Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. NICKLES. There are 40,000, 41,000 auto fatalities.

Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator say according to NHTSA there would be a 30-percent increase in fatalities?

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. NICKLES. I yield 5 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of discussion, primarily on the part of the proponents of the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment, talking about saving lives. I can sincerely say I want to save as many lives as anybody else in this body. I think the States are just as interested, if not more interested, in saving lives than we are in the Federal Government. I know if a person is the Governor of Missouri or the Governor of Montana or Governor of New Jersey, he wants to save lives in his State, probably, maybe more than we do as a collective body. It is very close. It is personal. Those are their constituents. To be perfectly clear, we are saying the States should make that decision, not the Federal Government. We should not have this Federal mandate. Some people say if you increase the speed limits--we are not increasing the speed limits. We allow the States to make that decision. If the State of Virginia decides they want to have a uniform rate they can have a uniform rate. If the State of Virginia wants to have it at 55 they can have it at 55. If they want to have it at 40 they can have it at 40. They should have that right. It is a question of who makes that decision, the Federal Government or the State government. Our forefathers, in the 10th amendment of the Constitution, clearly said all other rights and powers are reserved to the States and to the people. Yet we have this national speed limit. What is right for New Jersey may not be what is right for Oklahoma or Montana or Nevada. I might mention, too, if you want to be ludicrous--people say we can save lives. You can pass a speed limit and say the national speed limit is going to be 20 miles an hour and you might be able to save 30,000 lives. We have 40,000 fatalities per year. If you set the national speed limit at 15 miles an hour you might not have any fatalities. Maybe some people would not comply with the law. They are not complying with this law. There is a lot of contempt right now for the law because people are not complying with it. Under the Lautenberg proposal you would have even more contempt because we are telling the States you must post what we think is in your best interests. We are telling you, you must post 55 miles per hour in your areas except for rural interstates and then you can post 65 mph limits. I was the sponsor of the amendment that allowed the States to go to 65. I do not hear anybody saying we should repeal that. What about lives? If you want to make a real change, come up with an amendment that allows us to set the national speed limit at 30 miles an hour or 20 miles an hour and we will really save lives. At what expense? What loss of freedom? Again, who should be making this decision? That is what the real issue is about, which group will make that decision? Are we going to allow the States to have the decision or are we going to mandate, as under the present law, that the Federal Government makes the decision? Under the Lautenberg amendment we tell the States you must post national speed limits and we do not care whether you comply with them or not, or enforce them or not. That is going to breed contempt for the law. That makes very little sense. I do not like the States enforcing a national speed limit, but I do not like the Federal Government setting a national speed limit. Those are two things the Federal Government really should not do, and we are going to confuse the situation even further. You must impose limits but not enforce them, so you are going to have contempt for the law. That is the Lautenberg amendment. That makes no sense. The committee came out with the right approach. The committee said, ``Let us let the States make the decisions. We have confidence in States.'' Many of us have worked in State government. We have many Members of this body who are former Governors who have every bit as much concern over the health and safety of their constituents as we do on the Federal level. Let us allow them to make the decision, as I believe our forefathers would have wanted us to. This should not be mandated by the Federal Government. So I hope we will give the States that opportunity to set the limits. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend. Mr. President, let me state that I have been in Oklahoma and I have been asked repeatedly at community meetings, Should the State set the speed limits, or should the Federal Government set the speed limits? It has been strongly supported that the States should make that decision, not the Federal Government. [[Page S 8653]]

