Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wonder if my friend from Massachusetts will agree to a unanimous consent to reduce both sides by 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I rise in strong, strong opposition to the amendment proposed by our friend, Senator Kennedy. This amendment exempts OSHA. It exempts it from cost-benefit or risk assessment under this bill. If we are going to do that, why have a bill? I heard my colleague say we are interested in safety and if you are not--almost imply that if you want this bill, you are not interested in safety, and that is totally incorrect. Mr. President, I happened to be an employer before coming to the Senate. I wish I had all the OSHA volumes that are required for a small manufacturer. I wish I had those. They would not fit on this desk. And if you have 60-some-odd employees, you have reams and reams and reams of volumes, mostly written by unnamed bureaucrats that know very little about business telling you what to do, subjecting you to fines and penalties if you do not subscribe. To say that they should be exempt from cost-benefit or risk assessment is totally wrong--totally, completely wrong. I happen to care about public safety and the safety of our workers and any workers in America as anybody on this floor, but we need to rein in unnecessary regulations. That is what this bill is about. They should not be exempt. So I would urge my colleagues to support our motion to table the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. For the information of my colleagues, I was the one who requested that we stack the vote and maybe several votes for tomorrow morning. The reason I was doing that is because a lot of us do have families and would like to have dinner with their families. I cannot do that tonight because I am involved with some of these amendments, so I am not speaking for myself, but I know a lot of colleagues--some of our colleagues do not live real close to the Hill, either. They might live 20 miles away, so they cannot really wait for 2 hours. So it is my suggestion that we do as many amendments as possible. Maybe some of these amendments--we now have an order for five amendments. It may well be that we can accept two or three of these amendments without rollcall votes. In all likelihood, the Lautenberg amendment will require a vote. I am not sure about the Feingold amendment or the Pryor amendment. Maybe we can accept the Pryor amendment. I would like to see us make as much progress as possible. We have a lot of work to do. I also hope the majority leader will say that this is not the end of the work tonight. I hope we plow ahead, because I know people said they have amendments and I know we are running out of days. So I hope the leaders and the managers of the bill will be willing to stay in and work through as many amendments as possible and stack whatever rollcalls are necessary until possibly 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleague, Senator Johnston from Louisiana, for his statement. I hope my colleagues heard his statement, and I hope they will vote against the amendment of my friend and colleague, Senator Lautenberg. I think the language we have in the bill is good language. I understand the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey would strike that language. I want to make it perfectly clear that the language in the bill dealing with toxics release inventory review does not gut the statute of toxics release inventory--the TRI, as we have heard. What it does is introduce an element of common sense. The Senator from Louisiana said, yes, if you have any type of chemical listed, it can be listed no matter how minimal that release might be. Even if there is no threat whatsoever under existing interpretation by EPA and others, they can list that chemical and set about a couple things. One, there is an enormous amount of paperwork and an enormous expense that consumers will pay for. Consumers are farmers, in many cases, or they might be somebody that may be making drugs for pharmaceutical companies, which, of course, increases the medical costs and so on. Every day people have to pay the cost. Senator Johnston also mentioned something else. He said these notices of release, if there is no real threat to public harm or public health and safety, people have a lot of unnecessary fears because of unnecessary notifications. What this language does, and I will read it from the bill, ``including consideration of the applicability of such evidence to levels of the chemical in the environment that may result from reasonably anticipated releases.'' Reasonably anticipated releases. In other words, not through the environment that we talked about sometime last year during the clean air debate. If somebody was outside the plant gate for 70 years, 24 hours a day, in the prevailing wind, maybe they might one out of a million chance have obtained a disease. This says use common sense. That is what this language is about. Also, it mentioned that if somebody wants to either be put on the list or taken off the list, they must have substantial evidence to do so. It is a higher threshold. They have to have substantial evidence to be able to get a chemical off the list, or substantial evidence to put the chemical on the list. Again, common sense. I think that the language we have in the bill is well crafted. It is not radical. It is not extreme. It says we should use common sense. We can save a lot of paperwork, a lot of red tape, and we can eliminate unnecessary fears that some people have as a result of overzealous interpretation of the TRI statute. I compliment my colleague from Louisiana and also the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, and Senator Roth for this section. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Lautenberg amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I object.