Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to respond to my colleague, I really see no reason that the President vetoed the Interior bill and put people out of work. My point is that for the President to say, ``Well, this is Congress' fault these people are not working,'' I just disagree. I think he bears direct responsibility in vetoing the Interior bill which is impacting the lives of 133,000 employees, and also for his actions in vetoing Commerce, State, Justice, as well as VA-HUD.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. No. I am almost out of time. So the President is directly responsible for putting hundreds of thousands of people--I will submit this for the Record as well--who were impacted because he vetoed the bills. That was his right to do so. But for him to come back and say that was all Congress' fault I think was incorrect. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this chart.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to make a comment to the majority leader. He mentioned during his comments that he would encourage the President to sign the three bills he has vetoed and would be willing to work with him to work out some of the problems that he had. I have a copy of the President's veto message on the Interior bill. I have reviewed all of these. In most cases, the differences are very small. I cannot help but think that the majority leader and the President could work out the differences. There are a couple items dealing with dollars, but a very insignificant amount as far as the total. This is a $12 billion bill. The differences in dollars is very small. A few issues maybe need to be clarified as far the administration and so on. There is no reason why this bill should not be signed. I know there was a front page article in the Washington Post today. I know there is a lot of concern about visitors not being able to visit parks and museums. There is no reason whatsoever that this bill should not be signed. So I encourage the majority leader in his meeting with the President to see if we cannot make a couple small changes in the Interior bill, as well as the Commerce, State, Justice, and the VA-HUD bill, which would relieve a lot of the problems and anxiety for a lot of people all across the country, not just the employees, but also constituents that would like to have access to the parks and to the museums. So I compliment the majority leader for taking that effort to the President. Hopefully, he will concur, and maybe we can at least resolve the conflict on three of these major items. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, continuing with the remarks I made earlier to Senator Dole, urging him to follow up on what he was talking about doing, going to the President and urging the President to sign at least three of these bills--I hope that happens. I have before me the Interior bill and the President's veto message, and there is no reason the President should veto this bill. He has vetoed it. It has caused a lot of dislocation. It has put a lot of people out of work, not only hurt the Federal employees, but it has also hurt a lot of constituents. They have not had the opportunity to visit parks and museums. I think that is really unfortunate, when I looked at the reason why he vetoed the bill. So I urge the President to agree with Senator Dole and Speaker Gingrich and sign this bill--maybe making a couple of changes. We can make those changes. We can agree, if the two leaders, in meeting with the President, agree on a couple of changes, modifications. I know he wants a little more money for a couple of items in the bill. But by and large, I think it was vetoed for the wrong reason. This could be signed, thousands of people could go back to work, and our constituents would have access to parks and museums all across the country. So I hope that happens. The other couple of bills that the President could sign and hopefully will sign soon, Commerce, State, Justice, and VA/HUD--again, let us agree to make whatever compromises are necessary, compromises in a couple of areas. The differences are not that great. But the bill should be signed. Those employees should go back to work and constituents, veterans and others, could receive the services they expect and are entitled to. But the most important thing that needs to really happen is that we need to come to a resolution and agree on a budget. My friend and colleague from North Dakota said it has been months and we have been behind on reconciliation, it has taken too long --though Congress has tried to do a lot of things. It tried to reform welfare. Unfortunately, the President vetoed that package. It tried to balance the budget. We have never done that before. I have been here 15 years, we have never passed a balanced budget. We have never curtailed the growth of entitlement programs. We are trying to do that now. Unfortunately, we have not had any real support or help from the White House, from the administration. Yes, it is a congressional initiative, and it is easier said than done, but most of the time, Congress and politicians make rhetoric, saying we want to balance the budget, but they do not follow through. Congress, now, is very intent, very sincere, very earnest in saying we want to balance the budget and we want to do it with real numbers. We thought, 6 weeks ago, President Clinton had agreed and made that commitment that he would do so as well. In the last 6 weeks since the November 15 agreement to have the CBO budget in 7 years, the President has yet to submit one. I compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have signed on to a budget that is balanced using real, honest numbers. At least a dozen Democrats have signed on. So we, at least, have a package. You can work and negotiate because you are both dealing with the same numbers. They go to a goal of a balanced budget. Unfortunately, President Clinton has not. Maybe today he will. But the press reports are that he still refuses to submit a balanced budget, so we will have a budget that we can compare. Maybe he is just going to throw rocks at the budget we have. Maybe he is going to throw rocks at the budget the Democrats have. I do not know. But I am hopeful. I want to be optimistic. I think it is awfully important for the future of this country, for the future generations, that we do start, begin to live within our means. So I urge the President to work with Majority Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich today, work to find an agreeable compromise to where no one individual or party is a winner but the American people will be winners; so the White House can claim victory, the Congress can claim victory, but the real victors, the real winners in this entire process will be the American people and future generations. That would be something worth fighting for. It would be something worth working for. That would be a victory, I think, that all people could claim some credit for. I hope that will happen. I do think it is possible. It is possible if the President wants to make it happen. Hopefully he will. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to commend Senators Helms, Lugar, and Pell for their fine work on the Strategic Arms Reductions Talks II [START II] Treaty. I rise to support this treaty, which builds on the reductions established under the START I Agreement. Taken together, START I and START II will reduce the deployed strategic offensive arms of the United States and Russia by more than two-thirds. This treaty, signed by Presidents George Bush and Boris Yeltsin in 1993, limits both sides to between 3,500 and 3,000 deployed warheads, Moreover, START II obligates Russia and the United States to ban all land-based, multiple warhead ballistic missiles and limits the number of warheads deployed on submarine launched ballistic missiles [SLBMs]. In addition, START II achieves a long-standing U.S. goal of eliminating the threat of Russia's heavy ICBM missile, the 10 warhead SS-18 missiles and their launch canisters. At the same time, however, the START II Treaty is not without loopholes. For instance, while the Russians are obligated to eliminate their heavy SS-18s ICBM by January 2003, the treaty allows Russia to retain 90 SS-18 silos to be converted to accommodate only single- warhead missiles of the SS-25-type. Of course, the United States is allowed to inspect such conversion to ensure Russia retains only single-warhead missiles, as outlined by the Treaty. But one concern I have is that the ``new type'' SS-25 missile Russia is now testing is an advanced follow-on Topol-M missile, larger than the U.S. MX Peacekeeper missiles. On the whole, however, I support this treaty, particularly in light of the conditions and declarations added to the Resolution of Ratification by the Foreign Relations Committee, and those proposed in the form of the ``Manager's Amendment.'' I believe these amendments provide a historical record of the Senate's view on a number of national security issues associated with the START II Treaty. It is with this understanding that I can conditionally support ratification of the START II Treaty. I will address a few what I believe are the most important conditions and declarations proposed by the committee and the managers' amendments. 1. start ii and the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty The Foreign Relations Committee Resolution of Ratification contains a condition stating that the U.S. government does not accept the view implied by the Russian Federation that Russian ratification of START II is contingent upon continued adherence by the United States to Russian interpretations of United States obligations under the 1972 Anti- Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. This condition makes clear that U.S. ratification of the START II Treaty does not obligate the United States to accept any modification, change in scope or extension of the ABM Treaty. This condition is wholly warranted, given Russian attempts to expand the scope of the ABM Treaty to include systems never intended to be covered by that Treaty--theater ballistic missile defenses. Further, by giving its advice and consent to the START II Treaty, the Senate is only agreeing to those limitations, eliminations and reductions of strategic offensive weapons contained in that Treaty. At the same time, I believe it is important to be on record stating the converse. Namely, that Senate ratification of START II must in no way be construed by Russia as changing our rights to renegotiate changes to the ABM Treaty or our right to withdraw from that Treaty should supreme national interests warrant it. Which is why I believe the Managers's amendment, in the form of a declaration, is an essential supplement to the language already contained in the Committee's resolution of ratification. This manager's amendment adds a new section to specify that ratification does not change any of the rights of either Party with respect to Articles 13 (which allows continual United States/Russian consultation on changes in the strategic situation and their meaning for the ABM Treaty); Article 14 (allowing either Party to propose amendments to the treaty), and Article 15 (allowing either Party to withdraw if supreme national interests are jeopardized). I believe Articles 13, 14, and 15 are critical provisions of the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty is outdated. It may have been relevant to the strategic situation in 1972, when deterrence was based on Mutual Assured Destruction [MAD]. But MAD is completely irrelevant to the strategic environment of the 1990's. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are proliferating throughout the Third World. In a 1994 speech, Secretary of Defense William Perry declared that, ``we now have the opportunity to create a new relationship, based not on MAD, not on Mutual Assured Destruction, but rather on another acronym, MAS, or Mutual Assured Safety.'' [Speech before the Harry L. Stimson Center, 9/20/94]. The United States and Russia should, as the ABM Treaty envisioned, be discussing plans to deploy a mutual protection system against these growing threats, including the possibility of amending the ABM Treaty to allow more than one missile defense site. 2. Implementation Arrangements One particular concern of mine is whether and when the Russian Duma will ratify START II. Perhaps the worst of all possible worlds would be if the United States began drawing down its strategic nuclear arsenal to conform with the limits established under START II, and Russia had not yet ratified the treaty. I believe, however, that this concern is addressed by a declaration on implementation arrangements proposed in the managers' amendment. Specifically, the language states that the START II Treaty shall not be binding on the United States until such time as the Duma has ratified the Treaty and the Treaty has entered into force. Equally important is the two-step process set up if the President plans to go below the number of forces currently planned and consistent with the START II Treaty. Under these circumstances, the President is called upon to: First, consult with the Senate on how these reductions would effect U.S. national security; and second, take no such action until a Presidential determination is sent to the Senate stating that such reductions are in the U.S. national security interest. 