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield to me just to respond?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg- DeWine amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no. I might ask the sponsors of the amendment, Do we have a time set for the vote on Lautenberg? I understand from the manager of the bill, Senator Baucus, we do not have a time set for that vote, but I would just urge my colleagues when we do vote on it to vote no. I compliment the committee for taking their position. The committee's position was not to raise speed limits. The bill that we have before us does not raise speed limits. It allows the States to set the speed limits. There is a big difference. Some of my colleagues are assuming that we will have a national speed limit, if this bill passes as it is, of 65 or 70 miles an hour. That is not the case. The case is which jurisdiction of government should properly make this decision? Should it be decided by the Federal Government and mandated by the Federal Government? Or should it be decided by the States? That is what the vote is: Who should set the national speed limit or who should set speed limits. Should it be a national mandate or should we allow States to make the decision? To have individuals talking about a 30-percent increase in fatalities due to speeding, I think, is hogwash. What makes you think the States are going to increase the speed limit? Maybe they will if it is strongly supported in their States and the State highway administration thinks it is safe. Maybe they will.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk electing Kelly Johnston Secretary of the Senate and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one, I wish to congratulate Kelly Johnston for now being named and appointed Secretary of the Senate. I have had the privilege of knowing Kelly Johnston for several years. He is an outstanding individual. I have had, indeed, the honor of having him be the executive director of the Republican Policy Committee for the last 3 years, where he did an outstanding job in serving all Republican Senators. Now as Secretary of the Senate, I am confident he will do an outstanding job serving the entire family of the Senate. It gives me a great deal of pleasure not only to recommend Kelly Johnston for this position, but to see that he is now Secretary of the Senate. Mr. President, I also acknowledge that his family is here, most of whom are from Oklahoma. We are delighted to have them join us as well, his wife Adrienne and his parents. They, indeed, I know, are very, very proud of Kelly Johnston for his service and for his selection for this position. I would also like to compliment Sheila Burke for her service as Secretary of the Senate and also as chief of staff to the majority leader. She had two very big jobs and she has carried them out exceptionally well, and I compliment her.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk notifying the House of Representatives of the election of Kelly Johnston as Secretary of the Senate and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NICKLES. I again thank my colleagues. I thank Senator Dole for an outstanding selection. I know Senator Inhofe, Senator Dole, myself, Senator Lott, and Senator Thurmond are all very proud to have Kelly Johnston be the next Secretary of the Senate. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk notifying the President of the election of Kelly Johnston as Secretary of the Senate and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to compliment my friend and colleague from Arizona for his leadership. He brought this amendment to my attention. I told him I was not very familiar with it, but I told him I would do a little more homework. I have. I have become more convinced that he is on the right track. I talked to the Federal judge in the Western District of the State of Oklahoma, and I asked him about the number of appeals; prisoner petitions. We find out in the last 10 years they more than tripled, and have actually consumed about 25 percent of the work load in the western district. The court has before them hundreds of prisoner petitions and appeals that have to be reviewed. The Senator from Arizona makes an excellent point, and says the States have ajudicated these cases thoroughly. They have gone all the way through the State courts, through the appeals process, State supreme courts, and then all the way even--with capital punishment cases--to the Supreme Court. Yet, they continue to press, and want to run through the Federal court system as well where the Federal judges do not have time to go through the entire case, where there is almost a presumption that, if they have to do that, maybe the Federal Government knows better, which is not always correct. The Federal judges I have talked to said we are in serious need of habeas corpus reform. I compliment my friend and colleague from Arizona for, I believe, truly making more significant reform. I think Senator Hatch's bill has some good reform. I compliment him for it. The reforms in S. 735 will help expedite the procedures. There are time limits under the proposal now before us from the Senator from Utah. Senator Kyl's amendment would go much, much further. It would eliminate these hundreds of, in almost all cases--at least, in my State, frivolous petitions placed before the Federal courts, frivolous but yet they still take time. At 25 percent of the caseload, you are talking about a very significant amount of time and energy and dollars that now are being expended by frivolous appeals because many prisoners become quite good at filing petitions, and there is no