School, a very prestigious law school. He was chosen by the three-judge court to take over as independent counsel and replace Robert Fiske in his investigation of Whitewater and related matters. He was chosen for this job by the court. I don't believe he campaigned for it. He was selected by a three-judge panel. So he worked for the Senate, he worked in the Attorney General's office, in the Solicitor General's office, he served as a judge, and he taught--all of which he did with distinction. So I really regret that many people in the administration, and now some of our colleagues, are attacking Ken Starr--impugning his motives, raising charges of conflict of interest, and so on. I think that is really unfortunate. I happen to also think it is intended as a diversion. I think it is a pattern that we have seen followed by this administration time and time again when they are feeling pressure from an investigation or emerging scandal. It is unfortunate, but this administration has been plagued by scandals since prior to President Clinton's election in 1992. It seems like there is a repetitive pattern of attacking whoever that scandal happens to be involved with--whether it was Gennifer Flowers, when she was attacked; Paula Jones, when she was attacked; the FBI, when investigating the FBI files matter. A couple FBI people lost their jobs over that unfortunate incident. The travel office employees were attacked, when Billy Dale was investigated. The Justice Department was called in to investigate Billy Dale. So time and time again, it seems like there is a pattern that if there is a complaint, we all of a sudden start hearing negative stories. When it became well known that FBI Director Louis Freeh's recommendation was that an independent counsel should be appointed to investigate possible campaign abuses by the Clinton administration, all of a sudden we start hearing negative stories about Director Freeh and the White House's lack of confidence in his work. There was even some speculation that he would be fired. Well, he could not be fired, he had a 10-year term. I think it is very unfortunate. Mrs. Clinton was on television talking about a ``right-wing conspiracy,'' and about all these groups spreading stories. I don't think Ken Starr has anything to do with any alleged right-wing conspiracy, nothing whatsoever. I don't think he has ever had that strong of a political philosophy or involvement with partisan issues. He has been a judge, he has been working at the Justice Department and teaching law school. I just don't think that's the case. I certainly don't think that the President's own personal secretary was part of a right-wing conspiracy. So I am just bothered by that. I think that we see a concerted effort by the administration to have a diversion. Certainly this latest scandal is serious. There were allegations that were brought to Ken Starr's attention, and he took them to the Attorney General for authority to investigate. She gave a recommendation to the three-judge court to expand his authority to investigate. Janet Reno recommended to the three-judge panel that these latest allegations concerning the sex scandal be investigated. That is what Ken Starr is doing. So I hope that my colleagues will tone down their rhetoric. I hope this administration will tone down the rhetoric and quit attacking Ken Starr and maybe cooperate with the investigation and let the facts be known. I hope that nothing happened. I hope that there is nothing to this scandal. But I think the President should tell the truth. I think that the American people are entitled to the truth and, hopefully, it will come out very shortly. Then we can go on and do the Nation's business-- as the President has called for. But when there are allegations of perjury, or obstruction of justice, coaching witnesses, or trying to get people to leave town so maybe they would not testify--these are serious charges. I might remind colleagues that President Nixon was on the road to impeachment not because he broke into the Watergate, but because of charges of perjury, tampering with a witness and obstruction of justice. So these are serious charges, but they don't need to be investigated on the floor of the Senate. It is possible that at some point the Senate will have a role; I don't know. But I don't think it is proper or right to have this campaign of attack and smear on Ken Starr. I think it undermines the judicial process and really undermines those people who are making such charges. Madam President, I hope that our colleagues and others will allow the independent counsel to do his work. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES

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

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 ask unanimous consent that in executive session the majority leader, after consulting with the Democratic leader, may proceed to executive session for consideration of the nomination of Calendar No. 135, Margaret Morrow, to be U.S. district judge for the Central District of California. I further ask consent that the nomination be considered under the following limitation: 4 hours for debate on the nomination, with Senator Ashcroft in control of 2 hours, and the remaining 2 hours divided with Senator Boxer in control of 45 minutes and 1 hour 15 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member. Finally, I ask consent that following the expiration or yielding back of the debate time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, and that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. On Tuesday, at 11 a.m. the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the nomination of David Satcher to be Surgeon General. Under the agreement, if cloture is invoked, a second vote will occur immediately on the confirmation of that nomination. Therefore, Senators should be aware there may be two consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 11 a.m. tomorrow. As a reminder, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the cloning bill will now occur on Wednesday at 10 a.m. At 2:15 on Tuesday, February 10, it may be the majority leaders's intention to consider the nomination of Judge Massiah-Jackson. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I further ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the cloning bill occur at 10 a.m. on Wednesday. I also ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday the time from 9:30 until 10 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for debate on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, S. 1601.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 10, and immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted. I further ask consent that the time until 11 a.m. be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the nomination of David Satcher to be Surgeon General.