3. Noncompliance Recognizing that compliance is critical to the integrity of any arms control agreement, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Resolution of Ratification contains a condition on noncompliance. This condition states that if the President determines that a Party to either START I or START II is acting inconsistently with the object and purpose of either Treaty, the President shall submit a report to the Senate detailing the impact of such noncompliance on the Treaty and seek to bring the noncompliant Party into compliance through diplomatic means. Further, any modification or change in obligations shall be submitted for Senate advice and consent. If such noncompliance persists, the President is called upon a to seek a Senate resolution in support of continued U.S. adherence to the Treaty or Treaties in question. I believe this condition is important for several reasons. First, it sets a standard for evaluating noncompliant behavior. Second, underlying the reporting requirement is the understanding that noncompliant behavior by Russia could actually affect the United States continuing as a party to that treaty. Third, and most important, is that this condition answers the decade-old question of what should be done after a violation is detected. In the case of persistent noncompliance, the Senate, at the President's request, is to vote on whether to remain a party to that treaty. While this condition addresses a number of compliance concerns, the managers' amendment builds on this language by adding several declarations. Each of these declarations will help ensure the Senate is apprised of compliance concerns the United States Government may raise with the Russian Federation through various channels and the outcome of such discussions. And finally, this language declares that the Senate expects the Russian Federation to be ``in strict compliance with the terms of START II, as presented to the Senate for advice and consent.'' 4. Nature of Deterrence In addition to the declarations offered by the Foreign Relations Committee in its Resolution of Ratification, is a declaration, proposed by the managers, on the nature of deterrence. This declaration recognizes that offensive forms of deterrence alone cannot address the emerging threats to U.S. national security and states that missile defenses are ``a necessary part of new deterrence strategies.'' I believe missile defenses make sense not only for addressing growing proliferation threats, but also within the strategic equation where the United States is reducing its nuclear arsenal to significantly lower levels. The START II Treaty could actually create conditions conducive to deploying effective ballistic missile defenses. As the United States and the Russian Federation deploy only single warhead missiles, the old argument that missile defenses could be saturated by multiple warheads becomes moot. Further, at the low levels of warheads required by START II, both sides should have an incentive to pursue mutual missile defense deployments. Finally, as with other arms control treaties, START II contains loopholes Russia could exploit to retain a larger, more lethal arsenal, ballistic missile defenses could provide a hedge, or insurance policy against possible Russian treaty violations. My concerns about the impact of START II on U.S. national security have been adequately addressed by the Foreign Relations Committee's actions and the Managers' amendments which add important conditions and declarations to the Resolution of Ratification. With this in mind, I will support the START II Treaty Resolution of Ratification, with the understanding that these conditions and declarations specify certain U.S. obligations to be fulfilled.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues Senators Smith, Pryor, Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, Breaux, Lott, Johnston, Abraham, Kempthorne, Lieberman, Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner to introduce, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995. This bill represents the culmination of a bipartisan process involving the cooperation of The White House, EPA, and the regulated community. It is proof that the desire for regulatory reform is real, and needed in this country. It is also proof that we can work together to make greater sense out of the regulatory morass when we set our minds to it. For too long neither Congress which makes the laws, nor EPA which implements them, have really been in charge of environmental protection in this country. The most significant driver in the field of environmental policy has been the courts. In a recent address before the Environmental Law Institute, former EPA Administrator William Ruckleshaus lamented that most of the important environmental decisions of the last quarter century have devolved to the courts. The situation that has led to the introduction of this bill is a classic case of how the courts, have dominated the making of environmental policy. In 1990, EPA implemented RCRA regulations relating to the treatment of hazardous waste before it can be disposed of on the land. These land disposal restrictions were intended to prevent the placement of untreated waste on the ground--an appropriate concern given the legacy of such practices prior to the enactment of RCRA. EPA also made every effort to implement this regulation taking care to coordinate RCRA with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. That, too was as Congress intended. Along came the courts and they chose to interpret the RCRA statute in such a way as to extend the reach of costly hazardous waste requirements to nonhazardous wastes. This interpretation also ignored the benefits of treatment and disposal systems such as surface impoundments and underground injection wells permitted under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts respectively. As a result, EPA has been forced to propose expensive new regulations that even the Agency believes will provide minimal environmental benefit. Let me quote from EPA's very own preamble to the new proposed rule: The risks addressed by this rule, particularly UIC wells, are very small relative to the risks presented by other environmental conditions or situations. In a time of limited resources, common sense dictates that we deal with higher risk activities first, a principle on which EPA, members of the regulated community, and the public can all agree. Nevertheless, the agency is required to set treatment standards for these relatively low risk wastes and disposal practices during the next two years, although there are other actions and projects with which the Agency could provide greater protection of human health and the environment. Mr. President, this Senate has been wrestling with the larger question of comprehensive regulatory reform for some months now. The debate on both sides of the aisle has been contentious over the means by which such reforms are achieved. But a common theme throughout that debate has been the nearly universal recognition that the current command and control regulatory system is obsolete, and in need of reform. This bill allows us to turn that theme into reality. Not by amending the underlying RCRA statute in any way, although we agree with the President that further statutory reform is needed, but by merely restoring EPA's original regulatory determination: that a waste that is no longer hazardous need not be regulated as if it was hazardous. Mr. President, that is why I have joined with Senators Smith, Pryor, Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, Breaux, Lott, Johnston, Abraham, Kempthorne, Lieberman, Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner to introduce this bill. I also submit for inclusion in the record a letter from the administration supporting this legislation. The price of not acting soon will mean that industry will incur, by EPA's own estimate, $800 million dollars per year in compliance costs--again for minimal environmental benefit. Mr. President, we have an opportunity here, to provide true regulatory relief, while assuring that effective standards of environmental protection are maintained. We have worked in a bipartisan way to bring this reform forward. I hope that the spirit of cooperation demonstrated on all sides will carry through as we tackle this and other much needed regulatory reforms.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I was interested to hear my friend and colleague, Senator Daschle, express concern about the integrity and the accuracy of the Congressional Budget Office. I could not help but be amused because earlier this year Senator Daschle offered a balanced budget constitutional amendment on behalf of the other side of the aisle that wrote the Congressional Budget Office's authority in these matters into the Constitution. I just find kind of interesting that now he is questioning their methods or partisanship. I am very supportive of the resolution before the Senate. I am optimistic it will pass. A similar resolution has already passed overwhelmingly in the House, and I hope this one will pass overwhelmingly in the Senate today. Maybe the President will pay attention to it. It has been very, very bothersome to me, after the Government shutdown of a month ago when the President signed on to a resolution that agreed to a balanced budget in 7 years using CBO numbers, that he still has not done so. One would think if he signed that law, he would comply with it. He has yet to do so. President Clinton has now submitted four budgets, none of which are in balance as scored by CBO, none of which are even close to being in balance. His first budget had deficits increasing from $200 billion up toward $300 billion. His second budget, which came out in June, had deficits of $200 billion forever, as scored by CBO. His third budget, which came within the last month, had a deficit of $115 billion in the seventh year. It may be better than $200 billion, but it is still $115 billion. That is not even close to being balanced. His fourth budget submitted last week still has deficits very close to $100 billion. It also has a back-door tax increase. The President says, ``Well, if we don't meet our deficit targets, we'll have automatic tax increases.'' What Congress has done in the past if we did not meet our deficit targets is have automatic spending reductions. But no, the President does not want to reduce the amount of money Washington spends; he wants to take more money from individuals. That was his approach under his fourth budget. Even given the President's automatic tax increases in the last couple years, he still does not come up with a balanced budget. So now Congress feels it is necessary to remind the President, ``The current negotiations between Congress and the President shall be based on the most recent technical and economic assumptions of CBO and that we are going to reach agreement this year.'' You would think the President's common sense would say, ``Let's submit a balanced budget using CBO numbers.'' He still refuses to do that. A lot of people are asking, ``Why did we have the breakdown in talks yesterday?'' Speaker Gingrich and Leader Dole come out of a meeting with the President the day before and they said, ``Everyone agrees to use CBO numbers. We're going to work hard. We're going to be the principals, with the President of the United States, and we're going to negotiate the agreement. We're going to try to get it done this year.'' That was the statement made by the leaders. Shortly after that, the Vice President came out and said the President did not agree to that. They said the final agreement may be scored by CBO, but they never said the President would be willing to submit a balanced budget. The House of Representatives, understandably, became quite upset. Many House Members said, ``Wait a minute, this sounds like the same reaction we got when we thought we had an agreement with the administration a month ago,'' and they have yet to comply. Then last night, the President went on TV and said, ``I thought the Speaker and the Republican leader gave their word that we would continue funding Government. And who can I deal with if they can't keep their word?" That bothered me, because I remember the President of the United States standing in the well of the House before a joint session of Congress and the entire American public and saying, ``We're not going to hassle over which numbers and which economic assumptions to use, we're not going to use smoke and mirrors, we're going to use Congressional Budget Office numbers and we're going to work together to get the deficit down.'' He has not done that. He has not kept his word, and that bothers me. For the last month, he has yet to submit a balanced budget. We are trying to negotiate, we are trying to enact a balanced budget, and yet the President is on a different playing field. We are trying to work out our differences. We want to compare apples to apples, and yet he will not agree to the same assumptions, and it is impossible to do. I compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who evidently today are going to submit a balanced budget using CBO numbers. I compliment them for that. They are on the same playing field. We can work out the differences, even though that is not easily done. I know it is not easily done. So, again, I compliment my colleagues who are willing to do that. Let us work together. There are a lot of us who want to make this happen. We are not just interested in Republicans scoring points or the Democrats scoring points or who is going to win.