limit whatsoever on the number of petitions that they can file. So I compliment my colleague from Arizona for his leadership and for coming up with very significant reform. I appreciate the fact that we have outstanding scholars such as Judge Bork and others who have endorsed the reforms in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I thank my friend and colleague from Utah for his leadership on this bill and for his willingness to bring it to the floor so quickly. I also thank Senator Dole, because I remember after the tragedy of April 19 in my State, talking to Senator Dole either that day or the next day, he stated to me his willingness to bring legislation forward to the Senate as quickly as possible. He has met that obligation. We do not usually move very fast in the Senate. I appreciate his willingness to schedule this as early as possible. I also appreciate the fact that finally we are going to bring this issue to a conclusion. It was my hope that we were going to finish it last night. I wanted to be in Oklahoma today because of some base closing hearings both in Enid and in Oklahoma City, Vance and Tinker Air Force bases. That is very important. But I feel like this issue is most important for my State and for many people across our country. It is vitally important that we enact habeas corpus reform. On Monday of this week I was honored to meet with about a dozen Oklahomans who had lost family members in the Oklahoma City bombing. These brave individuals came to their Nation's Capital to honor their loved ones by asking the U.S. Senate to do one meaningful thing--enact tough habeas corpus reform on the antiterrorism bill. There are several important parts of the bill that is before us, but the one key element that will help the victims of the Oklahoma City bomber and other victims of violent crime in habeas corpus reform. I will read a couple of the comments that some of the victim's families made: In Oklahoma City they had a press conference and came to the State capitol to urge Congress and the President to implement habeas corpus legislation that would significantly reduce the appeals process and expedite the imposition of death sentences. In strained, choked voices, they talked of the tragedy that tore at the city, leaving shattered families still only beginning to absorb the depths of their losses. Connie Williams wore a button with her dead son Scott's picture, bearing the words ``Beloved Scott, Our Special Angel.'' His pregnant wife, Nicole, said, ``I do not want his daughter to be in high school wondering why his killers are still on death row.'' She is right. Some of the families came up to our Nation's Capitol on Monday. One was Diane Leonard. Her statement was, ``Our pain and anger are great.'' Her husband is gone, a Secret Service agent killed in the bombing in Oklahoma City. I might mention he was an agent of the Secret Service for 25 years. She added, ``But it would be much, much greater if the perpetrators of this crime are allowed to sit on death row for many years.'' She is talking about the pain and anger are great, but it would be much greater if the perpetrators were allowed to sit on death row for many years. She is a former Tulsa resident. Diane Leonard, her voice cracking with emotion, described in graphic detail the injuries her husband suffered. She urged Senators to have the courage to amend the law to allow death sentences to be carried out in 2 or 3 years. I respect the fact that some of our colleagues feel differently on the death penalty. We have heard some of them speak eloquently today. They are opposed to habeas corpus reform in large part, in many cases, because they do not want the death penalty to ever be carried out. I respect their position, but I do not think they are correct. I think they are wrong. Mr. President, I fear that our criminal justice system is in critical condition. The past couple of years have shown a dip in America's crime rate, but over the course of years our crime rate has gone up and up and up. Today, an American is about 2\1/2\ times more likely to be a victim of a property crime than he or she was in 1960. Today, an American is about four times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime than he or she was in 1960. And in the face of these sobering numbers and the numbing real-life stories that appear on our television sets every night, our criminal justice system appears less and less able to dispense justice. This bill, if it contains tough, new habeas corpus reforms, can be an essential step along the path to reform. No adult in Oklahoma can consider the probable prospects for the Oklahoma City bomber without reflecting on the man who until a few weeks ago was Oklahoma's most notorious killer. That man is Roger Dale Stafford who, in 1978, murdered nine persons in two separate incidents. Roger Dale Stafford was given nine death sentences for those murders, but he is living still. Roger Dale Stafford does have an execution date; it is July 1, 1995. But Roger Dale Stafford has had execution dates before, and they all have come and gone. Whether this date will be the last I do not know for his attorney has announced that he will seek another stay of execution. Incidentally, this is the same attorney who has been appointed