Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Coverdell, from Georgia and also Senator Kyl from Arizona. I want to echo the comments of the Senator because they are right on target. I hope the American people have had a chance to listen to what the Senator from Arizona said. Whatever happened to the war on drugs? In 1981, Americans were calling the drug epidemic the gravest internal problem facing our society. So Ronald Reagan issued a clarion call. He said, ``The United States has taken down the surrender flag and run up the battle flag. And we are going to win the war on drugs.'' That was in 1982. In 1992, candidate Clinton sounded out an all-out drug war charge. It is now 1996, an election year. Today, more than 3 years into his term, President Clinton is announcing his drug policy. Maybe it is better late than never. But to this Senator it sounds a lot like an election conversion. Under the Clinton administration, drug use amongst teenagers is up sharply, and drugs are more readily available and more cheaply available than at any time in our Nation's history. The surrender flag has been run up the pole once again. This is not a partisan point of view. Look at what some leading Democrats said about Clinton's lack of leadership in combating drug use. ``The President is silent on the matter. He has failed to speak.'' That was not made by Don Nickles or Paul Coverdell. It was made by Joe Biden on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' on the 28th of April, yesterday. Here is another quote: ``I have never seen a President care less about drugs.'' Again, not by a partisan Republican but by Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York. Many Americans, I think, are startled to realize these facts. ``What happened to the war on drugs? I thought we were winning.'' Well, we were. Between 1979 and 1992 the number of Americans using illicit drugs plunged from 24.7 million to 11.4 million. The so-called casual use of cocaine fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 1992, and monthly cocaine use fell by 55 percent between 1988 and 1992 alone; an enormous decline. We were winning the war. We were on the way. The war was not over, to be sure, but we had won a lot of battles, and significant progress had been made. So what has happened? Part of the answer must lie in the fact that the bully pulpit used so often and so forcefully by President Reagan and President Bush, and by their appointee, Bill Bennett, our former drug czar, and Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, has been vacated by this administration. The strategy of ``just say no'' that Nancy Reagan used was laughed at by many of the persons in this administration. But it has turned into a policy not of ``just say no'' but ``just say nothing'' by this administration. It could be that the administration's silence has been by design created by a need to cover up the backsliding that has resulted from the administration's failed policies. Whatever happened to the war on drugs? The Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Orrin Hatch, issued a report in December of last year, and it provides several good clues. Clue No. 1: President Clinton slashes the Office of Drug Control Policy. President Clinton had been in office almost a year before he finally appointed his drug czar, and that was Lee Brown. After receiving his appointment, Mr. Brown was not greeted with the support one would expect from a President who is dedicated to an all- out war on drugs. While reminding America that drug abuse is ``as serious a problem as we have in America,'' President Clinton greeted his Cabinet-level drug czar with a decimated budget and radically reduced staff. Staff size at the Office of Drug Control Policy was reduced from 146 employees to 25 under President Clinton. That is less than one-half the size of the White House communications staff. That is about one-sixth. He did not cut it in half. He did not cut it by a third. He cut from 146 individuals to 25. He cut the budget from $185.8 million to only $5.8 million. It does not even show up. He cut it from $185 million to less than $6 million. That was the President's war on drugs. That looks like a surrender to me. It looks like he gave up. Clue No. 2: President Clinton downplays the domestic law enforcement efforts. President Clinton's budgets have resulted in a loss of 227 agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration between September 1992 and September 1995. The number of individuals prosecuted for Federal drug violations dropped 12 percent over this same period of time; no big surprise. If you cut the number of agents by 227 in 3 years, you are going to have a significant number of individuals prosecuted. Clue No. 3: President Clinton scales back efforts for drug trafficking prevention. The overall proportion of the Customs Service budget devoted to drug control fell from 45.5 percent in 1991 to projected 33.9 percent in 1996, again a significant reduction in Custom's budget. Department of Defense airborne detection and monitoring assets were cut back from 3,400 to 1,850 hours between 1992 and 1995--again almost half. The use of Navy vessels measured in so-called steaming days was cut from 420 to 170--less than half. We are doing a lot less interdiction. The Coast Guard operating expense budget for drug missions fell from $449 million in fiscal year 1991 to projected $314 million in 1996. What is the result of these actions? Between 1993 and the first 6 months of 1995, the transit zone ``disruption rate''--which measures the ability of the United States to seize or otherwise turn back drug shipments--dropped 53 percent. The number of drug trafficking aircraft seized by Customs in the transit zone fell from 37 to 10 between 1993 and 1995. The Coast Guard cocaine seizures remain 73 percent below the peak of 1991. Marijuana seizures fell even more drastically--more than 90 percent over the same period. Mr. President, I look at many of the things that President Clinton has done, and I see a real lack of leadership--almost a surrender on the war on drugs. Maybe this is best exemplified by the some of his appointees. I think of Dr. Elders, who was President Clinton's first Surgeon General, a candidate whom many of us opposed because of her positions on a lot of issues. After she was confirmed, she made a couple of statements of note. One, she said ``I think we should consider legalizing drugs.'' This was not anybody. This was the Surgeon General, the No. 1 public health officer appointed by this administration who said that we should ``consider legalizing drugs.'' What did President Clinton do? He said, ``Well, I am not sure I agree with her.'' He asked her not to say it again. A couple of months later she said it again. ``I think we should seriously consider legalizing drug use.'' This is not a war on drugs. This is a capitulation. This is surrender. This is not using the bully pulpit to combat drug use. This is saying maybe top officials in Government think we should legalize drugs. Maybe drugs are not so bad after all. She was wrong. Was she removed for those statements? No, she was not. She might have been reprimanded for the first. The second statement she made was almost ignored, and, frankly, she was removed from office for other statements she made talking about teaching kids things on sexual tendencies and so on in the classroom. She was not removed for her discussion before the press that we should legalize drugs. Again, this is the Nation's No. 1 health officer. Is not drug use unhealthy? Certainly. Again, what about example? President Clinton's own admission that he has used drugs--and then he came back and said, ``Well, I never broke the laws of this country.'' Well, it was in some other country. But he said he did not inhale. What kind of example is that? Again, we want to discourage the use of drugs, and when we talk about statistics and we see drug use is up sharply amongst teenagers, what kind of example do we have by the President himself? Sadly, like so many other things, the war on drugs fell victim to a President who lacks conviction to back up his promises. I am glad the President made a speech today talking about we need to stand up and fight the war on drugs. Again, it sounds to this Senator like an election conversion. For 3 years where has his leadership been? It has been actually vacant. It has been silent. It has not existed. It is surrender. Now we have an election, and I think pollsters informed the President, ``Hey, this is an important issue, and drug use is up amongst teenagers.'' So, finally, we have a speech 6 months before election time. So what now? On December 13, Majority Leader Bob Dole and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich convened a bicameral Leadership Task Force on National Drug Policy. The task force was chaired by Senators Grassley and Orrin Hatch, as well as House Members William Zeliff and Henry Hyde. They were asked to develop principles for coherent, national counterdrug policy as well as supporting strategy for future actions. On March 28 of this year, the task force released a five-point national drug strategy. Sound interdiction strategy. We must stop the enemies' attack by protecting our borders from the pestilence of drugs. On land, air, and sea, our Nation's enforcement officers must have the commitment and the resources from our Nation's leader's so they can do their job. Serious international commitment to the full range of counter- narcotics activities. We must support renewed efforts by the U.S. Customs Service, Drug Enforcement Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Defense, and Coast Guard to identify sources, methods, and individuals involved in drug trafficking. Effective enforcement of the Nation's drug laws. The Clinton administration's revolving door justice is making innocent Americans prisoners in their own communities. Our policy must be simply: If you commit the crime, you do the time. We must also commit to nominating and confirming judges who are tough on crime, unlike President Clinton's judicial nominees --and primarily I think of Judge Baer, who basically said, no, we will not use the evidence of pounds and pounds of cocaine; it was seized illegally. Under pressure, President Clinton pressured the judge and the judge changed his mind. Maybe that is good. But the better aspect of that would have been not to have Judge Baer a Federal judge. He was President Clinton's nominee and, unfortunately, has lifetime tenure. We need a united commitment toward prevention and education. A key component of any coherent, sustained drug program must be a public education program. This means ensuring that the bully pulpit is not empty and that national leadership is not AWOL. The antidrug message must be clear, consistent, and repeated often, not just in election years. Mr. President, we need treatment returning to a proper balance. We must realize that emphasizing treatment alone addresses the wrong end of the problem. Treatment is most effective for those who are motivated and face substantial penalty if they do not achieve and maintain sobriety. Mr. President, I thank again my colleague, Senator Coverdell, and Senator Grassley, Senator Hatch, and others for their work on combating drugs. We need to do this every year. It needs to be done by the White House, through the bully pulpit, appointees--appointment of good judges--and we need a consistent effort, not just in an election year. Unfortunately, I think we have not had that from this administration. I urge my colleagues to be forceful. I urge my colleagues to speak out because the war on drugs needs to be fought, and for the sake of our children the war on drugs needs to be won. I thank my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the remarks delivered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] to Dow Jones and Company on April 23, 1996. In his remarks, Senator McCain addresses a very important issue: what are the obligations of a candidate for the presidency in how he criticizes his opponent--a sitting President--when the President is abroad representing the United States? As he points out, the Clinton administration is insisting on a double standard. During the 1992 campaign, when then-Governor Bill Clinton was challenging President Bush, candidate Clinton had no hesitation in taking President Bush to task even on foreign policy and national security topics while President Bush was outside of the United States meeting with world leaders. On the other hand, now, in 1996, when Bill Clinton is the incumbent, he is criticizing his challenger, the Republican leader, for his recent comments on the Clinton domestic record--specifically on the issue of Federal judges. As Senator McCain details the matter, there is simply no precedent for the White House's distorted and self-serving assertions. I hope all of my colleagues will take a look at these remarks, as well as members of the media who are interested in setting the record straight.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today, we look back from the distance of a year's time to a tragic event without equal in our Nation's history. It is still almost impossible to believe that it actually happened--that such an abhorrent, evil act could have been committed in the heartland of America. However, Oklahomans did not suffer through this tragedy alone. The sheer enormity of it drew the entire Nation to our side. People thought, ``If something like this could happen in Oklahoma City, it could happen anywhere.'' It was that awareness, I believe, coupled with the innate goodness of the American people that brought the flood of rescuers from all corners of the Nation. They came as strangers and left as friends. We will never forget them. They made us know we were not alone. I know for many this first awful anniversary brings back the pain with a fresh intensity. But we should also recall the words of the Reverend Billy Graham who, at a memorial service in the aftermath of this evil deed, gave us hope. He said, ``Someday the wounds will heal, and someday those who thought they could sow chaos and discord will be brought to justice. The wounds of this tragedy are deep, but the courage and the faith and determination of the people of Oklahoma City are even deeper.'' He was right. We are introducing this sense-of-the-Senate resolution today because we remember. This resolution calls for a moment of silence at 9:02 a.m. central daylight time in remembrance of the innocent children and adults who lost their lives one year ago. We remember the families, friends, and loved ones of those innocent victims, and we send you our sincerest prayers. We remember the countless hundreds who were injured, physically and emotionally by the blast. We remember the many more from all corners of the state and all corners of the Nation who came together to help in the rescue process and then in the healing process. And we also are introducing this resolution because we recognize and pay tribute to the spirit of recovery, courage, and faith that has been an example and an encouragement to everyone. I have never been more proud to be an Oklahoman. In honor of those who lost their lives, I ask that their names be printed in the Record at this point. The names are as follows: Victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing Names Ages Charles E. Hurlburt..................................................73 John Karl Vaness III.................................................67 Anna Jean Hurlburt...................................................67 Donald Lee Fritzler..................................................64 Eula Leigh Mitchell..................................................64 Donald Earl Burns, Sr................................................63 Norma Jean Johnson...................................................62 Calvin C. Battle.....................................................62 Laura Jane Garrison..................................................61 Olen Burl Bloomer....................................................61 Luther Hartman Treanor...............................................61 Kathy Cregan.........................................................60 Rheta Ione Bender Long...............................................60 Raymond Johnson......................................................59 Juretta Colleen Guiles...............................................59 Robert Glen Westberry................................................57 Carolyn Ann Kreymborg................................................57 Leora Lee Sells......................................................57 Mary Anne Fritzler...................................................57 Virginia Mae Thompson................................................56 Peola Y. Battle......................................................56 Peter Robert Avillanoza..............................................56 Richard Leroy Cummins................................................55 Ronald Vernon Harding................................................55 LaRue Ann Treanor....................................................55 Ethel