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for us to have success, it cannot be a Republican victory or a Democratic victory or a Presidential victory, it is going to have to be an American victory. It is going to have to be a victory where we unite, where we curtail the growth of entitlement programs, where we make responsible decisions and both sides can declare victory. A victory on behalf of Congress, a victory on behalf of the administration and, most importantly, a victory on behalf of the American people. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Florida.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am joined by my colleagues Senators Smith, Pryor, Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, Breaux, Lott, Johnston, Abraham, Kempthorne, Lieberman, Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner to introduce, the Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1995. This bill represents the culmination of a bipartisan process involving the cooperation of The White House, EPA, and the regulated community. It is proof that the desire for regulatory reform is real, and needed in this country. It is also proof that we can work together to make greater sense out of the regulatory morass when we set our minds to it. For too long neither Congress which makes the laws, nor EPA which implements them, have really been in charge of environmental protection in this country. The most significant driver in the field of environmental policy has been the courts. In a recent address before the Environmental Law Institute, former EPA Administrator William Ruckleshaus lamented that most of the important environmental decisions of the last quarter century have devolved to the courts. The situation that has led to the introduction of this bill is a classic case of how the courts, have dominated the making of environmental policy. In 1990, EPA implemented RCRA regulations relating to the treatment of hazardous waste before it can be disposed of on the land. These land disposal restrictions were intended to prevent the placement of untreated waste on the ground--an appropriate concern given the legacy of such practices prior to the enactment of RCRA. EPA also made every effort to implement this regulation taking care to coordinate RCRA with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. That, too was as Congress intended. Along came the courts and they chose to interpret the RCRA statute in such a way as to extend the reach of costly hazardous waste requirements to nonhazardous wastes. This interpretation also ignored the benefits of treatment and disposal systems such as surface impoundments and underground injection wells permitted under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts respectively. As a result, EPA has been forced to propose expensive new regulations that even the Agency believes will provide minimal environmental benefit. Let me quote from EPA's very own preamble to the new proposed rule: The risks addressed by this rule, particularly UIC wells, are very small relative to the risks presented by other environmental conditions or situations. In a time of limited resources, common sense dictates that we deal with higher risk activities first, a principle on which EPA, members of the regulated community, and the public can all agree. Nevertheless, the agency is required to set treatment standards for these relatively low risk wastes and disposal practices during the next two years, although there are other actions and projects with which the Agency could provide greater protection of human health and the environment. Mr. President, this Senate has been wrestling with the larger question of comprehensive regulatory reform for some months now. The debate on both sides of the aisle has been contentious over the means by which such reforms are achieved. But a common theme throughout that debate has been the nearly universal recognition that the current command and control regulatory system is obsolete, and in need of reform. This bill allows us to turn that theme into reality. Not by amending the underlying RCRA statute in any way, although we agree with the President that further statutory reform is needed, but by merely restoring EPA's original regulatory determination: that a waste that is no longer hazardous need not be regulated as if it was hazardous. Mr. President, that is why I have joined with Senators Smith, Pryor, Bond, Bumpers, Inhofe, Breaux, Lott, Johnston, Abraham, Kempthorne, Lieberman, Faircloth, Glenn, and Warner to introduce this bill. I also submit for inclusion in the record a letter from the administration supporting this legislation. The price of not acting soon will mean that industry will incur, by EPA's own estimate, $800 million dollars per year in compliance costs--again for minimal environmental benefit. Mr. President, we have an opportunity here, to provide true regulatory relief, while assuring that effective standards of environmental protection are maintained. We have worked in a bipartisan way to bring this reform forward. I hope that the spirit of cooperation demonstrated on all sides will carry through as we tackle this and other much needed regulatory reforms.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from Arkansas is on the Senate floor and I heard part of his comments in regard to the budget impasse. I say as a person who has been in on many of these negotiations, I have been very frustrated that the administration has not kept its commitment to come up with a balanced budget in 7 years using honest economics. We have had 4 weeks since passage of the continuing resolution. That was 4 weeks of time almost totally wasted, and we have not had a fruitful or real productive effort by the administration. Their last budget submission did not use Congressional Budget Office economics which, because they have been revised, include $135 billion of savings, enabling it to be easier to balance the budget. They did come up with a back door Gramm-Rudman to raise taxes if you do not meet the deficit targets. That is not what we have done in the past. In the past if you did not meet the deficit targets we had an automatic sequester, or across the board cut, of spending. This administration did the opposite. They say if you do not meet the deficit targets--and they did not give us the specific language--but they said if you do not meet deficit reduction targets we will have tax increases or postpone tax reductions. In other words, taxpayers, you come out short if we are incorrect. If our spending exceeds our limits or if the deficit continues higher, instead of cutting off the money coming out of Washington, DC, we will take more money from taxpayers. Taxpayers beware--that is a bad deal. I hope the administration will step back and say, ``Wait a minute we committed to do this. We will do what we say.'' I tell my friend from Arkansas that I think it is in President Clinton's interest to do it. Some say we have to have Republican winners or Democrat winners. We should not be doing that. Mr. President, we should be doing what is right for this country: Balance the budget. Can we balance the budget? Yes. Can we balance the budget and give modest tax relief? Yes. Have we said it is negotiable? Yes, but we need to negotiate. You cannot negotiate apples and oranges. This administration has yet to put down a real budget so we can compare figures. They have engaged in a lot of demagoguery. It was very frustrating to me to hear the President of the United States on his radio program a week ago Saturday say, ``I cannot support that budget because it devastates Medicare, devastates Medicare. Unacceptable cuts in Medicare.'' The facts are we are spending $178 billion in Medicare today. The facts are in the year 2002 we will spend $293 billion in Medicare. That is not a cut. That is an increase of over 50 percent. Mrs. Clinton when testifying before Congress in the summer of 1993 said, ``We want to not cut Medicare. We want to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare to 6 percent or 7 percent.'' That is not a cut. It is reducing the rate of growth to twice the rate of inflation. Mr. President, under our proposal Medicare grows by over 7 percent per year--more than what Mrs. Clinton called for 2\1/2\ years ago. Yet this President and many in Congress have tried to say play political Mediscare and see how many senior citizens they can scare into believing we have a bad budget and score political points instead of doing what needs to be done. I was on the conference to help write the Medicare provisions and I think those provisions make sense. They offer senior citizens options and choices and medical savings accounts. They keep the premium at 31.5 percent for part B beneficiaries. To me that makes sense. Originally it was at 50 percent. Some people believe it is better to score political points. Maybe they have been successful in scoring points, but certainly they have not been successful in doing what is right. What is right is balancing the budget and being fair and being honest. This administration has not been honest. That probably bothers me more than anything. It bothers me when you have an administration that says ``Yes, we signed a continuing resolution''--it became law--``that says we will balance the budget in 7 years using updated Congressional Budget Office numbers,'' and they have not done so. Not in their first budget, their second budget, their third budget after the continuing resolution was signed, and last Friday on the fourth budget. They did not do it then, either. To me, that bothers me as much as anything else. I would like to say we have an honest administration. I would like to say they are dealing in good faith, but that has not been the case. That has not been the case. It should be. We should have the President of the United States, when he signs something, does it. If he says he will submit a balanced budget in 7 years, he should do it. We did not use hocus-pocus numbers. We used revised Congressional Budget Office numbers, and they have yet to do it. To me that is very, very unfortunate. Mr. President, I regret that the President of the United States vetoed the Interior bill. I regret that he vetoed the Department of Veterans and HUD and other agencies bills and the Commerce, State, Justice bill. That means there are hundreds of thousands of people that are furloughed. I will not say they are out of work. They may not be working today but most everyone assumes they will be paid. The President should have, in my opinion, signed those bills, and should be contacting the majority leader of the Senate, Senator Dole, and the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, and saying, ``Let's work out a deal and balance the budget.'' The numbers are not that far apart. I tell my colleagues under our proposal we were saying, according to Congressional Budget Office figures, our proposal would spend about $12 trillion in the next 7 years. The President's proposal in his June budget said they would spend about $12.8 trillion over the next 7 years. Since then, we have come up and said we are willing to spend a little more, and went to $12.1 trillion. The President has never given us their outlay figures for the next 7 years. I asked for that weeks ago. They said they had a budget but they never told us, ``Here is how much money we want to spend in Medicare the next 7 years.'' They never said, ``Here is what we want to spend in Medicaid for the next 7 years.'' They never said, ``Here is what we want to spend for defense and other categories.'' They worked in broad categories and never gave us specifics on a year-by-year basis. So we have to say, where are their figures? They did not give them to us. How are we supposed to negotiate with them? We have figures. We can tell you what dollar amount we are going to spend in every single category in the Government for the next 7 years. How can we negotiate with an administration that will not give us the same thing? That maybe voices a little of the frustration that I have working with this administration. I hope they will change. I hope they will get on the phone. I hope President Clinton will contact the congressional leaders and say: Let us work it out. Let us balance the budget. Let us do it and let us do it now, because it is the right thing to do. It should be done. It is irresponsible not to do it. We have a chance to make history. We have a chance to do what is right. We have a chance to balance the budget. We have a chance to stop this process of $200 billion deficits forever, and that is what President Clinton's budget is. His June budget had $200 billion deficits forever, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is not acceptable. That is totally not acceptable. So, I think it is awfully important for us not to continue this kind of irresponsibility, in my opinion, by the administration. It cannot continue. We need to change it. I hope the President will contact the leaders and say: Let us sit down, let us talk, let us use real numbers, let us use the same numbers, let us work out our differences and come up with a package that will benefit all Americans--not really be a benefit for the Republicans or Democrats but be a real benefit for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I hope you will contact the President and tell him to sign those bills, and those individuals would go to work.

