Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is an amendment on which Senator Reid, myself, and many others in the Senate, including Senator Hutchison, Senator Bond, Senator Bumpers, have had a lot of input. We worked on it a lot and actually passed this amendment through the Senate on March 29, 1995, by a vote of 100 to 0. This amendment was in contrast to some legislation that the House passed. The House passed a moratorium on all regulations. We considered in the Senate actually a bill somewhat similar to that, which had passed through the Governmental Affairs Committee. However, this is a substitute. The moratorium would have lasted only until the end of last year; it would have expired December 31, 1995. It would not have an impact today. It might have stopped some regulations that were going forward in that period of time. This legislation, though, will be permanent law. We did pass it with bipartisan support. I thank Senator Reid. It is not often that we have bipartisan support on legislation that will really have a significant impact. I am glad we have it in the legislation that Senator Bond and Senator Bumpers had, the so-called reg flex proposal, and also the congressional review proposal that Senators Reid, Hutchison, and myself are pushing today. This legislation, instead of having a moratorium, we will have a permanent law that says Congress should review all new regulations. If you find that an agency passes a final rule and it has a significant impact, and you do not like it, you should stop it, you should change it. We, in Congress, many times will pass a law and congratulate ourselves and say we did a good job, give the regulatory agencies a fair amount of flexibility in implementing that law, but then we kind of turn our backs and we get busy and forget about what we did. Then we find the full impact of the law once it is final and the rules are promulgated. It may be a year or two after we pass the legislative language that we find that rules issued pursuant to that law have a very significant economic impact--sometimes very, very significant negative economic impact. Sometimes the rules can be enormously expensive. Sometimes they can be ludicrous. Yet we are sitting on our hands in Congress. And our constituents are saying, ``When did you guys pass that law? What did you do? Do you know what you were doing?'' A lot of times we sit back and say, ``Well, the law had very good intentions.'' And, if you read the statutory language, it sounded pretty good. But the final rules implementing the statutory language leave a lot to be desired. This proposal would say that when the regulatory agencies make their final rule, notification of that final rule will be sent to Congress, and sent to the GAO. And we can review it. If it is a major rule, or significant rule as determined by the administration, usually if it has an economic impact over $100 million on the economy, that rule will be suspended for 45 days. So it does not go into effect immediately. So we have a chance to listen to people, and before it becomes final we can stop it. Under this proposal, Congress can pass a joint resolution of disapproval. We have expedited procedures in the bill so no one can filibuster, or stop the will of the majority. So, you can get a vote in both Houses passing a resolution of disapproval, and send it to the White House, and say, ``No. We think this rule is a mistake. This is not what we meant. We think it goes too far. It is too expensive, too cumbersome''--for whatever reason; maybe because our constituents are telling us this rule does not make sense. Maybe the rule does not have an economic impact over $100 million. It does not have to, if our constituents convince us that the rule does not make sense. We can stop it. That is what this legislation is all about. This is going to encourage congressional review of rules and I think put more responsibility on Congress. We have not done very good in legislative oversight. Maybe we are too busy. For whatever reason, there are lots of rules and regulations out there that many people say are idiotic and do not make sense, and they are too expensive. I see the occupant of the chair. I know of his profession prior to coming to the Senate as a physician. And I can think of one law that passed--the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act. It had very good intentions. But the net result was that in a lot of areas it was very expensive. As a matter of fact, I had physicians in my State telling me, ``Wait a minute. We cannot do lab tests in our own office. We have been doing it for 20 years. And I have to give blood tests. I have to give results to my patients, and quickly, if I am going to give quality health care. And now I have a rule implementing the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act which says that I cannot do that in my office. I have to send it off to a pathologist in Nashville, TN, or Oklahoma City, or Maine. Their office is 200 miles away, and it may take 24 hours or 48 hours to turn that around.'' That is dangerous medicine. Maybe that rule implementing the legislative act went too far. This proposal would give us a chance, if a regulatory agency comes down with a rule, to review that rule. And, if we do not like it for any reason, we can stop it and we send it to the President. If he disagrees with us, he can veto it. Mr. President, I can think of any number of agencies that Congress needs to spend more time watching. And, again, maybe all of the legislation had very good intent. But the regulations' impact went too far. There is a rule floating around right now in OSHA called ergonomics. It sounds very good. It protects people from injuries caused by repetitive motions. But, all of a sudden, the Department of Labor is telling people how high their desk has to be, or are getting ready to tell people that they cannot lift a box or a package which is over 25 pounds. The Department of Labor is suggesting you must have two people. There are implications from this regulatory proposal that could cost billions of dollars. Maybe something needs to be done to prevent injury to people from repetitive motions in the workplace. However, if the Department of Labor comes up with a final rule that is similar to the ergonomics language they have been floating, I think of a lot of us would say, ``Stop that. Wait a minute.'' I grew up in a machine shop. If you had someone saying that you cannot move anything over 25 pounds--we move a lot of heavy equipment around--that rule would not work. So again we need a little common sense. That is what this legislation is all about. It is congressional review. If regulatory agencies pass a rule and it does not make sense, we have 45 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval, and we have expedited procedures. People will not be able to filibuster that rule. So we can get it through the Senate, if you have 51 votes, and through the House if they have a majority vote, and send it to the President. If he feels very strongly that that rule does not need to be rewritten or reviewed, he can veto it. And we can try to override his veto. So we still have checks and balances. We do not suspend all rules for the 45 days, but only those rules that have significant economic impact as defined by the administration. We made a few changes--which are different in the legislation that we passed last year in March. We changed the name of the legislation to the