Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator from Alaska has been here a little bit longer than I have, and I compliment him for his years of service as well as the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, and I hope we can move forward with this legislation. I cannot recall--I have been around when we had a few filibusters-- but I cannot recall in my 16 years here that anybody has filibustered a bill, not the bill they were opposed to, but filibustering a bill that is coming up prior to the bill that they were opposed to.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the previously ordered morning business period, that Senator Daschle or his designee be in control of the first 40 minutes and that Senator Thomas or his designee be in control of the remaining 20 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 10, 1996, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 1877, the Environmental Improvement Timber Contract Extension Act, a bill to ensure the proper stewardship of publicly owned assets in the Tongass National Forest in the State of Alaska, a fair return to the United States for public timber in the Tongass, and a proper balance among multiple use interests in the Tongass to enhance forest health, sustainable harvest, and the general economic health and growth in southeast Alaska and the United States.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 10, 1996, at 11 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 10, 1996, at 11 a.m. to hold an open hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] would vote ``yea.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] would vote ``nay.''

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. Cohen] are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of H.R. 3448, the small business tax package legislation, with time until 12:30 equally divided between the two managers or their designees. The Senate will recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet. At 2:15, immediately following the conferences, the Senate will begin voting on pending amendments to the small business tax legislation. Under a previous agreement, following those votes, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 295, the TEAM Act. Senators should also be reminded the vote on passage of the Department of Defense authorization bill will now occur at 12 noon on Wednesday. Following the vote on the Defense bill, there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1788, the National Right To Work Act, to be followed by any votes ordered on amendments to the TEAM Act legislation. Also, on Wednesday morning at 10 a.m., there will be a joint meeting of Congress to hear an address by the Prime Minister of Israel. So to repeat, for the information of all my colleagues, we will have 3 hours of debate and discussion on the tax component of the bill pending before us today. At 2:15 we will have a vote immediately on the Bond-Lott amendment, followed by a vote on the Kennedy amendment, followed by a rollcall vote, if necessary, on the tax portion of this bill, followed by final passage. For the information of all our colleagues, we will have a series of votes beginning at 2:15. We urge all Members to be attentive and ask that those rollcalls move expeditiously. I now call on my colleague, Senator Roth, from Delaware, to manage the tax portion of this bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I congratulate the Chaplain for once again delivering a beautiful prayer for not only the Senate but for our Nation as well.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, thank you. I wish to compliment my colleague from Texas for an outstanding statement and also for her leadership on this issue and for the fact that she has some business experience to rely on. I think that certainly is needed. I hope that her advice, as far as voting on these amendments, will be taken to heart by our colleagues. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to a 21-percent increase in the minimum wage. That does not mean that I do not want individuals that make the minimum wage to make more money. I hope that they do. I hope they make a lot more. I hope we are not satisfied with them making $5.15. I would like for them to make a lot more. But what I would hate to do is to pass a Federal law that says it is illegal for them to work for $5. In other words, if the economic situation in some area will only allow a job to pay $5 or $4.50, I do not think we should pass a Federal law to say it is illegal for them to take the job. That is exactly what we are doing. I have heard some of our colleagues say, ``Well, this is supported by an overwhelming majority of people. Eighty percent of the people support the minimum wage.'' I want people who make minimal amounts of money to make more money as well. But suppose the pollster phrased it like this: Should the Federal Government make it illegal for an individual to work for $4.80 an hour in rural Montana if that is the best that that employer can pay and the best that that employee can make? Most people would say, no, you should not make it illegal. I just say that I believe the reason why we are here is not really to raise minimum wages. I believe it is political. I believe our colleagues on the Democrat side, including the President, are playing politics. They are trying to score political points. Maybe they have been successful. I do not know. Interesting coincidence of timing. The Democrats controlled the Senate, both Houses of Congress, in 1993 and 1994. They could have raised this issue at any time during then. The majority leader could have called it up. The Speaker in the House could have called it up at any point. They controlled both Houses of Congress. President Clinton and the Democrats said they were in favor of it. They could have moved at that time. They could have pulled it up, and both Houses would have considered it, would have voted on it, or at least it would have been up for consideration. They did not do it in 1993. They did not do it in 1994. They did it, I believe, for political purposes, about the same time after organized labor came into town and said they would commit $35 million to try to retake both the House and the Senate. Interesting timing. All of a sudden, here come the amendments, and