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Arkansas-Oklahoma Land Exchange Act of 1995. This [[Page S 9809]] legislation represents several years of work on the part of the U.S. Forest Service, the Weyerhaeuser Co., the Oklahoma and Arkansas congressional delegations, State officials, and local communities. I firmly believe that this land exchange will benefit not only timber resource management, but also wildlife habitat, tourism, recreation, and the economic vitality of the region. During the course of negotiations, I strongly held that any exchange of lands would have to serve the best interests of Oklahoma citizens and the taxpayer. With this in mind, we crafted a proposal that would represent no cost to the Federal Government and that would allow for an equitable exchange of land and resources between the U.S. Forest Service and the Weyerhaeuser Co. Specifically, the public, through the U.S. Forest Service, will receive 105,000 acres in southeast Oklahoma adjacent to Broken Bow Lake and near the McCurtain County Wilderness Area, the lower Mountain Fork River, and the Glover River. These acres will become part of the Ouachita National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service will also receive approximately 28,000 acres located near Lake Ouachita in Arkansas and an additional 25,000 acres in Sevier County, AR, to become part of the Cossatot National Wildlife Refuge. In exchange, the Weyerhaeuser Co. will receive 28,000 acres of land located in the Tiak District of the Ouachita National Forest in McCurtain County, OK. The Tiak District was hand planted in pine timber and has been managed commercially in large blocks by the U.S. Forest Service for many years. In Arkansas, Weyerhaeuser will receive approximately 20,000 acres of scattered tracts located in Garland, Yell, and Perry Counties. I am committed to ensuring this proposal will not have an adverse impact on school district funding in southeastern Oklahoma. I am presently working with State and local officials, as well as the U.S. Forest Service and Weyerhaeuser, to guarantee an equitable and fair distribution of Forest Service timber receipt payments to local school districts. We are progressing positively and will attempt to reach an agreement before the exchange of lands is authorized to proceed. I have confidence in Weyerhaeuser's sound forest management practices and its commitment to replanting trees and protecting wildlife. I also have confidence in the U.S. Forest Service's ability to manage the land surrounding Broken Bow Lake as it becomes part of the Ouachita National Forest. I appreciate their commitment to managing our natural resources for the benefit of all citizens, including the development of tourism and recreation in the area. The Arkansas-Oklahoma Land Exchange Act of 1995 has the support of the Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, the Broken Bow Lake and Mountain Fork River Association, the Idabel Chamber of Commerce, the Broken Bow Chamber of Commerce, and the McCurtain County Chapter of Wild Turkey Federation.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, over time, serious problems have developed with the ways courts and consequently the Minerals Management Service [MMS] have interpreted the Federal statute of limitations governing royalty collection. Basically the issue is: At what time does the statute of limitations begin to run on the underpayment of royalties? Some courts claim that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the MMS ``should have known about the deficiency'' in the amount the producer has paid [Mesa v. U.S. (10th Cir. 1994)]. Other courts have held that the current six year statute ``is tolled until such time as the government could reasonably have known about a fact material to its right of action.'' [Phillips v. Lujan (10th Cir. 1993)]. Either of the above interpretations subject producers to unlimited liability--a period that well exceeds the statute of limitations on other agency actions regarding procedures. This situation has created a climate of deep uncertainty in the payment of royalties that was not intended by Congress and that is not in the best interests of consumers, producers, or ultimately the U.S. Government. Oil and gas producers pay billions of dollars every year for the opportunity to drill on Federal land. The payment of royalties is a routine part of doing business with the federal government. Their is no attempt here to alter that obligation to pay. However, like all other businesses, oil and gas producers need certainty in their business relationships and in their business transactions with the Federal Government. That certainty is not now present in the MMS's regulations or in numerous court decisions interpreting the applicable statute of limitations. Certainty can be achieved only through legislation. For that reason, I am introducing today the Royalty Fairness Act of 1995. The main objective of this legislation is to identify the time when the statute of limitations begins to run on royalty payments. In most cases, it will be when the obligation to pay the royalty begins. That will occur, in most instances, at the time of an underpayment of the royalty payment to the MMS. Let me summarize the effects and provisions of this bill: The bill establishes a 6-year statute of limitations for auditing royalty activities and correcting errors, defined to commence the month following the month of production. The bill also addresses the refund period for overpayments on OCS drilling. Currently, there is a 2-year period to file for an overpayment on offshore leases. Experience has shown that this period is too short and that, as a result, producers can lose legitimate refunds. To correct this problem, the bill extends the refund period from 2 to 3 years. This section also provides for routine crediting or offsetting of overpayments against payments currently due--something that is not permitted now for royalty payments but would increase the efficiencies of collection. An amendment to the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 [FOGRMA] is included to similarly shorten the time frame for producers to keep records. There is simply no need to keep records beyond the proposed 6-year statute of limitations. Interest reciprocity is established, but requires offsetting by both the lessee and the Secretary. This offsetting procedure applies to all overpayments and underpayments at the lessee level for all federal leases of the same category prior to determining the ``net'' overpayment or underpayment which is subject to interest. The Act allows the Secretary to waive interest. Currently, the law is interpreted to require the collection of interest in all cases. That interpretation has made it difficult to resolve payment issues or settle disputed claims. Thus, this section is intended to facilitate the settlement of payments