Congressional Review Act. We put in an exemption for hunting and fishing rules. The 45-day delay provision was changed to a complete exemption--which is different in the legislation the Senate passed last March. That was sought by Senator Stevens. And I appreciate his input. Also, final rules that were issued pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 are made exempt from the automatic 45-day delay provision to ensure that short deadlines recently given the FCC under Telecommunications Act can better be met. Also, the look-back provision that was provided to permit congressional review of significant final rules issued between November 20, 1994 and date of enactment was modified by replacing ``November 20, 1994'' with ``March 1, 1996.'' In other words, we say that this law will be effective for congressional review beginning March 1, 1996. Again, I thank my colleagues--most of all, Senator Reid because I have worked with him on many issues over the years, and regulatory reform has been in the forefront of our efforts. We know that we need to reduce--if not eliminate--unnecessary, burdensome, and excessively costly regulations. Adoption of our amendment is an important step in putting Congress back to the table. This bill that we will pass shortly--finally I guess next Tuesday--in the Senate is going to make Congress be more responsible. Then if the regulatory agency passes a bad rule and we do not review it, that is our fault. Congress needs to step up. Committee chairs need to step up and monitor what the regulatory agencies are doing. And, if they do a bad job, we need to hold them accountable. So it puts more responsibility on the Congress. We just cannot blame the agencies and wash our hands. If we pass a good bill--and say, ``I cannot believe those regulatory agencies interpreted it that way. I cannot believe they did it''--now we have a chance to say, ``Wait, agencies. You went too far. Rewrite your rules. Change it. Take into account what people are saying in rural Tennessee, or rural Missouri, or whatever that impact is in Arkansas.'' So I think it is vitally important. This is good legislation. This will help. Again, I thank my colleagues from Missouri and Arkansas for their legislation both on reg flex, and for their cooperation and support on congressional review. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. How much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. NICKLES. In 5 minutes. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am kind of amused and kind of interested in it as well. This is an amendment that says we want to take whatever money we have available and we want to mandate that it has to be spent in the COPS Program. Obviously, it is a popular program, as illustrated by the Senator from Delaware, because a lot of people have applied for it. Why would they apply for it? Well, it is Uncle Sam saying, ``We will pay for 75 percent of the cost for new policemen in your community for the first year, the second year 50 percent, and the third year, 25 percent, and the fourth year you are on your own.'' But a lot of communities, if they see Uncle Sam waving some dollar signs around, they say, ``Yes, we want to grab a hold of it.'' Maybe it is the best way to spend resources in fighting crime, maybe it is not. I will mention to my colleague there are not just big cities that qualify for this program. We had one community in Oklahoma, Moffett, OK, that applied for money, was eligible to receive the money. Just a couple comments. It is a fairly small town. Unfortunately, they do not have a police force, but yet they qualified. I do not remember exactly the amount. But it was, I think, about $180,000. But they did not have a police force. As a matter of fact, this little town had volunteer fire and police, but they did not have an organized police force. Yet, they received this money. They did not know what to do with it. To make the story short, when they realized they would have to do the matching, that was a serious problem for this little town, even if they had to match 25 percent the first year, 50 percent the second. The end of the story is they went through a lot of city managers in a period of about a year or so and finally decided they did not need this grant, they could not afford it. Also kind of humorous, but of interest, they said, ``We can do a lot more if we just had a little more leeway in what to do with this money. We need some help.'' They made that comment. ``And we could use it for''--frankly, I do not think they had a police car. I could go on and on. But this bill says that the money that we are going to give, we are going to mandate that it go to the COPS Program because we decided in Washington, DC, that is the best way to combat crime. Maybe some of the communities have a particular interest in juvenile crime and might think that a better approach would be an effort to educate juveniles, or maybe they have a problem with drugs and juveniles, or maybe there are problems in other areas. Maybe more police are the answer; maybe they are not. But we are coming up with this amendment that says we are going to take all the money available that is not earmarked and we are going to take the balance of it for the so-called COPS Program. I think it is a serious mistake. I do not think it is a Federal Government prerogative to hire policemen in my hometown. Does my hometown of Ponca City, OK, need more police? Maybe they do. But I think that is the responsibility of the people of Ponca City, OK. Maybe they have to raise the sales tax to pay for it, or maybe they have to find some other method of paying for local police, but I do not think it should be coming to Washington, DC, on bended knee and saying, ``Please give me this money so we can hire another policemen. Oops, in 3 years, we have a big liability.'' Uncle Sam starts out pretty generous paying at 75 percent. That is pretty nice. But on the fourth year, they are on their own. And a lot of cities are saying, boy, that is a nice inducement for the first year or two, but after the third or fourth it is a real problem. Maybe we will just do this for a year or two and then let people go, or maybe have some attrition and not replace them in the third or the fourth year. My point being that this is not a Federal responsibility. I do not want to federalize police, and 100,000 police officers is not a drop in the bucket if you look at the national scheme. I do not doubt that my colleagues who support this program can find somebody that was hired in this program and they did a good job and they saved somebody's life or they stopped crime or something, and I am grateful for that. But I just question the right level of Government. It is like this issue we had over speed limits. A lot of us decided that the States should set speed limits instead of Washington, DC. Likewise, I would think community policing is a good idea. If communities want to do it, let them do it. Let them do it with their own money, not with Federal bribery or enhancements to pull or encourage the States to do it, and then find that they have such enormous liability. Local policing is a local matter. That is something that should be under the jurisdiction and control and financing of individual towns and cities, counties and States, not the Federal Government. Mr. President, that is the reason why I stand in opposition to this amendment. The way we had the bill drafted, we had earmarked $975 million for COPS. That is half of that money. The cities would have latitude to spend a significant amount of money for the COPS Programs. We are not doing away with the COPS Program. If the city wanted to spend more for that, they would have that option. If they wanted to spend more for technology, if they wanted to spend more for juvenile crime prevention, more for cracking down on drugs or surveillance or all kinds of different things, they would have that option, instead of the Federal Government dictating, ``We think you should put it all into the COPS Program. We know how best to spend this money. We know you should put it exactly in this program.'' I think that is a mistake. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. I yield myself--I see the Senator from Utah. Please notify me in 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one of the most fundamental concepts in our free enterprise economy is the ability of any American to use talent, intelligence, and hard work to start a business. The small, independent business is the engine which drives innovation, job creation, and increased economic activity in this country. For many small, start-up companies, independent contractor status is the best way, and sometimes the only way, they can do business. Similarly, many larger, established businesses find that using independent contractors is the most effective way of handling projects that require special talents. There are five million independent contractors in America according to the Small Business Administration, and almost one-third of all companies use independent contractors to some degree. Independent contractor status gives both the service provider and the service recipient the flexibility needed to be competitive in today's economic environment. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, I had first hand experience with these issues; both working as and employing independent contractors. The janitorial service I began as a student at Oklahoma State University could not have existed if I had been required to work as an employee, and it never would have expanded if I could not have hired other students as independent contractors to handle specific jobs. Despite the obvious importance of independent contractors to our economy, Congress has amazingly failed to give workers or businesses adequate guidance as to who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. Unfortunately, this lack of decisive congressional action combined with aggressive dislike of independent contractors by the Internal Revenue Service has subjected many businesses to abusive audits and unfair penalties. In effect, our Government is killing the independent contractor. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to introduce the Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act. This legislation is the Senate companion of a H.R. 1972, a bill introduced last year by Congressman Jon Christensen which now has 215 cosponsors. Our bill, which is supported by over 50 trade and industry associations, cuts through the horrendously complicated and ambiguous current law rules and provides relief and confidence to independent contractors and service recipients alike. Why is congressional action needed, Mr. President? In the mid-1970's, the IRS undertook a major initiative to reclassify workers as employees. In response to the tremendous outcry from business owners, Congress in 1978 enacted what was intended to be a temporary solution, the section 530 safe harbor provisions. Section 530 prohibited the IRS from reclassifying workers as employees if the employer had a reasonable basis for treatment of the workers as independent contractors, or if a past IRS audit did not dispute the workers' classification. So for two decades, independent contractor status has been controlled by this temporary solution, related IRS rulings, judicial precedent, and legislation targeted at specific industries. Those contractors and businesses who are unable to rely upon section 530 are subjected to a 20-point command law test which attempts to define an employer's control over workers. This common law test is the bane of employers and workers across the country, and is at the heart of the problems my legislation intends to address. The General Accounting Office calls the common law test ``unclear and subject to conflicting interpretations''. Even the Treasury Department has testified that ``applying the common law test in employment tax issues does not yield clear, consistent, or even satisfactory answers, and reasonable persons may differ as to the correct classification''. The horror stories surrounding this issue are numerous and disturbing, Mr. President. Last year, ``NBC Nightly News'' ran a story on two business owners who are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes and penalties because the IRS decided to reclassify their independent contractors as employees. One of these citizens, who owns a travel agency, received a bill for almost $200,000 in back taxes, penalties, and interest, despite the fact that his independent contractors had already paid their taxes! Mr. President, a $200,000 tax bill will close the doors of most small businesses. According to the NBC report, the IRS has used these worker classification audits to collect more than three-quarters of a billion dollars from business owners over the last 7 years in disputed employment taxes, even though many of the independent contractors had already paid these taxes. The Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act replaces the complicated and arbitrary common law test with a simple definition of who is not an employee. To qualify for independent contractor status, my legislation requires the service provider to have a significant investment in assets and/or training, or incur significant unreimbursed expenses, or agree to perform the service for a particular amount of time or to, complete a specific result and is liable for damages for early termination without cause, or be paid primarily on a commissioned or per-unit basis, or purchase products for resale. Further, under my legislation the service provider must have a principal place of business, or not primarily provide the service in the recipient's facilities unless the provider is paying a fair market rent for their use, or operate primarily from equipment not supplied by the service recipient or not be required to perform service exclusively for the service recipient, and have recently performed a significant amount of service for other persons, or have offered to perform service for other persons through advertising, individual solicitations, listing with registries, et cetera or other similar activities, or have provided service under a registered or licensed business name. Finally, Mr. President, my legislation requires businesses and independent contractors to enter into a written contract and comply with all applicable IRS reporting requirements to ensure that payments to independent contractors are properly reported in order to prevent taxpayer arbitrage. I would like to stress, Mr. President, that this legislation is not a comprehensive rewrite of all independent contractor law. It is very difficult to address all worker classification issues in one bill, because there is an unlimited number of employment situations and each one presents different challenges. Further, many individuals, businesses, and trade associations have resolved their problems with the IRS, and they fear that a comprehensive change in the law will force them to renew old arguments with the Government or impose unwanted conditions on their employment practices, such as tax withholding. The Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act will benefit those businesses and contractors who have not resolved their status with the IRS, while preserving current law for those who are satisfied with it. Mr. President, it is not fair to business, nor is it conducive to the entrepreneurial spirit of this country, to leave the question of worker classification up to the whim of the IRS. The importance and timeliness of this issue was made clear last summer when delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business made clarifying independent contractor rules their No. 1 small business priority. I believe Congress should act decisively to recognize the importance of independent contractors, and I invite my colleagues to join me in this initiative.