Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I know of no other Senators who wish to speak on this issue. So I will yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet on Monday, March 27, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on supplemental security income (SSI).

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, upon the consideration of S. 219, the Regulatory Transition Act, I will offer along with my colleagues Senator Harry Reid, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison an amendment which provides for a 45-day congressional review of Federal regulations. During that time, Congress will be authorized to review and, potentially, reject regulations before they become final. This alternative provide an opportunity to move forward on the critical issue of regulatory reform in a bipartisan manner. I ask that following my statement the text of the amendment be printed in the Record. The proposed amendment follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Production and Regulation. The hearing will take place Thursday, March 30, 1995 at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 283, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to two hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania, and for other purposes, S. 468, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other purposes, S. 543, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Oregon, and for other purposes, S. 547, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadlines applicable to certain hydroelectric projects under the Federal Power Act, and for other purposes, S. 549, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas, S. 552, a bill to provide for the refurbishment and continued operation of a small hydroelectric facility in central Montana by adjusting the amount of charges to be paid to the United States under the Federal Power Act and for other purposes, S. 595, a bill to provide for the extension of a hydroelectric project located in the State of West Virginia. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Howard Useem at (202) 224-6567.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, Senator McCain, from Arizona, and I wish to join him in complimenting our friend and colleague, the Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe] for an outstanding speech. I agree with everything she said. It was not only a well-researched speech, but one that had great impact. I hope my colleagues will listen to it, and I hope the American people will listen to it. I also would like to compliment my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, for his courage in continuing to bring this issue to the floor of the Senate. He is doing it at some risk, politically. Certainly some risk to appropriation requests in his State. But he has not waivered. He has shown great conviction and courage in bringing this issue up because he believes in it. I respect him for that. I also happen to think he is right. I also wish to compliment Senator Coats from Indiana for his courage, as well. This issue is not easy. These two Senators have been bringing this issue to the forefront when it was most aggressively opposed by the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd. I remember various times when other Senators would oppose an amendment by these two Senators just because of the line-item veto. They might even agree with them on the underlying amendment, but they would oppose it because of their position on line-item veto. I just wish to compliment Senator McCain and Senator Coats. I hope that this year that their efforts will finally bear fruit, and we will pass a line-item veto. I think it is vitally important that we pass this legislation. It will save money, and I think we need to save money. We are spending too much. Our budget process does not work very well. A line-item veto is not a panacea. It will not solve all the problems, and it will not balance the budget. But it will help. I think the first and most important reform would be passing a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We tried. We fought that issue for a month. Unfortunately, we lost. It takes 67 votes. We had 66 votes. We had 98 percent of the Republicans vote with us on a balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, six of our Democrat colleagues changed position from last year, and so we lost. Maybe we will win later this year. Maybe we will win next year. Maybe we will win 2 years from now. I expect that we will. No later than 2 years from now, I think we will pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. What we can we do in the meantime? What are some other much-needed budget reforms? I think the budget scholars say, first and foremost, pass a line-item veto. I think it is vitally important to do so. I might note that most people on the Appropriations Committee say they do not agree with it. I have served on the Appropriations Committee. That committee used to have 29 members, but I believe it was reduced to 27. They probably work as hard as any committee in the Senate, and they are responsible for spending a little over $500 billion, about a third of what the Government spends right now. The members on that committee work long and hard hours. By and large, they do a pretty good job, and we usually pass about 15 or 16 appropriations bills, including supplementals. Some of these bills are small, in the couple billion-dollar range, and some are quite large, in the $200 or $300 billion range. But I will tell you from my experience, every single appropriations bill has had items in it that we need, and every single appropriations bill has had items we do not need and we cannot afford. If we give the President the line-item veto, we will allow him to be able to knock out or kill or strike those items that we cannot afford. We may or may not agree with him. If we disagree with him, we can try to override his veto. That is a process called checks and balances. Right now, we do not have checks and balances. Congress is writing all the checks, and there are very few balances. A whole lot of those checks are hot, or are paid for by borrowed money, and the President is given two options. We send the President 15 or 16 appropriations bills in the course of a year and he is given two options: One, he signs the entire package or, two, he vetoes the entire package. Some of these appropriations bills are thick; hundreds of pages, and some have thousands of lines in them. The President is not able to kill a program if he does not like it. He has to sign the entire bill or veto the entire bill. There are no checks and balances. He submits a budget and it is often ignored. Congress passes appropriations bills. Congress knows and the President knows, we have to pay the Secret Service, we have to pay the armed services, we have to pay for many vital Government functions, so he is reluctant to use the veto pen. This will allow the President to use the veto pen. Every President has asked for it. Every Republican President I can think of has said, ``Give me the line-item veto, I will use it to save billions of dollars.'' Now we have President Clinton saying, ``Give me the line- item veto, I will save billions of dollars.'' And we have Republicans leading the effort saying, ``Give it to him, because we think the President should have it, whether Democrat or Republican.'' Most Republicans say every President should have it, even a strong line-item veto, one that takes two-thirds to override. That means he may be able to kill a pet program of ours, something we feel very strongly about. I will give one example. I happen to feel strongly that we should have defenses against incoming theater-based missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles. I think we should have defenses to be able to stop those before they hit our country. We do not right now. We should develop those systems. I am afraid this President does not share that belief. If Republicans put in money in an appropriations bill for the strategic defense initiative, the President may disagree with us. He may veto us. We may not have the votes to override. I think it would be unfortunate, but I think the pluses outweigh the minuses, and we should give him line-item veto. The President should receive overwhelming support on this side of the aisle. It may not be unanimous. The question is can he give a few votes? We know there is going to be a filibuster. We know we have to