and disputes. Furthermore, the Act provides an inducement for MMS to resolve administrative proceedings in a diligent timeframe (3 years). There is currently no such inducement; in fact, the MMS in many instances tolls its decisions indefinitely. This bill provides for the imposition of civil or criminal penalties upon a showing of willful misconduct or gross negligence. Currently penalties or assessments are imposed without notice or an opportunity to be heard. This section provides for due process. No section of this bill allows for reduced royalties either before or after production is commenced. It does, however, eliminate the need to give formal notice before seeking enforcement of the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act [OCSLA]. These are the major provisions of the Act. It covers leases administered by the Secretary of the Interior on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf but specifically excludes Indian lands. The MMS has made a number of attempts to correct these problems, and currently it has several information policies that parallel many of the provisions in this bill. However, there will be no permanent solution until Congress enacts legislation. The bill has strong support among oil and gas producers. I am confident that creating a climate of certainty in the oil and gas industry and getting rid of some inconsistencies in current regulation is very much in the national economic interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. First, I wish to join my colleagues in complimenting Senator Domenici for his stewardship of this budget because this is truly a historic budget. I have been in the Senate 15 years. We never passed a budget that anyone could really credibly call a balanced budget. This one we can. The Congressional Budget Office says this is a balanced budget. This is truly an historic occasion. This is the first budget I have voted for that will curtail the growth of entitlements. Every other budget, including those under the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, and the Clinton administration never attempted to reduce the rate of growth of entitlement programs. In this budget we have done just that. I compliment the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, and also Senator Dole, as well as our colleagues in the House, because everyone has been a contributing partner in this budget. The House is passing the budget right now. And my hope is that we will pass it in a couple of hours. Mr. President, I think we are making history. I think we are making the right kind of history. The American people have asked for a balanced budget. And we are finally going to start delivering. When we debated a couple months ago on the floor of the Senate whether or not to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, many people on both sides of the aisle said we should balance the budget regardless of whether or not we have a constitutional amendment. And I agreed with that statement. However, we have to vote yes today in order to achieve that balanced budget. I hope our colleagues on both sides will support this budget resolution because it is the only resolution that leads towards a balanced budget. President Clinton, during his campaign talked about balancing the budget. The budget that he proposed in February of this year was not a balanced budget. As a matter of fact, the deficit under this budget increased every single year, from $200 billion to almost $300 billion. The budget that he introduced very late in the game, just a few weeks ago, would balance the budget over 10 years according to his estimates. But according to CBO he did not balance the budget. CBO says the deficit under the President's new plan would stay in the $200 billion range forever. So it is not a balanced budget. He has suggested basically a perpetual deficit of a couple hundred billion dollars. The only budget proposal that will get anywhere close to a balanced budget is the one that we have before us. The compromise between the House and the Senate calls for a balanced budget by the year 2002. Some people, said why did you pick the year 2002? That was the date proposed in the constitutional amendment. Sixty-six senators agreed to balance by that date. That is what we have done in this resolution. Mr. President, I will insert in the Record three or four charts that show the facts, because I heard my colleague from Minnesota say that this budget did not do very much, or it cut too much in some areas. I want to give people the facts. First, I just want to compare this budget agreement to President Clinton's latest budget in June. You will see in this chart that our budget has a steady decline in the deficit. Every single year under our budget we have a steady decline in deficit figures to where we get to a balanced budget by the year 2000. In the President's budget, the deficit stays in the $200 billion range. These are the figures. These are the facts. I will put these numbers in the Record. I think people are entitled to their own opinion. I do not think they are entitled to their own facts. I heard my colleague from Minnesota say we are slashing Medicare, we are slashing Medicaid and slashing student loans and slashing several other programs. Mr. President, I do not consider those comments to represent the facts. When you talk about these programs, you have to consider how much money we are spending this year and how much money we are spending next year. If we are spending more money next year, I do not consider that slashing a program. I will put another table in the Record which compares what we are going to be spending under this budget compared to if we actually froze spending. We are going to increase spending in Social Security compared to 1995 levels, $556 billion. Under Medicare we are going to spend $355 billion more than this year. In other words, every single year we will spend more. I am going to print those facts in the Record. Medicare, for example: Spending in 1996 goes up $13 billion compared to 1995; 1997, $24 billion; 1998, $36 billion; 1999, $48 billion. All increases over the 1995 level--and I could go on --we will spend a total of $355 billion more in Medicare than what we would have spent if we had a straight freeze. Under Medicaid, we will spend $149 billion more than we would if we froze Medicaid for 7 years. I heard my colleague