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one of the most fundamental concepts in our free enterprise economy is the ability of any American to use talent, intelligence, and hard work to start a business. The small, independent business is the engine which drives innovation, job creation, and increased economic activity in this country. For many small, start-up companies, independent contractor status is the best way, and sometimes the only way, they can do business. Similarly, many larger, established businesses find that using independent contractors is the most effective way of handling projects that require special talents. There are five million independent contractors in America according to the Small Business Administration, and almost one-third of all companies use independent contractors to some degree. Independent contractor status gives both the service provider and the service recipient the flexibility needed to be competitive in today's economic environment. Before coming to the U.S. Senate, I had first hand experience with these issues; both working as and employing independent contractors. The janitorial service I began as a student at Oklahoma State University could not have existed if I had been required to work as an employee, and it never would have expanded if I could not have hired other students as independent contractors to handle specific jobs. Despite the obvious importance of independent contractors to our economy, Congress has amazingly failed to give workers or businesses adequate guidance as to who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. Unfortunately, this lack of decisive congressional action combined with aggressive dislike of independent contractors by the Internal Revenue Service has subjected many businesses to abusive audits and unfair penalties. In effect, our Government is killing the independent contractor. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, to introduce the Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act. This legislation is the Senate companion of a H.R. 1972, a bill introduced last year by Congressman Jon Christensen which now has 215 cosponsors. Our bill, which is supported by over 50 trade and industry associations, cuts through the horrendously complicated and ambiguous current law rules and provides relief and confidence to independent contractors and service recipients alike. Why is congressional action needed, Mr. President? In the mid-1970's, the IRS undertook a major initiative to reclassify workers as employees. In response to the tremendous outcry from business owners, Congress in 1978 enacted what was intended to be a temporary solution, the section 530 safe harbor provisions. Section 530 prohibited the IRS from reclassifying workers as employees if the employer had a reasonable basis for treatment of the workers as independent contractors, or if a past IRS audit did not dispute the workers' classification. So for two decades, independent contractor status has been controlled by this temporary solution, related IRS rulings, judicial precedent, and legislation targeted at specific industries. Those contractors and businesses who are unable to rely upon section 530 are subjected to a 20-point command law test which attempts to define an employer's control over workers. This common law test is the bane of employers and workers across the country, and is at the heart of the problems my legislation intends to address. The General Accounting Office calls the common law test ``unclear and subject to conflicting interpretations''. Even the Treasury Department has testified that ``applying the common law test in employment tax issues does not yield clear, consistent, or even satisfactory answers, and reasonable persons may differ as to the correct classification''. The horror stories surrounding this issue are numerous and disturbing, Mr. President. Last year, ``NBC Nightly News'' ran a story on two business owners who are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes and penalties because the IRS decided to reclassify their independent contractors as employees. One of these citizens, who owns a travel agency, received a bill for almost $200,000 in back taxes, penalties, and interest, despite the fact that his independent contractors had already paid their taxes! Mr. President, a $200,000 tax bill will close the doors of most small businesses. According to the NBC report, the IRS has used these worker classification audits to collect more than three-quarters of a billion dollars from business owners over the last 7 years in disputed employment taxes, even though many of the independent contractors had already paid these taxes. The Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act replaces the complicated and arbitrary common law test with a simple definition of who is not an employee. To qualify for independent contractor status, my legislation requires the service provider to have a significant investment in assets and/or training, or incur significant unreimbursed expenses, or agree to perform the service for a particular amount of time or to, complete a specific result and is liable for damages for early termination without cause, or be paid primarily on a commissioned or per-unit basis, or purchase products for resale. Further, under my legislation the service provider must have a principal place of business, or not primarily provide the service in the recipient's facilities unless the provider is paying a fair market rent for their use, or operate primarily from equipment not supplied by the service recipient or not be required to perform service exclusively for the service recipient, and have recently performed a significant amount of service for other persons, or have offered to perform service for other persons through advertising, individual solicitations, listing with registries, et cetera or other similar activities, or have provided service under a registered or licensed business name. Finally, Mr. President, my legislation requires businesses and independent contractors to enter into a written contract and comply with all applicable IRS reporting requirements to ensure that payments to independent contractors are properly reported in order to prevent taxpayer arbitrage. I would like to stress, Mr. President, that this legislation is not a comprehensive rewrite of all independent contractor law. It is very difficult to address all worker classification issues in one bill, because