have 60 votes. I hope all Republicans will vote in favor of cloture, but we are going to need at least six from the Democratic side to get to cloture to have a final vote. The President stated repeatedly he is in favor of the line-item veto. He needs to deliver 6 or 8 or 10 Democrats to make that happen. If he cannot deliver one-fifth of the number of Democrats, then we probably will not have the line-item veto. Some will say, ``The Senate was not able to deliver.'' I will deliver.'' Maybe this is something we can work on in a bipartisan fashion. I would like to see that happen. Some people say Congress is too partisan. This is an issue on which most people agree with Clinton. We want to give him a line-item veto. We want his successor to have a line-item veto. We think we can save billions of dollars. Can we balance the budget with it? No. Can we take giant steps to eliminate wasteful spending? The answer is yes. Mr. President, again, I compliment my colleagues, particularly Senator McCain and Senator Coats, for their leadership. They have taken this issue on year after year, many times at considerable economic and political pain. I compliment them for their courage. I hope that this year they will be successful. I hope that this year we will make at least one really significant budget reform, and that is to give the President a line-item veto. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment the Senator from Kansas for her amendment. I hope that my colleagues will vote with her on this amendment. I think it is important. I note at the conclusion of the statement of my friend from Iowa that the President acted within the confines of law. Let me just state the facts. President Clinton issued an Executive order because he could not pass a law. President Clinton introduces a bill, that has been introduced a couple of times--I guess both years since he has been President--trying to get it passed, but he has not been successful. He has tried but he did not get a bill to become law. And so the President is trying to do by Executive order what he could not do legislatively. Even in spite of the fact that he had a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, he was not successful because Congress did not agree. I think Congress is right in not agreeing. Now I am looking at the Executive order, and very clearly, if one reads this Executive order-- and I know it has been put into the Record; if it has not, I will ask unanimous consent to put it in the Record--but one needs to read this to find out this is law. This is an Executive order where the President is trying to legislate. I read in the Constitution--it is interesting, we have had a lot of discussion on the Constitution lately--but very clearly in article I, section 1, it says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. We did not elect the President to be issuing Executive orders in defiance of Congress. Congress did not pass this bill. Congress did not pass it because we did not think it was right. I happen to agree within Congress' decision. I think this is a mistake. I look at the power that he has vested in the Secretary of Labor: The Secretary of Labor shall determine everything. The Secretary of Labor gets to determine the bargaining, he can object to a termination of a contract, he may debar the contractor. We are giving the Secretary of Labor the right to debar a contractor. Take, for example, if you take a big contractor--maybe it is Newport News --building aircraft carriers, and maybe there is a small strike with a little union that is upset with one particular division which may affect less than 1 percent of their employees. But if there is a strike, is Newport News and their owner, I guess Tenneco, debarred from all Federal contracts? I asked that question before, and really that is to be determined by the Secretary of Labor. This Executive order is written with a blank check: ``The meaning of the term organizational unit of the Federal contractors shall be defined in regulations that shall be issued by the Secretary of Labor.'' My point being, this is terrible legislation, and the President does not have a right to legislate. He does not have the right. He is exceeding his powers. I am confident that if we do not succeed on the Kassebaum----

Mr. NICKLES. No. Let me finish my statement. I have limited time. The President exceeded his power. I will state I am very confident that, if we are not successful with this amendment, it will be tested in court and this Executive order will be thrown out on constitutional grounds. I am very confident of that fact. But we should stop it now. The President is playing politics. He is trying to appease a special interest group. I think it is unfortunate. What about the substance of it? I heard my colleague make the statement, ``Well, the people who are pushing this amendment are just against organized labor.'' That is not true. I think the people should have the right to organize. If people want to strike, if they do not want to work, they should have that right as well. Likewise, employers have to have the right to hire replacement workers. If they cannot do that, they cannot keep the doors open. In many cases, you might be a critical subassembly of a particular part that has to happen to make this entire unit come together on time and on budget, and if an employer cannot hire replacement workers to make that happen, then they could be in violation of the original terms of that contract. They could lose the whole contract. The entire country, if you are talking about a Government contract, could end up paying an enormous amount for not being on time and complying with the terms of the contract. This is enormous power the President is trying to delegate to the Secretary of Labor. It is a mistake. Congress has refused to do this. Congress has refused to pass it, I believe correctly so. The President in trying to circumvent Congress, I think, greatly exceeds his authority, his power, and I hope my colleagues will agree with Senator Kassebaum and vote for cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I join with the majority leader in congratulating Dr. Halverson for his 14-plus years of service to the U.S. Senate, not only to the Senate as a body but to each and every Member of this group of Senators, and also to each and every member of the entire Capitol complex. I have had the pleasure of watching, working with, and worshiping with Dr. Halverson, and in his presence he emanates love. He emanates love in his actions, in his words, and by his presence. He has been a mentor to me and countless others, but also to our staffs and to the elevator operators and to the interns and to the pages. He has shown his love by his actions, and we have really been blessed by his presence. For his years of service we are very grateful. Many of us are eternally grateful, and we thank him for that.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Production and Regulation. The hearing will take place Tuesday, March 21, 1995, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 92, a bill to provide for the reconstitution of outstanding repayment obligations of the administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration for the appropriated capital investments in the Federal Columbia River Power System. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Howard Useem or Judy Brown at (202) 224-6567.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Just for the Senator's clarification, as original sponsor of S. 219, I would like to inform my colleague that we did have in the original bill an exception for administrative actions. When Senator Roth introduced the bill for markup, we had an exception for routine administrative actions. Also we have always had exceptions for licensing. So the arguments that were made by many people--including President Clinton--who said that duck hunting licenses and burials at Arlington cemetery were jeopardized by the moratorium, were totally incorrect. The bill did state--just so my colleague will know-- the bill stated and exempted from routine administrative actions--and it exempted agencies in their licensing process--which happens to include hunting and fishing licenses. So they were never in jeopardy. But I know that an amendment was clarified just to make absolutely sure that people in Minnesota would be able to hunt ducks and people would be able to go fishing without any prohibition whatsoever by this moratorium on rulemaking.