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Florida in a moment. The President of the United States is the one who sent most of these individuals home because of his vetoes today and tomorrow. Those bills affected hundreds of thousands of people. The President had the right; he could veto the bill. But the President is the one who sent those individuals home. If he were to sign those bills, my colleague, I am sure, would concur, there would be no furloughs. Those employees would work. He had that option. He chose to veto bills. So he is directly responsible for sending those hundreds of thousands of people home today.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I will say, the President had the opportunity today to sign three bills--there are six bills that are still outstanding. In my opinion five of those six bills could be signed by tomorrow. The only bill that is left outstanding is the Labor-HHS bill, which is not being held up by Republicans; it is being held up by Senate Democrats. I think that is very unfortunate.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, 4 weeks ago tomorrow, the President signed a bill into law, the continuing resolution, that stated he would agree to a balanced budget in 7 years using Congressional Budget Office figures, which protected his priorities. That bill passed both Houses of Congress and was signed by the President of the United States. Unfortunately, that happened 4 weeks ago, but the President has not complied with the law. He has not done what he said he was going to do. I find that to be particularly upsetting, and frustrating because the President has not done what he said he was going to do. I have been one of the budget negotiators. I sat in on very long meetings, very unfruitful meetings where we asked time and time again for the President's representatives to submit a budget that would comply with the law. Last Friday, President Clinton's negotiators submitted their fourth budget of the year, the second since signing the continuing resolution 4 weeks ago. The fourth budget did not come close to balancing using Congressional Budget Office numbers. As a matter of fact, it has a deficit in the $100 billion range, as far as the eye can see. Now, that is not a balanced budget. That is not what the President said he was going to do. That bothers me. The President of the United States said in a statement to a joint session of Congress in January 1993, that he would use the Congressional Budget Office figures so that we would not be arguing about baselines and different sets of numbers, so we would be comparing apples to apples. The President said we would do that. Unfortunately, he has not done what he said he would do. That was in his State of the Union Address almost 3 years ago, and he has not done what he said he would do a month ago in signing the continuing resolution. He said he would submit a balanced budget. He has not done that yet. Then earlier today, the President vetoed three appropriations bills. I think he made a mistake. I am looking for the reasons that he gave in vetoing those bills. I have been on the Appropriations Committee. I am familiar with all three bills, and I do not think he had any justification for vetoing those bills. All the employees that work in the Departments of Commerce, State and Justice, or the Interior Department, or the Veterans Department, or the Department of Housing-- and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of employees--could have gone back to work tomorrow if President Clinton had signed those bills. But, unfortunately, he did not. I will look at his veto message and review that with my colleagues as soon as we get it, but my guess is he vetoed those bills because we are not spending enough money. My guess is he wants to spend more money in all of those bills. I note, also, Mr. President, that today the stock market is falling rather significantly--almost a 100-point drop in the Dow Jones market today. Maybe it is because the markets are starting to question whether or not Congress will come to a balanced budget. I think the markets are interpreting it correctly. It is going to be difficult for us to get a deal together if the President of the United States will not comply with his commitment to submit a balanced budget in 7 years, using honest economics. So the market is probably interpreting that correctly. What else has happened in the last 4 weeks? Well, the President and the Secretary of Treasury stated repeatedly that they needed an increase in the debt limit. They said that Congress has to pass the debt limit increase or else the United States of America is going to be defaulting on its obligations for the first time in history. We heard that time and time again from the President and the Secretary of Treasury. However, on the deadline of November 15, we did not default. What happened on November 15 is that the Secretary of Treasury--I am assuming with the guidance of the President of the United States--began raiding trust funds, pension funds. Mr. President, I used to be in the private sector. I used to be fiduciary and trustee of a private pension plan. Being a fiduciary and trustee of a private pension plan means you have certain responsibilities to the employees. You cannot dip into employee pension funds for other purposes. You cannot raid those pension funds to help meet other obligations--maybe even unforeseen obligations. You have to find other sources of income, or you have to cut expenditures, or you just have to make do. But those pension funds are off limits. Unfortunately, they have not been off limits to Secretary Rubin and President Clinton, because they used those trust funds to get around the debt limit. The debt limit, I might mention to my colleagues, is statutory; that is a law. It is passed by Congress. Congress has the power to borrow. That power is not vested in the executive branch. The President is taking that power upon himself by borrowing from the pension funds. They have come up with, maybe, very shaky legal guidance that says they can do it. Granted, a previous administration did it for a couple of days. But this administration looks like they want to do it for a year or more, and not just a few billion dollars to get through a weekend; it looks like maybe it is for months and months. We have a lot of trust funds, and it appears that this administration is prepared to raid all of them. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect our Nation's elderly, disabled, poor, and unemployed from recent unprecedented activities by President Clinton's administration. This legislation became necessary, Mr. President, when the Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin, undertook an aggressive campaign last month to deliberately avoid the public debt limit. The Secretary's actions have endangered some of the Government's most important programs which provide retirement benefits, health benefits, separation payments, life and disability insurance benefits, and dependents and survivors' benefits. Specifically, on November 15, 1995, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin circumvented the $4.9 trillion limit on public debt by authorizing the conversion to cash of the entire $21.5 billion of Federal Employees Thrift Saving Plan, G Fund, and the disinvestment of $39.8 billion of the $375 billion Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, commonly called CSRDF. Just last week, Secretary Rubin announced he would further side-step the limit by withholding a deposit of $14.5 billion in interest payments to the CSRDF. These unprecedented actions were ordered to deliberately avoid the legal limit on public debt enacted by Congress. Through processes known as disinvesting, converting to cash and underinvesting, this administration is raiding the Federal pension assets of almost 3 million Federal employees to keep on borrowing, despite the debt limit. If this type of creative accounting happened in private business, it could land the employer in jail for up to a year. That is because, in the real world, raiding your employees' pension funds is a serious crime. Where will the trust fund raids stop? Well, as of September 30, 1995, $1.32 trillion in Federal securities were held by Federal trust funds or other special accounts, compromising more than one quarter of all outstanding Federal debt. Almost half of this amount is held by Social Security and Medicare trust funds--$483 billion by Social Security and $143 billion by Medicare. The remainder is held by the Federal civil service and military retirement funds--$375 by the Federal Civil Service Retirement Fund and $113 by the Military Retirement Fund. Theoretically, all these funds are in danger of being disinvested by this administration to fuel more Government spending. Mr. President, this administration has long tried to have it both ways when it comes to controlling this deficit spending. A case in point is the contradictory rhetoric and actions regarding the disinvestment of Federal employee pension funds and its policy of the same practice in the private sector. At the same time Secretary Rubin was disinvesting Federal employee pension funds, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, was warning about the danger of private pension funds being raided by unscrupulous employers. Here is what Secretary Reich had to say about private sector pensions: Labor Department investigators, in recent months, have discovered a growing number of companies that have been raiding their employees' 401(k) pension plans. We have reason to believe that some companies are simply taking contributions from employees and using the money for their own purposes. They have regarded this 401(k) pool of money coming from employees almost like an interest-free loan. Some of them have every intention of paying the money back, but are using this for their own purposes to pay bills and pay other costs of doing business. All of these employers are acting illegally. I want to send a very clear and unambiguous message to employers, and my message is: Hands off, this is not your money. This money belongs to employees. That warning was given by Labor Secretary Robert Reich in a news conference on November 27, 1995. These words ought to strike a chord over at Treasury because the Federal retirement trust funds that Secretary Rubin has been manipulating are the Federal equivalence of the private pension plans that Secretary Reich is describing. The bottom line for private business is that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose than the benefits for which they are intended. The civil and criminal penalties for doing so are clear. The tax penalties include a fine of 5 percent of the amount involved, and up to 100 percent if the plan is not promptly made whole. The labor penalties include a 20-percent penalty of the amount involved, and a minimum fine of $5,000, and up to 1 year in jail for a willful violator. If this is not the height of ``do what I say, not what I do,'' then I do not know what is. Mr. President, it is because of the administration's unscrupulous actions that I am introducing the Federal Trust Fund Beneficiary Protection Act. My legislation, which is a companion measure to H.R. 2621, introduced by the Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, which recently passed the House of Representatives, precludes the Secretary of Treasury and other officials from refraining to properly credit trust funds and special accounts with securities for the purpose of avoiding public debt limit. Further, during any period which the Secretary is unable to issue new debt limit obligations due to a limitation on public debt, they may not sell or redeem securities obligations or other assets of these trust funds and special accounts, except when necessary to provide for the payment of benefits and administrative expenses of the various cash benefit programs. Trust funds whose benefit payments are specifically protected include, first, the Federal old age and survivors insurance trust fund, Social Security; second, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund; third, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; fourth, the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, all of which are Social Security and Medicare. Fifth, the civil service retirement and disability fund; sixth, the Government securities and investment fund; seventh, the Department of Defense military retirement fund; eighth, the unemployment trust fund; ninth, each of the railroad retirement funds and accounts; tenth, the Department of Defense education benefits fund and; eleventh, the black lung disability trust fund. Finally, my legislation includes conforming amendments which repeal the authority Secretary Rubin relied upon last month to disinvest Civil Service retirement and disability funds. Mr. President, I believe it is critical Congress enact this legislation as soon as possible before Secretary Rubin further confiscates trust fund assets intended for our elderly, disabled, poor, and unemployed. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this initiative. Mr. President, I cannot imagine the outcry that would happen if we had a Republican administration raiding Federal employees' trust funds. In the private sector if you do this you can be fined significantly and you can be put in jail. Yet the Secretary of the Treasury, under the guidance and I assume the direction of President Clinton, is raiding these funds at will and quite possibly plans on doing so for the rest of the year. If they can raid the civil service trust fund, evidently they can raid the Social Security trust fund or the Medicare trust fund. We need to protect these funds. They were created and paid for by employees. We need to protect them. I wish that was not necessary. Evidently it seems to be the case. Again, Congress has the authority to set the debt limit. This administration, with the Secretary's actions, is saying they can avoid the debt limit by raiding these funds. This legislation would stop that. It would prohibit that. I hope my colleagues would concur. Similar legislation has already passed the House. It is my hope we will pass this legislation before we leave. I think it is important to pass before we leave for Christmas. Mr. President, as I said, this legislation became necessary when the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, undertook an aggressive campaign last month to deliberately avoid the public debt limit. The Secretary's actions have endangered some of the Government's most important programs which provide retirement benefits, health benefits, separation payments, life and disability insurance benefits, and dependent's and survivor's benefits. Specifically, on November 15, 1995, Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin circumvented the $4.9 trillion limit on the public debt by authorizing the conversion to cash of the entire $21.5 billion Federal employees' thrift savings plan ``G'' fund and the ``disinvestment'' of $39.8 billion of the $375 billion Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund [CSRDF]. And just last week, Secretary Rubin announced that he would further sidestep the borrowing limit by withholding the deposit of a $14.5 billion interest payment to the CSRDF. These unprecedented actions were ordered to deliberately avoid the legal limit on the public debt enacted by Congress. Through processes known as disinvesting, converting to cash, and underinvesting, this administration is raiding the Federal employee assets of almost 3 million Federal employees to keep on borrowing despite the debt limit. If this type of creative accounting happened in a business, it could land the employer in jail for up to 1 year. That is, in the real world, raiding your employees' pension funds is a serious crime. Where will the trust fund raid stop? Well, as of September 30, 1995, $1.32 trillion in Federal securities were held by Federal trust funds or other special accounts, comprising more than one quarter of all outstanding Federal debt. Almost half of this amount is held by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds--$483 billion by Social Security and $143 billion by Medicare. The remainder is held by the Federal Civil Service and Military Retirement Funds--$374 billion by the Federal Civil Service Retirement Fund and $113 billion by the Military Retirement Fund. Theoretically, all of these funds are in danger being disinvested by this administration to fuel more Government spending. Mr. President, this administration has long tried to have it both ways when it comes to controlling its deficit spending. Case in point is their contradictory rhetoric and action with regard to its disinvestment of Federal employee pension funds and its policy on the same practice in the private sector. At the same time Secretary Rubin was disinvesting Federal employee pension funds, the Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, was warning about the danger to private pension funds from raids by unscrupulous employers. Here's what Secretary Reich had to say about private-sector pensions: Labor Department investigators in recent months have discovered a growing number of companies that have been raiding their employees' 401k pension plans. We have reason to believe that some companies are simply taking contributions from employees and using the money for their own purposes. . .[They] have regarded this 401k pool of money coming from employees almost like an interest-free loan. . .Some of them have every intention of paying the money back, but they are using this for their own purposes to pay bills, to pay other costs of doing business. . .All of these employers are acting illegally. . . And I want to send a very clear and unambiguous message to employers. . . And my message is: hands off. This is not your money. This money belongs to employees.--Labor Secretary Robert Reich, transcript from news conference, November 27, 1995. These words ought to strike a chord over at Treasury, because the Federal retiree trust funds Secretary Rubin has been manipulating are the Federal equivalents of the private sector pension plans Secretary Reich is describing. The bottom line for private business is that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose than the benefits for which they are intended. The civil and criminal penalties for doing so are clear. The tax penalties include a fine of 5 percent of the amount involved and up to 100 percent if the plan is not promptly made whole. The labor penalties include a 20-percent penalty of the amount recovered, a minimum fine of $5,000, and up to 1 year in jail for a willful violator. If this is not the height of ``do what I say and not what I do'' then I don't know what is. Mr. President, it is because of the administration's unscrupulous actions that I am introducing the Federal Trust Fund Beneficiary Protection Act. My legislation, which is a companion measure to H.R. 2621 introduced by Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, precludes the Secretary of the Treasury and other officials from refraining to properly credit trust funds and special accounts with securities for the purpose of avoiding the public debt limit. Further, during any period in which the Secretary is unable to issue new debt obligations due to a limitation on the public debt, they may not sell or redeem securities, obligations, or other assets of these trust funds and special accounts, except when necessary to provide for the payment of benefits and administrative expenses of the various cash benefit programs. Trust funds whose benefit payments are specifically protected include: The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund; the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund; the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund; the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund; the Government Securities Investment Fund; the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; the Unemployment Trust Fund; each of the railroad retirement funds and accounts; the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund and the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Fund; and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Finally, my legislation includes conforming amendments which repeal the authorities Secretary Rubin relied upon last month to disinvest the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Mr. President, I believe it is critical that Congress enact this legislation as soon as possible, before Secretary Rubin further confiscates trust fund assets intended to benefit our Nation's elderly, disabled, poor, and unemployed. I hope my colleagues will join me in this initiative.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, 4 weeks ago tomorrow, the President signed a bill into law, the continuing resolution, that stated he would agree to a balanced budget in 7 years using Congressional Budget Office figures, which protected his priorities. That bill passed both Houses of Congress and was signed by the President of the United States. Unfortunately, that happened 4 weeks ago, but the President has not complied with the law. He has not done what he said he was going to do. I find that to be particularly upsetting, and frustrating because the President has not done what he said he was going to do. I have been one of the budget negotiators. I sat in on very long meetings, very unfruitful meetings where we asked time and time again for the President's representatives to submit a budget that would comply with the law. Last Friday, President Clinton's negotiators submitted their fourth budget of the year, the second since signing the continuing resolution 4 weeks ago. The fourth budget did not come close to balancing using Congressional Budget Office numbers. As a matter of fact, it has a deficit in the $100 billion range, as far as the eye can see. Now, that is not a balanced budget. That is not what the President said he was going to do. That bothers me. The President of the United States said in a statement to a joint session of Congress in January 1993, that he would use the Congressional Budget Office figures so that we would not be arguing about baselines and different sets of numbers, so we would be comparing apples to apples. The President said we would do that. Unfortunately, he has not done what he said he would do. That was in his State of the Union Address almost 3 years ago, and he has not done what he said he would do a month ago in signing the continuing resolution. He said he would submit a balanced budget. He has not done that yet. Then earlier today, the President vetoed three appropriations bills. I think he made a mistake. I am looking for the reasons that he gave in vetoing those bills. I have been on the Appropriations Committee. I am familiar with all three bills, and I do not think he had any justification for vetoing those bills. All the employees that work in the Departments of Commerce, State and Justice, or the Interior Department, or the Veterans Department, or the Department of Housing-- and we are talking about hundreds of thousands of employees--could have gone back to work tomorrow if President Clinton had signed those bills. But, unfortunately, he did not. I will look at his veto message and review that with my colleagues as soon as we get it, but my guess is he vetoed those bills because we are not spending enough money. My guess is he wants to spend more money in all of those bills. I note, also, Mr. President, that today the stock market is falling rather significantly--almost a 100-point drop in the Dow Jones market today. Maybe it is because the markets are starting to question whether or not Congress will come to a balanced budget. I think the markets are interpreting it correctly. It is going to be difficult for us to get a deal together if the President of the United States will not comply with his commitment to submit a balanced budget in 7 years, using honest economics. So the market is probably interpreting that correctly. What else has happened in the last 4 weeks? Well, the President and the Secretary of Treasury stated repeatedly that they needed an increase in the debt limit. They said that Congress has to pass the debt limit increase or else the United States of America is going to be defaulting on its obligations for the first time in history. We heard that time and time again from the President and the Secretary of Treasury. However, on the deadline of November 15, we did not default. What happened on November 15 is that the Secretary of Treasury--I am assuming with the guidance of the President of the United States--began raiding trust funds, pension funds. Mr. President, I used to be in the private sector. I used to be fiduciary and trustee of a private pension plan. Being a fiduciary and trustee of a private pension plan means you have certain responsibilities to the employees. You cannot dip into employee pension funds for other purposes. You cannot raid those pension funds to help meet other obligations--maybe even unforeseen obligations. You have to find other sources of income, or you have to cut expenditures, or you just have to make do. But those pension funds are off limits. Unfortunately, they have not been off limits to Secretary Rubin and President Clinton, because they used those trust funds to get around the debt limit. The debt limit, I might mention to my colleagues, is statutory; that is a law. It is passed by Congress. Congress has the power to borrow. That power is not vested in the executive branch. The President is taking that power upon himself by borrowing from the pension funds. They have come up with, maybe, very shaky legal guidance that says they can do it. Granted, a previous administration did it for a couple of days. But this administration looks like they want to do it for a year or more, and not just a few billion dollars to get through a weekend; it looks like maybe it is for months and months. We have a lot of trust funds, and it appears that this administration is prepared to raid all of them. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to protect our Nation's elderly, disabled, poor, and unemployed from recent unprecedented activities by President Clinton's administration. This legislation became necessary, Mr. President, when the Secretary of Treasury, Robert Rubin, undertook an aggressive campaign last month to deliberately avoid the public debt limit. The Secretary's actions have endangered some of the Government's most important programs which provide retirement benefits, health benefits, separation payments, life and disability insurance benefits, and dependents and survivors' benefits. Specifically, on November 15, 1995, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin circumvented the $4.9 trillion limit on public debt by authorizing the conversion to cash of the entire $21.5 billion of Federal Employees Thrift Saving Plan, G Fund, and the disinvestment of $39.8 billion of the $375 billion Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, commonly called CSRDF. Just last week, Secretary Rubin announced he would further side-step the limit by withholding a deposit of $14.5 billion in interest payments to the CSRDF. These unprecedented actions were ordered to deliberately avoid the legal limit on public debt enacted by Congress. Through processes known as disinvesting, converting to cash and underinvesting, this administration is raiding the Federal pension assets of almost 3 million Federal employees to keep on borrowing, despite the debt limit. If this type of creative accounting happened in private business, it could land the employer in jail for up to a year. That is because, in the real world, raiding your employees' pension funds is a serious crime. Where will the trust fund raids stop? Well, as of September 30, 1995, $1.32 trillion in Federal securities were held by Federal trust funds or other special accounts, compromising more than one quarter of all outstanding Federal debt. Almost half of this amount is held by Social Security and Medicare trust funds--$483 billion by Social Security and $143 billion by Medicare. The remainder is held by the Federal civil service and military retirement funds--$375 by the Federal Civil Service Retirement Fund and $113 by the Military Retirement Fund. Theoretically, all these funds are in danger of being disinvested by this administration to fuel more Government spending. Mr. President, this administration has long tried to have it both ways when it comes to controlling this deficit spending. A case in point is the contradictory rhetoric and actions regarding the disinvestment of Federal employee pension funds and its policy of the same practice in the private sector. At the same time Secretary Rubin was disinvesting Federal employee pension funds, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, was warning about the danger of private pension funds being raided by unscrupulous employers. Here is what Secretary Reich had to say about private sector pensions: Labor Department investigators, in recent months, have discovered a growing number of companies that have been raiding their employees' 401(k) pension plans. We have reason to believe that some companies are simply taking contributions from employees and using the money for their own purposes. They have regarded this 401(k) pool of money coming from employees almost like an interest-free loan. Some of them have every intention of paying the money back, but are using this for their own purposes to pay bills and pay other costs of doing business. All of these employers are acting illegally. I want to send a very clear and unambiguous message to employers, and my message is: Hands off, this is not your money. This money belongs to employees. That warning was given by Labor Secretary Robert Reich in a news conference on November 27, 1995. These words ought to strike a chord over at Treasury because the Federal retirement trust funds that Secretary Rubin has been manipulating are the Federal equivalence of the private pension plans that Secretary Reich is describing. The bottom line for private business is that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose than the benefits for which they are intended. The civil and criminal penalties for doing so are clear. The tax penalties include a fine of 5 percent of the amount involved, and up to 100 percent if the plan is not promptly made whole. The labor penalties include a 20-percent penalty of the amount involved, and a minimum fine of $5,000, and up to 1 year in jail for a willful violator. If this is not the height of ``do what I say, not what I do,'' then I do not know what is. Mr. President, it is because of the administration's unscrupulous actions that I am introducing the Federal Trust Fund Beneficiary Protection Act. My legislation, which is a companion measure to H.R. 2621, introduced by the Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, which recently passed the House of Representatives, precludes the Secretary of Treasury and other officials from refraining to properly credit trust funds and special accounts with securities for the purpose of avoiding public debt limit. Further, during any period which the Secretary is unable to issue new debt limit obligations due to a limitation on public debt, they may not sell or redeem securities obligations or other assets of these trust funds and special accounts, except when necessary to provide for the payment of benefits and administrative expenses of the various cash benefit programs. Trust funds whose benefit payments are specifically protected include, first, the Federal old age and survivors insurance trust fund, Social Security; second, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund; third, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; fourth, the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, all of which are Social Security and Medicare. Fifth, the civil service retirement and disability fund; sixth, the Government securities and investment fund; seventh, the Department of Defense military retirement fund; eighth, the unemployment trust fund; ninth, each of the railroad retirement funds and accounts; tenth, the Department of Defense education benefits fund and; eleventh, the black lung disability trust fund. Finally, my legislation includes conforming amendments which repeal the authority Secretary Rubin relied upon last month to disinvest Civil Service retirement and disability funds. Mr. President, I believe it is critical Congress enact this legislation as soon as possible before Secretary Rubin further confiscates trust fund assets intended for our elderly, disabled, poor, and unemployed. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this initiative. Mr. President, I cannot imagine the outcry that would happen if we had a Republican administration raiding Federal employees' trust funds. In the private sector if you do this you can be fined significantly and you can be put in jail. Yet the Secretary of the Treasury, under the guidance and I assume the direction of President Clinton, is raiding these funds at will and quite possibly plans on doing so for the rest of the year. If they can raid the civil service trust fund, evidently they can raid the Social Security trust fund or the Medicare trust fund. We need to protect these funds. They were created and paid for by employees. We need to protect them. I wish that was not necessary. Evidently it seems to be the case. Again, Congress has the authority to set the debt limit. This administration, with the Secretary's actions, is saying they can avoid the debt limit by raiding these funds. This legislation would stop that. It would prohibit that. I hope my colleagues would concur. Similar legislation has already passed the House. It is my hope we will pass this legislation before we leave. I think it is important to pass before we leave for Christmas. Mr. President, as I said, this legislation became necessary when the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, undertook an aggressive campaign last month to deliberately avoid the public debt limit. The Secretary's actions have endangered some of the Government's most important programs which provide retirement benefits, health benefits, separation payments, life and disability insurance benefits, and dependent's and survivor's benefits. Specifically, on November 15, 1995, Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin circumvented the $4.9 trillion limit on the public debt by authorizing the conversion to cash of the entire $21.5 billion Federal employees' thrift savings plan ``G'' fund and the ``disinvestment'' of $39.8 billion of the $375 billion Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund [CSRDF]. And just last week, Secretary Rubin announced that he would further sidestep the borrowing limit by withholding the deposit of a $14.5 billion interest payment to the CSRDF. These unprecedented actions were ordered to deliberately avoid the legal limit on the public debt enacted by Congress. Through processes known as disinvesting, converting to cash, and underinvesting, this administration is raiding the Federal employee assets of almost 3 million Federal employees to keep on borrowing despite the debt limit. If this type of creative accounting happened in a business, it could land the employer in jail for up to 1 year. That is, in the real world, raiding your employees' pension funds is a serious crime. Where will the trust fund raid stop? Well, as of September 30, 1995, $1.32 trillion in Federal securities were held by Federal trust funds or other special accounts, comprising more than one quarter of all outstanding Federal debt. Almost half of this amount is held by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds--$483 billion by Social Security and $143 billion by Medicare. The remainder is held by the Federal Civil Service and Military Retirement Funds--$374 billion by the Federal Civil Service Retirement Fund and $113 billion by the Military Retirement Fund. Theoretically, all of these funds are in danger being disinvested by this administration to fuel more Government spending. Mr. President, this administration has long tried to have it both ways when it comes to controlling its deficit spending. Case in point is their contradictory rhetoric and action with regard to its disinvestment of Federal employee pension funds and its policy on the same practice in the private sector. At the same time Secretary Rubin was disinvesting Federal employee pension funds, the Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, was warning about the danger to private pension funds from raids by unscrupulous employers. Here's what Secretary Reich had to say about private-sector pensions: Labor Department investigators in recent months have discovered a growing number of companies that have been raiding their employees' 401k pension plans. We have reason to believe that some companies are simply taking contributions from employees and using the money for their own purposes. . .