Louise Griffin.................................................55 Antonio C. Reyes.....................................................55 Thompson Eugene Hodges, Jr...........................................54 Alvin Junior Justes..................................................54 Margaret Goodson.....................................................54 Oleta Christine Biddy................................................54 David Jack Walker....................................................54 James Anthony McCarthy...............................................53 Carol L. Bowers......................................................53 Linda Coleen Housley.................................................53 John Albert Youngblood...............................................52 Robert Nolan Walker, Jr..............................................52 Thomas Lynn Hawthorne, Sr............................................52 Robert Chipman.......................................................51 Dolores Marie Stratton...............................................51 Jules Alfonso Valdez.................................................51 John Thomas Stewart..................................................51 Mickey Bryant Maroney................................................50 John Clayton Moss III................................................50 Carole Sue Khalil....................................................50 Emilio Tapia-Rangel..................................................50 James Everette Boles.................................................50 Donald R. Leonard....................................................50 Castine Deveroux.....................................................49 Clarence Eugene Wilson...............................................49 Wanda Lee Watkins....................................................49 Michael Lee Loudenslager.............................................48 Carrol June Fields...................................................48 Frances Ann Williams.................................................48 Claudine Ritter......................................................48 Ted Leon Allen.......................................................48 Linda Gail Griffin McKinney..........................................47 Patricia ``Trish'' Ann Nix...........................................47 Betsy Janice McGonnell...............................................47 David Neil Burkett...................................................47 Michael George Thompson..............................................47 Catherine Mary Leinen................................................47 Sharon Louise Wood Chesnut...........................................47 Ricky Lee Tomlin.....................................................46 Larry James Jones....................................................46 Richard Arthur Allen.................................................46 Harley Richard Cottingham............................................46 Lanny Lee David Scroggins............................................46 Gilberto Martinez....................................................45 George Michael Howard................................................45 Jerry Lee Parker.....................................................45 Judy Joann Fisher....................................................45 Diane Elaine Hollingsworth Althouse..................................45 Michael D. Weaver....................................................45 Robert Lee Luster, Jr................................................45 Peter Leslie DeMaster................................................44 Katherine Ann Finley.................................................44 Doris Adele Higginbottom.............................................44 Steven Douglas Curry.................................................44 Michael Joe Carrillo.................................................44 Cheryl E. Bradley Hammon.............................................44 Aurelia Donna Luster.................................................43 Linda L. Florence....................................................43 Claudette Meek.......................................................43 William Stephen Williams.............................................42 Johnny Allen Wade....................................................42 Larry Laverne Turner.................................................42 Brenda Faye Daniels..................................................42 Margaret Louise Clark Spencer........................................42 Paul Gregory Broxterman..............................................42 Paul Douglas Ice.....................................................42 Woodrow Clifford ``Woody'' Brady.....................................41 Clause Arthur Medearis...............................................41 Teresa Lea Lauderdale................................................41 Terry Smith Rees.....................................................41 Alan Gerald Whicher..................................................40 Lola Renee Bolden....................................................40 Kathy Lynn Seidl.....................................................39 Kimberly Kay Clark...................................................39 Mary Leasure Rentie..................................................39 Diana Lynn Day.......................................................38 Rebecca Anderson.....................................................37 Robin Ann Huff.......................................................37 Peggy Louise Jenkins Holland.........................................37 Victoria Jeanette Texter.............................................37 Susan Jane Ferrell...................................................37 Kenneth Glenn McCullough.............................................36 Victoria Lee Sohn....................................................36 Pamela Denise Argo...................................................36 Rona Linn Chafey.....................................................35 Jo Ann Whittenberg...................................................35 Gilbert Xavier Martinez..............................................35 Wanda Lee Howell.....................................................34 Saundra Gail ``Sandy'' Avery.........................................34 James Kenneth Martin.................................................34 Lucio Aleman, Jr.....................................................33 Valerie Jo Koelsch...................................................33 Teresa Antionette Alexander..........................................33 Kim Robin Cousins....................................................33 Michelle Ann Reeder..................................................33 Andrea Y. Blanton....................................................33 Karen Gist Carr......................................................32 Christi Yolanda Jenkins..............................................32 Jamie Lee Genzer.....................................................32 Trudy Rigney.........................................................32 Ronota Ann Woodbridge................................................31 Benjamin Laranzo Davis...............................................29 Kimberly Ruth Burgess................................................29 Tresia Jo Mathes-Worton..............................................28 Mark Allen Bolte.....................................................28 Randolph Guzman......................................................28 Sheila R. Gigger Driver..............................................28 Karan Denise Shepherd................................................27 Sonja Lynn Sanders...................................................27 Derwin Wade Miller...................................................27 Jill Diane Randolph..................................................27 Anita Hightower......................................................27 Carrie Ann Lenz......................................................26 Cynthia Lynn Campbell Brown..........................................26 Cassandra K. Booker..................................................25 Shelly Deann (Turner) Bland..........................................25 Scott Dwain Williams.................................................24 Dana LeAnne Cooper...................................................24 Kathry Ridley........................................................24 Julie Marie Welch....................................................23 Frankie Ann Merrell..................................................23 Christine Nicole Rosas...............................................22 Lakesha Levy.........................................................21 Cartney J. McRaven...................................................19 Aaron M. Coverdale....................................................5 Ashley Megan Eckles...................................................4 Zackary Taylor Chavez.................................................3 Kayla Marie Haddock...................................................3 Peachlyn Bradley......................................................3 Chase Dalton Smith....................................................3 Anthony Christopher Cooper II.........................................2 Colton Smith..........................................................2 Elijah Coverdale......................................................2 Dominique R. London...................................................2 Baylee Almon..........................................................1 Jaci Rae Coyne........................................................1 Blake Ryan Kennedy....................................................1 Tevin D'Aundrae Garrett...............................................1 Danielle Nicole Bell..................................................1 Tylor S. Eaves.................................................8 months Antonio Ansara Cooper, Jr......................................6 months Kevin Lee Gottshall II.........................................6 months Gabreon Bruce..........................................4 months (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank you. I thank my colleague from West Virginia. I will be happy to accommodate my friend as well. I think it would be better if we go back and forth a little bit, if that is possible. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, that was my interest because my colleague from Massachusetts has generated a little interest in me to respond. I also compliment the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Kansas for their work, but particularly I wish to compliment the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Kansas, the majority leader, for this amendment. This amendment is probably the most significant health care provision that the Senate has considered in a long time. I have heard a lot of people say we want to make insurance more portable; we want to make insurance more affordable. If you do, then we need to support Senator Dole and Senator Roth's amendment. That would include some tax equalization. The Tax Code is really skewed. It is really inequitable. It is not fair. Let me just give you a couple of examples. The amendment that we have dealing both with the medical savings account and deductibility for self-insured help fix the problem--not totally, but they certainly improve it. The Tax Code right now discriminates against people who do not work for generous employers. If you work for a generous employer, they can pay for your health care benefits and the individual can receive that tax free benefit, does not have to pay anything for it. It is nice. If you work for General Motors, they can deduct 100 percent for health care costs. What if you do not work for a generous employer? What if you work for an employer who maybe cannot afford it or does not subsidize your health care? Then as an individual you have to pay for your health care with after-tax dollars. That is not fair. What if you are self-employed? Right now, if you pay for your health care, you get a 30-percent deduction. Let me make sure everybody understands that. If you work for General Motors or a generous corporation, they get a 100-percent deduction, the company does. If you are self-employed, you get a 30-percent deduction. That is not right. I used to run a manufacturing company, and at one time we paid 100 percent of health care costs. It was all deductible, a tax-free benefit for employees. I also used to be self-employed. Right now, they get 30 percent. I used to have a janitor service when I was self-employed. They only get 30 percent. But a big manufacturing company or a little manufacturing company, a corporation, they get 100 percent. Now, what is right about that? That makes no sense, no sense whatsoever. This bill is going to help fix this. What about an individual who maybe does not work, is unemployed. They need health care just as much as anybody else. This bill helps fix that. And the Senator from Massachusetts does not want to allow it to happen. He said, well, school is out if we allow medical savings accounts. Medical savings accounts are the only thing, the only thing, that will benefit somebody who does not have a job and wants to get health care. We do not help them in other areas. We are going to help them. We are going to say, yes, you can get health care; you can have your medical savings account; it is yours; it is portable; you do not have to have a job; it goes with you. It is not contingent on a job. We use the Tax Code to encourage homeownership and so we say, you are entitled to an interest deduction on your home. And we do not say you have to have a job to get the interest deduction; it is yours; you designed the house, or you can buy the house. That is your decision, and it is your deduction. We do the same thing for other things. You make that decision. But we do not do it on health care. We say, well, you have to work for a generous employer. You get a real nice benefit. You work for yourself, you only get a third as much. You get a 30- percent deduction. This bill takes it up to 80 percent for self-employed. And that is about what the average of a lot of companies is. So that is pretty equitable. It takes some time to get there, I might mention. We do not do it overnight. But at least it gets it up to 80 percent. That is a good move. I compliment Senator Dole. When we passed this originally in the Balanced Budget Act, it only went to 50 percent and Senator Dole said, ``Let's make it 80 percent.'' He was right. That is equitable, and that means that Don Nickles' janitor service gets just about as good a deal as a manufacturing company in 7 years. That is a good provision. It needs to pass. But equally as important is that individual who does not have a job or that individual who is unemployed or that individual who works for an employer that does not give anything to their health care. Right now, they have to buy their health care with after-tax dollars. And they need health care as much as somebody working for any company in America. Let us help them. Medical savings accounts will help them, and they are not something untested and untried, as my colleague from Massachusetts said. We have something like 3,000 firms right now offering those. Seventeen States now have MSA laws, an additional 11 States have called on Congress to enact MSA legislation. We ought to do it. Everybody ought to have the opportunity to have this choice. We are not mandating it on anybody, but it should be a choice. They should have the opportunity. What is the choice? Yes, they can buy insurance, I think pretty good insurance. They can buy insurance that is for the catastrophic illness. We say a medical savings account is very comparable to an Individual Retirement Account. Individuals can put in $2,000, families or couples can put in $4,000, and then use it for medical expenses. They have to buy at least catastrophic coverage, to cover the really expensive care. That makes sense. We are encouraging this with medical savings accounts. A lot of the private sector is doing the same thing. In our company we used to ensure the first dollar coverage on anything. That is very expensive and it is not what insurance is for. When you buy car insurance you do not buy car insurance to fill the car up with gasoline or fill it up with oil. You buy car insurance for collision or something that is really expensive that you need insurance for. That also makes sense in the medical field, to let people use their own dollars for the small things, the routine things, the doctor's office visit. And they will use their own money. If they do not use it they can save it. It is not use it or lose it. They can save it, accumulate it. We encourage savings and they can use that money later for something that really is serious, that is problematic. Or they can use it for long-term health care. This is a good provision. This will help countless middle-income families. Mr. President, 88 percent of the benefit falls to individuals who make less than $100,000. It is not for wealthy people, it is for American families and it will help people who get no help whatsoever from the present Tax Code. If we want to eliminate a lot of this tax inequity, medical savings accounts will go a long way to doing that. Let us give them some benefit. Right now they get zero. An individual who is unemployed, an individual who works for a corporation that does not subsidize his or her health care, they get zero tax benefits. Finally, if we pass this they will get something and to me that is a very positive contribution. So I urge my colleagues, let us not make this a partisan issue. I know Senator Breaux introduced a MSA bill in 1992. Senator Daschle, Senator Nunn, Senator Boren, Senator Dixon--they cosponsored the bill. Representative Gephardt, in 1994--almost all Members but one of the Democrat Party on Ways and Means supported Mr. Gephardt's provision that had medical savings accounts. So why all of a sudden are we being partisan? This is a good provision. It is a bipartisan provision. It should be passed. We should help individuals. We are not helping individuals. We should make insurance truly portable and we do that with medical savings accounts. It is not contingent on a job. If they lose their jobs they still have their medical savings account. It is portable. It stays with them. It is not contingent on employment. It is a good provision. So I am very disappointed in some of the comments that have been made. This is a good provision. It will make health care more portable. It is the most portable health care plan you can have. It goes with the individuals. It is theirs. If they save the money and they do not spend it, it grows, it accumulates. They can use it for later times. Also, it makes it more affordable. People are a lot more frugal with their own money than they are with employer money or than they are with Government money. