Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from my friend and colleague from Ohio. To answer a couple of his questions, I am happy to have a voice vote. I am happy to proceed. I have a hard time imagining anybody really opposing this amendment because, as you mentioned, it may parallel what the administration is trying to do. Certainly if regulatory agencies are going to have mandates on the private sector in excess of $100 million, they should at least identify it. I think in any of the regular reform bills that will probably be included. Plus the fact we are, in this legislation, telling the regulatory agencies to identify the costs if they have an impact on the public sector in excess of $100 million. Certainly, if they are going to do that for the public sector, they should also do it for the private sector. They can probably do it at one and the same time. A lot of bills have impacts on both the public and private sectors. So I do not even think it will be a duplicative effort. It will just be done. Again, if a regulatory agency is going to take an action that has an impact of over $100 million, for all practical purposes they should have a cost estimate. So I appreciate my colleague's interest in this. I also want to compliment him and assure him and Senator Roth and others, Senator Domenici, Senator Bond, Senator Hutchison, and others--a lot of people have done a lot of work on regulatory reform. It is going to be very extensive. I am looking forward to that. And we are not doing that here. I am talking about cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, using science, as my friend and colleague from Ohio has alluded to in the past. It is important that we use real science in making some of our determinations. I look forward to that debate and that bill, because I think it will be a giant step, one that should be bipartisan and one that will help rein in the excessive costs of regulation. This particular amendment does not do anything to rein it in. It just says it should be identified. That by itself might help rein it in. If someone in the private sector disagreed with it, we could dispute it. We could have a hearing. And if someone says this regulation from EPA costs $500 million per year to the private sector, maybe the private sector would come in and say, we disagree, it costs $3 billion. That would be good interest, good information for people to have. This does not stop the regulations from coming into effect. It just says they should be identified. It is identical with the regulation on the public sector. We think we should identify it for the private sector as well. I know there was an interest a moment ago to have a 1-hour time agreement. I told the managers of the bill that is not necessary for this Senator. I think this is a commonsense amendment, readily understood. Hopefully, it will be agreed upon. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from Michigan for an outstanding speech, a relatively new Member to our body, but as evidenced by his speech and by his work in the Senate this month he in my opinion will prove to be an outstanding asset to the State of Michigan without any doubt and certainly to this body and to our country. So I compliment him on his remarks. I thank him very much for his support of our amendment as well.

Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is correct.

Mr. NICKLES

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

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

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object for the time being.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for such time as necessary, not to exceed 7 minutes.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, on this resolution, I have been working with the Senator from California, and I appreciate her cooperation as well as the cooperation of the Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, in trying to come up with a resolution that we can support. I am talking about people of different views on different sides of the abortion question. I think we have come to agreement, and I appreciate their cooperation. When we originally looked at the resolution as introduced, it left a lot to be desired, and my original thought was that we could not support it. Since then, I think we have made some improvements, and I might just mention those. Originally the resolution stated and acting completely within the law are entitled to full protection from the Federal Government.'' Now, that might sound good. But we have left that out because it can be misleading. Some people might misinterpret that, so now that is not included in the resolution. We offered to say that they would be entitled to ``equal protection,'' we did not reach an agreement on that. So now that particular segment is not included. Also, the original resolution stated that ``the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 imposes a mandate on the Federal Government to protect individuals seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services.'' That is now deleted. It was deleted, in my opinion, for a good reason--because it is not correct. That is not what the original act stated. In addition, we made a couple of other changes, and I think these as well are positive changes. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution, as mentioned by the Senator from California, now deletes language that says that ``the Attorney General should fully enforce the law and take any further necessary measures to'' protect persons, and so forth. And we have eliminated that part--``and take any further necessary measures''--in addition to enforcing the law. I think that is an improvement. I appreciate also the Senator from California agreeing to the following addition that was recommended by the Senator from Indiana, Senator Coats, which added the following. It says: Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing, or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In other words, people still have the right of peaceful demonstration, whether it be in front of an abortion clinic or other areas. Mr. President, let me just state that I will support this resolution. My original concern was that we were only condemning one type of violence, the type of violence as it concerns abortion clinics. I happen to be against all violence. I am not interested in the reason-- in people murdering someone down at the convenience store or in front of a night club in the streets of Washington, DC or New York City or Oklahoma or in California or in front of abortion clinics. I condemn those people who committed the atrocities including killing or murdering abortionists or someone murdering a 15-year old on the street because they want to wear his jacket. I thought the resolution was inappropriate because it only condemned violence against abortion clinics. I want to condemn that violence. I happen to be on the pro-life side of this debate. But I think people who are breaking the law by murdering other individuals are going too far and they are actually hurting the cause that they supposedly are trying to help, so I think we should condemn that violence. But I also think we should condemn violence such as occurred in Alabama in 1993. A pro-life minister and talk show host Jerry Simon was shot and killed by a self-described Satan worshiper, Eileen Janezic, stating she did it ``to please Satan.'' That case received almost no publicity. We have seen a lot of publicity concerning the murder where Paul Hill murdered an abortionist in Florida, and maybe rightfully so; it needed some attention. He was certainly wrong. I might mention, Mr. President, he was convicted. He was convicted under State law for murder and has now been sentenced to death. Some people wanted to federalize all crimes, but I might mention murder is against the law in every single State in the Nation, as it should be, and States have the primary responsibility to enforce those laws, as it should be. His trial has been completed, and he was found guilty. And his sentence is the death penalty under State law. So again I wish to condemn violence, but I also want to make sure that we do not federalize so many cases. It was also originally stated that there was so many thousand FBI agents and U.S. marshals and that they should do all they can to protect abortion clinics. I might mention--and I think the resolution states there are something like 900 clinics. They are called--well, they are called clinics in the United States providing reproductive health services. They are abortion clinics. If you took the number of U.S. marshals--I think there is stated to be about 2,000 marshals and I guess their deputies--then each clinic could have a little over 2 marshals per clinic. The marshals have something else to do. So I objected to that section, as well. So I appreciate the Senator from California deleting this. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator from California to modify the resolution. I think it is acceptable. I think it is important for the Congress to speak out and condemn violence but I think it is also important for us to speak out and condemn all violence. When we see teenagers killing teenagers; when we see drug epidemics run rampant throughout this country; when we see the number of women who are being abused, the number of children who are being abused; when we see so many significant crime problems throughout this country, I think we need to do something, as well. Not just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. So I am hopeful that this Congress will move and move expeditiously on a significant crime enforcement package, one that will strengthen the penalties that some of us tried to enact a year ago, one that will have habeas corpus reform so we can have an end to the endless appeals. So I hope this Congress will move and make some real, significant change in order to limit crime this year, this Congress. I thank my colleague and I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, of all the freedoms we enjoy in this country, the ability to own, care for, and develop private property is perhaps the most crucial to our free enterprise economy. In fact, our economy would cease to function without the incentives provided by private property. So sacred and important are these rights, that our forefathers chose to specifically protect them in the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says in part, ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' Unfortunately, Mr. President, some Federal environmental, safety, and health laws are encouraging Government violation of private property rights, and it is a problem which is increasing in severity and frequency. we would all like to believe the Constitution will protect our property rights if they are threatened, but today that is simply not true. The only way for a person to protect their private property rights is in the courts, and far too few people have the time or money to take such action. Thus many citizens lose their fifth amendment rights simply because no procedures have been established to prevent Government takings. Mr. President, many people in the Federal bureaucracy believe that public protection of health, safety, and the environment is not compatible with protection of private property rights. I disagree. In fact, the terrible environmental conditions exposed in Eastern Europe when the cold war ended lead me to believe that property ownership enhances environmental protection. As the residents of East Berlin and Prague know all too well, private owners are more effective caretakers of the environment than communist governments. Yet the question remains, how do we prevent overzealous bureaucrats from using their authority in ways which threaten property rights? Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleague Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama in introducing legislation which will strengthen every citizen's fifth amendment rights. Our bill, the Private Property Owners Bill of Rights, targets two of the worst property rights offenders, the Endangered Species Act and the wetlands permitting program established by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Mr. President, our bill requires Federal agents who enter private property to gather information under either the Endangered Species Act or the wetlands permitting program to first obtain the written consent of the landowner. While it is difficult to believe that such a basic right should need to be spelled out in law, overzealous bureaucrats and environmental radicals too often mistake private resources as their own. Property owners are also guaranteed the right of access to that information, the right to dispute its accuracy, and the right of an administrative appeal from decisions made under those laws. Most importantly, the Private Property Owners Bill of Rights guarantees compensation for a landowner whose property is devalued by 50 percent or more by a Federal action under the Endangered Species Act or wetlands permitting program. An administrative process is established to give property owners a simple and inexpensive way to seek resolution of their takings of our Constitution, Mr. President, we must make this commitment. I believe this provision will work both to protect landowners from uncompensated takings and to discourage Government actions which would cause such takings. Mr. President, the time has come for farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to take a stand against violations of their private property rights by the Federal bureaucracy. The Private Property Owners Bill of Rights will help landowners take that stand.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 219 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and supporter of S. 1. I wish to congratulate Senator Kempthorne, especially for his leadership on this issue. I am delighted to have it up on the floor of the Senate so we would not have to listen to him every week saying that unfunded mandates should now be considered on the floor. I also wish to compliment Senator Glenn for his leadership on this bill, as well as Senator Roth and Senator Domenici for their contributions in making it happen and making it happen this quick. Most of all, I wish to compliment Senator Dole, because he made it S. 1 and made it one of our highest priorities. The first priority was to make Congress abide by the laws like everybody else, and I compliment him for that. That is long overdue, in some cases as much as 50 or 60 years overdue. I am pleased the Senate was finally able yesterday to pass that piece of legislation. Some of us have been working on that legislation for years. Some people have expressed dismay at the fact that it took the Senate a week to pass the congressional compliance bill. Well, there are 10 different statutes. Some of us, as I mentioned, have been working for years to make pass congressional coverage legislation and we passed it in a week. It maybe took longer than some of us would like--I know the managers of the bill would liked to have passed it a little quicker-- but at least we passed it. Now we are on the second item of our legislative agenda, which I think is equally important. Both of these items--making Congress abide by the laws like everybody else in the country and, two, making sure the Congress does not pass unfunded mandates on cities, counties, and States--are vitally important. Any of us that have had town meetings and talked to our elected officials, know they repeatedly complain about the imposition of Federal mandates that are not funded. Localities tell us, ``You're always telling us what to do. You don't give us the money to do it. You are telling us we have to spend our resources in a way that maybe is not the best use of those resources.'' They complain, and legitimately so. And I believe this legislation will rectify that. So I compliment the authors of the legislation. I think it is a giant step in the right direction. And I note that it has been pointed out that Senator Kempthorne is a former mayor of Boise, ID, which shows his influence. A lot us have held different legislative offices. I have heard former Governors speak here. Senator Gregg mentioned his experience as a Governor; Senator Bennett mentioned his experience as a businessman. I too had a business in the private sector. I also used to serve in the State legislature. And we really resented the idea that the Federal Government would come in and mandate how we would spend our resources, because we did not have ample resources to meet all the demands that were there, and yet the Federal Government was telling us how we would spend those resources. So I think this legislation is long overdue and I compliment the authors. In addition, I will just mention that if we continue the practice of unfunded mandates that just allows Congress to pass hidden taxes, we make the cities and counties and States increase their taxes to pay for what we consider a good idea. We should be up front and if we think it is a good idea, we ought to pay for it. We certainly should not mandate it without providing the funds. This legislation will correct that. Is this legislation perfect? No. I made a suggestion to the authors of the legislation that I think we can improve it a little bit and hope that we will. The legislation will prohibit, basically, unfunded mandates on cities and counties and States. The legislation requires a point of order to lie against any legislation which has a mandate unless you provide an estimate of how much it costs and pass the funding to do it. This is the requirement on the legislative branch. Well, there are two ways that cities and counties and States are impacted. One is, we pass legislation that tells them they have to do something. Another way is if the executive branch, through the regulatory agencies, impose a mandate through regulations. In regards to the public sector, this legislation would prohibit the regulatory mandate going into effect unless funding is provided. In addition, it requires that regulatory agencies have to calculate the costs of those mandates on public sector. And I think that is positive. In regards to the private sector there is not a requirement to provide cost estimates of private sector mandates. We cannot prohibit the mandate on the private sector, at least up to now we have not figured out how to do that, but at least we should know what the costs on the private sector are. The regulatory agency should have to state what those