Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I would like to compliment Senator Domenici and Senator Roth for their leadership on this bill; in addition, Senator Lott and Senator Dole because they have worked hard to bring this about. This truly is a historic piece of legislation because we really are reforming welfare. And we should. The present welfare system is broke. It is a failure. It has not worked. We have 334 federally defined welfare programs stacked on top of each other. They cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The cost of welfare in 1960 was $24 billion. The cost of welfare in 1995 was almost $400 billion. We have spent trillions of dollars in the last three decades. What do we have? We have more welfare dependency, more people dependent on the Federal Government, and more people addicted to welfare. In my opinion, it has hurt the beneficiaries in many cases more than it has helped them, and it certainly has hurt the taxpayers in the process. We need to help taxpayers save some money. But, more importantly, we need to help the so-called beneficiaries to help them climb away from welfare into jobs; into more self-reliance; into more independence and away from more Government dependence. This bill has time limits. This bill has real work requirements. This bill is real welfare reform. President Clinton, as a candidate and also recently, has been saying that we need to end welfare as we know it. I have applauded that comment. But, unfortunately, his actions have not done that. He has vetoed real welfare reform twice. I hope he does not veto this bill. A ``yes'' vote, in my opinion, is a vote for real welfare reform. A ``no'' vote is a vote for status quo; the continuation of a welfare cycle in a welfare system that unfortunately is a real failure. I thank my leader. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote nay.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] is necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Hatfield] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is absent due to a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. So we would allow small businesses the right to offer to their employees medical savings accounts as an option--not a mandate, as an option--so they could use that money. It would be their money. People are a lot more frugal with their own money than they are with Government money or they are with their employer's money. So there will be savings involved. That is positive. That is good. What is Senator Kennedy afraid of, that this is going to work? I have heard him say something about, well, this would be utilized by the wealthy and the healthy. I disagree with that. We had hearings and listened to people, school teachers and others, who really like this opportunity. The States have given them a small tax advantage. What we would do on the Federal level is allow them to have medical savings accounts, treat it somewhat like an individual retirement account, and if they do not use it for health care purposes, they could use it for long-term health care purposes. If they do not use it today, they would accumulate it. They do not have to use it or lose it. So people would have an incentive not to run up their medical expenses. They could save it and use it, if not this year, next year. They could save it for a real problem in the future or perhaps save it for dental care that their health care did not cover. Or maybe they could use it for long-term health care, which most people in this country do not save for, which makes eminent good sense. Madam President, I am very disappointed that my colleagues on the Democrat side have objected to appointing conferees on the health care bill which benefits up to 25 million Americans. We should move forward on that bill, and we should move forward on it now. I appreciate the fact that the majority leader yesterday tried to get unanimous consent to move to the health care bill, and once again, I think for probably about the eighth time, the Democrats have objected. I know that he will be making that motion again on Tuesday. I hope that they will reconsider. I have stated my intention to make sure that we move toward the health care conferees before we appoint conferees on the minimum wage. I think both conferences should be appointed. I do not make any bones about that. Both conferences should be appointed. We should not be objecting to conferees. We should let the majority will of the Senate go forth. But I do think it is important, for a little leverage, for Senator Kennedy and others, if they really want minimum wage, they are going to have to allow appointment of conferees on the health care bill. I hope they will see the wisdom in allowing the conferences go forward on both and see that the will of Congress can go forward on two very important issues. Madam President, again, I thank my friend and colleague from Georgia for his time and also for his leadership on this issue. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Thank you very much, Madam President. I compliment my friend and colleague from Georgia for bringing to the attention of the American people issues which the Senate needs to work, and it needs to move forward with the Nation's business. We have found it increasingly difficult because we have been frustrated by the obstructionist tactics by Members of the Democratic Party in the Senate. The Senate is a great body in which to serve. It is a body that has rules that are open for debate. I like that. It is a body where it is easy to have amendments. You can amend anything. You can have any amendment on any issue. It does not have to be germane. I happen to like that. I will defend that right. It gives the minority enormous power to influence and delay and obstruct. Right now we have seen the minority using a lot of the Senate rules to obstruct, to delay, and to make it very difficult to pass legislation. Unfortunately, a lot of that legislation is very much needed. We have before the Senate right now for example the Department of Defense appropriations bill. I have been around here a long time. I cannot remember anybody ever filibustering that bill because we all know it needs to pass. We know we need to fund the military. We need to make decisions on how many people we are going to have in the Armed Forces and what we are going to pay them. We need to have decisions made on what we are going to buy as far as airplanes, as far as equipment, as far as munitions, and as far as research and development. We may have differences of opinion on how much, but we have to make those decisions. You cannot make the decision unless you have the bill on the floor. In this case, we have Senators Inouye and Stevens, two of our more respected Members and two of our more talented legislators, who have been totally frustrated