there is an unlimited number of employment situations and each one presents different challenges. Further, many individuals, businesses, and trade associations have resolved their problems with the IRS, and they fear that a comprehensive change in the law will force them to renew old arguments with the Government or impose unwanted conditions on their employment practices, such as tax withholding. The Independent Contractor Tax Simplification Act will benefit those businesses and contractors who have not resolved their status with the IRS, while preserving current law for those who are satisfied with it. Mr. President, it is not fair to business, nor is it conducive to the entrepreneurial spirit of this country, to leave the question of worker classification up to the whim of the IRS. The importance and timeliness of this issue was made clear last summer when delegates to the White House Conference on Small Business made clarifying independent contractor rules their No. 1 small business priority. I believe Congress should act decisively to recognize the importance of independent contractors, and I invite my colleagues to join me in this initiative.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise on the floor this evening because I want to compliment Senator Bond from Missouri, the chairman of the Small Business Committee, and also Senator Bumpers from Arkansas for the legislation they reported out which is now pending, or we wish to have pending before the Senate. Also, I wish to express my displeasure at those on the Democrat side--Senator Daschle, or whoever he is--for objecting to consider this bill. This is a bill that was reported out unanimously by the Small Business Committee. It has overwhelming support, as Senator Bumpers mentioned and as Senator Bond alluded to as well. This is a bill that is going to pass overwhelmingly in the Senate. To object to even considering it --and I looked at the unanimous-consent request. It even said let us consider it next week. To object to consider this bill today, or next week, I think flies in the face of common sense. It is well-known. Yes, part of the unanimous-consent request is that the bill would have an amendment offered by myself and Senator Reid from Nevada, a bill almost identical to the one we passed through the Senate last year unanimously. It had a 100-to-nothing vote, a bill that would say Congress should review regulations. We would have an expedited procedure to do so. If Congress did not like it, we could kill it. If we passed a joint list of disapproval, the President would have an option to veto that resolution. So we would restore checks and balances and restore congressional accountability--because many times Congress will pass laws and tell the agencies or the regulatory agency to implement it, and then we turn the agencies loose. And then we find out the regulations are far too expensive, maybe do not make sense, and have unintended consequences. Congress should be in play. Congress should still have exercising oversight. This is going to make Congress responsible. It is going to make Congress look at the rules that come out of legislation as a result of executive action. So, again, this is legislation that is supported by the President. So why in the world will our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle not let us bring up legislation such as this that is supported very strongly by the small business community all across the United States? I used to be in small business prior to coming to the Senate. Small businesses are strangling with the mountains and mountains of paperwork. So we are trying to give small business at least some regulatory relief. We have a chance to do it. My colleague from Missouri passed a good bill out of committee, and it was a bipartisan bill. We do not have many bipartisan bills. We need more. We need more bipartisan work. Senator Bond and Senator Bumpers have done it in this bill. Senator Reid and I did it in the congressional review. We need more examples of that. So then when we try to take it up and pass it either this week or next week, by a time certain, unfortunately it is objected to. Those objections will not stand. Those objections will not last. They will not prevail. I have heard other colleagues say that maybe we want to do a more comprehensive bill. I want to do a comprehensive bill. I want a significant comprehensive regulatory bill. It does not have to be on this. We can pass two bills this year. It is part of the frustration of being in the Senate and Congress with people thinking, ``Well, there is only one bill. Therefore, we had to put everything in the world that remotely is related to it on that one piece of legislation.'' It does not have to happen. It should not happen. If we can put together a bipartisan coalition and pass comprehensive regulatory reform, let us do it. I will be happy to help in any way I can. I worked with Senator Dole to put together a good piece of legislation. Senator Johnston worked with us. But we only had four Democrat votes. We had four cloture votes on that major comprehensive piece of legislation. That goes all the way back to last summer. We spent hours and hours trying to negotiate a comprehensive package. I hope we can. I hear Members say maybe we can do it. I hope we can. I am willing to spend more hours to make that happen. But while we are here, while we are looking for legislative action, let us pass some good legislation. Let us pass legislation that makes Congress more responsible. Let us give small business regulatory relief now. If we can pass more comprehensive legislation that says the benefits must justify the cost of the regulation or the regulation does not happen, that makes sense. Let us do that, too. But it does not have to be on this piece of legislation. So I urge my colleagues that are now obstructing this piece of legislation--not even allowing us to consider the legislation--to reconsider. I think they are making a mistake. I think small business people across the country, if they found out the Democrats are obstructing and blocking this piece of legislation, would be upset. So I hope that they will reconsider. I hope they will allow us to pass this legislation in a bipartisan fashion as soon as possible. It will be, in my opinion, a real, positive, good piece of legislation for business all across the country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Hatfield, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his statement. I hope the administration was listening. I just jotted down a few of the figures that Senator Hatfield alluded to. He mentioned the committee had moved $6.2 billion out of the $8 billion the administration had requested. If I understand his statement correctly, they are still saying they will veto the bill because we are not spending enough. If they veto this bill or maybe if their threatened veto means this bill does not go forward, therefore the net result of what they are looking at, if I think ahead of this scenario, is then they are going to be looking at a continuing resolution, one that will continue funding at the lower of the House or Senate level, maybe even less a percentage of that. So the administration, while trying to get more money in spending for a variety of programs, may well end up getting less, because, as Senator Hatfield just stated, they cannot make Congress appropriate money. It may well be that some of the President's pet programs, if