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate and compliment my colleague, Senator Kassebaum, from Kansas, for her amendment. I think it is regrettable that her amendment is necessary. I heard one of my colleagues say is this not terrible that here the Republicans are and they have this amendment--this is an antiworker amendment. I totally disagree. This amendment is necessary because of an Executive order by the President of the United States to circumvent Congress and circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress has clearly stated its will or its desire to keep the law to where employers have the right to hire replacement workers. This President--and the Vice President, I might mention, because I caught part of his speech that he made to the leadership of the AFL-CIO in a speech in Florida--wants to overturn that by Executive order. They want to change law by Executive order. The President of the United States is President, but he is not king, and he cannot pass law by Executive order. I totally agree with my friend, Senator Gorton, from Washington, who said this Executive order will be determined unconstitutional. It clearly will. It is not a valid Executive order. It will not stand the test of time. It will not stand up in a test in court. Clearly it is the President exceeding his Presidential authority and power, and it is a flagrant abuse of power. I am reading this Executive order. If my colleagues have not seen it, I would encourage them to read it. Just looking at the Executive order--this is dated March 8--it talks about, in the first paragraph: The * * * Government must assist the entities with which it has contractual relations to develop stable relationships with their employees. Why is that a Federal Government responsibility? It says the Federal Government ``must.'' According to the President's Executive order, they will be forced to. It goes on to say: All discretion under this Executive order shall be exercised consistent with this policy. ``All discretion.'' The Secretary of Labor may investigate an organizational unit of a Federal contractor to determine whether the unit has permanently replaced lawfully striking workers. Such investigation shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary. We are going to give the Secretary of Labor great latitude to investigate something that he might determine is illegal and, if he so determines, then he can bar them from any Federal contracts. Let us just take as an example, let us say, a defense contractor. Maybe they are working on building a nuclear aircraft carrier or fighter aircraft planes, the F-16 or F-14 or something along that line. Maybe there is a division within their unit that is having a strike, and that employer has a contract with the U.S. Government to produce those planes on time or to make this part on time so they can stay on time and on schedule and not be overpriced. You could have the Secretary of Labor determine: Wait a minute, this is a violation. Therefore, you are going to lose this contract. What if they are 70 percent through with the contract? We are going to get a new contractor to come in and finish the aircraft carrier? We are going to have a new contractor come in and try to pick up with the delivery on the F-16? I do not think so. Talk about discretion for the Secretary. I was wondering how this section 11 of this Executive order--it says: The meaning of the term ``organizational unit of a Federal contractor'' as used in this order shall be defined in regulations that shall be issued by the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the affected agencies. This order shall apply only to contracts-- And on and on. So they are going to give the Secretary of Labor total discretion to determine whatever organizational unit might apply. If they have a strike and they hire permanent replacement workers, then they are totally banned or barred from Federal work. How much would that cost the Federal Government, if you disrupt a contract right in the middle of procuring a particular product or completing a contract? It could cost a lot of money. Talk about caving in to a special interest group--and I do not say caving in to organized labor, I say caving in to leadership of organized labor. This is not a benefit to benefit labor. This is a benefit to say the Federal Government, under this administration, thinks they should be involved in labor-management disputes. I heard my colleague say this is not about the underlying issue. One should vote for the Kassebaum amendment regardless of how they feel about striker replacement. I agree with that statement, because clearly the President has exceeded his authority, both against the will of Congress and against previous court rulings. well. Individuals certainly should have the right to organize. They have the right to strike. If they do not want to work, they should not have to work. But, likewise, an employer has to have the right to hire permanent replacement workers to keep the doors open, to keep the plant running, to make the contracts, to meet the schedules, to be on budget or under budget. Then this President's Executive order says: No, if you hire permanent replacement workers, you are going to lose any Federal contracts, you are going to be debarred, you will not be able to do Federal contracting. This is an outrageous power grab, and it will not stand the test of time. It should not stand. I hope my friends and colleagues will support Senator Kassebaum in her amendment. She happens to be right. I wish it was not necessary. I might mention, after the President made mention of his Executive order, we wrote the President a letter and said by what authority do you do this? The President does not have the authority to do this. The President does not have the authority to do by Executive order a statutory change, to change the law. Yet that is exactly what he is trying to do. His efforts will not succeed. They should not succeed. I encourage my colleagues to support the Senator from Kansas in this amendment, and I hope it will prevail. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise to make a couple comments concerning the balanced budget amendment vote today, because I think in my 14\1/2\ years in the Senate, it is probably the most important vote that we have cast. In my Senate career, we voted on a balanced budget amendment four times--three times for real; and once on a cloture vote to end debate on a balanced budget amendment which I offered. We passed it once, in 1982. We passed it with 69 votes. It was a bipartisan vote. At that time, the majority leader of the Senate was Howard Baker. I remember his support for the amendment. We had the support of Ronald Reagan, who was President at the time. But we lost by just a few votes in the House of Representatives. The reason we lost the vote today is because six people who voted for the balanced budget amendment a year ago voted against it today. They have the right to change their minds. Many of the people that voted against it today who voted for it last year said they wanted to protect Social Security. But when they voted for it last year, there was no specific protection for Social Security. Those individuals thought the balanced budget amendment was worthy of voting for last year, but they voted against it this year. They have that right, and I respect Senators for their votes. I also think they should be held accountable. When people are running for reelection, they many times claim, ``Oh, yes I have always voted for a balanced budget amendment.'' But today we had a chance to vote for one for real. The one we voted on last year, in all likelihood, was not going to pass. The House tried it last year and they lost by a few votes. We lost by