for 3 days trying to bring that bill to the floor. They are ready to go to work. I remember seeing both Senators having their notebooks and ready to go to work. That was on Wednesday afternoon. We have yet to have any substantive, real debate on the Department of Defense appropriations bill because a couple of Senators--and I respect their rights--are filibustering that bill because they think this will delay consideration of the nuclear waste disposal bill, which may come up after DOD. So, if they can filibuster and tie up the DOD appropriations bill, maybe that will help protect them as far as the nuclear waste bill. I disagree with that strategy. I respect the Senators from Nevada, and I respect their right to try to protect their State. But by delaying action on the Department of Defense bill, I do not think they are helping their case one iota as far as Nevada is concerned. That is just the latest tactic. That is rather unusual--very unusual, I might say--to filibuster one bill, particularly a bill as important as the Department of Defense bill, to hopefully influence legislation on the nuclear waste bill, or a bill that is coming subsequently; very unusual in my opinion; not a good tactic, in my opinion; not helpful for the Senate. The Senate needs to do its work on the appropriations bills. If people have philosophical differences on different issues which they feel strongly about, they have a right to filibuster those, but not really on appropriations bills. It does not make any sense to filibuster appropriations bills. We know we have to pass these appropriations bills. They are all important. They probably all spend money that we should not spend, however, if Senators disagree with the way some of the money is spent, they can have amendments to strike that spending, to reduce the spending or to increase the spending. That is the way the system should work. We should not filibuster appropriations bills. We should give priority to appropriations bills over many others because we know we have to do that. We have to pass these bills. Again, we can fight, wrestle, argue, and amend over what the amount of money should be in those bills. But I think all of them agree that we should spend some money in each one of those 13 accounts for appropriations. To date, in the Senate, unfortunately, we have only passed one--military construction. We need to pass the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Hopefully, we will be able to get back to that on Tuesday and move forward. That is not the only case of obstruction that we have seen from our Democratic colleagues. Senator Coverdell mentioned the health care bill, the so-called Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. That bill passed the Senate in April by a vote of 100 to 0. The House has already passed it. The normal course of procedure is that we would appoint conferees and work out the differences between the House and the Senate. We have some differences between the House and the Senate--however, these are not real substantive differences in too many areas. But we need to go to conference to work them out. Senator Kennedy has obstructed that. He has objected to appointing conferees indicating he would filibuster any effort to appoint conferees. He may well have the opportunity to filibuster it. I think we need to make a decision. Are we going to allow one Senator to deny us the opportunity to go to conference for final action on a bill that passed the Senate 100 to 0? I think Senator Kennedy is wrong in objecting to this bill. This bill is an important bill. It bears his name--the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill. It has a lot of provisions that are agreed upon with strong bipartisan support. We made some improvements in that bill as originally introduced. I remember some of our colleagues saying that we cannot amend that bill, that, if we amend it, we threaten the bill. We did amend it. We put in a provision that I know is of interest to the Presiding Officer that allows the self-employed to have deductions for health insurance rising from 30 to 80 percent. That is a very important provision, a good provision, one that passed. Nobody objected to it. We included it in the Finance Committee action. No one objected to it on the Senate floor. It must be a great provision. It certainly is common sense. It has some equity for taxes as far as health care is concerned. Major corporations get to deduct 100 percent. Why would a self-employed person only get to deduct 30 percent? It does not make sense. Now at least that is increased to 80 percent. It takes 7 years to get there. But that is a positive provision. Senator Kennedy right now is objecting to that provision because we are not able to get this bill to conference. I find that very important. He has objected now for 80 days; almost a record. I cannot find any bill that anybody has objected to longer for appointing conferees. If he wants to filibuster the bill when it comes out of conference, he has that right, and I respect that right. I may not agree with him, but at least I respect somebody who is abiding by the rules. Under the rules, you can filibuster appointment of conferees. That is what he is doing. But what he is doing is denying 25 million Americans portability between group insurance and individual insurance. In other words, if they leave a group--maybe they are working for a company that has health insurance and they are fired, or they quit, or they have to move, for whatever reason, and they want to go into a different plan--this bill says they will be able to move their insurance. They will be able to get coverage either in an individual policy or another group policy. That is a good provision. It has strong bipartisan support. By blocking the appointment of conferees, Senator Kennedy is not allowing us to take that up and pass it, and put it on the President's desk and have it become law. Ostensibly the reason the Democrats are objecting to appointing conferees is they do not like medical savings accounts. The House has a medical savings accounts provision that basically makes it available as an option for, I believe, most Americans. The Senate had a close vote, 52 to 46, on medical savings accounts. We were not successful in having a broad medical savings accounts provision. And so since the Democrats do not want medical savings accounts they have refused to let the conference go forward. Even yesterday, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, said if you will give us the medical savings accounts provision or let us define it, then we will go to conference. That is not the way we do business. If we did business that way, the minority would say, well, we will not let you go to conference until we see the final outcome. In other words, the conference does not make any difference; we