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to pass the medical savings account provision, to vote against the amendment to delete this provision, and then also to pass the underlying Dole-Roth amendment. It is an excellent amendment that will help expand coverage to countless Americans that right now, because of inequities in the Tax Code, really come up short. Again, I thank my colleague from Delaware for his leadership. And also Senator Dole for proposing this amendment. I hope my colleagues will agree to it.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe that both the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Massachusetts have control of the time, and I also think the Chair has usually recognized Senators seeking recognition, and then the Senators delegate how they allocate that time, I think is the normal procedure.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will submit for the Record a statement which serves to provide a detailed explanation and a legislative history for the congressional review title of H.R. 3136, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. H.R. 3136 was passed by the Senate on March 28, 1996, and was signed by the President the next day. Ironically, the President signed the legislation on the first anniversary of the passage of S. 219, the forerunner to the congressional review title. Last year, S. 219, passed the Senate by a vote of 100 to 0 on March 29, 1995. Because title III of H.R. 3136 was the product of negotiation with the Senate and did not go through the committee process, no other expression of its legislative history exists other than the joint statement made by Senator Reid and myself immediately before passage of H.R. 3136 on March 28. I am submitting a joint statement to be printed in the Record on behalf of myself, as the sponsor of the S. 219, Senator Reid, the prime cosponsor of S. 219, and Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. This joint statement is intended to provide guidance to the agencies, the courts, and other interested parties when interpreting the act's terms. The same statement has been submitted today in the House by the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction over the congressional review legislation. The joint statement follows: Statement for the Record by Senators Nickles, Reid, and Stevens SUBTITLE E--Congressional Review Subtitle Subtitle E adds a new chapter to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ``Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking,'' which is codified in the United States Code as chapter 8 of title 5. The congressional review chapter creates a special mechanism for Congress to review new rules issued by federal agencies (including modification, repeal, or reissuance of existing rules). During the review period, Congress may use expedited procedures to enact joint resolutions of disapproval to overrule the federal rulemaking actions. In the 104th Congress, four slightly different versions of this legislation passed the Senate and two different versions passed the House. Yet, no formal legislative history document was prepared to explain the legislation or the reasons for changes in the final language negotiated between the House and Senate. This joint statement of the authors on the congressional review subtitle is intended to cure this deficiency. Background As the number and complexity of federal statutory programs has increased over the last fifty years, Congress has come to depend more and more upon Executive Branch agencies to fill out the details of the programs it enacts. As complex as some statutory schemes passed by Congress are, the implementing regulations are often more complex by several orders of magnitude. As more and more of Congress' legislative functions have been delegated to federal regulatory agencies, many have complained that Congress has effectively abdicated its constitutional role as the national legislature in allowing federal agencies so much latitude in implementing and interpreting congressional enactments. In many cases, this criticism is well founded. Our constitutional scheme creates a delicate balance between the appropriate roles of the Congress in enacting laws, and the Executive Branch in implementing those laws. This legislation will help to redress the balance, reclaiming for Congress some of its policymaking authority, without at the same time requiring Congress to become a super regulatory agency. This legislation establishes a government-wide congressional review mechanism for most new rules. This allows Congress the opportunity to review a rule before it takes effect and to disapprove any rule to which Congress objects. Congress may find a rule to be too burdensome, excessive, inappropriate or duplicative. Subtitle E uses the mechanism of a joint resolution of disapproval which requires passage by both houses of Congress and the President (or veto by the President and a two-thirds' override by Congress) to be effective. In other words, enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval is the same as enactment of a law. Congress has considered various proposals for reviewing rules before they take effect for almost twenty years. Use of a simple (one-house), concurrent (two-house), or joint (two houses plus the President) resolution are among the options that have been debated and in some cases previously implemented on a limited basis. In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional any procedure where executive action could be overturned by less than the full process required under the Constitution to make laws--that is, approval by both houses of Congress and presentment to the President. That narrowed Congress' options to use a joint resolution of disapproval. The one-house or two- house legislative veto (as procedures involving simple and concurrent resolutions were previously called), was thus voided. Because Congress often is unable to anticipate the numerous situations to which the laws it passes must apply, Executive Branch agencies sometimes develop regulatory schemes at odds with congressional expectations. Moreover, during the time lapse between passage of legislation and its implementation, the nature of the problem addressed, and its proper solution, can change. Rules can be surprisingly different from the expectations of Congress or the public. Congressional review gives the public the opportunity to call the attention of politically accountable, elected officials to concerns about new agency rules. If these concerns are sufficiently serious, Congress can stop the rule. Brief procedural history of congressional review chapter In the 104th Congress, the congressional review legislation originated as S. 348, the ``Regulatory Oversight Act,'' which was introduced on February 2, 1995. The text of S. 348 was offered by its sponsors, Senators Don Nickles and Harry Reid, as a substitute amendment to S. 219, the ``Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.'' As amended, S. 219 provided for a 45-day delay on the effectiveness of a major rule, and provided expedited procedures that Congress could use to pass resolutions disapproving of the rule. On March 29, 1995, the Senate passed the amended version of S. 219 by a vote of 100- 0. The Senate later substituted the text of S. 219 for the text of H.R. 450, the House passed ``Regulatory Transition Act of 1995.'' Although the House did not agree to a conference on H.R. 450 and S. 219, both Houses continued to incorporate the congressional review provisions in other legislative packages. On May 25, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee reported out S. 343, the ``Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995,'' and S. 291, the ``Regulatory Reform Act of 1995,'' both with congressional review provisions. On May 26, 1995, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a different version of S. 343, the ``Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995,'' which also included a congressional review provision. The congressional review provision in S. 343 that was debated by the Senate was quite similar to S. 219, except that the delay period in the effectiveness of a major rule was extended to 60 days and the legislation did not apply to rules issued prior to enactment. A filibuster of S. 343, unrelated to the congressional review provisions, led to the withdrawal of that bill. The House next took up the congressional review legislation by attaching a version of it (as section 3006) to H.R. 2586, the first debt limit extension bill. The House made several changes in the legislation that was attached to H.R. 2586, including a provision that would allow the expedited procedures also to apply to resolutions disapproving of proposed rules, and provisions that would have extended the 60-day delay on the effectiveness of a major rule for any period when the House or Senate was in recess for more than three days. On November 9, 1995 both the House and Senate passed this version of the congressional review legislation as part of the first debt limit extension bill. President Clinton vetoed the bill a few days later, for reasons unrelated to the congressional review provision. On February 29, 1996, a House version of the congressional review legislation was published in the Congressional Record as title III of H.R. 994, which was scheduled to be brought to the House floor in the coming weeks. The congressional review title was almost identical to the legislation approved by both Houses in H.R. 2586. On March 19, 1996, the Senate adopted a congressional review amendment by voice vote to S. 942, which bill passed the Senate 100-0. The congressional review legislation in S. 942 was similar to the original version of S. 219 that passed the Senate on March 29, 1995. Soon after passage of S. 942, representatives of the relevant House and Senate committees and principal sponsors of the congressional review legislation met to craft a congressional review subtitle that was acceptable to both Houses and would be added to the debt limit bill that was scheduled to be taken up in Congress the week of March 24. The final compromise language was the result of these joint discussions and negotiations. On March 28, 1996, the House and Senate passed title III, the ``Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,'' as part of the second debt limit bill, H.R. 3136. There was no separate vote in either body on the congressional review subtitle or on title III of H.R. 3136. However, title III received broad support in the House and the entire bill passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. The President signed H.R. 3136 into law on March 29, 1996, exactly one year after the first congressional review bill passed the Senate. Submission of rules to Congress and to GAO Pursuant to subsection 801(a)(1)(A), a federal agency promulgating a rule must submit a copy of the rule and a brief report about it to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General before the rule can take effect. In addition to a copy of the rule, the report shall contain a concise general statement relating to the rule, including whether it is a major rule under the chapter, and the proposed effective date of the rule. Because most rules covered by the chapter must be published in the Federal Register before they can take effect, it is not expected that the submission of the rule and the report to Congress and the Comptroller General will lead to any additional delay. Section 808 provides the only exception to the requirement that rules must be submitted to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General before they can take effect. Subsection 808(1) excepts specified rules relating to commercial, recreational, or subsistence hunting, fishing, and camping. Subsection 808(2) excepts certain rules that are not subject to notice-and-comment procedures. It provides that if the relevant agency finds ``for good cause . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, [such rules] shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.'' Although rules described in section 808 shall take effect when the relevant Federal agency determines pursuant to other provisions of law, the federal agency still must submit such rules and the accompanying report to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General as soon as practicable after promulgation. Thus, rules described in section 808 are subject to congressional review and the expedited procedures governing joint resolutions of disapproval. Moreover, the congressional review period will not begin to run until such rules and the accompanying reports are submitted to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General. In accordance with current House and Senate rules, covered agency rules and the accompanying report must be separately addressed and transmitted to the Speaker of the House (the Capitol, Room H-209), the President of the Senate (the Capitol, Room S-212), and the Comptroller General (GAO Building, 441 G Street, N.W., Room 1139). Except for rules described in section 808, any covered rule not submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General will remain ineffective until it is submitted pursuant to subsection 801(a)(1)(A). In almost all cases, there will be sufficient time for an agency to submit notice-and-comment rules or other rules, that must be published to these legislative officers during normal office hours. There may be rare instance, however, when a federal agency must issue an emergency rule that is effective upon actual notice and does not meet one of the section 808 exceptions. In such a rare case, the federal agency may provide contemporaneous notice to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the Comptroller General. These legislative officers have accommodated the receipt of similar, emergency communications in the past and will utilize the same means to receive emergency rules and reports during nonbusiness hours. If no other means of delivery is possible, delivery of the rule and related report by telefax to the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, and the Comptroller General shall satisfy the requirements of subsection 801(a)(1)(A). Additional delay in the effectiveness of major rules Subsection 553(d) of the APA requires publication or service of most substantive rules at least 30 days prior to their effective date. Pursuant to subsection 801(a)(3)(A), a major rule (as defined in subsection 804(2)) shall not take effect until at least 60 calendar days after the later of the date on which the rule and accompanying information is submitted to Congress or the date on which the rule is published in the Federal Register, if it is so published. If the Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval and the President vetoes such resolution, the delay in the effectiveness of a major rule is extended by subsection 801(a)(3)(B) until the earlier date on which either House of Congress votes and fails to override the veto or 30 session days \1\ after the date on which the Congress receives the veto and objections from the President. By necessary implication, if the Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval within the 60 calendar days provided in subsection 