a few votes. This year, the House passed it. This year, if the Senate had passed it and we worked out whatever small differences we had between the House and the Senate, it would have gone to the States and we would have found out whether 38 States would have ratified it. My guess is, they would. My guess is, we would have followed the advice of Thomas Jefferson. We would have enacted an additional amendment which would prohibit Congress from spending more than they take in. Thomas Jefferson was right. Bob Dole was right when he made his comments. I want to compliment Senator Dole for his leadership. He has shown great patience. We spent over a month on this amendment. The House of Representatives debated it for 2 days. The Senate spent a month. Senator Dole indicated the willingness to spend another week if we could have picked up the necessary votes. But we might spend another 2 months and still not get 67 votes. Senator Dole can count votes. All of us can. Many of us were working, trying to make a difference, but we were not successful, mainly because six people changed their minds. They have the right to change their minds, but people need to know why we did not pass it. In the November elections, we elected a lot of new people. As a matter of fact, all 11 new Senators elected in the 1994 elections voted for it. But six people who voted for it in the past decided to vote against it. That is the reason the amendment failed. To pass a constitutional amendment is a high bar to jump over. It is not easy. You have to pass the constitutional amendment by two-thirds in both Houses, and then additionally it has to be ratified by three- fifths of the States. That is not easily done. We have had 27 amendments to the Constitution, 10 of which were the Bill of Rights and were ratified very early in our history. We have only had 17 since then. Sixty-six Members of this body felt as though we should have the balanced budget amendment, as well. The American people have supported it. It was mentioned two or three times on the floor that 80 percent of the American people believe we should have it. I have been here long enough to know we need a balanced budget amendment. I have served on the Budget Committee; I have served on the Appropriations Committee; and now I serve on the Finance Committee. I think we need the discipline. It would not be necessary if we had a strong majority of both bodies, being fiscally responsible Members. Maybe then we would not need a balanced budget amendment. Mr. President, I am totally committed to trying to balance the budget, whether we pass the amendment or not. I think we ought to do it by the year 2002. So I hope that we will pass a budget resolution that will move Congress toward balancing the budget no later than the year 2002. I hope we can pass it in both the House and the Senate. Maybe that will be the easy part. Then we will have to pass the implementing legislation to make it happen, pass what we call a reconciliation bill and all 13 appropriations bills. We will entitlements. If we do not reduce the rate of growth of entitlements, we will never balance the budget. Mr. President, the figures are not that complicated. We are spending about $1.5 trillion right now. We are taking in a little over $1.3 trillion. So we have a deficit of $200 billion per year. Unfortunately, President Clinton's budget does nothing to reduce the deficit. The deficit stays at least about $200 billion for the foreseeable future, and then escalates much, much higher in future years. He does not touch entitlements; I had charts up earlier this week showing what the President has accomplished budgetwise. The President has said in his first 2 years, he has reduced the deficit by $600 billion, but the facts do not agree with him. The facts are that spending has not been cut in the President's first 2 years. Actually, spending went up, if we use the CBO baseline. And President Clinton mentioned, in his State of the Union speech, that we should use the Congressional Budget Office. Spending has not been cut. Actually, spending for the first 4 years of his administration goes up, compared to what would have otherwise happened. So spending has gone up, not down. That is evidenced by the fact that we used to spend $1.3 trillion a couple years ago, and now we spend $1.5 trillion. Under the President's budget year we spent $1.6 trillion, and by the year 2000, we spend $1.9 trillion. Spending goes up every year. The facts are, also, we can balance the budget if we limit the growth of spending to about 3 percent per year. The total amount of money that we spend, if we can limit that growth to 3 percent, we can balance the budget. I did not say cut spending; I say limit the growth of spending. We will have to somehow ingrain this in people's minds. I can tell Members right now when we come up with a budget people will say, ``Republicans, are slashing programs. You are insensitive. You are making tough decisions.'' We should be. But I also say, Mr. President, even under the Republicans, and in spite of all the slashing that we will be accused of, Federal spending will continue to escalate. I would like for Congress to freeze Federal spending. We are spending $1.5 trillion. I would like for Congress to spend next year $1.5 trillion. If we have an increase in some programs, that means other programs will have to be reduced to pay for it. That is what I would like. If we kept spending $1.5 trillion, we could balance the budget before the year 2002. Mr. President, we have to do it. I just hope that our colleagues, now that they have defeated this balanced budget amendment, will help us. Many people on the other side of the aisle said we do not need a balanced budget amendment. Many Members on this side of the aisle on the Budget Committee, on the Finance Committee, on the Appropriations Committee, I believe are committed to trying to balance the budget by the year 2002, because we think that is the right thing to do. I can tell Members it probably will not be the right thing politically. We will expose ourselves politically. People will say, ``You are slashing popular programs and you are not going to be popular if you cut this program or that program,'' and we will have to cut most all programs. I say cut. We will have to reduce the rate of growth in almost all programs if we are going to get there. I hope that we have the courage to do it. I think we need to do what needs to be done to make Congress balance the budget, regardless of whether or not we pass the balanced budget amendment. I am really disappointed that we did not pass it today. I think if we would have passed it today, it would have changed the way we do business. I think people in the Budget Committee, in the Finance Committee, in the Appropriations Committee would say, ``Wait a minute; this is a different era.'' We stand right here in this Senate and put our hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. That is the reason it is more important than a statute. That is the reason I think we would be more committed to abiding by that balanced budget amendment, regardless of the enforcement mechanism, because we are sworn to uphold the Constitution. I think we are serious when we take that oath. A lot of our colleagues said that the amendment is not necessary. Well, we will try to do it, anyway. We will find out how sincere they are when we have the tough votes. We will find out what happens when we try to curb the growth of entitlements. I will give an example. We have 336 different welfare programs--336-- most of them stacked on top of each other. Many of which are counterproductive to our goals, if we want to try to help people, because it is making people become addicted to Federal programs-- addicted to Federal