will write the final package or we do not have a bill or we will not go to conference. I disagree with that. That is a crummy way to legislate. That is not good, and we should not let it happen. And, frankly, we are not going to let it happen. The proposals we have made in an effort to compromise on this bill are several. We have already said that we would drop medical malpractice liability reform that the House had in their bill and we did not have in our bill. We have already said, well, that will be dropped. We dropped purchasing alliances for small businesses. In my opinion, we should not have dropped it, but we did. So we have made several compromises. On medical savings accounts, we said that instead of making the medical savings accounts open for all people in the country, as I think we should, we will confine it to small business, to businesses with 50 or less, and the self-employed. I think that is a very minimal move toward medical savings accounts. As of yesterday, Senator Kennedy and others think that is still too generous. They do not want to give self-employed people the right to have a medical savings account or they do not want to give a small business with 50 or less employees the right to start a medical savings account. What are they afraid of? That it is going to work? Are they afraid they are going to be popular? Are they afraid they are going to take off and be a real success? Frankly, they will be. They will prove you can save money and you can provide an option. We are not mandating that anybody in America has to have a medical savings account. We are saying that should be an option. And if they choose it, great. If they do not choose it, that is great. It would be their option. It would be another method of obtaining health insurance. Individuals and small companies could decide for themselves where they would take that couple of thousands of dollars a year and say, well, if I do not use it on medical care, I can save if for long-term care. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Pryor and others for passage of the taxpayer bill of rights. I also wish to recognize Senator Grassley, because he worked very energetically in trying to see that the Taxpayer Bill Of Rights 2 would actually become law. I am delighted we were successful in passing that today.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, unfortunately we have been unable to complete action on the Defense appropriations bill. The Senate will therefore be in session tomorrow for a period of morning business. No votes will occur during tomorrow's session. The Senate will then reconvene again on Tuesday, at 9 a.m. and, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII, a live quorum will begin at 10 a.m. and, upon the establishment of a quorum, a cloture vote will occur on the motion to proceed to S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. All Members can therefore expect rollcall votes to begin shortly after 10 a.m. on Tuesday in accordance with Senate rules. If cloture is invoked, I hope the Senate will be allowed to proceed to S. 1936 in a timely manner. If cloture is not invoked on that important measure, there will be an immediate cloture vote on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. As a reminder to all Senators, under the provisions of rule XXII, Senators have until the hour of 1 p.m. tomorrow, or the close of business if earlier, to file first-degree amendments to the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, included in S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act, is a provision which provides for the reallocation of a sufficient amount of existing water supply storage space in Broken Bow Lake to support the Mountain Fork trout fishery on a permanent basis. The bill also requires releases of water from Broken Bow Lake to be undertaken at no expense to the State of Oklahoma to mitigate the loss of fish and wildlife resources in the Mountain Fork River as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation [ODWC] began stocking trout in 12 miles of the lower Mountain Fork river in December 1988. I worked on legislation in 1992, Public Law 102-580, section 102(v), which authorized the reallocation of unobligated water supply storage for the purpose of maintaining the trout fishery. As a result, it is estimated the trout fishery generates over $1 million annually in aggregate benefits to the economy of southeastern Oklahoma. It is the intention of this bill that water releases be made from the Mountain Fork Dam to mitigate the loss of 26 miles of high-quality small mouth bass waters destroyed when the Broken Bow Dam was constructed. A 1960 U.S. Fish and Wildlife mitigation recommendation for a 100 cubic-feet-per-second instantaneous release from Broken Bow Dam is being released approximately 8 miles downstream and gauged 12 miles downstream rather than at the dam, as originally recommended. With slight modification, implementation of the 1960 USFWS mitigation recommendation would provide releases necessary to maintain the fishery in its present capacity. Under a reasonable worst-case scenario, maintaining the Mountain Fork fishery requires release of approximately 38,454 acre-feet through the spillway and 41,259 acre-feet released through hydro generation. It is my understanding that over 90 percent of Broken Bow water storage capacity is uncontracted. Thus, mitigating the loss of the small mouth bass fishery through maintenance of the trout fishery does not adversely affect the water supply needs of local municipalities or hydro generation. Finally, it is not the intent of this legislation to interrupt maintenance of the Mountain Fork trout fishery as it has been maintained since 1992. The purpose of this legislation is to partially mitigate the loss of fish and wildlife resources in the Mountain Fork River as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director in 1960. The Mountain Fork trout fishery could not be properly maintained without cooperation between the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Southwestern Power Administration. I, along with the people of McCurtain County, appreciate their hard work to maintain this project.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, July 12; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, and the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 12:30 with Senator Coverdell or his designee in control of the time from 9:30 to 11 a.m., and Senator Ford in control of the time from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m., and Senator Daschle or his designee to be in control of the time from 12 to 12:30; further, immediately following morning business, the Senate stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Tuesday, July 16, and that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.