801(a)(3)(A), the delay period in the effectiveness of a major rule must be extended at least until the President acts on the joint resolution or until the time expires for the President to act. Any other result would be inconsistent with subsection 801(a)(3)(B), which extends the delay in the effectiveness of a major rule for a period of time after the President vetoes a resolution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ In the Senate, a ``session day'' is a calendar day in which the Senate is in session. In the House of Representatives, the same term is normally expressed as a ``legislative day.'' In the congressional review chapter, however, the term ``session day'' means both a ``session day'' of the Senate and a ``legislative day'' of the House of Representatives unless the context of the sentence or paragraph indicates otherwise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, if Congress fails to pass a joint resolution of disapproval within the 60-day period provided by subsection 801(a)(3)(A), subsection 801(a)(3)(B) would not apply and would not further delay the effective date of the rule. Moreover, pursuant to subsection 801(a)(5), the effective date of a rule shall not be delayed by this chapter beyond the date on which either house of Congress votes to reject a joint resolution of disapproval. Although it is not expressly provided in the congressional review chapter, it is the authors' intent that a rule may take effect if an adjournment of Congress prevents the President from returning his veto and objections within the meaning of the Constitution. Such will be the case if the President does not act on a joint resolution within 10 days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him, and ``the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return'' within the meaning of Article I, Sec. 7, cl. 2, or when the President affirmatively vetoes a resolution during such an adjournment. This is the logical result because Congress cannot act to override these vetoes. Congress would have to begin anew, pass a second resolution, and present it to the President in order for it to become law. It is also the authors' intent that a rule may take effect immediately if the President returns a veto and his objections to Congress but Congress adjourns its last session sine die before the expiration of time provided in subsection 801(a)(3)(B). Like the situations described immediately above, no subsequent Congress can act further on the veto, and the next Congress would have to begin anew, pass a second resolution of disapproval, and present it to the President in order for it to become law. Purpose of and exceptions to the delay of major rules The reason for the delay in the effectiveness of a major rule beyond that provided in APA subsection 553(d) is to try to provide Congress with an opportunity to act on resolutions of disapproval before regulated parties must invest the significant resources necessary to comply with a major rule. Congress may continue to use the expedited procedures to pass resolutions of disapproval for a period of time after a major rule takes effect, but it would be preferable for Congress to act during the delay period so that fewer resources would be wasted. To increase the likelihood that Congress would act before a major rule took effect, the authors agreed on an approximately 60-day delay period in the effective date of a major rule, rather than an approximately 45-day delay period in some earlier versions of the legislation. There are four exceptions to the required delay in the effectiveness of a major rule in the congressional review chapter. The first is in subsection 801(c), which provides that a major rule is not subject to the delay period of subsection 801(a)(3) if the President determines in an executive order that one of four specified situations exist and notifies Congress of his determination. The second is in subsection 808(1), which excepts specified rules relating to commercial, recreational, or subsistence hunting, fishing, and camping from the initial delay specified in subsection 801(a)(1)(A) and from the delay in the effective date of a major rule provided in subsection 801(a)(3). The third is in subsection 808(2), which excepts certain rules from the initial delay specified in subsection 801(a)(1)(A) and from the delay in the effective date of a major rule provided in subsection 801(a)(3) if the relevant agency finds ``for good cause . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' This ``good cause'' exception in subsection 808(2) is taken from the APA and applies only to rules which are exempt from notice and comment under subsection 553(b)(B) or an analogous statute. The fourth exception is in subsection 804(2). Any rule promulgated under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or any amendments made by that Act that otherwise could be classified as a ``major rule'' is exempt from that definition and from the 60-day delay in section 801(a)(3). However, such an issuance still would fall within the definition of ``rule'' and would be subject to the requirements of the legislation for non-major rules. A determination under subsection 801(c), subsection 804(2), or section 808 shall have no effect on the procedures to enact joint resolutions of disapproval. A court may not stay or suspend the effectiveness of a rule beyond the period specified in section 801 simply because a resolution of disapproval is pending in Congress The authors discussed the relationship between the period of time that a major rule is delayed and the period of time during which Congress could use the expedited procedures in section 802 to pass a resolution of disapproval. Although it would be best for Congress to act pursuant to this chapter before a major rule goes into effect, it was recognized that Congress could not often act immediately after a rule was issued because it may be issued during a recesses of Congress, shortly before such recesses, or during other periods when Congress cannot devote the time to complete prompt legislative action. Accordingly, the authors determined that the proper public policy was to give Congress an adequate opportunity to deliberate and act on joint resolutions of disapproval, while ensuring that major rules could go into effect without unreasonable delay. In short, the authors decided that major rules could take effect after an approximate 60-day delay, but the period governing the expedited procedures in section 802 for review of joint resolution of disapproval would extend for a period of time beyond that. Accordingly, courts may not stay or suspend the effectiveness of any rule beyond the periods specified in section 801 simply because a joint resolution is pending before Congress. Such action would be contrary to the many express provisions governing when different types of rules may take effect. Such court action also would be contrary to the authors' intent because it would upset an important compromise on how long a delay there should be on the effectiveness of a major rule. The final delay period was selected as a compromise between the period specified in the version that passed the Senate on March 19, 1995, and the version that passed both Houses on November 9, 1995. It is also the authors' belief that such court action would be inconsistent with the principles of (and potentially violate) the Constitution, art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2, in that courts may not give legal effect to legislative action unless it results in the enactment of law pursuant that Clause. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Finally, the authors intend that a court may not predicate a stay on the basis of possible future congressional action because it would be improper for a court to rule that the movant had demonstrated a ``likelihood of success on the merits,'' unless and until a joint resolution is enacted into law. A judicial stay prior to that time would raise serious separation of powers concerns because it would be tantamount to the court making a prediction of what Congress is likely to do and then exercising its own power in furtherance of that prediction. Indeed, the authors intend that Congress may have been reluctant to pass congressional review legislation at all if its action or inaction pursuant to this chapter would be treated differently than its action or inaction regarding any other bill or resolution. Time periods governing passage of joint resolutions of disapproval Subsection 802(a) provides that a joint resolution disapproving of a particular rule may be introduced in either House beginning on the date of the rule and accompanying report are received by Congress until 60 calendar days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days during a session of Congress). But if Congress did not have sufficient time in a previous session to introduce or consider a resolution of disapproval, as set forth in subsection 801(d), the rule and accompanying report will be treated as if it were first received by Congress on the 15th session day in the Senate, or 15th legislative day in the House, after the start of its next session. When a rule was submitted near the end of a Congress or prior to the start of the next Congress, a joint resolution of disapproval regarding that rule may be introduced in the next Congress beginning on the 15th session day in the Senate or the 15th legislative day in the House until 60 calendar days thereafter (excluding days either House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days during the session) regardless of whether such a resolution was introduced in the prior Congress. Of course, any joint resolution pending from the first session of a Congress, may be considered further in the nest session of the same Congress. Subsections 802(c)-(d) specify special procedures that apply to the consideration of a joint resolution of disapproval in the Senate. Subsection 803(c) allows 30 Senators to petition for the discharge of resolution from a Senate committee after a specified period of time (the later of 20 calendar days after the rule is submitted to Congress or published in the Federal Register, if it is so published). Subsection 802(d) specifies procedures for the consideration of a resolution on the Senate floor. Such a resolution is highly privileged, points or order are waived, a motion to postpone consideration is not in order, the resolution is unamendable, and debate on the joint resolution and ``on all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith'' (including a motion to proceed) is limited to no more than 10 hours. Subsection 802(e) provides that the special Senate procedures specified in subsections 802(c)-(d) shall not apply to the consideration of any joint resolution of disapproval of a rule after 60 session days of the Senate beginning with the later date that rule is submitted to Congress or published, if it is so published. However, if a rule and accompanying report are submitted to Congress shortly before the end of a session or during an intersession recess as described in subsection 801(d)(1), the special Senate procedures specified in subsections 802(c)-(d) shall expire 60 session days after the 15th session day of the succeeding session of Congress--or on the 75th session day after the succeeding session of Congress first convenes. For purposes of subsection 802(e), the term ``session day'' refers only to a day the Senate is in session, rather than a day both Houses are in session. However, in computing the time specified in subsection 801(d)(1), that subsection specifies that there shall be an additional period of review in the next session if either House did not have an adequate opportunity to complete action on a joint resolution. Thus, if either House of Congress did not have adequate time to consider a joint resolution in a given session (60 session days in the Senate and 60 legislative days in the House), resolutions of disapproval may be introduced or reintroduced in both Houses in the next session, and the special Senate procedures specified in subsection 802(c)-(d) shall apply in the next session of the Senate. If a joint resolution of disapproval is pending when the expedited Senate procedures specified in subsections 802(c)- (d) expire, the resolution shall not die in either House but shall simply be considered pursuant to the normal rules of either House--with one exception. Subsection 802(f) sets forth one unique provision that does not expire in either House. Subsection 802(f) provides procedures for passage of a joint resolution of disapproval when one House passes a joint resolution and transmits it to the other House that has not yet completed action. In both Houses, the joint resolution of the first House to act shall not be referred to a committee but shall be held at the desk. In the Senate, a House-passed resolution may be considered directly only under normal Senate procedures, regardless of when it is received by the Senate. A resolution of disapproval that originated in the Senate may be considered under the expedited procedures only during the period specified in subsection 802(e). Regardless of the procedures used to consider a joint resolution in either House, the final vote of the second House shall be on the joint resolution of the first House (no matter when that vote takes place). If the second House passes the resolution, no conference is necessary and the joint resolution will be presented to the President for his signature. Subsection 802(f) is justified because subsection 802(a) sets forth the required language of a joint resolution in each House, and thus, permits little variance in the joint resolutions that could be introduced in each House. Effect of enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval Subsection 801(b)(1) provides that: ``A rule shall not take effect (or continue), if the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802, of the rule.'' Subsection 801(b)(2) provides that such a disapproved rule ``may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.'' Subsection 801(b)(2) is necessary to prevent circumvention of a resolution disapproval. Nevertheless, it may have a different impact on the issuing agencies depending on the nature of the underlying law that authorized the rule. If the law that authorized the disapproved rule provides broad discretion to the issuing agency regarding the substance of such rule, the agency may exercise its broad discretion to issue a substantially different rule. If the law that authorized the disapproved rule did not mandate the promulgation of any rule, the issuing agency may exercise its discretion not to issue any new rule. Depending on the law that authorized the rule, an issuing agency may have both options. But if an agency is mandated to promulgate a particular rule and its discretion in issuing the rule is narrowly circumscribed, the enactment of a resolution of disapproval for that rule may work to prohibit the reissuance of any rule. The authors intend the debate on any resolution of disapproval to focus on the law that authorized the rule and make the congressional intent clear regarding the agency's options or lack thereof after enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval. It will be the agency's responsibility in the first instance when promulgating the rule to determine the range of discretion afforded under the original law and whether the law authorizes the agency to issue a substantially different rule. Then, the agency must give effect to the resolution of disapproval. Limitation on judicial review of congressional or administrative actions Section 805 provides that a court may not review any congressional or administrative ``determination, finding, action, or omission under this chapter.'' Thus, the major rule determinations made by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget are not subject to judicial review. Nor may a court review whether Congress complied with the congressional review procedures in this chapter. This latter limitation on the scope of judicial review was drafted in recognition of the constitutional right of each House of Congress to ``determine the Rules of its Proceedings,'' U.S. Const., art. I, Sec. 5, cl. 2, which includes being the final arbiter of compliance with such Rules. The limitation on a court's review of subsidiary determination or compliance with congressional procedures, however, does not bar a court from giving effect to a resolution of disapproval that was enacted into law. A court with proper jurisdiction may treat the congressional enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval as it would treat the enactment of any other federal law. Thus, a court with proper jurisdiction may review the resolution of disapproval and the law that authorized the disapproved rule to determine whether the issuing agency has the legal authority to issue a substantially different rule. The language of subsection 801(g) is also instructive. Subsection 801(g) prohibits a court or agency from inferring any intent of the Congress only when ``Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval,'' or