from Minnesota say this budget spends billions more on defense. He said the Pentagon. He said we are spending $58 billion more in the Pentagon. Mr. President, that is not a fact, or he is using some weird baseline. The facts are, in defense we are spending $270 billion this year. In the [[Page S 9383]] year 2002, we are going to spend $271 billion, and spending actually declines in the interim. We are actually going to spend $13 billion less. In other words, if we froze defense at this year's level for 7 years, we would spend $13 billion more than we would under this budget. So my colleague said we are spending $58 billion more, but not more compared to 1995. Defense would do much better if we froze it at 1995 levels and left it at that level, with no adjustments for inflation. I know I heard my colleague from Minnesota say we are spending $58 billion more for the Pentagon. Not so. We are going to spend $355 billion more in Medicare, $149 billion more in Medicaid, and spend actually $13 billion less in defense. Mr. President, those are the facts. Again, people certainly are entitled to their opinion. If you use a baseline, you should use a baseline of what we are spending this year, so if you have an increase from this year, it is an increase; if you are spending less than this year, that is a decrease, not some hypothetical baseline that is inflated for all kinds of things. I will make another comment on Medicare. I hear a lot of colleagues say these are draconian cuts in Medicare. Medicare per capita spending in 1995 is $4,816. In the year 2002, it will be $6,734. That is a significant increase, almost $2,000 more per capita after 7 years in Medicare than we are spending today. That is an increase in every single year. Some of our colleagues say that is a draconian cut. I do not think so. I might mention, too, Mr. President, if we do not do something in Medicare, we have serious problems. We are walking away from a problem because Medicare, according to the President's own trustees, is going bankrupt; it is going broke. Actually, in the year 1997, the Medicare trust fund starts spending more money than is coming in, and it begins to drain the so-called trust funds. Frankly, there are no magical trust funds, there is simply an IOU in the account, and we will have to borrow money to redeem that IOU. By the year 2002, the $125 billion IOU is gone. Medicare cannot borrow from other trust funds. So we have two options, you either reduce the rate of growth of spending in Medicare or you increase payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are already pretty high and most of us do not think that is the right solution. Most people say keep the funds solvent by reducing the rate of growth of spending in Medicare. Under our proposal, we allow Medicare spending to grow by 6.4 percent annually, which is two or three times the rate of inflation projected for the outyears. So let us be responsible, let us save the Medicare system. It is going broke right now. If we do nothing, as originally proposed under President Clinton's budget in February, the system will go broke. It will not be able to pay hospital and doctor bills, and that is not responsible. That is not an acceptable solution. I just hope my colleagues will think a little bit about what we are doing today and remember some of the speeches we make back in our home States before the chambers of commerce and the rotary clubs that we believe in a balanced budget; we do not think the Government should spend more than it takes in. We have a chance today to substantiate that belief. We have a chance today to say, ``Let us live within our means.'' I will say this budget may not be perfect. I heard some other colleagues say, ``I don't agree with each particular part of the budget.'' This budget is just a guideline. The authorizing committees are going to have to make the tough decisions. The authorizing committees are going to have to make decisions about where we are going to cut spending, how we are going to allocate it, how we are going to reduce the rate of growth in some of these entitlement programs. We do not do that here. That process will occur in a reconciliation bill, and the President will have to sign it. We keep hearing rumors that he will not sign it. I think that would be irresponsible. We have to adopt this budget today, which is a tough vote for some, but the tougher votes will be in the reconciliation package. I hope my colleagues stand up and say, ``Let's work together.'' I see my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey. He, Senator Simpson, and others, have talked about significant entitlement reform, and I compliment them. Many of us talked at various times in the past about working in a bipartisan fashion to see if we can balance the budget. Let us be responsible. Let us not continue to pile up trillions of dollars of debt. Today is the first step. Today we have to pass the budget resolution, and sometime probably in September we have to pass a reconciliation package to make it happen. I hope we will show courage today, and I hope we will show courage in September to truly get us on a path to balancing the budget in a responsible way; not by taking taxes from hard-working Americans, but by reducing the rate of growth of spending. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the charts to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I take the floor today to introduce a bill which will turn the management responsibilities of the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over to the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. This legislation responds to unacceptable policies promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Service in their management of national wildlife refuges. During the past several years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has attempted to restrict public access and traditional activities on our wildlife refuge preserves. Long-allowed public uses on refuges such as wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, hiking, grazing, and boating, have come under close scrutiny and curtailment. These short-sighted restrictions proposed by the administration's political appointees have resulted in unnecessary burdens and pressures on the public who use and benefit from our wildlife refuges. What the Fish and Wildlife Service fails to realize is that the taxpayers own and finance the refuge lands. Outdoor recreation contributes significantly to local economies and local support for the refuges. Allowing traditional activities, such as fishing and boating at Tishomingo, is integral in maintaining continued public support and funding for the refuge system. Due to ill-advised changes in Federal management practices during the last 10 years, wildlife populations on the Tishomingo refuge have severely declined. The State of Oklahoma, however, presently provides suitable habitats for wildlife resources across the State and currently manages 650,000 acres of Federal land. State officials have assured me that they will improve habitat conditions for wildlife at the refuge and work to reverse the negative impact of inadequate Federal management. My legislation will ensure limited Federal funding for the Tishomingo Refuge and will ultimately result in significant savings to the Federal Government. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation can manage the refuge more efficiently and with fewer taxpayer dollars. Specifically, my bill stipulates annual funding be made available to the State in the amount of 50 percent of the refuge's current operating costs. In conclusion, I believe the State of Oklahoma can manage the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge in an efficient and cost-effective manner and do so with fewer employees than the Federal Government. Local management will result in better communication between the managers of the refuge and the public. Those responsible for managing our national refuges must be held accountable to the needs of the public they serve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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

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

Mr. NICKLES. That is correct. Amendment No. 1465 (Purpose: To improve the bill)

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be happy to inform my colleagues. The essence of the amendment is to allow States that do not have Amtrak service to use some of their mass transit moneys to subsidize Amtrak service. Senator D'Amato indicated some reservations about it. We are trying to work with him. Hopefully, we will have that worked out in a few moments.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, I wish to thank my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, as well as Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes, for their supporting this amendment and cooperating with us in the drafting of this amendment. This amendment, basically, would allow States to use their mass transit funds to subsidize Amtrak. Many States, as you know, have had reductions in Amtrak. There happen to be 3 States in the lower 48 that do not have Amtrak. We have narrowed this amendment to apply to those three States that do not have Amtrak where they could use mass transit funds to subsidize Amtrak acquisition. I am pleased this amendment is supported. This will help us in our State to regain Amtrak. We are the only State in the Nation that has had Amtrak and lost it. It will allow us to use mass transit--we only receive $3 million now, we contribute $30 million but only get $3 million back--this will allow us to use part of that money to subsidize Amtrak and bring about the day when we have restoration of Amtrak in my State. I wish to compliment my colleagues for management of this bill. They have shown great patience and forbearance. A lot had different ideas. I introduced legislation some time ago to allow the States to set speed limits, thereby repealing the Federal national speed limit. That was adopted by this body. I think it is a giant step in the right direction. I am pleased it is part of this package. I look forward to the final action and completion of this bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Dr. Foster was vice chair of the medical society where they were being briefed on the syphilis study in 1969, yet Dr. Foster emphatically says, ``I was not there.'' He was not there. He performed a delivery that day. It turns out that the time of delivery that day did not coincide with the birth record of that child. There are so many inconsistencies, so many downright misstatements of fact. It leads me to conclude that Dr. Foster should not be confirmed. Maybe one that troubles me, maybe it troubles me more than others, deals with the sterilization of the mentally retarded. This is sterilizing mentally retarded women without their consent. Dr. Foster admits doing this. As a matter of fact, in the summer of 1974 he read a paper to a medical association that said, ``Recently, I have [[Page S 8733]] begun to use hysterectomy in patients with severe mental retardation.'' Since then, both Dr. Foster and the White House said, well, that was medically accepted, that procedure was in the medical mainstream. That is false. That is outright false. As a matter of fact, in Alabama, that summer the law on sterilization shifted dramatically and practices that were formerly perhaps part of the medical mainstream were no longer. I have a whole list, including the case in June 1973, where Mary Alice Relf, age 12, and Minnie Relf, age 14, were surgically sterilized in a hospital in Montgomery, AL. To make the story short, this case went to court. This was in June 1973. HEW regulations were sought to protect the rights of all persons, including the mentally retarded, with respect to sterilizations paid for with Federal funds. However, those regulations did not take effect because the Federal district court in Washington, DC, in March 1974, found HEW had no authority to fund any nonconsensual sterilization whatever.