Mr. NICKLES. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 on Tuesday for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I see my colleague from West Virginia. I am going to close the Senate unless he wishes to address the Senate. And he has declined, Mr. President.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, during the President's State of the Union speech, as well as in the submission of the budget, there have been a lot of accolades about a balanced budget. Many of us have worked for a long, long time to see a balanced budget. It has been kind of interesting, with different people taking credit for it. The President said he has done it since has been in office, that the deficit has come down every year. The Republicans have said after they took control in the '94 elections, that is when we really saw the deficits reduce. I would like to put some facts into the Record, dealing both with the President's budget and also the source of the decline of the deficit since January of 1995. In the budget deficit of 1995, submitted by President Clinton, in January of 1995, it showed that the deficit was estimated to be $176 billion in 1995; in 1996, it was supposed to be, or estimated to be $207 billion; in 1997, $224 billion; $222 billion in '98; $253 billion in '99; $284 billion in 2000; $297 billion in 2001; $322 billion in the year 2002. This is President Clinton's budget. That was what he submitted to Congress in January of 1995. Now, you had something happen in November of '94, which is that the Republicans were elected to take control of Congress. That was the change. This already takes into account the President's large tax increase of 1993. So that is already computed in here. In spite of his large tax increase, deficits continued to increase, from $176 billion in '95 to an estimated $322 billion in the year 2002. I make a point of that because I have heard several administrative officials testifying, ``Yes, we brought the deficit down and did it because of that historic tax increase of 1993.'' I just beg to differ. The facts were that the policies showed that the deficit was going to continue to climb significantly. What happened since 1995? That is what this chart will show. We have had some tax cuts. The tax cut that was passed--actually, there was one passed in '95, but the President vetoed it. So there is no change in '95 and '96, as far as the Tax Code. Congress did pass, and the President signed, a tax reduction effort last year. This chart will show the net effect of that. Frankly, it is not very large. In between the years 1997 and 2002, it is a net tax cut of $75 billion. So that didn't have a lot of difference on what happened in the economy. Spending cuts over that same period of time, between the year 1995 and 2002, was $276 billion. So that didn't have a lot. The primary difference was re-estimates--re-estimates. I am using CBO data, Congressional Budget Office data. The difference of technical and economic assumptions is $1.567 trillion over those same years. And so, yes, the economy has done better, and the estimates were off. The growth rates have been higher, revenues have been higher. That is the principal source of deficit reduction. Again, I am not even trying to offer a lot of my own opinion. I am just trying to show that here is the deficit projection given by CBO in January of 1995. Here is the CBO deficit baseline in January of 1998, 3 years apart, but a total of a couple of trillion dollars difference in their net results. Now, Mr. President, I would like to talk about the President's budget that he submitted to Congress. He made the statement that he did not want one dime to be spent that would increase the national debt--not one dime. Under the President's proposal, he has $124 billion, actually $124.1 billion, between the year 1998 and the year 2003, that 5-year period of time, that would increase the debt by new spending. And $70.9 billion of that is discretionary spending--including mandatory, a total of $124 billion of new spending, spending over and above what we have in present law, spending over and above what is now contemplated, spending over and above what was agreed upon last year. I might mention, as far as the discretionary spending, last year we entered into an agreement that said here is how much we are going to spend in discretionary spending every year. The President is violating that agreement by his submission of the budget. Now, the budget was balanced, but yet in the budget that we agreed upon last year, one of the reasons it is balanced is because basically we froze, or came close to freezing discretionary spending. He is calling for increases in discretionary spending above what was agreed upon last year. He calls for $124 billion in new spending. He also has tax cuts that really also would have an increasing impact on the deficit of $24.2 billion. If you add the two together, the President's proposal that he made in his budget and in the State of the Union, if you took the new spending and the tax cuts, which are really, in my opinion, using the Tax Code to spend money, it would have a negative impact on the deficit of $148.3 billion over this period of time. I am going to submit this for the record. It will show you exactly where it goes, the discretionary, mandatory--where in the mandatory spending, where in the tax cuts, the amount of those tax cuts the President has proposed. He has proposed this amount of new spending and tax cuts which have a negative impact on the deficit of $148 billion. In other words, if we do not do anything, the deficit picture will be $148 billion better than it would be if we enacted the President's spending and tax proposal. Now, to pay for it, he does provide for $115.8 billion of new taxes-- tobacco tax increases, other tax increases, and user fees. If you add all that together, it is $115.8 billion. He has proposed spending cuts in the mandatory items of $34 billion, and so that's how he is paying for his new spending and for his tax cuts. So I just make mention of that, Mr. President. The President's proposal violates the budget proposal because it increases discretionary spending more than we agreed upon last year, and that's where we are getting a lot of savings. Then he says basically what he wants to do is to spend $124 billion more over this period of time than what we agreed upon last year. He wants to give some tax cuts of $24 billion, targeted social spending through the Tax Code, and some of that is for school construction, some of it is for child care tax credits, for environmental purposes, and so on. But anyway, he wants to use the Tax Code to spend money, and so he has $148 billion. What does he do? He says, well, let's increase taxes $115.8 billion and let's make some changes in some of the entitlement programs, spectrum fees and so on, and we will raise the money to do it. So he wants to spend and tax $150 billion more than we agreed to last year--$150 billion over 5 years. That is what it boils down to. In other words, you can do nothing and you will have basically the same deficit picture under the President's budget as if you adopted it. If you adopt the President's budget, you would spend a lot more and you would tax a lot more, period. If you just look at the figures, here is the budget level under existing law, or if we adopt the President's, we are going to spend about $148 billion, $150 billion more in discretionary and mandatory spending and we are going to tax that much. That is really what it boils down to. I hope we do not follow that. But I at least wanted to put that in the Record so my colleagues would have it. I ask unanimous consent that three charts I prepared using the President's budget and CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats). is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. It is my hope that at 1 p.m. on Monday, the minority Members of the Senate will be prepared to enter into an agreement with respect to the renaming of the National Airport after our former President, Ronald Reagan. I also hope that we will be in a position to consider the Iraq resolution and possibly debate nominations from the Executive Calendar. However, Members should be reminded that no votes will occur during Monday's session of the Senate. The Senate will not be in session on Friday of this week. However, votes could be stacked to occur as early at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, February 3, if agreements can be reached on Monday. Members should be prepared for votes throughout the next 2 weeks in an effort to complete several items prior to the Presidents' Day recess.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, February 2, 1998, and, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then proceed to 1 hour of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 1 p.m, with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on January 29, 1998, by the President of the United States: Trademark Law Treaty, Document No. 105-35. I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and be ordered to be printed, and the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

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