they follow through on this veto threat of what sounds to me to be a very generous, maybe even overly generous bill reported out of the Senate Appropriations Committee--if they are going to threaten to veto that bill, maybe we should just look at the continuing resolution and/or maybe we should look at zero funding for programs such as national service. Maybe we should look at zero funding for some other programs which the President feels very strongly about. He cannot make us appropriate the money. If he wants to shut down the entire Agency because he does not get the money for want of his new programs, that would be his decision, and it would also be his responsibility. And maybe he thinks he will gain politically by doing so. I doubt it. Maybe we will have to find out. Again, I think Senator Hatfield has something very good for the administration. It is very premature, in my opinion, as he stated on the floor of the Senate, for the administration to be issuing veto threats just when a bill is passed out of the Appropriations Committee. Usually that is not done until bills are passed and reported out of both Houses, and then possibly a conference report. So I am disappointed to hear of the President's veto message, or veto threat, as explained by Senator Hatfield.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I first want to compliment the managers of the farm bill for their hard work in crafting legislation which reforms our Nation's agriculture policies. 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. I believe giving more flexibility to farmers is a step in the right direction and urge my colleagues to support the freedom- to-farm legislation. I thank the chairman and ranking member for clarifying the sponsors' intent with respect to the haying and grazing provision of the substitute amendment. This technical change allows farmers to continue the haying and grazing flexibility they have under current law and I am pleased the bill's sponsors agree this traditional freedom should continue under the reform proposal. Once again, I thank the managers for making this technical change and appreciate their leadership on farm policy.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we did finally, under this bill, pass the foreign operations bill. That was one of the contentious bills. We finally have that resolved. We should pass the Department of the Interior bill. That was vetoed by the President. That shut down the parks; that shut down the museums. That is unfortunate. It should not have happened. But we have really an agreement on every contentious issue to pass the Department of the Interior bill. I compliment Senator Gorton for his leadership. We should send that to the President. He should sign that bill. There is no reason for that bill to still be caught up in some of this controversy. We still have Commerce, State, Justice, VA-HUD, Labor, and Health and Human Services. Labor and Health is the only one that has not passed the Senate, and it has not passed because our friends on the other side of the aisle have refused to let us proceed to it. We should proceed to it, vote on those amendments in disagreement and send it to the House, go to conference and finish our bill. I yield the floor and thank my colleague and compliment the Senator from Pennsylvania, because he has tried endlessly to bring this bill before the Senate and have it finally resolved.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I compliment my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania for his leadership, and I just want to make a couple of general comments. I, for one, would like to see us pass the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. We should have passed it by the end of September. We did not get it done. We should have passed it by the end of the year. We did not get it done. You might ask, Why didn't you pass an appropriations bill? Because we had something very unusual. As a matter of fact, I have been in the Senate now--this is my 16th year. I cannot remember a party holding up moving to considering an appropriations bill for months. That is unique. That is historic, and the reason is because the Democrats in Congress, in the Senate, did not want us to take up the Labor and Health and Human Services bill. We tried. We even had votes. On September 29, we had a vote on whether or not we would move to this bill, and they said, ``No, we don't want to move to the bill.'' They did not want to move to the bill because there is a provision in there dealing with striker replacement. Somebody said, ``Well, that wasn't a germane amendment to this bill.'' It certainly was. It said no money should be used to enforce the President's Executive order dealing with striker replacement. There is also money in the bill that says no money will be used to enforce the President's order dealing with the prevailing wage on helpers. That has been in there for a few years. I wanted it out. I might mention, the helper amendment I wanted out. I had an amendment against that a couple years ago and I lost. I was willing to accept defeat, and we went ahead and passed the appropriations bill. In this case, most people in this body favor keeping this language for striker replacement so that the President would not legislate by Executive order. Some of us feel strongly about that. Legislation should pass through Congress, not by Executive order. The President had a chance to pass the legislation a year or two ago, and he did not get it passed. Now he is trying to do it with Executive order. We are trying to protect the prerogatives of the Congress. Article I, section 1: Congress shall pass all laws. Because we had that striker replacement provision in, the Democrats would not allow us to take up the bill. It has been several months. So when I hear my friend and colleague say we are so concerned that education school districts do not know what their budgets are, they should not be looking on this side of the aisle, because we wanted to pass this bill. I might mention as well, Mr. President, if we pass the Labor and Health and Human Services bill, we have $1.5 billion more in the Senate bill than the House. We would come up with higher education figures in the conference if we could get to conference. We cannot even get to conference with this bill because, unfortunately, Members on the Democratic side have not allowed us to take up the bill. They will allow us to take up the bill if we do it under unanimous consent and they win on all their issues. That is not the way we should legislate. There are about five fairly contentious issues dealt with in the Labor and Health and Human Services bill--about five. I am willing to let the majority vote on all of those and let us find out how the Senate votes--let the majority rule--and pass the appropriations bill and go to conference and work out the differences with the House and then send the bill to the President. If he vetoes it, then we will have to come back. Maybe we will still be under a continuing resolution, but this is the only bill in the Senate this year we have not been able to pass. I think that is regrettable. The reason we have not been able to pass it, unfortunately, is because Members on the Democratic side of the aisle have not allowed us to proceed to the bill, and that needs to change. Mr. President, I ask my colleague for an additional minute.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield me 4 minutes?