[They] have regarded this 401k pool of money coming from employees almost like an interest-free loan. . .Some of them have every intention of paying the money back, but they are using this for their own purposes to pay bills, to pay other costs of doing business. . .All of these employers are acting illegally. . . And I want to send a very clear and unambiguous message to employers. . . And my message is: hands off. This is not your money. This money belongs to employees.--Labor Secretary Robert Reich, transcript from news conference, November 27, 1995. These words ought to strike a chord over at Treasury, because the Federal retiree trust funds Secretary Rubin has been manipulating are the Federal equivalents of the private sector pension plans Secretary Reich is describing. The bottom line for private business is that these funds cannot be used for any other purpose than the benefits for which they are intended. The civil and criminal penalties for doing so are clear. The tax penalties include a fine of 5 percent of the amount involved and up to 100 percent if the plan is not promptly made whole. The labor penalties include a 20-percent penalty of the amount recovered, a minimum fine of $5,000, and up to 1 year in jail for a willful violator. If this is not the height of ``do what I say and not what I do'' then I don't know what is. Mr. President, it is because of the administration's unscrupulous actions that I am introducing the Federal Trust Fund Beneficiary Protection Act. My legislation, which is a companion measure to H.R. 2621 introduced by Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, precludes the Secretary of the Treasury and other officials from refraining to properly credit trust funds and special accounts with securities for the purpose of avoiding the public debt limit. Further, during any period in which the Secretary is unable to issue new debt obligations due to a limitation on the public debt, they may not sell or redeem securities, obligations, or other assets of these trust funds and special accounts, except when necessary to provide for the payment of benefits and administrative expenses of the various cash benefit programs. Trust funds whose benefit payments are specifically protected include: The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund; the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund; the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund; the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund; the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund; the Government Securities Investment Fund; the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund; the Unemployment Trust Fund; each of the railroad retirement funds and accounts; the Department of Defense Education Benefits Fund and the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans Education Fund; and the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Finally, my legislation includes conforming amendments which repeal the authorities Secretary Rubin relied upon last month to disinvest the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Mr. President, I believe it is critical that Congress enact this legislation as soon as possible, before Secretary Rubin further confiscates trust fund assets intended to benefit our Nation's elderly, disabled, poor, and unemployed. I hope my colleagues will join me in this initiative.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak in opposition to the President's decision to deploy ground troops and ground forces in Bosnia. I first would like to compliment Senator Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, Senator Brown, and Senator Thomas as well for outstanding speeches. Some of the best speeches that have been made in the Senate have been made this evening. Senator Brown just concluded with a very moving speech detailing his opposition to the President's move. I agree wholeheartedly with their comments. I also will make a comment. I have been to Yugoslavia with Senator Dole. Some people are saying these resolutions are in opposition to each other. I would take issue with that fact. One of the resolutions we are going to be voting on that I had something to do with, or was involved with, said that we state our opposition to the President's decision to deploy ground troops in Bosnia--very clear, very plain, very simple. We think the President is making a mistake, and we want to be on record of it. Mr. President, I will go further. I wish that we would have had a similar resolution when the President made the decision to deploy our Armed Forces into Haiti. I think he made a mistake. I have heard others in the administration say that was a success, and maybe that is the way they would define success. But I thought it was a mistake to have the invasion and occupation of Haiti. I wish that we would have had a chance to debate that and that we would have had a sensible debate on it. We did not have that. So I am pleased that we are going to have debate on these two resolutions today and tomorrow. Some of my colleagues said, ``Well, we wish we could have had more extensive debate.'' I would agree with that. But the President is going to Paris tomorrow evening to sign an accord on Thursday, and not only will the Senate be taking this up but the House will be. So it is important for us to take it up today and dispose of these two resolutions--maybe three resolutions--by tomorrow. Also, Mr. President, I want to make just a couple of comments on how we got here and why I have decided to oppose the President's decision to deploy these troops. In the first place, I mentioned my opposition to the President's decision on sending troops into Haiti. Senator Brown commented on the President's mistaken mission in Somalia where the mission moved from a humanitarian mission into that of peace enforcing, or peacekeeping, and a greatly expanded humanitarian role that resulted in the loss of 18 American lives. But I want to go back a little bit further. I read in President Clinton's book in 1992, ``Putting People First''--then candidate Bill Clinton. He stated his administration would ``support the recent more active role of the United Nations in troubled spots around the world, and pursue the establishment of a voluntary U.N. rapid deployment force to deter aggression, provide humanitarian relief, and combat terrorism and drug trafficking.'' That is on page 135. In 1993, the President's proposed PDD-13, an expansion of the U.S. role in U.N. operations, and multinational U.S. forces under a foreign multinational U.N. military command. He proposed creating in the office of the Secretary of Defense an Office of Peacekeeping and Democracy at the Pentagon, talking about having this post be used to coordinate international peacekeeping forces. I think that is a mistake. I have debated that and raised that on the floor of the Senate in the past. Let me talk a little bit about my opposition to the President's use and deployment of ground forces in this area. I heard the President's speech to the Nation, and he talked about this is going to be a ``clearly defined military mission.'' I do not see any way that anyone can call this a clearly defined military mission. Maybe I am thinking in more simple terms. But clearly defined military mission would be similar to the Persian Gulf where you had Iraq invade Kuwait, and we said that invasion will not stand, and we are going to kick them out of Kuwait. An army invaded. We are not going to allow that to stand. We are going to knock the army out. That is what we did. President Bush said that is what our objective was. It had a clearly definable military objective. We built the forces necessary to make that happen, and we executed it. Then our forces came home. That is not the case in Bosnia. This is a map of Bosnia. This is the country of Bosnia. It is under control partly by the Serbs. It is under control partly by the Moslems. It is under control partly by the Croatians. Each of these areas have different ethnic groups that have been fighting for centuries. So now we are going to have military forces serve as a buffer all around, all throughout Bosnia. That is going to be a very difficult goal. How is that a clearly definable military objective? We are going to insert our troops between fighting factions. But we are going to allow people to move back and forth. And then there are all kinds of missions and roles. We are going to allow refugees to return to their homes. In some areas right now they are not complying with the accord that has already been signed. We are going to enforce the Dayton agreement. This was a U.S.-led agreement, the Dayton accord. And all three Presidents signed it. The leaders of the Serbians, the leaders of Bosnia, and the leaders of Croatia signed that agreement. They are not complying with it now. But we are going to put U.S. forces in--almost an Americanization of this conflict. And we are going to have U.S. forces in charge of carrying out the Dayton accord. Since that accord has been signed, I hope my colleagues are aware of some of the violations that have taken place. Bosnian Croat soldiers have defied the peace plan by looting and setting ablaze a couple of towns. Those towns are to be shifted from Croatian control to Bosnian Serb control. They are burning the town. That is not in the Dayton accord, but they are doing it. I guess our troops are going to stop that. Last week the Croats released from jail Ivica Rajic, who was indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. Such action is in direct violation of the Dayton accord where all sides pledged to cooperate with the tribunal. They released him. Mr. President, President Clinton has said, well, we are going to put our troops in. Originally, some time ago, he said we would put U.S. troops in. Then, earlier this year, he said we would put in troops for a reconfiguring and strengthening of U.N. forces in Bosnia. The United Nations has had 30,000 troops there in the Bosnia area. They were not bringing about peace. All sides continued to fight, to move the map around. He said we would commit U.S. forces. He did not ask Congress. He said we will commit U.S. forces to redeploy and reconfigure. Well, that was a mistake. Mr. President, if you look at this goal, are U.S. forces and the rest of NATO forces now going to be in charge of policing? Are we going to go in and arrest people who are guilty of war crimes? It seems to me that is what we were trying to do in Somalia. We tried to get General Aideed because he was guilty of some crimes, and the net result was, yes, we had troops going in harm's way and we lost a lot of lives, as Senator Brown alluded to. We did not provide the military support. Now the President said, I understand, we are going to send in military support. Is that one of our goals? Are we going to be policemen? Are we going to go and arrest people for crimes against the other sides? Are we going to enforce refugee resettlements? Are we going to tell Serbs in Croat homes they are going to have to get out of those homes, and vice versa, and use force of bayonets? Are we going to use our forces strictly as a buffer zone in dangerous areas, targets on both sides, allowing people to move back and forth that may have a violent intent either against the other side that they have been fighting for years or maybe against the United States? Are we going to use U.S. forces to clear mines? And I know I have some Oklahomans now that are trained in that area, so they are going to go in. We are going to use them to clear certain areas for mines. And what if somebody runs away that is guilty of firing on our troops and happens to evade them over a mine field and so we risk more lives? And what about this idea--the President said, well, this is a NATO mission, and I have heard people say this is a vital role for NATO because if we do not do it, this is going to show that NATO has no valuable purpose. NATO was created as a defensive alliance to deter invasion or aggression from Russia. And now we are taking NATO troops from the NATO allies and saying we are going to put NATO in a peacekeeping force in a non-NATO country. Bosnia was not invaded by Russia. It was not invaded by other non-Yugoslavian countries. The Serbs certainly did take their fair share of the territory and the Croatians are in there as well, but this is Yugoslavia's civil war. But we are now putting an expansion of the NATO role into moving from a defensive alliance, which we have been the leader and the supporter of, that has proven to be so successful for the last 40 or 50 years, now we are putting it into a peacekeeping role, into a non-NATO country, into an area where the U.N. peacekeepers were not successful and so now we are going to greatly expand NATO's role. I think we need to discuss that and debate it. Is this what NATO's mission is going to be in the future? It looks like NATO creep, mission creep, to me. And