by implication, when it has not yet done so. In deciding cases or controversies properly before it, a court or agency must give effect to the intent of the Congress when such a resolution is enacted and becomes the law of the land. The limitation on judicial review in no way prohibits a court from determining whether a rule is in effect. For example, the authors expect that a court might recognize that a rule has no legal effect due to the operation of subsections 801(a)(1)(A) or 801(a)(3). Enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval for a rule that was already in effect Subsection 801(f) provides that: ``Any rule that takes effect and later is made of no force or effect by enactment of a joint resolution under section 802 shall be treated as though such rule had never taken effect.'' Application of this subsection should be consistent with existing judicial precedents on rules that are deemed never to have taken effect. Agency information required to be submitted to GAO Pursuant to subsection 801(a)(1)(B), the federal agency promulgating the rule shall submit to the Comptroller General (and make available to each House) (i) a complete copy of the cost-benefit analysis of the rule, if any, (ii) the agency's actions related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, (iii) the agency's actions related to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and (iv) ``any other relevant information or requirements under any other Act and any relevant Executive Orders.'' Pursuant to subsection 801(a)(1)(B), this information must be submitted to the Comptroller General on the day the agency submits the rule to Congress and to GAO. The authors intend information supplied in conformity with subsection 801(a)(1)(B)(iv) to encompass both agency-specific statutes and government-wide statutes and executive orders that impose requirements relevant to each rule. Examples of agency-specific statutes include information regarding compliance with the law that authorized the rule and any agency-specific procedural requirements, such as section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2054 (procedures for consumer product safety rules); section 6 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 655 (promulgation of standards); section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7607(d) (promulgation of rules); and section 501 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7191 (procedure for issuance of rules, regulations, and orders). Examples of government-wide statutes include other chapters of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 551- 559 and 701-706; and the Paperwork Reduction Act, as amended, 44 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3501-3520. Examples of relevant executive orders include E.O. No. 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) (Regulatory Planning and Review); E.O. No. 12606 (Sept. 2, 1987) (Family Considerations in Policy Formulation and Implementation); E.O. No. 12612 (Oct. 26, 1987) (Federalism Considerations in Policy Formulation and Implementation); E.O. No. 12630 (Mar. 15, 1988) (Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights); E.O. No. 23875 (Oct. 26, 1993) (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership); E.O. No. 12778 (Oct. 23, 1991) (Civil Justice Reform); E.O. No. 12988 (Feb. 5, 1996) (Civil Justice Reform) (effective May 5, 1996). GAO reports on major rules Fifteen days after the federal agency submits a copy of a major rule and report to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General, the Comptroller General shall prepare and provide a report on the major rule to the committee of jurisdiction in each House. Subsection 801(a)(2)(B) requires agencies to cooperate with the Comptroller General in providing information relevant to the Comptroller General's reports on major rules. Given the 15-day deadline for these reports, it is essential that the agencies' initial submission to the General Accounting Office (GAO) contain all of the information necessary for GAO to conduct its analysis. At a minimum, the agency's submission must include the information required of all rules pursuant to 801(a)(1)(B). Whenever possible, OMB should work with GAO to alert GAO when a major rule is likely to be issued and to provide as much advance information to GAO as possible on such proposed major rule. In particular, OMB should attempt to provide the complete cost-benefit analysis on a major rule, if any, well in advance of the final rule's promulgation. It also is essential for the agencies to present this information in a format that will facilitate the GAO's analysis. The authors expect that GAO and OMB will work together to develop, to the greatest extent practicable, standard formats for agency submissions. OMB also should ensure that agencies follow such formats. The authors also expect that agencies will provide expeditiously any additional information that GAO may require for a thorough report. The authors do not intend the Comptroller General's reports to be delayed beyond the 15-day deadline due to lack of information or resources unless the committees of jurisdiction indicate a different preference. Of course, the Comptroller General may supplement his initial report at any time with any additional information, on its own, or at the request of the relevant committees or jurisdiction. Covered agencies and entities in the executive branch The authors intend this chapter to be comprehensive in the agencies and entities that are subject to it. The term ``Federal agency'' in subsection 804(1) was taken from 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551(1). That definition includes ``each authority of the Government'' that is not expressly excluded by subsection 551(1)(A)-(H). With those few exceptions, the objective was to cover each and every government entity, whether it is a department, independent agency, independent establishment, or government corporation. This is because Congress is enacting the congressional review chapter, in large part, as an exercise of its oversight and legislative responsibility. Regardless of the justification for excluding or granting independence to some entities from the coverage of other laws, that justification does not apply to this chapter, where Congress has an interest in exercising its constitutional oversight and legislative responsibility as broadly as possible over all agencies and entities within its legislative jurisdiction. In some instances, federal entities and agencies issue rules that are not subject to the traditional 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(c) rulemaking process. However, the authors intend the congressional review chapter to cover every agency, authority, or entity covered by subsection 551(1) that establishes policies affecting any segment of the general public. Where it was necessary, a few special exceptions were provided, such as the exclusion for the monetary policy activities of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, rules of particular applicability, and rules of agency management and personnel. Where it was not necessary, no exemption was provided and no exemption should be inferred from other law. This is made clear by the provision of section 806 which states that the Act applies notwithstanding any other provision of law. Definition of a ``major rule'' The definition of a ``major rule'' in subsection 804(2) is taken from President Reagan's Executive Order 12291. Although President Clinton's Executive Order 12866 contains a definition of a ``significant regulatory action'' that is seemingly as broad, several of the Administration's significant rule determinations under Executive Order 12866 have been called into question. The authors intend the term ``major rule'' in this chapter to be broadly construed, including the non-numerical factors contained in the subsections 804(2)(B) and (C). Pursuant to subsection 804(2), the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (the Administrator) must make the major rule determination. The authors intend that centralizing this function in the Administrator will lead to consistency across agency lines. Moreover, from 1981-93 OIRA staff interpreted and applied the same major rule definition under E.O. 12291. Thus, the Administrator should rely on guidance documents prepared by OIRA during that time and previous major rule determinations from that Office as a guide in applying the statutory definition to new rules. Certain covered agencies, including many ``independent agencies,'' include their proposed rules in the Unified Regulatory Agenda published by OMB but do not normally submit their final rules to OMB for review. Moreover, interpretative rules and general statements of policy are not normally submitted to OMB for review. Nevertheless, it is the Administrator that must make the major rule determination under this chapter whenever a new rule is issued. The Administrator may request the recommendation of any agency covered by this chapter on whether a proposed rule is a major rule within the meaning of subsection 804(2), but the Administrator is responsible for the ultimate determination. Thus, all agencies or entities covered by this chapter will have to coordinate their rulemaking activity with OIRA so that the Administrator may make the final, major rule determination. Scope of rules covered The authors intend this chapter to be interpreted broadly with regard to the type and scope of rules that are subject to congressional review. The term ``rule'' in subsection 804(3) begins with the definition of a ``rule'' in subsection 551(4) and excludes three subsets of rules that are modeled on APA sections 551 and 553. This definition of a rule does not turn on whether a given agency must normally comply with the notice-and-comment provisions of the APA, or whether the rule at issue is subject to any other notice-and- comment procedures. The definition of ``rule'' in subsection 551(4) covers a wide spectrum of activities. First, there is formal rulemaking under section 553 that must adhere to procedures of sections 556 and 557 of title 5. Second, there is informal rulemaking, which must comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of subsection 553(c). Third, there are rules subject to the requirements of subsection 552(a)(1) and (2). This third category of rules normally either must be published in the Federal Register before they can adversely affect a person, or must be indexed and made available for inspection and copying or purchase before they can be used as precedent by an agency against a non-agency party. Documents covered by subsection 552(a) include statements of general policy, interpretations of general applicability, and administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public. Fourth, there is a body of materials that fall within the APA definition of ``rule'' and are the product of agency process, but that meet none of the procedural specifications of the first three classes. These include guidance documents and the like. For purposes of this section, the term rule also includes any rule, rule change, or rule interpretation by a self regulatory organization that is approved by a Federal agency. Accordingly, all ``rules'' are covered under this chapter, whether issued at the agency's initiative or in response to a petition, unless they are expressly excluded by subsections 804(3)(A)-(C). The authors are concerned that some agencies have attempted to circumvent notice-and-comment requirements by trying to give legal effect to general statements of policy, ``guidelines,'' and agency policy and procedure manuals. The authors admonish the agencies that the APA's broad definition of ``rule'' was adopted by the authors of this legislation to discourage circumvention of the requirements of chapter 8. The definition of a rule in subsection 551(4) covers most agency statements of general applicability and future effect. Subsection 804(3)(A) excludes ``any rule of particular applicability, including a rule that approves or prescribes rates, wages, prices, services, or allowances therefore, corporate and financial structures, reorganizations, mergers, or acquisitions thereof, or accounting practices or disclosures bearing on any of the foregoing'' from the definition of a rule. Many agencies, including the Treasury, Justice, and Commerce Departments, issue letter rulings or other opinion letters to individuals who request a specific ruling on the facts of their situation. These letter rulings are sometimes published and relied upon by other people in similar situations, but the agency is not bound by the earlier rulings even on facts that are analogous. Thus, such letter rulings or opinion letters do not fall within the definition of a rule within the meaning of subsection 804(3). The different types of rules issued pursuant to the internal revenue laws of the United States are good examples of the distinction between rules of general and particular applicability. IRS private letter rulings and Customs Service letter rulings are classic examples of rules of particular applicability, notwithstanding that they may be cited as authority in transactions involving the same circumstances. Examples of substantive and interpretative rules of general applicability will include most temporary and final Treasury regulations issued pursuant to notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, and most revenue rulings, revenue procedures, IRS notices, and IRS announcements. It does not matter that these later types of rules are issued without notice-and-comments rulemaking procedures or that they are accorded less deference by the courts than notice-and-comment rules. In fact, revenue rulings have been described by the courts as the ``classic example of an interpretative rul[e]'' within the meaning of the APA. See Wing v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 17, 26 (1983). The test is whether such rules announce a general statement of policy or an interpretation of law of general applicability. Most rules or other agency actions that grant an approval, license, registration, or similar authority to a particular person or particular entities, or grant or recognize an exemption or relieve a restriction for a particular person or particular entities, or permit new or improved applications of technology for a particular person or particular entities, or allow the manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of a substance or product are exempted under subsection 804(3)(A) from the definition of a rule. This is probably the largest category of agency actions excluded from the definition of a rule. Examples include import and export licenses, individual rate and tariff approvals, wetlands permits, grazing permits, plant licenses or permits, drug and medical device approvals, new source review permits, hunting and fishing take limits, incidental take permits and habitat conservation plans, broadcast licenses, and product approvals, including approvals that set forth the conditions under which a product may be distributed. Subsection 804(3)(B) excludes ``any rule relating to agency management or personnel'' from the definition of a rule. Pursuant to subsection 804(3)(C), however, a ``rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice,'' is only excluded if it ``does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.'' The authors' intent in these subsections is to exclude matters of purely internal agency management and organization, but to include matters that substantially affect the rights or obligations of outside parties. The essential focus of this inquiry is not on the type of rule but on its effect on the rights or obligations of non-agency parties.