Mr. NICKLES. I ask my colleague from Pennsylvania, is it not correct that the House has finished their business, and if we amend this, we jeopardize--or have the possibility of having another Government shutdown because of this amendment?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is with sadness today that I note the passing of an Oklahoman, former Congressman Mike Synar, who died yesterday, Tuesday. He lost a courageous battle to cancer, which he had been fighting for several months. If anyone knew Mike Synar well, they knew that he was a courageous person and they knew that he was a fighter. Mike Synar was an active Oklahoman. He was very active in 4-H as a young man. He was a student leader at the University of Oklahoma. He attained a masters at Northwestern University, and a law degree at the University of Oklahoma in 1977. A year later at the age of 28 he was elected to Congress. He defeated an incumbent Congressman, something at that time that was seldom done. It showed that he was a very tenacious campaigner, a very energetic individual to be elected at such a young age and to defeat an incumbent at the same time. Mike Synar served in Congress for 16 years between 1978 and 1994. To say the least, he was energetic, he was outgoing, and he was passionate about many things. He had very strong convictions. And I greatly respected him because he did show the courage of his conviction on a lot of issues--a lot of issues maybe that were not the most popular in our State and in his district. But he was outgoing. He was willing to take on special interests at various times--sometimes at risk and jeopardy to his political career. Mike Synar passed away yesterday, Tuesday, January 9, and I wish to extend my condolences and sympathies to his family, to his friends in Muskogee and his friends from throughout the country.

Mr. NICKLES. Yes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Mississippi for his courtesy.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. In looking at VA-HUD, and if we are not able to break this impasse soon, I tell my colleague from Maryland that it is my hope that we will take up--maybe we cannot pass--the HUD bill. Maybe there is a dispute. But we ought to be able to pass the veterans bill. My guess is we could pass that very quickly and maybe some additional things. I worked with the Senator Mikulski. I was on that Appropriations Committee. I cannot help but think we could fund most areas in that bill. I have a copy of that veto message. I think we should be able to fund people working for the Veterans' Department, and hopefully we will be able to break that logjam. We should do it today, or certainly before the end of this week. In looking at Commerce, State, Justice, the Justice portion of it I have heard some people allude to the fact, well, we are going to have problems with prisons; we are going to have problems with clerks; and so on. Hopefully we will pass the Justice portion of it. I notice there is a dispute in Commerce. Maybe we could leave that one set aside, or other areas. My point is that the President vetoed that bill. That bill has impacted 194,000 employees. We passed that bill. The President could have signed the bill and then said, well, he sends a rescission, or he could have requested a supplemental appropriations. That has happened as well. The President did not do that. I think the President's pollster was whispering in his ear saying, ``This is looking good if you stand up to Congress and veto some bills. We will reenact Harry Truman, and say the heck with Congress.'' Unfortunately, that has put thousands of people into a furlough situation, or thousands of people into working without pay. The President vetoed those bills. He could have signed those bills and then worked out a budget agreement. He could have signed those bills and then requested a supplemental appropriation, if he did not think we were spending enough money in some areas. If he thought we were spending too much money in other areas, he could have sent a rescissions package. But instead he was in a veto mood, and he vetoed these bills having an impact on hundreds of thousands of people, all of which he is trying to give Congress full credit for.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is with interest I listened to some of our colleagues talk about the Government shutting down, and I also note yesterday, when the President had a press conference, he said the congressional Republicans shut down the Government. At least he said Congress shut down Government. He mentioned several examples. Several of the examples that have been mentioned, both on the floor and by the President and by other people, some of the horror stories of individuals who have lost their jobs, who are not being paid, are in agencies for which the President vetoed the appropriation bill. One agency that has received as much attention as any other is Interior, the appropriation bill that is covered by Interior, dealing with national parks and the museums. The Washington Post has run some front-page articles talking about the museums not being open, the Smithsonian shut down, national parks being shut down, not having access for individuals wanting to have their vacations and go to the parks, not being able to get in because the Government shut it down and, as the President said, Congress shut it down. I just happen to be aware of the fact the President vetoed the Interior bill. The President is the one who shut down the parks. The President is the one who did not make it possible for the parks to be opened. If he had signed the bill, those people would have been paid. They would not have been furloughed. The parks would be open. The Smithsonian would be open. Those people would have had coverage. There would be no disruption. I just make that point. It is interesting that everything is Congress' fault. The President vetoed the Interior bill. I think that is unfortunate. I used to manage that bill. Now Senator Gorton is managing that bill, and I think he has done a very good job. I looked at the veto message dealing with Interior. There are different reasons why the President vetoed the bill. These are very poor excuses for vetoing a bill. I have urged others, and I hope maybe, I will tell my friends and colleagues, maybe within a very short period of time we will have another Interior bill on the floor. I hope that is the case. I hope it happens today.

Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate that. The veto override may not happen. I hope it does. That is one way we could get the employees back to work immediately. If that does not happen, I hope we will take the original Interior bill as it passed through both Houses and maybe make some changes. I am looking at the President's veto message on Interior. Most of these changes could be made with very little dollars involved and maybe some better understanding. We had the Presiding Officer, a moment ago, who is from Alaska--part of it was dealing with Tongass. There is a misunderstanding on what would happen in the Tongass. Some people were saying the Interior bill as passed would open up a lot of additional clear cutting. I do not think that is the case. We can clarify that, and we should clarify it. I am looking through some of the other things that were mentioned. I ask unanimous consent to have the President's veto message printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. But these are minuscule problems. This is no reason to shut down the Interior Department, national parks, Forest Service and so on, and everything else that is covered by this bill, Indian Health Services--you name it. So, let us try to accommodate. Let us make a couple of concessions. Let us work to resolve some of the problems that are raised in here. It can be done with very few dollars and open up the Interior Department, open up the national parks, open up the Smithsonian, open up the national museums. There is no reason not to. The President should not have vetoed the bill in the first place, but the President is responsible for those parks being closed. Yesterday, or the day before, there was an article in the Post talking about somebody having a concession service adjacent to a park and now they had to let their employees go. Those employees, incidentally, will not be covered by the bill once it passes. They will not be paid. They are not Federal employees; they are contractors. And if they are not contracting with the Federal Government, if they just happen to be doing business adjacent to the Federal Government operation, they are out of luck. Again, I fault President Clinton in this case. I think he made a mistake in vetoing the bill. But for him to say Congress is the reason why those agencies are shut down is not the case, and that is not the case in Interior. It is not the case in other agencies as well. A lot of us are very concerned about the Veterans' Department being closed. I agree with my colleagues from Maryland and other places saying if you have a physician or if you have a nurse or if you have somebody working in a veterans hospital, that person ought to be paid. It does not make a lot of sense not to pay them. Why are they not being paid? The appropriation bill was not signed. We passed the appropriation bill, we funded the Veterans' Department, the President vetoed the bill. Why did he veto the bill? I have a copy of his veto message. I ask unanimous consent to have it printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. NICKLES. But we should take care of veterans and people who are working in veterans hospitals. They should be paid. They should not be furloughed. And we can solve that problem. I am hopeful before very long we will pass the VA-HUD bill, and let us look at the President's veto message and see if some accommodations can and could and should be made in that area. But let no one misunderstand. The President vetoed the bill that funds the Veterans' Department. It was on his desk. If he would have signed that bill, those individuals would not have been furloughed. They would not have been working without pay. So we need to get past this maybe rhetorical war and who is at fault. The President vetoed several of these bills. One of the other things that maybe concerns me where Congress is largely at fault is dealing with the agency called Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education--actually three different agencies. We have heard some people talk about how some people are impacted. This Senate has not passed that appropriations bill. It is the only appropriations bill we have not passed. You might say, ``Why hasn't it?'' We are supposed to pass that bill before the end of September. We have not passed it. Unfortunately, there has been a filibuster on even a motion to proceed to that bill. I have been around here a long time. I cannot remember an appropriations bill where Members filibustered the motion to proceed. We usually have fought out our differences--win, lose, or draw--on all appropriations bills. Somebody said it has riders on it. All appropriations have riders on how are we going to spend money. This bill is no different than any other bill. It had some riders. It says the administration will not spend money on a variety of different things. That is part of Congress' legislative responsibility. But we have not even been able to vote on the Labor-HHS bill. That is unfortunate. I hear today and read in the paper about scare tactics--that it is terrible; we are not able to take care of the Bureau of Labor Statistics or Meals on Wheels. It is because, unfortunately, many Democrats will not allow us to bring that bill up and vote on it. I hope maybe we can get that resolved because that bill needs to pass. We need to vote. We need to find out where the votes are. Some people are objecting to us even considering the bill. Looking at several of the bills the President has vetoed, Interior, which I alluded to before. If you add Interior, 76,000 employees are impacted. The Forest Service is funded at 38,000 under that bill. Indian Health is at 15,000, for a total of 133,800 employees who are impacted because the President vetoed the Interior bill. That was not Congress' veto. It was the President's veto. Again, I reiterate my statement about my offer to work with people. I think we ought to make some changes--minor changes--and pass the Interior bill.

Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.