we will have this amendment on everything, we will make it illegal for anybody in America to work for $5 an hour because somebody in this Chamber has determined you should not have a job if it is only $5 an hour. I disagree with that philosophy. I disagree with it very strongly. Now, if the Senator from Massachusetts or the Senator from any other State, if their State wants to raise minimum wage to $5.25, which I think they have done in the State of Massachusetts, they are scheduled to go to $5.25, that is fine. If the State of New York wants a minimum wage of $6 an hour, they have the right to do so. Why in the world should we make it national? What about the State of Montana, or some rural town in Montana? Maybe they have different economic circumstances, which they most certainly do, than, say, New York City or Washington, DC. Why should we presuppose we have all the wisdom and we should mandate what the wages should be nationally, and make it is against the law for you to have a job even if you are 16 years old and want to get started climbing the economic ladder? We are going to say, ``No, if you cannot get a job that pays at least $5.15 an hour, you cannot have a job. The Federal Government has determined it is better for you to stay at home, not work. If you cannot get a job at $5.15 an hour, we prefer you not to have a job. It is against the law for you to have a job.'' I think that is a mistake. I think it is a serious mistake. I think it will cost jobs. I do not know how many jobs it will cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates employment losses for a 90-cent- per-hour increase in minimum wage from roughly 100,000 to 500,000 jobs. That is a pretty significant economic impact on that 100,000 or that 500,000 people who lose a job. Those are people that may need the job more than anything. Maybe they are people that want to start climbing the economic ladder, and we will say, ``No, you need not apply. That job is not worth it.'' Maybe it was pumping gas, sacking groceries, or some menial task. That first job can be one of the most important, in fact, maybe the most important job somebody will have because they start learning skills. They might learn they need more education, or have an idea, ``Wait, I need to make more money, so therefore I better go back to school,'' or vo-tech, or finish high school, or maybe go to college. No, we will have a Federal law that says if you do not make at least $5.15 an hour, we have determined you should not have a job. As a matter of fact, it is illegal for you to have a job. I think that is wrong. The Employment Policies Institute estimates that the job loss for an increase of 90 cents is over 600,000, if Senator Kennedy's amendment passes. Mr. President, 10,000 are in Oklahoma, 18,000 would be in Georgia. I do not want to pass a law that will put 10,000 Oklahomans out of work. Again, if they want to do that in the State of Massachusetts, power to them. If they want to do it in other States, they have that right to do so. We should not interfere with that. What about States rights? The 10th amendment of the Constitution says all the rights and powers are reserved to the States and the people. They did not envision the Federal Government mandating that if you do not make $5.15 an hour, you cannot have a job. That is what Senator Kennedy's amendment would do. Senator Kennedy's amendment is even worse than the language that already passed the House, which President Clinton said he would sign. The House bill at least has a training wage of 90 days; Senator Kennedy only has one for 30 days. The House bill does not hit the restaurant owners and workers; it allows a tip credit. Most people that work in restaurants make $8 or $9 an hour on average. They are not minimum wage, so they keep the tip credit at $2.13. Senator Kennedy has that increased. That would be a big hit on somebody that has a small restaurant. My point being that his language is even worse than what passed the House. The net result is you will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. I believe that is a serious, serious mistake. Not only that, but now it would be retroactive. So, think of that. You have a small business. Senator Kennedy does not give a small business exemption, no matter how small. My colleagues know I used to have a janitorial service. We did not pay minimum wage. I used to work for a janitorial service that did pay minimum wage. Senator Kennedy's bill would make it retroactive. That might be nice if you got the wage, but what about the employer that could not cover it? I remember asking my boss, when I was making $1.60 an hour, for a raise, and after a couple weeks he gave me a nickel-an-hour raise. Senator Kennedy will mandate they have to give 45 cents retroactive to July 5. What if they cannot afford that? Sorry, you just lost a job, thanks to Senator Kennedy's amendment. We should not allow that to happen. We should not be passing laws around this place that will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. We should not be passing laws around this place that say it is illegal for you to have a job that pays $5.10 an hour because the Federal Government has determined that any job that is worth having should pay at least $5.15 an hour. I believe that is very bad economics. It does not make sense. I do not believe we can repeal the law of supply and demand. If we can, why stop at $5.15? Maybe we should have another amendment that says make it $10 an hour if there is no negative impact on a 21-percent increase in the minimum wage. Increase it 100 percent--make it $10 an hour or $20 an hour. Anybody making $5 an hour, I would like them to make $10 or $20. I would like them to be better off financially. If there are no negative economic consequences, why not do it? We are not going to do it because people know it would have a negative economic consequence. We know we would be putting people out of work, and there are certain jobs in certain places that cannot afford to pay it. The people we will hurt the most are the people we should be hurting the least. We will be hurting a little restaurant or grocery store that is competing in some rural town, trying to stay alive, competing against Wal-Mart. Some big business comes in and the little guy is having a hard time staying alive. Yet, we are going