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, if we look at the inconsistencies, they said sterilization for the mentally retarded was in the medical mainstream. It was not. There were court cases saying, ``No, do not do it.'' HEW said, ``We will not do it or fund it.'' Dr. Foster was making speeches to medical associations saying, ``We are doing it.'' There were cases, and there was an outcry against this activity. If we look at this, if we look at the inconsistencies of his statements on what happened on the number of abortions, if we look at the syphilis study where he said, ``I don't know anything about it,'' and Dr. McRae and others say, ``Yes, he was informed about it,'' I think there are so many inconsistencies we really have serious questions about his honesty to Congress and to the American people. Therefore, I happen to agree with the New York Times in their editorial that I read from, and their editorial today which states that Dr. Foster should not be confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. NICKLES. First, I wish to compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Coats, for his work on this nomination. I also would like to clarify a couple of statements that have been made by some of the proponents of the nomination. I heard some of the proponents say this nomination is about Presidential politics. I disagree. I have seen politics play a part in previous nominations for different things. But I will tell you as a person who has been involved in some of the battles on the office of Surgeon General in the past, I do not think this is about Presidential politics. I remember Dr. C. Everett Koop, who eventually was confirmed for Surgeon General, but he was held up for months, almost a year. I remember Dr. Elders. I was involved in slowing down that nomination. I tried to defeat it. I tried to use parliamentary procedures, and I slowed it down for several months, because I thought she was the wrong person to be Surgeon General. That was not about Presidential politics, although people said that on the floor. Dr. Elders alluded to it being about race. And that was wrong. She was the wrong nominee and she was the wrong Surgeon General. She made a lot of statements, both prior to her confirmation and after her confirmation, that proved she was the wrong person to be Surgeon General. And, Mr. President, I state that Dr. Foster is the wrong person to be Surgeon General. He should not be confirmed. It does not have anything to do with Presidential politics. He should not be confirmed. Why? I do not think we can trust him. I think time and time again he has made statements that have proven not to be truthful. I do not think he has been honest. I do not think he leveled with the Congress or with the American people. I do not think somebody should be confirmed if they cannot tell the truth. That does not mean he is not a nice guy, or that he has not done some good things. But if a person does not tell the truth, then they should not be confirmed to a high-level office. As a matter of fact, I terminate the employment of people if they do not tell the truth. I think that telling the truth is a basic requirement. You might say, well, where are you getting these facts, and where are these things coming from, and is this not just based on opinions not fact? Well, a lot of it comes from Dr. Foster himself. A lot of the statements he has made on very sensitive, important issues have been misleading, at best. A lot of people have said this issue is about abortion because a lot of people [[Page S 8732]] do not want to have somebody who has performed abortions be Surgeon General. I agree. I do not want to have an abortionist as Surgeon General. But I also will say that with the numbers in the Senate, that probably would not necessarily disqualify somebody or mean they could not get the votes to be confirmed. But what about when you have statements like, maybe I have performed one abortion--that came out of the White House. Then we had a statement issued by the White House and by Dr. Foster, and I will read this statement. They have a printed statement on February 3, 1995 that says: In that period of almost three decades as a private practicing physician, I believe that I performed fewer than a dozen pregnancy terminations. Fewer than a dozen. This is a release to try to stop the discussion of how many abortions Dr. Foster had performed, because they had a problem with their nomination. And then I find out in a Department of Health-HHS hearing, Ethics Advisory Board, on November 10, 1978, Dr. Foster talks about doing about 700 or so abortions. So to quote, it says, ``I have done a lot of amniocentesis and therapeutic abortions, probably near 700.'' That was Dr. Foster. What was the response? First the White House said, ``He was not there.'' ``It was not Dr. Foster.'' Then, ``He is misstated or misquoted and did not remember making the comments.'' But it is in this record. The White House was saying it is not true. It turns out, I think, that it is. In Dr. Foster's statements on abortion, he is misleading Congress and the American people. On ``Nightline'' he said, ``I have done fewer than 39 abortions.'' Well, he was not counting those 700 or so he referred to in his testimony before the Ethics Advisory Board nor was he counting the abortions that occurred during a study he headed at Meharry, where over 50 abortions were caused by use of a suppository. And then also in Dr Foster's statements, he says, ``Well, I am not about abortion. I abhor abortion. I am against it.'' And then I look at some of the statements he made about the suppository, talking about, how this suppository can induce abortion in 1 to 7 hours and could be available for prescription in 36 months. We are going to have suppositories where everybody can get abortions; they can be quick, easy, and cheap. He made that statement. So I am thinking, wait a minute, how is this consistent with ``I abhor abortion,'' but he is doing a study to see if we can have a suppository to make it available to everybody. Then I go back to a statement the White House released that said, ``I have done fewer than a dozen.'' On ``Nightline,'' he said, ``I did 39.'' And then we read a transcript saying he did 700. Then he is doing a study on a suppository where it could be cheap, free, and available to everyone. Then I am when I read what Dr. Foster stated on February 27, 1995-- that he is fighting mad at ``white right-wing extremists that are using my nomination to achieve their radical goals.'' That reminds me of some of the statements that Dr. Elders made. Who is he talking about? I am opposed to his nomination for a lot of reasons, but I have never put myself in that category. I do not know that people would put the New York Times in that category. Generally, it is a fairly liberal paper--editorially, at least. On February 10, the New York Times says, talking about Dr. Foster: Although Dr. Foster is a highly respected obstetrician, his lack of candor about his abortion record disqualifies him from serious consideration. Misleading