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to thank the majority leader for setting aside the immigration bill to take up this bill. I informed the majority leader and the Speaker some months ago of my earnest desire to pass this before this Friday. This Friday is the 1-year anniversary of the worst civil disaster that we have had in U.S. history: 168 innocent men, women, and children were murdered in the Murrah Building bombing. The majority leader responded to that request, and I appreciate it. I also want to compliment Senator Hatch and Senator Biden and their staffs, and also Chairman Hyde, for their willingness over the last 2 weeks when we were in recess to work out the differences, because the bills between the House and the Senate had a lot to offer, but there are significant differences in the bills. But there were significant differences. They worked out those differences. They came up with compromises. That was not easy during the break. That is not often done. But they did it so we can meet this deadline. I very much appreciate their cooperation. Mr. President, this is vitally important legislation. As my colleague from my State, Senator Inhofe, mentioned, this is very important legislation to the families of the victims. There are hundreds of people involved. Yes, there are 168 individuals who lost their lives, but they have hundreds of family members, and actually I think it is in the thousands, the relatives that are directly impacted, that lost a cousin, lost a dad, lost a son, lost a daughter. We met with those individuals. They want this bill passed. This bill may not be perfect. I know Chairman Hatch said that some of the other provisions that were alluded to today, that he is happy to introduce those and work on those in separate legislation. I compliment him for that. But if we recommitted this bill, we would not have this bill. It would not pass. So I want to thank my colleagues on this side that voted against the motions to recommit. This is a conference report. If we are going to get it passed, we are not going to be able to recommit it. So I will be happy to work to make future improvements. But this is a good bill. It does have habeas corpus reform. It ends the abusive appeals. That is certainly good for taxpayers and victims. It does allow closed-circuit TV for families in the Oklahoma City bombing. Right now the trial, regrettably, is going to be in Denver. That is over 500 miles from Oklahoma City. They want to be able to view the trial and not have to move their families to Denver. We requested assistance from Justice, but they did not make it happen. We make it happen in this legislation. That is good news for their families. Several of us will be with several thousand people. That will be good news for Oklahomans. Finally, I thank my colleagues for their bipartisan support. We put mandatory victim restitution in this legislation, something that the Senate has supported countless times. That is very significant and important and one of the crime reform packages we have had. We passed it in the Senate. Unfortunately, it has not come out of conference with the House. It is in this bill. Again, I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Biden, because they supported that provision. Finally, Mr. President, I want to urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. I will be very disappointed if this bill only has 60 or 65 votes. I hope it has 100 votes. This bill may not be perfect, but it is good legislation. Also, I would like to urge the President of the United States to sign it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Governor of the State of Oklahoma to the President of the United States urging that the President sign this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank Senator Dole for setting aside the immigration bill, the illegal immigration bill, temporarily so we can pass this terrorism conference report. I might mention to my colleagues this is a conference report and is not really amendable. It does not mean we do not have parliamentary procedures and it does not mean people cannot delay or procrastinate or mean we cannot say we can send it back to the conference with specific amendments. They have the right to do so. But I am going to urge my colleagues not to do so. If we do so, we are not going to finish this bill. I would like to finish this bill this week. I would really like to compliment my colleagues, Senator Hatch, and also Senator Biden, as well as our colleague in the House, Chairman Hyde, for their work in the last couple of weeks in melding the two bills together. This is a compromise bill. I do not make any bones about it. It is probably not perfect. But it is a good bill, and it needs to pass, and it needs to pass this week. If we recommit this bill, we are not going to get it done this week. So I urge my colleagues, it might be tempting and it may be politically appealing, for whatever reason, to recommit this bill and to score some points or run against the NRA or whatever, but I urge them to set that aside. Let us pass this bill. This is a positive bill. It is a good bill. It is a bill that has very, very strong support and a lot of emotional connections in my State. I think everybody is well aware of the fact that this Friday is the first anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing that took 168 innocent lives of men, women, and children. The families of those victims have urged us to pass this bill. They have admitted maybe this bill is not perfect, but they think it is a good bill. I have met with several of the victims and families of the victims. They said, please pass this bill. The No. 1 provision that they want in this bill is the so-called habeas corpus reform. They want an end to these endless appeals of people who have been convicted of atrocious crimes and murders. An end to abusing the judicial system, abusing taxpayers, filing frivolous appeals, endless, endless appeals. In Oklahoma actually several were wearing buttons that had a 17 with a line through it. They were referring to Roger Dale Stafford. In 1978, he murdered nine individuals in my State. First he murdered the Lorenz family--he was a sergeant. Sergeant Lorenz saw a stopped car with the hood up. So he pulled over and stopped to help Stafford. Lorenz was with his wife and his child. Roger Dale Stafford murdered him, murdered his wife, and went back into the car and murdered their son; and then shortly after that murdered six people. Most of them were kids in a Sirloin Stockade restaurant. He herded them into a freezer or refrigerator and murdered them in cold blood. That was in 1978. His execution did not happen until last year, 1995. He was on death row for 17 years. The families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing have said we need habeas corpus reform. This is a Federal crime. They will be tried under Federal statute. The death penalty does apply. If convicted, they would like to have the sentence carried out swiftly, not 20 years from now. They feel very, very strongly about it. I want to thank my colleagues for working over the last couple of weeks when the Senate was in recess. We do not usually do that. It does not happen very often around here. Usually we have a break or recess for whatever reason and staffs and Senators take off and not a lot of work is done. But this time was different. I also again want to thank Senator Dole and also Speaker Gingrich because I personally appealed to both and said I would really like to get this bill up and passed through both Houses of Congress by this anniversary date. I would like to go back to Oklahoma on Friday and tell the families that, yes, we have passed this antiterrorism bill. It has a lot of provisions, a lot of good provisions. I realize in the legislative process we make some compromises. It has been pointed out maybe there are a couple of provisions that should not be in or have been left out. My colleague from Delaware mentioned expanded wiretaps. A lot of people in my State have real second thoughts about that. I do not know. I supported it when it passed the Senate. It may be a good provision. Maybe I was wrong. I am not sure. I am not an expert in that area, but I know that habeas corpus reform, or death penalty reform, needs to pass. That is the foremost thing on the minds of the victims of the Oklahoma tragedy. If we send this back to committee, we will not be able to pass this bill this week. I will be more than disappointed if that happens. We have a couple of other provisions that are very important to the people of Oklahoma. We put in a provision, and I want to thank my colleagues, both Senator Hatch and Senator Biden for supporting this provision, that will allow and actually provide for closed circuit TV viewing of the trial proceedings in the Oklahoma bombing case. Unfortunately, the trial was moved to Denver. In Denver they have a courtroom, I believe, that holds 130 people. The judge said we will have an annex for audio, so in total, maybe 260 people including press would have the opportunity to attend or hear the trial. Frankly, that is not enough. That is not near enough. Not to mention the fact that the individuals and families would have to travel over 500 miles, and be away from the rest of their family. It would be an enormous inconvenience. We have raised some money to assist them. I am sure some families would like to personally attend the trial and we will try and help them financially, as well. I thank the Attorney General for helping in that manner. She wrote me a letter saying they were contributing the travel fund. I asked the Attorney General's assistance so that those who could not travel to Denver could view the trial through closed circuit TV coverage. We think that a decision to permit this by the court is discretionary and it should happen. Unfortunately, she has declined to help us with the closed circuit TV provision. This bill says that the court must provide closed circuit coverage of the trial for victims and their families. It will be closely monitored. The court will have complete control over the coverage. This is not for public viewing but for the families, so they can view the trial without leaving their home, without leaving the rest of their families, maybe without having to take several months off from their jobs or their workplaces. This is going to be a very traumatic time for them and it would be much better for them as individuals to be able to view this at home and still be able to be with their family members and friends instead of dislocating them for several months, sending them to Denver, and only a very small percentage of them being able to even be present in court, and be more than frustrated by being so close yet so far away because they would not have access to the proceedings in the trial. I am appreciative of this one provision, and again I thank my colleague from Utah and my colleague from Delaware for inserting this provision. There is a comparable provision in the House bill. This is most important to the families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. Finally, I want to comment on one other provision. This bill provides for mandatory restitution for victims of Federal violent crimes, property crimes, and product tampering crimes. This is a measure that we have spoken about on the floor of the Senate countless times. This is a measure that has passed the Senate three or four times. This is a measure that has bipartisan support. Senator Biden, Senator Hatch, myself, and others have worked to put this in. We have passed it in various crime control packages in the past. Unfortunately, when we have had a conference it has not remained in the conference package. This is a most important provision where we do give respect, treatment and assistance for the victims of crime--mandatory restitution for victims. We should pay more attention to victims instead of to the criminals, as we have done in the past. I am most appreciative. This is a very important provision. I think our colleagues have put together a good bill. It may not be perfect. I have heard my colleague from Utah say, well, as far as some of the other provisions, maybe the provision that was alluded to by our colleague from California dealing with Internet and directions for explosives, that may be a good provision. I may well support it. It does not have to be in this package. I hope that if there are other good provisions not included in this bill, we can garner overwhelming support in the Senate, we can take them up separately and pass them this year. I would like to think that we have a window of opportunity of a couple of months where we can pass substantive legislation without playing politics. I hope we do not play politics with this bill. I keep hearing statements about the NRA and others, there are a lot of people that are concerned about expanding wiretap authority and they do not have anything to do with the NRA. Maybe that is a good provision. I am not debating that. Maybe it should be debated, but debate it separately. If we put some of those provisions in, there will be problems in the House and we will not pass this bill this week. To me that would be a real shame. That would be something that we should not do. This is an important bill. This is a good bill, a bill that should pass, that should pass tonight. I would hope that my colleagues would join together, resist the temptation to send this back to conference, knowing it would delay it. Hopefully, they would join us in saying, ``Let's pass this bill,'' and if we want to consider separate measures dealing with taggants or anything else that was originally in the House bill or originally in the Senate bill, or maybe originally in the President's bill, we can consider that independently. This is a conference report. Most of our colleagues are aware of the fact we do not usually amend conference reports, and if we do, we could put unnecessary delay on this legislation which would be a serious mistake. On behalf of the victims of the tragedy that happened on April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City, on behalf of the families and the countless number of people who were impacted directly, I urge my colleagues, let Members pass this bill, pass this bill tonight, no later than tomorrow, get it through the House, as well, so we can let them know that we have listened to them, we have heard them, and we have passed a good antiterrorism bill with real habeas corpus reform, with real death penalty reform, with a provision allowing them to have closed circuit TV viewing of the trial. I think they will be most appreciative. I know they will be most appreciative. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend from Indiana, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and all of my colleagues involved in the farm bill debate for their hard work in crafting legislation which reforms our Nation's agriculture policies. The conference report on the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act represents a long-term plan to get the Government out of the farming business--an idea I strongly support. The final agreement offers farmers flexibility, simplicity, certainty, opportunity and growth and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. Under the provisions of this bill, farmers will have the flexibility to plant the crop or crops that best suit their climate, conditions and market opportunities. No longer will the Government tell farmers which crops to plant and no longer will the Government tell farmers to leave productive land idle in exchange for a Federal handout. Current agriculture programs will be simplified by allowing farmers to enter into 7-year contracts. After the initial sign-up, many farmers will never need to visit USDA again. I strongly support provisions in the bill which eliminate the countless rules and costly regulations that accompany today's farm programs. The conference agreement provides certainty to farmers by ensuring they will know all program parameters and payment rates for the next 7 years. Under current programs, payment rates often change after program sign-up and payments in future years are unknown. A fixed stream of payments bolsters confidence in farm lending and all areas of farm business decisions. I believe in the opportunity this legislation provides to farmers. Decades-old planting patterns that limit profits are eliminated and replaced with flexibility and fixed market transition payments. Farm income will grow as farmers are no longer limited to planting stagnant, low-value, market crops. With respect to haying and grazing provisions included in the conference agreement, I want to thank both the House and Senate Committees for their commitment to allowing farmers to hay and graze their lands. I was involved in amending the original bill, which restricted haying and grazing, and I thank my colleagues for their continued interest in providing the utmost flexibility to those who earn their living in agriculture. Finally, as many of you know, Oklahoma and other Western States have suffered a severe drought during the past 6 months. Farmers tell me that if Congress doesn't enact this farm bill many will be forced out of business. Frankly, I do not want to see that happen. Congress has a responsibility to farmers in Oklahoma and every other agricultural State to enact a farm bill this week. I support the conference report before the Senate and urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption. applicability of the congressional review act