assistance--not helping them climb up the economic ladder, but basically addicted to this idea that, ``Hey, Government will take care of me, so why should I bother?'' We have 152 different job programs. I know the Senator from Kansas is looking at consolidating many of those programs and giving them to the States to determine how best to manage them. We have to curb programs like Medicaid, which has grown annually by 28, 29, 13, and 8 percent. We cannot continue to have rates of growth like that. We will have to curtail programs like the earned income tax credit that President Clinton is so proud of. His tax bill increased it dramatically. Three years ago, it cost $5 billion a year. In 3 years, it will cost $25 billion per year. These are astronomical rates of growth. The EITC is an entitlement program. I read by one estimation that 40- some percent of the people in the District of Columbia are eligible for the earned income tax credit. That is absurd. It is a negative income tax under which Uncle Sam writes checks. It is rife with fraud. The IRS is now slowing the processing of returns because of fraud. A lot of people found out, ``If I give you a few hundred dollars for your social security number, I can do your return and collect a $1,000 or $2,000 check from Uncle Sam.'' A lot of people are pulling that scam. Food stamps--we have had unbelievable fraud and abuse in food stamps. The program's cost has compounded in growth well beyond inflation. We will have to take all programs, Mr. President, and look to scale many back substantially. If we want programs to grow more than 2 percent or 3 percent per year, we will have to cut other programs to make that happen. I just hope we will have the courage to do it, in a bipartisan fashion. I hope that we will come up with a budget unlike President Clinton's, which projects $200 billion deficits forever. I hope that we will pass a program that will bring the deficits on a downward trend where we will be down to zero no later than the year 2002. That will not be easy. And maybe if we cannot do it--I hope we can, but maybe we cannot--people on the other side will realize they made a mistake in voting against the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Maybe they will realize that we need that kind of discipline to be able to say no. Congress will have to say no to Federal spending if we are ever going to get there. You are more popular as elected officials giving people money, cutting ribbons for more Federal spending, for XYZ school and XYZ projects, than taking away from them in taxation. You are more popular giving than taking away, and more popular spending than taxing. I am really disappointed in the vote today. I think we need a constitutional amendment. I hope and expect that we will have the opportunity to vote again, and maybe they will hear from their constituents. I hope people across the country, when they find out that their elected Members voted against this amendment, will talk to their Members, and let them know how strongly they feel that this amendment should have passed. If this is a democracy where people really have a chance to meet with their constituencies and listen to their constituencies, this amendment should pass, and I believe it will pass. I would like for it to pass this year. Maybe it will take another election. The American people spoke clearly in the elections in 1994. I believe they will be speaking very loudly in 1996, and maybe they will hold their elected Members accountable. Then maybe that will enable us to pick up the extra So, Mr. President, I am very sincere in saying I think this is probably the most important vote we have had in decades. It is unfortunate it did not pass today. It did not fail for a lack of effort or leadership on behalf of Senator Dole. He showed great patience and, I think, great leadership. I also wish to compliment Senator Hatch and Senator Craig for the hours and hours that they spent on the floor. It is just unfortunate we were not successful. I hope that the American people help us succeed, not just for Republicans in the Senate, not just for the idea of a balanced budget but really succeed for American taxpayers, for our children. People should not be confused about claims that, ``I would vote for that except I want to protect the Social Security trust funds.'' That is one of the most absurd arguments made on the floor of the Senate. How can they protect Social Security trust funds which do not exist? The Social Security trust fund is a falacy. There are no trust funds. There is not a bank account where any person in America can go look at the billions of dollars accumulating there. The trust fund is full of IOU's. And very soon, perhaps by the year 2013, we are going to be paying out more than is coming in. At that point it is assumed that we will start cashing in on the trust fund IOU's. But what is really there? There is nothing in the trust fund but an IOU. How do we pay off Government IOU's? We borrow more money. By the year 2013, we are going to be paying more in social security benefits more than we take in from social security payroll taxes, and for each IOU we cash in to pay benefits we are going to have to borrow to pay off the IOU. That will put an enormous burden on younger generations. I think my colleagues who say they voted against this amendment to protect the trust funds do not understand that there are no real trust funds, there is no bank account, there is no fund where money is actually accumulating. There is just a Government IOU, and that Government IOU is going to be paid for like we pay other Government IOU's. It is going to be paid for with additional borrowing. Maybe that was the political cover they needed to excuse them from voting against this amendment, but it is very deceptive and very misleading. I think we have to be truthful with the American people. Again, those same people who voted ``no'' today voted ``yes'' last year, and we had no special protection for social security. We had no such exemption for Social Security. I hope that the people will speak out loud and clear to their elected officials, and maybe we can reverse the result that we had on the floor today. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 rise today to introduce the National Maximum Speed Limit Repeal Act of 1995 on behalf of myself and Mr. Campbell. This legislation will return to the States the authority to establish their own speed limits. The national maximum speed limit allows the Federal Government to penalize States which do not comply with posting and enforcement of speed regulations. The penalties are potentially as high as 10 percent of a State's National Highway System and surface transportation funds. It is also important to note that these highway revenues are generated entirely by the States. The 55 mph speed limit law, which was amended to allow for a 65 mph limit on interstates and similar highways, in one of 19 provisions of Federal law which threatens States with the loss of their badly needed highway funds. Repealing the national maximum speed limit will help to eliminate these unnecessary and unfair Federal penalties. This bill will further empower States with the responsibility to make their own decisions with regard to speed limits. Such authority should not be imposed by the bureaucracy in Washington, DC, but instead should be regulated by the individual States who understand their own transportation needs and who know what restrictions are best-suited for their citizens. Following my statement, I request that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. Thank you, Mr. President. We urge all Members to cosponsor this important measure.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for not to exceed 15 minutes.