to represent Timothy James McVeigh, the man being held in connection with the Oklahoma City bombing. Roger Dale Stafford's crimes are well known in Oklahoma, but the fact that they are well known does not reduce their ability to shock and sadden anyone who hears of his wickedness. On June 21, 1978, after searching unsuccessfully for a business to rob, Roger Dale Stafford, his wife, Verna, and his brother, Harold, decided to stop their car, raise the hood, and feign distress, in hopes that a wealthy and vulnerable Good Samaritan would come and Verna Stafford attempted to flag down passing cars. Roger and Harold Stafford lay in wait in the darkness. Eventually, a blue Ford pickup truck with a white camper shell pulled off the road, and the driver, Air Force Sgt. Melvin Lorenz approached Verna Stafford with an offer to help. Sergeant Lorenz looked under the hood of the Stafford automobile and said that he could find nothing wrong. At that point, the Stafford brothers confronted Sergeant Lorenz and demanded his wallet. Roger Stafford was armed with a pistol. Sergeant Lorenz informed the Staffords that he and his family were on their way to his mother's funeral in North Dakota, and that he could give the appellant some money, but not all that he had. Roger Dale Stafford then shot Sergeant Lorenz twice, killing him. Hearing the shots, Linda Lorenz, Sergeant Lorenz's wife, got out of the pickup truck and ran toward her husband. Verna Stafford knocked Mrs. Lorenz to the ground, and Roger Stafford shot her as she fell, killing her. The murderers then heard a child calling from the back of the camper. Roger Stafford approached the camper, cut a hole in the screen, and fired his pistol into the darkness, forever silencing 11-year-old Richard Lorenz. For the Lorenz murders, Roger Dale Stafford was convicted on three counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death for each murder. That was first of Roger Dale Stafford's murderous episodes in Oklahoma. A month later, he struck again: On July 16, 1978, Roger, Verna, and Harold Stafford robbed the Sirloin Stockade Restaurant in Oklahoma City. The trio waited in the restaurant's parking lot until all the customers had left, then knocked on the side door of the restaurant. When the manager answered, he was greeted by Roger and Harold Stafford pointing guns at him. They forced him to take them to the cash register and the office safe. Harold and Verna Stafford held five employees at gun-point while Roger Stafford had the manager empty the office safe which contained almost $1300. All six employees were then ordered inside the restaurant's walk-in freezer. Once inside, Roger Stafford shot one of the hostages, then both men opened fire on the remaining employees. Roger Stafford told Verna that it was time for her to take part. He placed his gun in her hand and helped her pull the trigger. All six Sirloin Stockade employees died as a result of the shootings. They were: Terri Michelle Horst, age 15; David Gregory Salsman, age 15; David Lindsay, age 17; Anthony Tew, age 17; Louis Zacarias, age 46; and Isaac Freeman, age 56. For the Sirloin Stockade murders, Roger Dale Stafford was convicted on six counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death for each murder. As I said, Mr. President, Roger Dale Stafford lives still, and each day his penalty becomes farther and farther removed from the crimes for which it is so eminently justified. Justice still waits for Roger Dale Stafford. And, why the delay? Because since his convictions, Roger Dale Stafford has made at least 18 reported appearances in Federal and State courts. He has been before the U.S. Supreme Court six times--1985, 1985, 1985, 1984, 1984, 1984--before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit once, 1994, before the Oklahoma Supreme Court once, 1986, and before the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals nine times, 1993, 1992, 1991, 1990, 1987, 1985, 1985, 1983, 1983. This list does not include appearances which were not officially reported. It omits one pretrial appearance at an appellate court, 1979. And, it omits all activity at the trial courts. Mr. President, 17 years ago he murders teenagers, he murders an innocent family that is trying to help him out, and he is still on death row. That is not justice delayed, that is justice denied. What about the families that lost teenagers in that incident? What about the families that lost loved ones--178--in the Oklahoma City bombing incident; 178, with over 400 injured? Are we going to be telling them 15, 17, 20 years from now, ``Well, the appeals process is just very cumbersome,'' and have taxpayers paying not only the expense for taking care of the perpetrators of the crime, should they be convicted and receive the death sentences, as they surely should and hopefully will. What are we going to tell those families? I met with some of the victims that lost two children. I met with them Friday. A young lady in her early twenties lost both her kids. I met with a daughter that lost her father just last Monday. I met with three spouses that lost their spouse. One of the individuals that was here was an uncle who lost his nephew, whose wife is expecting. What about that child who will never see her father alive? Are