one that I have serious reservations about, very serious reservations about. Some have said, well, this is important; we need to make sure that this war does not expand. There is lots of potential for this war to expand as a result of this effort. Now a lot of the Serbian areas are going to have Russian troops in them, and a lot of Moslem areas are going to have Western troops including the United States. What happens if some Serbs happen to fire on some Moslems and we try to interject, and so we return fire against the Serbs, and maybe the Russians are in that quarter--and so there is the possibility of some conflict between United States and Russia. I hope that does not happen. I pray it does not happen. But I see a lot of potential where there can be some spillover from this so-called peacekeeping force. Mr. President, we call this peacekeeping, but really what this is is peace enforcing, so it has moved a giant step against peacekeeping. If it is really peacekeeping, they would not have to be there. If there was peace, they would not have to be there. As Senator Brown mentioned, they have been fighting for hundreds and hundreds of years. How in the world are we going to go in and solve this problem in 12 months and then go out? And what about the 12-month timetable? Is that to say our military objective is going to be totally complete in 12 months or is that a political timetable: Oh, we better get them out before the next election. It sounds a lot more political to me than it does a militarily definable, achievable objective. Oh, in 12 months we are going to be gone regardless of what happens. Well, that does not seem to make sense. Is there a militarily definable objective? I do not think so. I think we are in the process of getting bogged down in a lot of nation building. You say, oh, well, how could that be? If you read the Dayton accord, it talks about a lot of things. It talks about policing the agreement. It talks about buffer zones. It talks about refugees and resettlements. It also talks about establishing a constitution and a democracy and a revolving presidency, a revolving presidency between the Croatians, the Moslems, and the Serbs. That may sound nice and look kind of good on paper in Dayton, OH, but I question whether that is going to work. If you go back a little bit in history in the former Yugoslavia, where you had several republics, they were supposed to have revolving presidencies. Guess what. The Serbs ended up getting control and they revolved or rotated the presidency. They still have it. Mr. Milosevic was still running Greater Serbia, and he wanted to expand Greater Serbia. That is the reason they moved into Bosnia. So this idea of a revolving presidency certainly is nation building, i.e., and that sounds a lot like Somalia. That does not sound like a militarily achievable objective, at least in my opinion. And so we look at the resolutions that are before us. The resolution that I am speaking on behalf of as well as Senator Hutchison and Senator Inhofe Senator Brown, Senator Kyl, and others says we oppose the President's decision to send ground forces into Bosnia to carry out the Dayton accord. I look at the arguments for it, and I think if you look at this map, it looks like a congressional district in Louisiana. And you see a lot of areas. Well, while there are Serbs in this area, they have to move back and the Bosnians will have to take control and Sarajevo Serbs have control in some areas and they say they are not going to give it up. Does that mean U.S. forces or other forces are going to come in and enforce that agreement? And what if they do not give it up without a fight? And on and on and on. And this is throughout. What if they say, well, before we leave, we are going to raze it or we are going to burn it. And that is what they are doing right now. Or what if there are war criminals and they say, instead of apprehending them, we are going to let them go, as they just did in one case where the Croatians released a person indicted by the international tribunal. In other words, there are already big, large, gross violations of the Dayton accord, and now we are going to be putting U.S. forces in. Now, U.S. forces, or at least a lot of U.S. forces that I know from Oklahoma, they will not know the difference between the Serbs and the Moslems and Croatians, who are the good guys and bad guys. I tell you, there are lots of bad guys around on all three sides, but yet we are going to be putting U.S. forces under an American general to be making decisions. So we are almost Americanizing this war. But we say we are going to be out in 12 months. I do not see it adding up. I do not see it working. I do see us risking a lot of U.S. lives and a lot of prestige for something I think is clearly not definable. Now, look at Secretary Christopher's words. He testified in April 1993 before the Appropriations Committee. He said four criteria have to be met before American troops will be deployed. Now, this proves a couple things. One, they were talking about deploying American troops 2\1/2\ years ago. Well, now they have been successful. But they said the goals must be clear and understandable to the American people. Well, that has not happened. That is a big no. You ask the American people, what are our goals? Well, we are going to get out in 12 months. We want to speak for peace, but if we look at all these guidelines where we are going to be the buffer, no, I do not think so. If you say we want American forces to be clearing mines, something like 5 or 6 million mines, landmines, hopefully we will not lose any American troops to landmines, but I am sure that we will. And Americans are going to start questioning those goals. ``Wait a minute. Why are we there? The chances of success must be high.'' I do not think they are high. I hope they are. I hope there is peace. But I think just because we have deployed ground forces, what happens when we leave? We may be somewhat successful with 60,000 troops. Putting them into an area smaller than the State of West Virginia, that is a lot of troops for an area that size. Bosnia is a small area, about 60 percent of the size of South Carolina, a little smaller than West Virginia. It has about 4.5 to 5 million people, so it has a lot of people. But we are going to put 60,000 troops in there. We may successful in restoring some degree of peace for a while. What happens when we leave? We said we are going to be gone in 12 months. I am afraid the war is going to start again. If so, then I say, hey, that has not been successful. If we leave, like we did after Lebanon or like we did after Somalia, I would say that is not a success. We may have alleviated some of the fighting or some of the starvation for a short period of time, but if they start fighting, as they, I am afraid, will in this case, I do not think that we have been successful. Third, this is Secretary Christopher's criterion: The American people must support the effort. The American people do not support this effort. I do not believe you should manage foreign policy by polls, but I do think, before you commit U.S. ground forces and make a commitment where we are going to be committing U.S. forces and lives, you should have some support of the American people. The American people are opposing this action by a two-to-one margin. That has not changed since the President has tried the make his case, and the administration people have tried to make his case. And then, an exit strategy for getting the troops out must be established from the beginning. We do not have an exit strategy. We have a timetable that says we are out in 12 months, not that we accomplished our objective, because our objective is not that clear, is not that definable. It just says we are going to be out. That is a timetable for exit, but it does not say anything has to be accomplished. Again, I think it is a mistake. Under Secretary Christopher's own criteria I think it fails on all four categories. Mr. President, I do not think we should send U.S. ground forces. I think President Clinton has made a mistake. I think if you look back at the statements that this administration has made, even as a candidate, as the policies go back for the last 3 years, they have been talking about putting U.S. ground forces in international peacekeeping efforts. I am afraid we are making a mistake, like at the date in the accord, the date in the agreement. I see lots and lots of areas that are nation building. So we are going to be committing United States ground forces into rebuilding a democracy or a government in Bosnia, a government that is very fractured, a government that is very divided, with ethnic divisions, one where there is a lot of hatred, a lot of animosity, and putting United States forces right in the middle. That is not a clearly definable military objective. Again, I think it is a serious mistake. So I hope that our colleagues will support this resolution. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Judge Abraham Sofaer that was in the Wall Street Journal, which points out many of the shortcomings of the Dayton accord, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to join with my colleagues in complimenting our distinguished guest, Prime Minister Peres, for an outstanding speech to a joint session of Congress. I have heard several of them in my years in the Senate. But the Prime Minister's speech, which called for peace and continuing movement in the peace arena, I think is certainly to be complimented. And we are delighted to have him as our guest both in speaking to a joint session of Congress, but also as our guest this evening in the Senate. It is an honor to have him in the Senate.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, first I wish to compliment my friend and colleague Senator Inhofe for his statement on Bosnia. I will have a statement soon on that subject. But I compliment him, one, for his courage and conviction, and also the fact he went through the trouble of going to Bosnia recently, and I think his observations are very correct. I think we are in the process of getting bogged down in a quagmire. So I compliment him for that. Again, I will add to my remarks at a later time.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the morning business period on Monday be amended to provide for up to 30 minutes under the control of Senator Bradley.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to make a couple of remarks concerning a very sad event that happened this week, and that was the death of our friend, Richard Halverson, the Chaplain of the Senate for the last 14 years. I first want to express my condolences to Chaplain Halverson's family--his wife, Doris, his son, Chris and daughter-in-law Maura, his son, Steve and daughter-in-law Paula, and his daughter, Debbie and son- in-law Fred, and his nine grandchildren. Chaplain Halverson was a friend, not only to myself but to all Senators as well the Senate staff and the entire Senate family. He certainly was a pastor of exceptional repute, a person who has been defined by many as ``a man of God,'' as a person who certainly loved the Lord and showed that love by his words and by his actions. It was evident when he would sit in his chair in the Senate Chamber and greet people on a daily basis. This love for people was not reserved for Senators only, but it was generously given to people who sweep the floors or those who work in the restaurant or the elevator operators. Chaplain Halverson was a friend, and he will certainly be missed. He is loved by many thousands from his service in the pulpit and for his 14 years as Chaplain of the Senate. I really consider it a blessing to have known him, to have worked with him, to have shared many good times with him. To have been with him with families in prayer. To have worked along side him with the National Prayer Breakfast, in which he had been instrumental. He has left a very valuable mark on our lives. A friend of mine from Oklahoma once commented to me about Dr. Halverson. He asked me if I knew him. I asked, ``Why?'' He said, ``I will tell you, I've had the pleasure of knowing him for years,'' and my friend paid him the highest compliment I ever heard paid anyone. He said Chaplain Halverson was the most Christ-like man he had ever known. I think that was an appropriate definition for a wonderful servant of God who also served this body. So we extend our sincerest condolences to the Halverson family and we want them to know we love Chaplain Halverson and that our thoughts and prayers are with them and will continue to be. I might mention to the Senate that it is our intention--and I am working with Chaplain Ogilvie on this--to have a memorial service for Dr. Halverson a week from Tuesday, at approximately 11:30 a.m. Once the arrangements have been finalized, I will make a formal announcement to my colleagues early next week. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.