to mandate a 21- percent increase in minimum wage. Maybe they were hiring some young people, 16 and 17 years old, that wanted to earn some money in the summertime, and we will tell them, ``No, you cannot do that. It is against the law. Unless you pay at least $5.15 an hour, we have determined that job is not worth having.'' We have decided that in Washington, DC, because we are the source of all wisdom. What is right about $5.15? Why not make it $6 or $7 or $8 or $10? It just does not make sense. If you repeal the law of supply and demand, we should make it $10 or $20, but we cannot. It will cost jobs. If we pass the increase in minimum wage, it will cost jobs. We will put people out of work, people that need to work the most, people that want to start climbing the economic ladder. That is a serious mistake. I mentioned, Mr. President, I worked for a janitorial service in Stillwater, OK, and the 1968 minimum wage was $1.60. My wife and I both had a job there. We worked at it a month before we asked for the raise. We got the nickel. We decided that was not enough, so we started our own janitorial service and we made a lot more money working for ourselves. We got started low on the economic ladder, but we were able to climb up. I am glad the Federal Government did not come in and say they wanted the minimum wage at that time to be much, much higher. I might not have gotten that job. I might not have gotten the training, and I might not have started my own janitorial service and put myself and several other people through school. We should not deny people economic opportunities. We should not be passing laws that will be putting people out of work. That is exactly what we will be doing if we pass this increase in minimum wage. I hope we will not do it. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kennedy amendment tomorrow.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Georgia for his leadership today and many times on the floor. The issue I am going to address today is not one that I enjoy, but it is one about which, I think, the American people are entitled to the facts. I want to read a quote that was made in January 1993 by President Clinton: I promise the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic. January 24, 1993, quoted in the Washington Post. This administration has been anything but ethical. As a matter of fact, there has been a litany, a continuation of scandals that have been plaguing this administration. Some people say they are much to do about nothing. I disagree. I am afraid some of these scandals are quite serious. A lot are serious violations of the law, if they turn out to be proven true. Let me touch on a couple of them. Probably the most famous one is Whitewater. I heard a reporter saying, ``Well, there is not a whole lot of substance to that.'' Yet, the Governor of Arkansas lost his job over Whitewater. There must have been some substance to the allegations. Obstruction of justice is against the law, and there were reports that were subpoenaed that took over 2 years to surface, and they surfaced adjacent to Mrs. Clinton's quarters, or in her library, which had very limited access. Obstruction of justice is against the law, and those files just recently somehow appeared. There is information in Vincent Foster's office that dealt with tax returns and dealt with Whitewater and dealt with a lot of different things that, again, mysteriously disappeared for months. Reports are that they were actually in the personal quarters of President and Mrs. Clinton. Those are serious violations of the law if they are obstructing justice, obstruction of the investigation of Mr. Foster's death. A lot of other things have come to light. I will just run through a litany of them very quickly. In the book ``Blood Sport,'' Mr. Stewart talked about the Clinton's deducting $20,000 in a principal payment. I think everyone knows that you deduct interest; you cannot deduct principal. My son is 26 years old. He recently purchased a townhouse. He knows you deduct interest; you cannot deduct principal. Yet you had a Rhodes scholar and an attorney, the President and Mrs. Clinton, and they deducted $20,000 or more in principal. That is a violation of law. That is tax evasion, and that is wrong. Consider Mrs. Clinton's profits that were made from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures or commodity trading that grew to $100,000 in 10 months, that defies probability. I heard some people say that the chances of that happening are one out of a billion. It is not possible. Certainly it looks corrupt. Again, I remember President Clinton's speech in 1992. He said, ``The decade of greed is over.'' But yet you see this type of thing going on. There is a trial in Arkansas right now where two bankers are accused of illegally getting $53,500 in cash for the Clinton campaign. I heard President Clinton is not on trial. I have not heard anybody say, ``Well, what were they doing with $53,000 in cash?'' Every person in this room that has run a campaign--we all have campaigns, and maybe you need a couple hundred dollars in cash every once in awhile, maybe. But you do not need $53,000 in cash for anything that is legal. I have not heard that question being asked. Maybe it was legal. Maybe it is legal to take $10,000 in cash and distribute it around the State, or $50,000. But I cannot imagine it. To me it sounds very unethical. Yet that trial is going on today on whether or not the funds were laundered, and what his involvement was, and whether jobs were involved quid pro quo for exchange of those kinds of contributions. But why in the world would somebody have $53,000 in cash? I have run three statewide campaigns. I do not know that we ever had $1,000 in cash. I cannot imagine $53,000. They knew they were breaking the law, a community of individuals did, when they were withdrawing the money from the bank because they tried to hide it. So they knew there was some risk. But somebody in the campaign wanted a lot of cash. That is directly related to, at that time, Governor Clinton. Now, Mr. President, we get into this scandal, this latest one, Filegate. What brought some of that about? Travelgate and the fact that seven members of the travel office of the White House were fired. I have always said they had a right to put in their own people, but they did