we going to tell that child, ``Well, we are sorry, but the person that was responsible for murdering your dad is still in Federal court, he is still in prison living pretty well, watching TV; Uncle Sam, or the Government, is taking care of him, giving him three meals, making sure all his rights are protected,'' and allow him to abuse the process for 15 years or so? I do not think so. That is not justice to the families. That is not justice, period. So we need habeas corpus reform. We have needed it for a long time. I am glad the President has reversed himself and now agreed that we need this on this bill. This will allow the families to at least have some knowledge that there will be justice, and hopefully we will move very quickly. Mr. President, I want to make some general comments on habeas corpus reform because we have needed this for a long time. First, our habeas system does not promote justice. The availability of habeas corpus to State prisoners, beyond the various remedies and layers of review available in State courts, has little or no value in avoiding injustices or ensuring that the Federal rights of criminal defendants are respected. The typical applicant has already secured extensive review of his case in State courts, having pursued a State appeal and often having initiated collateral attacks in State courts. The claims raised by such defendants are normally without substance and are likely to be technical, that is, to allege procedural irregularities which cast no real doubt on the defendant's guilt. Let me just mention the cases in Oklahoma City. I talked to a Federal judge, the first judge I was responsible for getting appointed in Oklahoma. 1982 was his first year on the court. They had 193 prisoner appeals made to the Federal courts--193. That happened to be about 10 percent of their caseload. In 1992, 10 years later, they had 630. The number more than tripled, an increase to 25 percent of their caseload. Prisoners are finding it pretty easy to make appeals, and they are appealing to the Federal system. There is no limit to the number of appeals. They can appeal for anything. They can appeal on habeas that they were incorrectly convicted, or they can appeal and say that somebody next door is smoking or somebody next door has a radio too loud. And they take it all the way to the Federal court. That is happening hundreds of times. In Oklahoma City and the western district in 1992, there were 630 prisoner petitions. Some of the prisoners are specializing in this. There is nothing else to do. So they have legal access, they have access to the library, and they can abuse this process for all it is worth. And so what if it ties up the court? So what if it keeps them kind of busy? So what if they are as guilty as they possibly can be? So what if they have been convicted and gone through every appeal in the process and been to the Supreme Court? Roger Dale Stafford has had his case to the Supreme Court six times, and every time the Supreme Court said, ``Guilty.'' Yet he files another petition. I expect he has another one in the typewriter right now. It just so happens his attorney is a very competent, very professional, very good attorney, Steven Jones. He also happens to be the same attorney that will be defending Mr. McVeigh. I do not want the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing to have to wait 17 or 20 years for justice. That is why we need habeas corpus reform. Second, the habeas system demeans federalism. The present system of review is demeaning to the State courts and pointlessly disparaging to the efforts to comply with Federal law in criminal proceedings. A single Federal judge is frequently placed in the position of reviewing a judgment of conviction that was entered by a State trial appellate court, and upheld by a State supreme court. An independent determination of the contentions raised by the applicant is required of the Federal judge although he may have no doubt that the State courts were conscientious and fair. State judiciaries are presumed to be incapable of applying Federal law, or unwilling to do so. I know Senator Kyl will have an amendment later that would address that, and I compliment him for his amendment and plan to support him in his efforts. Third, habeas corpus defeats the demand for finality. The current system of Federal habeas corpus defeats the important objective of having an end to litigation. The costs of such a system were eloquently described by the late Justice John Harlan in Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 690-91 (1971): Both the individual criminal defendant and society have an interest in insuring that there will at some point be the certainty that comes with an end to litigation, and that attention will ultimately be focused not on whether a conviction was free from error but rather on whether the prisoner can be restored to a useful place in the community. * * * If law, criminal or otherwise, is worth having and enforcing, it must at some time provide a definitive answer to the questions litigants present or else it never provides an answer at all. * * * No one, not criminal defendants, not the judicial system, not society as a whole is benefitted by a judgment providing a man shall tentatively go to jail today, but tomorrow and every day thereafter his continued incarceration shall be subject to fresh litigation on issues already resolved. Fourth, habeas procedures are wasteful. The current system is wasteful of limited resources. At a time when both State and Federal courts face staggering criminal caseloads, we can ill afford to make large commitments of judicial and prosecutorial resources to procedures of dubious value in furthering the ends of justice. Such commitments come at the expense of the time available for the stages of the criminal process at which the questions of guilt and innocence and basic fairness are most directly addressed. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger made the following points: I know of no society or system of justice that takes such scrupulous care as we do to give every accused person the combination of procedural safeguards, free legal counsel, free appeals, free records, new trials and post conviction reviews of his case. I have seen cases--and this occurs in many courts today--where three, four, and five trials are accorded to the accused with an appeal following each trial and reversal of the conviction on purely procedural grounds. * * * In some of these multiple trial and appeal cases the accused continued his warfare with society for eight, nine, ten years and more. In one case more than 60 jurors and alternates were involved in five trials, a dozen trial judges heard an array of motions and presided over these trials; more than 30 different lawyers participated either as court- appointed counsel or prosecutors and in all more than 50 appellate judges reviewed the case on appeals. I tried to calculate the costs of all this for that one criminal act and the ultimate conviction. The best estimates could not be very accurate, but they added to a quarter of a million dollars. The tragic aspect was the waste and futility since every lawyer, every judge and every juror was fully convinced of the defendant's guilt from the beginning to the end.'' 25 Record of the N.Y.C. Bar Assoc. 14, 15-16 (Supp. 1970). Fifth, the way our habeas system is used nullifies capital sentences. The constitutionality of the death penalty has been settled since 1976. Thirty-eight States now authorize capital punishment, but the inefficiency of current court procedures has resulted in a de facto nullification of capital punishment laws. The public interest organizations that routinely involve themselves in capital cases have fully exploited the system's potential for obstruction. Delay is maximized by deferring collateral attack until the eve of execution. Once a stay of execution has been obtained, the possibility of carrying out the sentence is foreclosed for additional years as the case works its way through the multiple layers of State and Federal courts. Mr. President, this country desperately needs reform in its criminal justice system. Habeas corpus reform is an important part of that necessary reform, and this bill is an excellent place to start reforming habeas corpus. I agree with the families of the Oklahoma City dead: Habeas corpus reform is an inadequate, but necessary, memorial to the memories of those who died in that dreadful, murderous blast. Again, I compliment Senator Hatch for his leadership, and Senator Dole for bringing this to the floor of the Senate and Senator Dole for pushing the Senate for the last several days, including last night. I am glad that finally we are going to have this bill come to a conclusion and have cloture, and allow us to have habeas corpus reform which, again, in my opinion, is the most significant element of true crime control that we can enact. I am hopeful we can send a positive signal to the families of the victims in the Oklahoma City bombing and tell them that, yes, we are going to have an end to these endless appeals, and that justice will be done and it will be done, as President Clinton said, in a timely manner as well.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I wish to compliment Senator Hatch for his leadership on this bill, and I also compliment Senator Dole for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor and his willingness to bring it to the Senate this early.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be brief. We have one minute remaining and we will be voting at a time designated by the two leaders. It is vitally important we pass the budget. We have a chance for the first time in history to pass a budget that is going to call for a balanced budget. Many of us thought we should do that whether we passed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget or not. It is not possible to pass a balanced budget unless we curtail the growth of expensive programs. This program has been growing out of control. This program cost a few billion dollars a few years ago. It cost $25 billion this year. It will be costing $36 billion by the year 2002. We cannot continue that rate of growth. We have to slow it down. Under this proposal it continues to grow about $1 billion a year, not as rapidly as proposed under current law. We cannot sustain current law growth. We cannot sustain 55 percent growth per year, so this is an effort to curtail it. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?