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield for one other comment. Congress has now expanded the EITC to people without kids. Eligibility has increased dramatically to where 40-some percent will be eligible in the District of Columbia. I believe the State of Mississippi had 50 percent of the persons eligible for earned income tax credits. A lot of people did not know they were eligible, so they are getting help from income tax filers. And it is rampant with abuse. I think we are going to have to make some changes in eligibility to tighten up the program, because, a few years ago it cost $5 billion and they project in a couple of years it is going to cost $25 billion. So that is the fastest growing entitlement type program that we have. I think we are going to have to curtail it. I think we are going to have to curtail a lot of them. I look forward to working with my friend from Arkansas. Motion to refer, as Modified

Mr. NICKLES. One, I want to say that maybe I should have given the numbers for the projected cost of food stamps. Food stamps grew at zero percent in 1994 and will grow at 4 percent for the next couple of years. Maybe some of the reforms the Senator is talking about have been successful. I share his concern, though. I think if you want to covert a commodity program to cash it is going to be open for abuse. There was an excellent program on one of the television networks recently about people selling their food stamps for cash so they can use it for various other things, including alcohol and drugs. So I think we need to reform the program. I mentioned that the earned income tax credit has really been abused. People are going into poor areas and trying to get citizens to file a fraudulent return. They will get a persons social security number and say, ``I can use this to get a $1,500 or $2,000 earned income tax credit, I will give you $500 now and let me take your credit.'' That is one of the reasons why the IRS is trying to crack down. I think maybe some pilot programs are in order, because there is bound to be a better way. But I am concerned, when we start turning it into cash, that you may be increasing the incentives for abuse instead of decreasing the incentives.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Medicaid. People are concerned about Medicaid. Look at the growth rates. In 1990, Medicaid's total cost to the Federal Government was $41 billion. In 1994, it was $82 billion; it doubled. Between 1990 and 1994, the cost of Medicaid doubled to the Federal Government, with growth rates of 19 percent, 28 percent, 29 percent, 12 percent. It has been exploding in cost. Some people want to keep those costs climbing. That is not acceptable. We cannot afford it and the States cannot afford it. So we need to change it. When we reduce that growth rate, I am sure that we are going to have people saying that we cannot afford it. We cannot afford not to slow the growth rate of a program like that. Food stamps in 1990 cost $15 billion, and in 1994 they cost $25 billion. The growth rate since 1990 in food stamps went up 17 percent, 25 percent, 21 percent, 11 percent. That is not sustainable. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record all of these tables on spending.

Mr. NICKLES. One final comment, the President's statement also claims that he cut the deficit by $600 billion in his first 2 years in office. That sounds very nice. It reminds me of another quote of the President during the State of the Union where he said: We cut over a quarter-trillion dollars in spending, more than 300 domestic programs, more than 100,000 positions in Federal bureaucracies in the last 2 years alone. Have we cut $1 trillion in spending? That bothers me because I do not think we have seen spending decline. The President's statement said that we cut spending over a quarter- trillion dollars. He said that in the State of the Union Address. I would like to share with my colleagues the facts. In 1992, the last year of the Bush administration, we spent $1.380 trillion. In 1993, we spent $1.4 trillion. In 1994, we spent $1.46 trillion. Spending went up every year. I think we too often get into this discussion of baselines, and people get lost and their eyes fog over. Spending has gone up every year. The President says he cut spending from a baseline which is projected to be higher. Did he actually cut spending? Did the President cut spending in his first 2 years? Will he cut spending in his first 4 years? Have we seen any spending cuts? The answer according to CBO is no. The President's statement was that he reduced the deficit by $600 billion in his first 2 years of office. Where did that come from? I will show you where it came from. CBO projected in 1993, just when President Clinton was elected--what they thought deficits would be for the next 6 years. If you add these years together, it totals $1.848 trillion. Two years later, January 1995, CBO projected deficits of $1.287 trillion. You subtract the two and you get a little less than $600 billion. That is why the President said he reduced the deficit by $600 billion. So we know the deficit is less than previously projected, but where did the reduction come from? Did it come from $250 billion in spending cuts? No. According to CBO--and these are not Don Nickles' figures, they are CBO figures--if you add up all the tax and fee increases they total $262 billion. The President deserves credit for that--he did enact the largest tax increase in history. Spending reductions total $88 billion, and $213 billion in deficit reduction comes from technical reestimates, economic reestimates, and debt services. With regard to spending reductions, in 1993 we had no spending reductions, we actually spent more than the baseline. In 1994, we had no spending reductions, we actually spent $9 billion more than the baseline. In 1995, we are going to have no spending reductions, we actually will spend $3 billion more than the baseline. In 1996, 1997, 1998, it is projected that we are going to go have some spending cuts, primarily from an extension of the freeze on discretionary spending. So the President ends up with a total of $88 billion in spending cuts, primarily from the last two years by extending the discretionary freeze. My guess is he probably will not be President for these last 2 years, so that is an easy thing to do--that is, putting the spending cuts off until the last 2 years. If you add the first 4 years together, you see more spending increases than you see in spending cuts in his Presidential term. We have spending increases of $9 billion and $4 billion and $3 billion, for a total $16 billion in spending increases, and we are projected next year to have spending cuts of $15 billion. So spending actually went up under President Clinton's first term, if we give him credit for everything in his budget. He has presided over no spending cuts whatsoever--not a dime of spending cuts. This is according to CBO. What about the balance of this $600 billion? Well, it is made up of technical, economic, and other assumptions. These are reestimates caused by lower than expected inflation or unemployment. If you add those things together--and the RTC spending less money than anticipated because we do not have as many bank failures--the technical number is $213 billion. In the first 4 years, we have all tax increases and technical changes. That is all the deficit reduction. I am glad that we have it. I am glad that the deficit is not as bad as it was projected to be in 1993, but it is not because we cut a quarter of a trillion dollars in spending, as stated in the President's State of the Union. We have to be factual in these debates. These numbers are