statements by candidates for high positions simply cannot be condoned. They go on: Of course, the chief blame for this debacle lies with the White House, which once again put forth a nominee without adequately vetting the person's background or knowing the answers to potentially explosive questions. As a result, the administration put out false information on the number of abortions performed by Dr. Foster. They summarize and say, ``It is time to withdraw the nomination.'' I think they were correct. However, the White House did not withdraw the nomination. They have been fighting for this nomination. They think this is important. They have tried to turn this into all kinds of different philosophical battles. They are wrong. Some of my other colleagues have raised issues concerning credibility. I think there is a real credibility problem. Concerning the syphilis study, Dr. Foster stated, ``I didn't know about that until 1972 when it became public.'' Yet, I do not think that is the truth. Dr. McRae, who was president of the medical society at the time of the study, stated in a letter on February 28, 1995, ``I sat at the end of the table, and Dr. Foster sat some two chairs down from me on the left.'' I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Let me make some more comments and then I will. They say, if this bill passes, 4,750 people are going to die every year. I think that comment is absurd. Are we taking a position that we need to have the National Government mandate speed limits because States do not care about safety, States do not care about fatalities? Again, I find that absurd. I go back to the Constitution on occasion, and I read in the 10th amendment, it says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Why not allow the States and the people to make this decision? Our forefathers, I think, would be shocked to find out that we have national speed limits, we have the Federal Government making all kinds of constraints and saying, ``Well, if you don't comply, you don't get your money.'' The money was raised within the States from a State-generated tax on gasoline primarily to fund the highway program. That money is sent to Washington, DC, and before Washington, DC, will send it back, you have to comply and if you do not comply, you do not get the money. Uncle Sam is putting the strings in, Uncle Sam, big Government, saying, ``States, you must do this, and if you don't, you won't get your money back or we are going to withhold some money.'' We are telling the States, the State legislatures and State Governors, ``Well, we don't care, we're going to mandate, we're going to tell you exactly what you have to do.'' To get to this figure of 4,750 people I think is just ludicrous. Look at the statistics. In 1965, we had over 50,000--about 51,000-- fatalities on our highways. In 1974, when we imposed the national speed limit, it had already dropped to 45,000. It declined fairly consistently throughout, and today the number of fatalities is a little over 40,000. There has been a consistent decline for a lot of different reasons: automobiles are built safer, we have airbags, we have more divided highways--there are many different reasons. Some people are driving slower; some people are driving faster. The real issue we are going to vote on today is not what the national speed limit should be but if the States should make the decision or should we have it mandated by the Federal Government. That is the decision. The committee properly recommended that the States should make the decision. Mr. President, I am going to have printed in the Record an article from the Washington Times by Stephen Chapman entitled ``Clocking the 55-Mile-an-Hour Debate.'' It mentions that opponents are going to say, ``We are concerned about safety.'' I am concerned about safety. I have children who are driving on the highways. I want those highways to be safe. I just happen to think the State of Oklahoma or the State of Virginia is just as concerned about safety as the Federal Government, and maybe those States will want to increase the speed limits, if they think it is safe and prudent to do so, if the highway is built well. Or maybe they will not. Maybe they will be convinced that if we have increased speed limits, we will have an increased number of fatalities. If they do not want to increase the speed limit, that is their decision, and I can abide by it. For people to say we did have over 50,000 fatalities in the sixties and then 45,000 in 1974 and now it is 40,000, but if we do not have a national speed limit, we assume it is going to jump up to 45,000, makes no sense whatsoever. That is not sustainable. For the national highway transportation people to make that kind of allegation I think is ludicrous. It shows they are against the amendment. Well, this administration is for more Government. They like the idea of the Federal Government making decisions instead of the States making decisions. Many Governors do not agree, Democrat and Republican Governors. Mr. President, I have numerous letters from Governors, from a variety of States, Democrats and Republicans, who are supportive of allowing the States to make these decisions. Lawton Chiles, a former Senator and now Governor of the State of Florida, says: Recognizing the national maximum speed limit is one of 19 mandates in current Federal law which threatens to sanction States with the loss of transportation funds, the State of Florida would clearly prefer an incentive approach over mandated activities. What we have right now is a mandated activity. I have a letter from the Governor of the State of Maine, Angus King, who says: As Governor, I am striving to not only gain empowerment for the State of Maine from Federal restrictions but to pass that right to Maine's citizens who truly know best what their needs are. Therefore, I do support your proposed legislation and would recommend its passage. The proposed legislation is to allow the States to set the speed limits. Governor Engler of the State of Michigan says: [[Page S 8647]] My administration is a strong proponent of States rights and an active opponent of unfunded Federal mandates. This is an unfunded mandate. Continuing with Governor Engler's letter: Speeding is a factor in one-third of all fatal crashes. I believe, however, that speed variance and violators are the major causes, not the setting of higher speed limits. In