Mr. NICKLES. Yes, I agree with the chairman of the committee that the other emergency exception from the 60-day delay of major rules was included for this kind of circumstance. Certainly, it would be totally appropriate for the President to determine by Executive order that the market transition contract rules promulgated this spring under the Agricultural Reform and Improvement Act are emergency rules that would not be subject to the automatic 60-day delay.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes, I will inform the chairman of the Agriculture Committee that all Federal agency rules will be subject to congressional review upon enactment of the Congressional Review Act.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes, my colleague is correct. If any Federal agency issues what the Congressional Review Act defines as ``major'' rules, those rules would not be allowed to go into effect for at least 60 calendar days. However, I advise my colleague that the President, by Executive order, may declare a health, safety, or other emergency, and that particular major rule would be exempt from the 60-day delay. I would add, that the President's determination of whether there is an emergency is not subject to judicial review.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for, one, his statement, but also for maybe one of the most important things he said: This amendment has nothing to do with the national parks. It does not belong on this bill. You might say, well, why is it on this bill? Why was it offered by my friend and colleague from Massachusetts to put on this bill? I will tell you. In my opinion, it is all about politics. It is not about increasing minimum wage. If my friends on the other side of the aisle wanted to increase the minimum wage, they controlled this body in 1993, in 1994. They controlled the White House. They could have done it at that time. They had that right. They had the votes. The majority leader could have called it up any time. They did not do it. Why did they do it now? Well, Presidential politics. Plus, I noticed an article in the paper that says the AFL-CIO endorses Clinton and approves a $35 million political program. They want to run a lot of independent expenditures, all against Republicans. It is all about politics. It does not belong on this bill. We should reject this amendment. What is the substance of the amendment? The substance of the amendment is, it says if you make less than $5.15 an hour, you should not have a job. Not only should you not have a job, you cannot have a job. An increase in the minimum wage says it is against the Federal law for you to have a job if you make less than $5.15. You cannot have a job. I do not care if my friends from the States of Massachusetts, New York, or North Dakota want to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour in their States; let them do it. I do not think they should do it in my State because they are going to put some people out of work. I heard them say that it has no adverse economic impact and maybe it will increase jobs. If that is the case, let us increase minimum wage to $10 an hour. I do not want everybody to make just $5 an hour; I want everybody to make more than $5 an hour. Why not $10 or $20 an hour? If we can repeal the law of economics, if it makes no difference whatsoever economically, let us make it more because I want people to make a lot more money. I am not against people getting a raise. I want that. But I do not want to raise the minimum wage and say it is against the law for you to have a job if the best thing you can get is $4.50 or $4.75. I have kids that make that amount of money. We are going to pass a law that says they cannot have a job if it does not pay $5.15. If the infinite wisdom of Washington, DC, says, ``If you do not have a job that pays at least $5.15 an hour, you should not have a job,'' and that person cannot get a job and they are idle, then what are they doing? A lot of times they end up involved in crime or involved in mischief. That is ridiculous. And they do not learn a trade or a new skill. I worked for minimum wage. I do not make any bones about it. I worked for minimum wage after my wife and I were married, 27\1/2\ years ago. We made $1.60 an hour. I needed more, but it was enough. I quit that job and started my own janitor service. I learned a trade, and I hired a lot of people, and they all made more than minimum wage. Why in the world should we set an arbitrary level, a higher level, and say, ``If you do not meet this level, you cannot have a job? Uncle Sam says we would rather have you be idle if you cannot meet at least this standard.'' I think that is ridiculous. I think the Senator's amendment is wrong in its substance. It is nothing but a political act of appeasement or trying to make organized labor leaders happy. Thank you very much for your $35 million. You are going to get a great program. We are going to try to embarrass Bob Dole and see if we cannot come up with a great program to thank you for your money. I think that is blatant political abuse and should be rejected. I hope it is rejected. My colleagues on the other side know this amendment is not going to become law. They hope to score some political points, and I hope they will not be successful. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask the Senator from South Dakota, correct me if I am wrong, but when the Democrats were in control of the Senate and the House in 1993 and 1994 and you had Bill Clinton in the White House, if this is so urgent, why did not you bring it to the floor any time during those 2 years? Is there any reason why it was not brought to the floor at that time?

Mr. NICKLES. How much time is remaining?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the minority leader yield for a question?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, clearly, the American people believe that Washington has too much control over their everyday lives. They attribute much of this to a Federal bureaucracy that has grown out of control over the last several decades. Today, the Senate will take a major step toward holding regulatory agencies accountable for the rulemakings they issue. In an effort to return common sense to Federal regulations, we are sending to the President legislation which will provide a formal Congressional review process of regulations issued by Federal agencies. The Congressional Review Act before us is similar to S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act that passed the Senate 100-0 a year ago this week. I fully concur with changes made by the House to the Senate bill and believe this represents a workable consensus agreement. It is estimated that the direct cost to the public and private sectors complying with Federal regulations was $668 billion in 1995. This translates into a cost of $6,000 annually for the average American household. This means higher prices for the cars we drive, the houses we live in, and the food we consume. It also means diminished wages, increased taxes, and reduced government services. The Congressional Review Act provides for a 60-day review period following the issuance of any Federal agency final rule during which the Congress may enact a joint resolution of disapproval, under a fast- track procedure in the Senate. If the joint resolution passes both Houses, it must be presented to the President for his action. As in the Senate-passed version, the Congressional Review Act provides for a formal congressional review procedure following the issuance of any final rule by a Federal agency, during which the Congress has an opportunity to review the rule and, if it chooses, enact a joint resolution of disapproval. An expedited review procedure is provided in the Senate for 60 session days beginning on the later of the date Congress receives the agency's report on the rule, or the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Upon issuing a final rule, a Federal agency must send to Congress and GAO a report containing a copy of the rule and also send to GAO or if requested, to Congress, the complete cost-benefit analysis, if any, prepared for the rule and the agency's analyses required by the Regulatory Flexibility and Unfunded Mandates Acts. For major final rules, GAO shall provide within 15 days to the appropriate committee an assessment of the agency's compliance with the regulatory flexibility, unfunded mandates, and cost-benefit analyses performed by the agency. Any Senator or Representative may introduce a resolution of disapproval of an agency final rule. The joint resolution of disapproval, which declares that the rule has no force or effect, will be referred to the committees of jurisdiction. As provided in the Senate version the agreement contains the look- back provision provided to permit congressional review of major final rules issued between March 1, 1996, and the date of enactment. With regard to concerns raised about unnecessary legal challenges to rules, this act, as in the Senate-passed version, provides that ``no determination, finding, action, or omission under this title shall be subject to judicial review.'' The agreement does not provide for expedited procedures in the House, but terminates the use of the Senate procedures on the 60th session day, instead of the 45-calendar-day review that was provided in the Senate version. The Senate expedited procedures can be used to consider a resolution of disapproval that may be introduced with respect to most Federal agency final rules. All final rules that are published less than 60 session days before a session of Congress adjourns sine die, or that are published during sine die adjournment, shall be eligible for review and for fast-track disapproval procedures in the Senate for 60 session days beginning on the 15th session day following the date the new session of Congress convenes. If the Senate committees of jurisdiction have not reported the resolution of disapproval within 20 calendar days from the date Congress receives the agency's report on the rule, or on the date the final rule is published in the Federal Register, whichever is later, a petition signed by 30 Senators may discharge the committee from further consideration and place the resolution of disapproval directly on the calendar. Under the Senate procedures, the motion to proceed to the joint resolution is privileged and is not debatable. Once the Senate has moved to proceed to the resolution of disapproval, debate on the resolution is limited to 10 hours, equally divided, with no motions-- other than a motion to further limit debate--or amendments in order. If the resolution passes one body, it is eligible for immediate consideration on the floor of the other body. As provided in the Senate version, the Congressional Review Act declares that no court or agency shall infer any intent of the Congress from any action or inaction of the Congress with regard to a rule unless the Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval regarding that rule. As all of my colleagues are well aware, the Congress at any time can review and change, or decide not to change, rules or their underlying statutes. Accordingly, it is my belief that the courts should not treat the mere introduction of a joint resolution of disapproval as grounds for granting a stay to any greater or lesser extent than the courts now take cognizance of any other bills that are introduced. Major final rules, which the Congressional Review Act defines as final rules that meet the criteria for ``major rules'' set forth in the Reagan Administration's Executive Order 12291, may not take effect until at least 60 calendar days after the rule is published. However, major final rules addressing imminent threats to health and safety, or other emergencies, criminal law enforcement, matters of national security, or issued pursuant to any statute implementing an international trade agreement may be exempted by Executive Order from the 60-day minimum delay in the effective date. The decision by the President to exempt any major final rule from the delay is not subject to judicial review. Major final rules would not go into effect after the 60-day period if the joint resolution of disapproval has passed both Houses within that time. If the joint resolution of disapproval is vetoed, the effective date of the final rule will continue to be postponed until 30 session days have passed after the veto, or the date on which either House fails to override the veto, whichever is earlier. To address statutory or judicial deadlines that apply to disapproved rules, these deadlines are extended for one year after the date of enactment of the joint resolution. Currently, Congress must approve tax increases, and thanks to the Unfunded Mandates Act passed last year must also focus its attention on any major unfunded mandate. But Congress has virtually no formal role, other than oversight, over the promulgation of a Federal regulation, even if its impact on the economy is measured in billions of dollars. There may have been a time in our Nation's history where congressional review wasn't important. But agencies are now very large, with broad authorities and individual agendas. This new act will help Congress carry out its responsibility to the American people to ensure that Federal regulatory agencies are carrying out congressional intent. Finally, I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to Senator Harry Reid who has worked tirelessly on this issue since its inception. mia's in north korea--section 1607--united states-north korea agreed framework

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to compliment my friend from North Carolina for moving forward a proposal to reduce the size of government that was opposed by the Administration and those on the other side of the aisle. I think through his persistence we have a bill that may not go as far as most of us in the Senate would like to see, but at least it is a step in the right direction. I do think, however, that the debate on this bill helps to magnify the fundamental differences between those on this side of the aisle and those on the other side of the aisle. When this bill was originally proposed it would have eliminated three government agencies, The Agency for International Development [AID], The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA] and The United States Information Agency [USIA] and folded these functions back into the State Department. By doing this, the American taxpayer would have saved $3.66 billion during the next four years. Now we have a bill that calls for the elimination of these three agencies, but the bill allows the President to issue a waiver for the elimination of two of these three agencies. The result is that the American taxpayer will only realize about half of the $3.66 billion in savings as originally proposed. I want to remind my colleagues how we got from the original version of the bill to the Conference Report. This is especially enlightening because when the bill was originally proposed, it was hailed as the Helms-Christopher plan because the bill mirrored a plan outlined by Secretary of State Warren Christopher to eliminate these agencies. This is what the January 12, 1995 edition of the Washington Times had to say about this bill: If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott ought to be basking in the glow of admiration beaming upon them from Capitol Hill. Jesse Helms and Rep. Benjamin Gilman, chairmen of the Senate and House Foreign Affairs Committees, recently unveiled their plan for the re-invention of the U.S. State Department and--Ta-da--it bore more than a passing resemblance to the plan produced by Messrs. Christopher and Talbott. However, when Vice-President Gore and his re-inventing government staff got a hold of Secretary Christoper's plan it was fundamentally altered. Instead of adopting it, the Vice-President decided to streamline these agencies. And since then, according to the August 5, 1995 edition of Congressional Quarterly, ``the administration . . . has mounted a furious effort to kill the Helms bill.'' Once again, I want to compliment my friend from North Carolina for continuing to move this plan as originally proposed forward in the face of opposition. He moved the bill through his committee, but when the bill got to the floor of the Senate, the Democrats here carried the administration's torch and frustrated efforts to eliminate these agencies. Twice the Senate tried to cut-off debate, and twice, along party lines, the Senate was prevented from moving forward on the bill. I wish to remind my friends on the other side of the aisle and the American people, that the bill does not eliminate the functions of The Agency for International Development [AID], The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA] and The United States Information Agency [USIA]. Some have argued that the bill in its original form would have eliminated important government functions. I ask how? The bill transfers the functions of these agencies to the State Department and eliminates the bureaucracy created by these independent agencies. I wish to point out again for my colleagues in the Senate, that the first bill of the 104th Congress that would have eliminated three government agencies faced vigorous opposition by the Democrats in its original form. And the watered down version, which we are about to pass which would eliminate only one government agency, faces a certain veto by the President. This despite the fact that in his state of the union address the President said ``the era of the big government is over.'' I don't think the American people could get a more clear picture of who is doing what about the size of government.