taken directly from the CBO budget books. Why did they have a different baseline in 1993 and 1995? Here is the difference. I will submit this table for the Record so my colleagues can look at it. I do not mean to get too technical, but it is important to be factual. When you hear people talk about spending cuts we really need to be factual and give the American people the facts. I know my colleague from New Jersey said we are not cutting defense so much and that we need to keep more money in social programs. I respect that position, I just do not agree with it. I will include the chart to show what we have done in defense in the last 3 years. We cut defense in 1992 by 5 percent; in 1993 by 3 percent; in 1994 by 4 percent; in 1995 by 4 percent. So we have cut defense spending. Mr. President, we have not cut domestic spending. Domestic spending domestic spending has gone up. In 1991, it was 7 percent; in 1992, 10 percent; in 1993, 7 percent; in 1994, 5 percent; in 1995, 5 percent. We have mandatory programs exploding in cost. The only spending category that has gone down every year is defense. Programs like the earned income tax credit have been exploding in cost. In 1991, it cost $5 billion; in 1994, it cost $11 billion; in 1997, it is supposed to cost $23 billion--almost 5 times what it cost a few years ago. We read in the papers where the IRS is not processing tax returns because they found that the EITC is just ripe for abuse. People are filing fraudulent claims. The growth rate on the earned income tax credit, for example, was 11 percent in 1991; 55 percent in 1992; 18 percent in 1993; 22 percent in 1994; 55 percent in 1995; 18 percent is the projection for 1996. It is just exploding in cost. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, maybe somebody from the administration will read those exceptions and realize that we have given the President a great deal of flexibility and opportunity to exempt those regulations that he deems are important or necessary to protect public health and safety. I hope he will reconsider his opposition to this moratorium. I hope my colleagues will support it because I think we have gone to great lengths to try to make sure that we would give flexibility where needed but also to stop unnecessary and expensive regulations and give us a chance to pass real regulatory reform with cost-benefit analysis to make sure benefits exceed costs. I mention my concerns about the President's statements on the regulatory moratorium because he has also made misleading statements in regard to the budget and budget items. The President of the United States a couple of days ago mentioned in an article that he had trimmed the Federal bureaucracy by 100,000 workers, and cut the deficit by $600 billion in his first 2 years in office. reported every day in the Washington Post and elsewhere. The public assumes these claims are correct. Again, I think it is vitally important that we know the facts. I would like to point out to the President and our colleagues what the facts are. These numbers are also pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial because they check up on the President too. Have we reduced Federal employment by 100,000 since the President came into office? No. Since 1993 we have reduced FTE employment by 86,100. It is only if you use the baseline going back to the previous year that you can claim to have reduced it 102,500. However, more importantly, what the President did not say is 63,500 of those 86,100 job cuts are in defense. By 1996, projections are that we will reduce FTE employment by 156,900. Eighty-four percent of those cuts are reductions in defense. Six percent are in the Resolution Trust Corporation and FDIC because they have worked through the savings and loan mess. Therefore, 90 percent of the President's claims of Federal job cuts comes from Defense and RTC. That means we are only cutting about 15,000 in nondefense Government agencies. So is the President really cutting the size of the Government? No. Has he cut the size of defense? Yes. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial by the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Numbers Game.'' There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think it is vitally important, when we are engaged in debates that we have the facts on legislative issues that come before this body. I am concerned about a statement that was made by President Clinton on Tuesday, February 21, dealing with the issue of a regulatory moratorium, a moratorium which is cosponsored by 35 or 36 Senators. The President stated--and I will quote, ``The House will be voting on an across-the-board freeze on all Federal regulations.'' Mr. President, that is not correct. Neither the House bill nor the companion bill in the Senate freeze all Federal regulations. Our bills contain a lot of exemptions, so the President's statement is factually incorrect. He said, ``For example, it would stop the Government from allocating rights to commercial fishermen.'' That is not true. He said, ``It would stop the Government from authorizing burials at Arlington Cemetery.'' That is not true. It was not true in the House bill, and it is not true in the Senate bill. Mr. President, both bills have exceptions for routine administrative action. Certainly burials at Arlington Cemetery are routine administrative actions, as well as the Government allocating rights to commercial fishermen. These are routine Government actions. Actually, we have given the President eight exceptions to the regulatory moratorium. The President's statement says that it would stop good regulations, bad regulations, and in-between regulations--all regulations. Again, that is totally, completely factually misleading and inaccurate. I am bothered by that. I think it is fine to be engaged in the debate, and the President has the option to veto this legislation if he chooses, but when he speaks against it he has the obligation to the American people and to the Congress to give the facts. Clearly, his statements are not accurate. The President even said our moratorium would cancel the duck hunting season. Clearly, again that is not the case. It will not cancel duck hunting season. The establishment of a duck hunting season is clearly a routine administrative action. I ask unanimous consent that a list of all the exceptions that we have in the moratorium legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing The Domestic Oil and Gas Production and Preservation Act along with Senators Inhofe and Dole. A companion bill is also being introduced in the House by Congressman Lucas and the rest of the Oklahoma delegation. We are introducing this bill today in an effort to help revive our domestic oil and gas industry which plays such a vital role in our national security. If our domestic industry is to survive domestically, then Congress needs to act now to provide incentives and regulatory reforms to encourage production in America. Since the early 1980's oil and gas extraction employment has been cut in half. Employment in the oil and gas industry has declined by 500,000 since 1984. Imports of crude oil products have increased by 200,000 barrels a day over the last year and the import dependency ratio now exceeds 50 percent. In December 1994, crude oil production dropped to 5 million barrels per day in the lower 48 States which is the lowest level since 1946. We must take action now to save domestic production not only for the sake of the oil and gas industry but for the sake of the national security of this Nation. I understand that today the administration released an investigative report conducted under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on