addition, I believe that individual States are better prepared to identify safe speeds for the roadways than the Federal Government. That is the point I am making. I know the Governors are just as concerned with safety and fatalities on their roadways as this body is, as the Federal Government is. I have a letter from the State of Montana, Governor Racicot. He talks about Montana being a large, sparsely populated State with hundreds of highway miles through rural areas: The Governor writes, The diverse terrain and widely varying population across our State make enforcing a single speed limit based solely on the type of highway difficult, if not impossible. And a speed limit set with large eastern cities in mind often doesn't make sense in Montana. I think he is correct. I have additional letters from the Governor from the State of South Carolina, Governor Beasley and the Governor from the State of New Hampshire, Governor Merrill. I will just read this one paragraph from Governor Merrill: In addition to feeling the States should set their own speed limits, I also believe motorist compliance, or noncompliance, with those speed limits should not be related to the withholding of construction funds awarded to individual States. I think he is correct. I have a letter from Fife Symington, Governor of the State of Arizona, a letter of support from the Governor of the State of Tennessee, Governor Sundquist. I will read one comment: I agree with you that authority regarding speed limits should not be imposed by the Washington bureaucracy, but should be regulated by each State who understands their own transportation needs and who knows what restrictions are best for their citizens. I have a letter from Governor Keating of my State of Oklahoma. He goes on: As you know, Federal mandates and penalties for noncompliance are a constant threat to Oklahoma's ability to build, maintain and manage highways effectively. Also, a letter from Governor Glendening of Maryland: Sanctions which reduce critically needed transportation funds are counterproductive. Again, I think he is right. I happen to think the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Oklahoma, and the Governor of Montana are just as concerned--frankly, I think they are more concerned--than we are with highway safety within their States. Again, I want to make clear that all of my colleagues are aware of the fact this bill we have before us, reported out of the committee, does not raise the national speed limit to 65, does not raise it to 70, does not raise it to 80. It says, ``States, you make the decision.'' We have a little bit of confidence in the States. We think that is a decision that is more properly reserved to the States than the Federal Government. Very plain, very simple. The people who are proposing this amendment obviously feel the Federal Government should make the mandate and enforce the mandate and say, ``If you do not comply with posting, we are going to take your money away. If you do not comply with enforcement''--now under the proposal before us, under the Lautenberg proposal, it says you have to post the speed limit at 55, the national speed limit, but you do not really have to comply with it, we are going to leave compliance to the States. I think that is going to create a contempt for the law. Why not allow the States to set the speeds limits, post the speed limits and enforce the speed limits? To end up saying we are not going to have any sanctions on enforcement but you are going to have to post limits I think is a mistake. Therefore, if the State of Montana wants to have a speed limit of 65 they could legally have zero fine or penalty for exceeding the speed limit. That is going to create contempt for the law. Maybe it is an effort to compromise, I do not know. I think it is a mistake. I think it is defying States saying, we do not think you can do the job; we are going to do it for you. We are going to tell you that you must do that. I disagree with that. I think the forefathers and the 10th amendment of the Constitution says all rights and powers are reserved to the people and the States. Our forefathers are right. Why do we come in and micromanage and dictate what they must do to get their money back, money that came from constituents in those States? I might also mention that many States do not get their money back. A lot of States are so-called donor States: They pay a dollar in taxes to Washington, DC, and get 90 cents back. They are shortchanged from the start and then with the 90 cents they get back, they must comply with a lot of Federal regulations. Complying with the Federal speed limit is just one such mandate. I might also mention that it is a national speed limit law that is not complied with. I am not shocking anybody by saying that. But if you drive 55 on a lot of our highways around the country today, you will find that you are not going with the prevailing speed. Again, I am not one that says the speed limit should be higher; I am one who says the States should make that decision. The States should make that decision, not the Federal Government. So I urge my colleagues, when we vote a little later, to vote ``no'' on the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment. Finally, Mr. President, I want to print one additional article in the Record. The article is in today's Washington Times entitled, ``Why Do We Still Have to Drive 55?'' I will just read this one paragraph: For example, after Congress gave the States the authority to raise the speed limit on selected rural interstates to 65 mph in 1987, a study done by the American Automobile Association in 1991 found that the fatalities in these regions fell by 3 percent, to 5 percent overall--thus belying the conventional wisdom that ``speed kills.'' The author states in a further paragraph: ``Fifty-five'' is almost universally despised, fosters contempt for legitimate authority and, paradoxically, probably increases the number of accidents because frustrated drivers tailgate, swerve and pull other maneuvers to get around the car ahead that's dawdling in the fast lane. I ask unanimous consent the two articles, as well as the letters from several Governors in support of allowing the States to make the decision, be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have no objection to the modification, and I move to table the Lautenberg amendment, as modified.