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Line-Item Veto Act. The final Senate consideration and passage of this historic legislation is the result of years of hard work on the part of many of my colleagues. I particularly wish to congratulate Senator McCain and Senator Coats, who have dedicated so much of their time and energy to this initiative. In recent years, they have taken up this cause which was so actively pursued in the past by Senator Mattingly, Senator Evans, and Senator Quayle. My colleagues have shown great courage over the years in continuing to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate. They did this at some political risk, yet they did not waiver. They believe in this issue, and I think they are right. I believe the line-item veto is vitally important, Mr. President. It will save money, and right now we are spending too much and our budget process does not work very well. The line-item veto is certainly not a panacea for all our budget problems, and it will not balance the budget. But it will help. According to the Library of Congress, at least 10 Presidents since the Civil War have supported the line-item veto, including Presidents Grant, Hayes, Arthur, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush. Further, 43 of 50 State Governors have some form of line-item veto authority. At its essence, this is a debate over checks and balances. Right now, we are writing a lot of checks, and there are few balances. Congress spends the money, and the President has two options. One, he signs the bill, or two, he vetoes the bill. Historically, the balance of spending power between the executive and legislative branches of Government has varied considerably. Prior to 1974, several Presidents impounded congressionally directed spending, and Congress had little recourse. According to the Congressional Research Service, the first significant impoundment of funds occurred in 1803 when President Thomas Jefferson refused to spend $50,000 appropriated by Congress to provide gunboats to operate on the Mississippi River. President Grant impounded funds for harbor and river improvement projects in 1876 because they were of a local interest rather than in the national interest. President Roosevelt impounded funds during the Great Depression and World War II, and in the 1960's President Johnson withheld billions of dollars in funding for highway projects. This conflict came to a head in the 1970's when President Nixon impounded over $12 billion for public works housing, education, and health programs. Nixon's action led to the enactment of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under this legislation, Congress eliminated the President's impoundment authority in exchange for establishing its own budget process. Under the Congressional Budget Act, the balance of spending power is now significantly in Congress' favor. The President may now propose rescissions of appropriated funds, but Congress is not obligated to consider them. The General Accounting Office reports that from 1974 to 1994, Presidents have proposed 1,084 rescissions of budget authority totaling $72.8 billion. Congress has adopted only 399, or 37 percent, of the proposed rescissions in the amount of $22.9 billion. Congress has also initiated 649 rescissions totaling $70.1 billion, but most of these rescissions have been used to offset other Federal spending. Mr. President, I have served on the Appropriations Committee. They probably work as hard as any committee in the Senate, and they are responsible for spending a little over $500 billion, about a third of what the Government spends right now. For the most part, they do an excellent job with the annual appropriations bills and supplementals, but I can tell you from experience that every single appropriations bill has had items in it that we do not need and we cannot afford. The line-item veto will give the President the ability to strike those items that we cannot afford. We may or may not agree with him. If we disagree, we can try to override his veto. Mr. President, I think it is important to note that this line-item veto will impact not only appropriated spending, but also new entitlement spending and limited tax benefits. We all know it is the outrageous growth of entitlement spending that is causing our deficit problems, so I think it is a significant step to give the office of the President more authority to control the growth of these programs. Mr. President, again, I compliment my colleagues, particularly Senator McCain and Senator Coats, for their leadership. They have taken this issue on year after year, many times at considerable economic and political pain. I compliment them for their courage, and I am proud of their success. The line-item veto is a significant accomplishment for the 104th Congress, but I continue to hope that it is not our most significant accomplishment. It is with no small degree of frustration that I note that President Clinton and the Democrats killed the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, they killed the Balanced Budget Act, and they killed welfare reform. When President Clinton campaigned on a line-item veto in 1992, he claimed that he could reduce spending by $9.8 billion during his term. I wish we could have given it to him earlier, since spending has actually increased during his term so far. Even more amazing is that right now, in some room in the Capitol building, the President's aides are insisting on spending $8 billion more this year. Mr. President, I hope the line-item veto is not our most significant budget accomplishment this year, but even if the President continues to block our other initiatives, this legislation will stand out as a shining example of our success.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield to me briefly?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to some of the statements that were made by our colleagues from Massachusetts, who said we should increase the minimum wage. I will make a couple of editorial comments because I do not know that we need to debate it at this time, but I feel a need to respond to some of the statements made on the floor of the Senate. The implication was that if we do not increase the minimum wage, we do not care about low-income people. I find that to be offensive. That attempts to show that maybe those of us who oppose raising the minimum wage are not only insensitive, but we do not care about poor people or something. I disagree with that. Maybe we should turn that argument around. Maybe those of us who care more about poor people should increase the minimum wage to $10, $15, or $20 an hour. I would like for everybody in America to make $20 an hour. But is the proper way to do it to pass a law that says it is against the law for you to have a job if you do not make that? That is what our colleagues from Massachusetts are doing. They want to offer an amendment that says it is against the law for you to have a job unless it pays $5.15 an hour. They do not care if the job is in rural Missouri or Oklahoma. Maybe every job in Massachusetts pays that much. I do not care if the State of Massachusetts passes a minimum wage law for any figure. That is their prerogative. But to pass a law that makes it effective in my State and all across the country and says it is against the Federal law to have a job that pays less than $5.15, I think is a serious mistake. Who does it hurt? I think it would hurt the very people they propose to help. It would be telling a lot of people who are low income, who have a job that maybe does not pay much, it pays minimum wage--by definition, that is not much, but at least they have a job--and we are going to say, unless that job pays at least $5.15 an hour, we do not think you should have that job. As a matter of fact, it is against the law, against the Federal law for you to have a job unless it pays that amount. I totally disagree with that. I just have to say that I do not understand the effort made to have this amendment on this bill. We have a lands bill up. We have a bill that deals with Presidio, deals with the land exchange in Oklahoma and Arkansas, and we have a bill dealing with Utah wilderness. It is a complicated bill. I compliment my colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, for his leadership on this bill. What does the minimum wage amendment have to do with this bill? Nothing--except for politics. I will say it has something to do with politics. My colleagues said that we have not had an increase in the minimum wage since 1989--7 years. Wait a minute. The Democrats were in control of the Senate and the House and the White House in the years 1993 and 1994. Why did they not have the bill on the floor then? The majority leader, Senator Mitchell, at that time could have brought it up. But he did not. Why? Well, they were trying to have a big increase in the minimum wage because they wanted to mandate a very expensive health care plan on America. Maybe they figured they could not do both. They controlled the agenda. The Senator from Massachusetts could have offered that amendment, and he did not do it. We did not have a vote in 1993 and 1994 when President Clinton and the Democrats were in control. But we are having one today. I noticed a coincidence in today's paper, the Washington Post. The headline is, ``AFL-CIO Endorses Clinton, Approves $35 Million Political Program.'' They want to enact their agenda. This is on their agenda. My colleagues talked about special interests. I would say this is a pretty big special interest. I would say that all of their members make more than minimum wage. Maybe all of them do. There are a lot of people in rural Missouri or rural Oklahoma making minimum wage, and if you increase the minimum wage by a certain amount, you are going to be putting some people out of work. I do not know who, but I know there are some. I have been in rural areas that have grocery stores that are striving to stay alive because they had a big company come in, like Wal-Mart or somebody, a big competitor. Yes, they were paying $4.50 an hour or whatever the amount would be, and they are not making any money. But if we mandate that they increase their minimum wage or whatever they are paying by 21 percent as proposed, you are going to be putting some of those jobs out, maybe put the business out. And what are these jobs? A lot of them are starting level jobs. I worked for minimum wage 27\1/2\ years ago. It was when my wife and I were first married. I worked for it before then as well. But I remember that was the best job we could get. We both worked. At that time I think the minimum wage was $1.60 an hour, and was it enough? No. Did I want more? Yes. Did I learn part of the trade? And that trade at the time was a janitor service. Yes. And I started my own. So the minimum wage was not so much a minimum wage as it was a starting wage. It helped me learn a craft or business, and I was able to start a business. I employed more people and they made more than the minimum wage. But what we are doing, if we increase the minimum wage significantly, what we are going to be doing is telling all people if your job does not pay at least this amount, it is against the law for you to have a job, we are going to pull up the economic ladder. The Federal Government is determined if your job does not pay that amount, you should not have it; it is against the Federal law. I think that is wrong. That is the heavy hand of the Federal Government coming in and saying we know best. We know you should be making more. Now, what is right in Boston, MA, may not be what is right in my hometown of Ponca City, OK. So I just really disagree with this idea of big Government knows best; we are going to mandate, we are going to tell everybody what to do and act like there are no economic consequences whatsoever. Sure, there are economic consequences. You are going to be pricing some jobs--maybe the job is pumping gas--out of the market. That is one of the first jobs that a lot of my group growing up were working at. You do not see that anymore. Most of the gas stations are self-serve. That may not be the greatest job in the world, but I would rather have that young person coming in and getting a start and maybe learning the fact this is not good enough; I cannot make enough money, so maybe I need to go back and complete high school or maybe I need to go into vo- tech or maybe I need to go get some additional training. That is all part of the educational process. We say, ``Oh, no. If the job doesn't pay over $5.15 an hour, you can't have it; it is wrong.'' Or maybe the job is sacking groceries. You do not see many jobs like that. We used to have those jobs. The Federal Government is going to put people out of business and back on the streets, people who need that job training. A lot of people in Boston, a lot of people in different parts of the country need that first job. That first job teaches them a lot more than just the dollar amount. And we should give them that opportunity. We should not be pulling the economic ladder up and saying, no, if it does not pay that much, it is not worth it; you go ahead and stay home. And, yes, so what if you are 16 years old and you do not have anything else to do, just stay home. And then what happens? A lot of those idle people say, well, I need some money. How can I make money? Maybe I can make money running drugs, maybe I can make money stealing things, whatever. A lot of people get into trouble because they have time on their hands. That is a mistake. We should not price them out of the marketplace, and that is what is being proposed. And then some of our colleagues say, well, there are no economic consequences whatsoever. This is not going to mean an increase in unemployment. I think it just defies the law of supply and demand. If there are no negative economic consequences by a 21-percent increase in the minimum wage, why not increase it 50 percent? Why not increase it 100 percent? Maybe we should have a perfecting amendment that says the minimum wage will be $10 an hour? That is all right. If you work 2,080 hours a year, that is $20,000 a year. I think that would be nice. I would like for everybody to make $20,000 a year. So maybe we should perfect this amendment. If you are not going to have any negative consequences by a 21-percent increase in the minimum wage, let us make it 100 percent, make it $10 an hour. I just think that argument makes no sense whatsoever. Common sense would say, hey, this is going to cause some problems for some people and those some people are going to be the people on the lowest end of the economic scale that maybe are trying to crawl that ladder and we are going to pull the ladder up. We should not do that. I wish to make a couple of comments. Yes, there are negative economic consequences. CBO said that this is an unfunded mandate on cities and counties and States and tribes of about $1 billion over the next few years. They said it is an unfunded mandate on the private sector to the tune of over $12 billion for the next few years. The real problem is that this is going to be telling a lot of young people we are sorry; if you cannot find a job that pays this much, we do not want you to have a job; it is against the law for you to have a job. That is a mistake. I think that is a serious mistake. We should not do that. So I will urge my colleague at the appropriate time to oppose this amendment if and when it is offered. It does not belong in this bill. Some people are kind of frustrated Congress does not get its business done, and on occasion I may join that frustration. But this amendment is for politics because the leaders of organized labor are in town, because the leaders of organized labor are endorsing Clinton and promising record amounts, record amounts, $35 million in political campaign contributions. This is special interest legislation and the real problem is the real people it will hurt will be low-income people who need jobs. So I will urge my colleagues at the appropriate time to defeat this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Washington for that statement. That may be the most vivid example of bureaucracies running amok, actually endangering the lives of some of our constituents. That is unfortunate. I appreciate the Senator for bringing that to our attention. I hope we will be able to take some corrective action.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I want to compliment my colleague, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, for his leadership, as well as that of Senator Bumpers. It is great to see two people work together and push legislation that will be a real asset to small business. That is exactly what they have done. They have worked tirelessly in this committee. I served on that committee, and I tell my colleague, when I served on that committee, it was kind of frustrating because we talked a lot, but we did not do much. Frankly, the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Arkansas are doing things, passing legislation to help small business, trying to make sure with the legislation they have introduced today that the impact of regulations on small business will be heard. If, for some reason, the regulatory agencies do not take small business impacts into account, their legislation will provide a means for directing the agencies to take those impacts into account in their regulations. So I compliment them for their efforts and leadership. Amendment No. 3534 (Purpose: To provide for a substitute.)