the threat to national security from the rising tide of oil imports. I have not yet seen this report but previous Commerce Department reports have found that oil imports threaten the national security and they were conducted when our foreign oil dependence was much lower. The question now is not whether oil imports threaten national security; everyone agrees that is the case. The question now is what are we going to do about it. To date, the Clinton administration has done nothing to encourage domestic production. In fact, in 1993, crude oil reserves continued to decline by 788 million barrels. Natural gas reserves fell by 2,600 Bcf to 162,415 Bcf. I have been asking the Secretary of Energy for 3 years now, what she intends to do to help preserve the domestic oil and gas industry. In the President's 1996 budget there is nothing to aid this industry. That is why I am introducing this bill today. The Domestic Oil and Gas Production and Preservation Act is intended to do just what its name implies--encourage oil and gas production and preserve and revitalize the domestic oil and gas industry. This bill would accomplish these goals in several ways. In title 1, we provide for tax incentives. One of the cornerstone pieces of this legislation is a tax credit to preserve marginal production and to encourage new drilling. This provision would make it more economical to keep a marginal well producing during times of low prices and would provide incentives to producers not to shut in their marginal wells due to economics resulting in a permanent loss of the remaining unproduced reserves. This legislation also includes a tax credit for production from new wells that have been drilled after June 1, 1995. This provision is meant to encourage domestic exploration which has fallen dramatically in recent years. During the early 1980's the average rig count was around 2,929. In 1994 the rig count averaged 775. This is less than one-third the average during the boom years of the 1980's. If domestic production does not increase, our reliance on imported oil will only continue to grow. In addition to the tax credit, this bill provides for several depletion reforms. There are provisions to repeal the net income limitation for computing percentage depletion, exclude marginal production from the current 1,000 barrels per day limitation, repeal the property allocation rule for computing depletion, and freeze the percentage depletion rate at current marginal levels. Until 1976, percentage depletion was designed to operate as risk- weighted depreciation for mineral properties. Since then, the multiple limitations on the availability of percentage depletion as an effective capital cost recovery provision has diminished our proven reserves. The time has come to revise U.S. energy depletion policy. The circumstances that prevail in today's crude oil market are precisely the opposite of those that led to change to the depletion deduction in 1976. The world crude oil market is now glutted with overproduction from Kuwait and unsold Iraqi supplies are threatening another oil market crash. When prices decline, many wells are lost forever and many other wells cannot be drilled. Percentage depletion should be reformed so that more U.S. production qualifies. Ensuring an adequate depletion allowance can reverse the falling U.S. energy resource base. These reforms will encourage new technology investments, provide economic stimulus to a major U.S. industry and create new, high-quality jobs. In addition to the tax credit and the percentage depletion reforms, this legislation provides that geological and geophysical expenditures shall be treated as deductible expenses, it expands the existing enhanced oil recovery tax credit and makes it AMT creditable, it provides an election for optional 5-year write-off of intangible drilling costs, and it increases the amount of intangible drilling costs that can be expended without being treated as a preference item for AMT purposes. All these provisions will help encourage continued production from marginal wells, thus saving a valuable national resource from being lost. Title II of this legislation calls for several regulatory reforms. It has provisions that address the enormous and unnecessary financial responsibility provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA '90]. This bill clarifies that the definition of ``navigable waters'' under OPA '90 only applies to true ``offshore facilities,'' not facilities onshore. It also changes the amount of financial responsibility required under OPA '90 from $150 to $35 million with discretion given to the Secretary to establish a higher amount (but not higher than $150 million) taking into account factors relevant to risks posed by a facility. This legislation also addresses two oil and gas royalty issues. First, it establishes a 6-year statute of limitations on actions commenced by the United States for recovery of royalties due under an oil and gas lease on Federal lands unless a lessee has made a false or fraudulent statement with the intent to evade the payment of royalties due. This provision is intended to give some finality to the royalty collection process and require the government to be prompt and timely in their pursuit of any underpayment of royalties. Second, it provides the Secretary discretion to lower royalties on oil and gas leases on Federal lands. This is intended to be used to help marginal wells, when prices are low, from being shut in as uneconomical. this bill addresses two critical areas of reform, private property rights and risk assessment. Private property rights are protected by the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, the Federal bureaucracy has increasingly used environmental laws to trample on these rights. Two of the worst offenders are the Endangered Species Act and the wetlands permitting program established by section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This legislation incorporates the provisions of a separate bill that I have introduced for the last 3 years entitled the Property Owners Bill of Rights. The provisions of this bill require a landowner's written consent before Federal agents could enter private property, guarantee a landowner's access to information gathered about their property, guarantee a landowner's right to dispute that information's accuracy, guarantee a landowner's right to appeal decisions made under endangered species or wetlands law, and guarantee that a landowner be compensated if federal actions under the Endangered Species Act or wetlands permitting program devalue their property by 33 percent or more. The risk assessment provisions of this bill requires Federal agencies to use sound scientific data when risk criteria and benefits are determined. It also requires the agencies to make public the scientific basis for each risk criteria and full disclosure of all assumptions and uncertainties. It also provides for a petition process to require an agency to review an existing regulation to ensure that benefits exceed the costs. Finally, title III of this bill abolishes the existing prohibitions against the export of domestic crude oil production. This provision would also help encourage production in the lower 48 States. Together, the provisions of this bill provide much needed incentives and regulatory relief to an industry that is vital to our national security. The sooner the administration and Congress acknowledge the critical importance of the domestic oil and gas industry and stop burdening this industry with high taxes and regulatory obstacles, the sooner we can take the necessary actions to preserve and revitalize this important sector of our economy.