not have a right to call in the FBI to try to justify an abuse of power by firing them and then prosecuting Billy Dale. Billy Dale's FBI file was requested 7 months after he was fired. That is a real abuse of power. They did not need the FBI file then, yet they requested the file on him and hundreds of others, maybe several hundred. And 408 was the number that people are using now. Originally, it was a couple hundred, then 400. Now we find maybe another 300, maybe Mr. Marceca had several hundred others. Maybe well over 1,000 files the White House had on individuals. But the FBI files were certainly an abuse of power. The 408 were almost all on Republicans. So if it was not political, why were they only investigating Republicans? Why were they investigating individuals who had not had access to the White House in over a year or longer? These files were requested in December 1993 and early 1994, all upon Republicans who left the White House at least a year earlier. These were for permanent access to the White House so they would have open access to come and go as you please. The individuals whose FBI files were collected did not need permanent access to the White House. They could get a visitor's pass like anybody here can. If you go visit the White House or if you have a special guest, you get a pass for a day. You do not need an FBI background check for a visitor's pass. But a background check was requested by the White House for these at least 408 individuals. This is a real abuse of power. A real abuse of power. Maybe an egregious abuse of power. It is particularly egregious that the White House requested the FBI file on Billy Dale whom they previously fired. Yet, not only did they fire him, but they prosecuted him and persecuted him and wanted to try to justify their firing of him. They did not have a good reason to fire him except maybe to replace him with some cronies. So they tried to justify their firing of him by pulling in the FBI. That is an abuse of power, and certainly should be reviewed. But when we find out now that they requested the files of 408 others, and they were in the hands of not national security people, they were in the hands of Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca, two people who would be charitably defined as political hacks, hatchet men, people who wanted to dig up dirt on opponents, and did that in past campaigns, and had access to private files which could destroy the lives and careers of individuals, that is unbelievable. And it happened, happened in this administration. For President Clinton to say it was a bureaucratic snafu I think belittles the intelligence of the American people. Mr. President, when Senators receive an FBI file--it is done very seldom. I have only done it a couple times, a few times. Any time I have had an FBI file in my office, that FBI file has also been accompanied by an FBI agent or a staff member with particular security clearance. That file does not leave the presence of the FBI agent or that staff member with special clearance. I cannot Xerox it. I cannot photocopy it. I cannot take notes from it. I cannot do anything with it. I cannot pick somebody and say, here is what it says. I can read it and hand it back. That file does not leave the presence of an FBI agent or that special staff member. That file, when it leaves my office, is returned to a locked vault. It is not obtainable or accessible by anyone. To think that the White House obtained hundreds and evidently were trying to get hundreds more, had those in not a secure area, not in an area that was protected, under the control of a couple of political hacks, for whatever reason, is really not acceptable. We would not have found out this information if it had not been for the House of Representatives and their threatening contempt-of-Congress action against this administration. So, Mr. President, it is with real regret, but when I read the President's quote of January 4, 1993, which says, ``I promise the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic,'' I just laugh. This may be the most unethical administration. It certainly brings back comparisons to Watergate and the Nixon administration. But this administration may even exceed some of the abuses of power that transpired at that time. I do not say that lightly. It is with real regret. Mr. President, I just urge the White House to begin cooperating, as the President said that he would. They have yet to date to release all information that the House committee has requested. We still do not know who hired Mr. Livingstone. We do not know what are in the files Mr. Marceca has. Mr. Marceca has taken the fifth. He refused to testify before a Senate committee. That is his right to do so. Maybe the White House should encourage him, ``No, don't take the fifth. Go ahead and tell everything you know. Release the information. Let's see what was on your disc that has all this information on Republicans, and so on. Let the information come out. Let's find out the truth.'' Let us find out the truth on Mrs. Clinton's commodity trading. How did she make a profit that goes from $1,000 to $100,000 in 10 months? We need to find out answers to that. What did happen to the billing records or to the Rose Law Firm Whitewater billing records that were in the White House for 2 years? We need answers to these questions. I heard Mr. Clinton say, ``I hope we find out the answers.'' But the White House really has not cooperated. Certainly, they have not been the most ethical administration in the history of the Republic. Quite the contrary, they may be the most unethical administration in the history of the Republic. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I announce for the benefit of the Senate that the Senator from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, votes in the negative on the confirmation of Mr. Hill, and I ask that his statement be placed in the Record at this point as if read.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar en bloc: Executive Calendar Nos. 608, 665 through 674, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, the Army, and Marine Corps. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be considered and agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements related to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.