costs are before they would have an unfunded mandate on cities or counties or States. If the regulatory agencies are going to put an unfunded mandate on the private sector, we should know what it costs. This legislation does not prohibit the mandate on the private sector, like we do on the public sector. But on the regulatory side, we say if they are going to pass regulations that have a negative impact on the public sector, we at least should know how much it costs, but on the private sector the legislation is silent. Mr. President, we can remedy that, I believe, with just a couple of words changed to make sure that we have cost impacts on the private sector as well if it exceeds the threshold level, $100 million. So, hopefully, the authors of this legislation will support that small amendment. I might mention I have addressed the National Association of County Governments, over 2,000 or 3,000 people, for the last couple of years and it was on this subject. We have all made speeches that have been well received at various times, but when I talked about prohibiting unfunded mandates, I remember an overwhelming reception, because county officials, county commissioners, county clerks, and so on think this is the highest priority. I might also mention, at the same speech, I was with our friend and former majority leader of the Senate, Senator Mitchell, who also made similar statements. And so I am pleased that we have bipartisan support for this legislation. I think it is long overdue. Some of us tried to get it enacted last year. We were not quite successful. We ran out of time or it was postponed. The majority leader did not bring it up until late. I am pleased the majority leader this year, Senator Dole, said, no, this is going be the number one priority; we are going to bring this up at the beginning of the session. It is the second legislative item we have before the Senate and I am very optimistic it will pass. I am a little concerned about delaying tactics, but that is not totally unexpected. I hope that our colleagues would come together and let us offer the amendments that are germane and pertinent to the legislation. Maybe the legislation can be improved upon. Let us consider those amendments and deal with those amendments and pass it. This bill has overwhelming support throughout the country from Democrats, from Republicans, from independents, from mayors to county officials to Governors and it should be enacted. I am optimistic that it will. Mr. President, the legislation does not do everything I think it should do. I am concerned about the overwhelming number of regulations that are now pending from the executive branch. This legislation deals primarily with the legislative branch. And we have thousands of regulations that are now in the pipeline, thousands of which we have become aware of since the election. So, Mr. President, I am going to be introducing today legislation that will been proposed since the election, November 9. And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to go into morning business for the purpose of introducing this legislation.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's sentiments. I do not totally concur with his statement. I do remember in 1993, I introduced congressional coverage as an amendment on the floor, and I remember Senator Mitchell, who was then the majority leader of the Senate, objecting, and he was successful in defeating us by a few votes. I also remember the makeup of the vote, and it was predominantly supported by Republicans, predominantly opposed by Democrats. That is history. That was a couple years ago. My point being, history shows, and the Congressional Record will show, many on the Republican side tried to make Congress abide by the laws, and we had a difficult time. I am delighted we passed a bill almost unanimously yesterday. I think that is a good signal. The House did pass it unanimously and, hopefully, the small differences will be resolved in conference. Concerning the unfunded mandates bill, I will just say there may have been objection to considering it on the unanimous-consent request, but many of us wanted to consider it much earlier. Granted, in the last or waning days of session, one Member may be able to block a particular item. I know that many of us were interested that the bill to prohibit unfunded mandates on public sector governments--county, city, State government--we wanted to have that early in the year. For the crowd of the session or because of the administration's interest in pushing health care, or for whatever reasons, Senator Mitchell talked about getting it up but never really made a concerted effort, at least in my memory or my recollection, until the last waning days of Congress when it is possible for any one person to block a particular bill. That does not really make any difference. I am not trying to revisit history. I also understand my comment made that people on the other side were loving the legislation we had on the floor last week--they had a lot of amendments. My statement on the floor at that time is some of those amendments were good. Senator Bryan had an amendment dealing with congressional pensions, and I urged him to do it on a separate piece of legislation. It should be considered on its own merit. I think it is a serious piece of legislation, one that I intend to support. Maybe we can improve it. Maybe it will go through Governmental Affairs or go through the Rules Committee and we can handle that, but we do not have to do everything on one particular piece of legislation. I do not know if that is going to happen on this bill. I am ready and I think most of us on this side are ready to consider amendments to this bill. We would like to pass this bill this week. We may not be able to. Let us pass it next week. Let us take up and consider amendments. Right now, it happens to be Members on the other side of the aisle who seem to be obstructing us in our ability to consider amendments to the unfunded mandates bill and work our way through it. I hope that we can overcome whatever roadblocks we are now encountering and take up amendments to this bill, work our way through them, and decide how we are going to vote on them. Some of them may be good; some of them possibly should be adopted. And then let us pass this bill. If we pass a bill that prohibits Congress from mandating or passing unfunded mandates on cities, counties, and States, if we pass a bill that says Congress should have to comply with the law, if we pass a constitutional amendment to make us balance the budget, if we do that in the first few weeks of Congress, I think we will have had a pretty productive start to the 104th Congress. I hope that will be the case. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank my colleague. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995--and Congressman Tom DeLay of Texas has offered nearly identical legislation in the House--that places a temporary moratorium on regulatory rulemaking effective from the day after the elections, November 9, 1994, through June 30, 1995. Excessive regulation and redtape imposes an enormous burden on our economy. This hidden tax pushes up prices for goods and services on American households, dampens business investment, and limits the ability of small businesses to create jobs. The Clinton administration's own National Performance Review, issued September 7, 1993, observed that the compliance costs imposed by Federal regulations on the private sector alone were ``at least $430 billion per year--9 percent of our gross domestic product.'' Other economists have placed the direct combined Federal regulatory burden on State and local governments and the private sector at between $500 billion a year and more than $850 billion a year. The Clinton administration's National Performance Review promised to ``end the proliferation of unnecessary and unproductive rules.'' But the flood of excessive regulations has not subsided. It has, in fact, increased during the current administration. For each of the first 2 years of the Clinton administration, the number of pages of actual regulations and notices published in the Federal Register has exceeded any year since the Carter administration. As a matter of fact, if we look at a chart--and I have a chart that I will later pull out for the floor--if you look at it, the Carter administration had the highest number of pages in the Federal Register in history. Actually, over 73,000 pages. That number declined substantially during the Reagan administration. It fell all the way down to 44,000 pages. It declined significantly during the Reagan administration. During President Bush's administration, it climbed all the way up to 57,000. Now during the Clinton administration, the first 2 years, it is above 64,000, almost 65,000. The pages in the Federal Register declined during the Reagan era, climbed up somewhat during the Bush era, and it is exploding during the Clinton administration. That is why the majority leader, Bob Dole, has designated regulatory reform as one of the top priorities of the 104th Congress and created a task force to be led by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator Kit Bond to look at ways of cutting through the redtape. I am happy to be part of this task force. We have been talking about the best way to begin dealing with this massive problem. On November 14, less than 1 week after the American people sent a clear signal for less Government and less regulations and less spending, the administration published three volumes containing outlines for more than 4,300 administration regulations that it intends to pursue during fiscal year 1995 and beyond. We decided the first step to reform should be to put a hold on the new regulations so we could have a chance to sort through these pages and figure out whether or not there are things that are necessary and maybe some of which are not necessary. On December 12 of last year, Bob Dole and myself and other House and Senate Members wrote to President Clinton and asked if he would impose a 100-day moratorium on the new regulations. The administration responded on December 14, 1994, with a letter from Sally Katzen, Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In her letter she states that the Clinton administration rejects the request for a moratorium, calling a moratorium a ``blunderbuss that could work in unintended ways.'' The Clinton administration deliberately ignored the health and safety exceptions suggested by Republican leaders and raised the emotional examples of regulations dealing with tainted meat and Desert Storm syndrome. The President, in declining to impose a moratorium himself, cited one of the reasons being that a moratorium would stop rules from being issued regardless of the merit. He claims it would stop the Department of Agriculture, for example, from dealing with tainted meat in the food supply. I want to clarify that this concern is totally, completely unfounded. The moratorium we are proposing specifically exempts regulations designed to remedy imminent threats to health and safety or other emergencies as determined by the agency head and the President. This act also excludes any regulations that reduces or streamlines the Federal Government and any regulation that is necessary for the day-to-day operations of Federal agencies. For example, this moratorium would not in any way prevent the Federal Energy and Regulation Commission from denying or approving electric or gas transportation rate modifications. Currently, local utility operators file rate-increase requests with the FERC. Approval or denial is part of the Commission's daily operations and would be excluded from this moratorium under the exclusion provided for granting licenses or applications. Also, regulations to ensure that Federal agencies continue to undertake regulatory actions that are required by Federal law that, when completed, will streamline a rule, regulation, administration process or reduce an existing regulatory burden would also be excluded. For example, a pending regulation requiring the Secretary of Transportation to lift certain hours-of-service requirements from farmers operating agriculture equipment would be excluded from this moratorium because it essentially reduces Government interference in the operations of the farms in our Nation. So, I will just reiterate that our goal here is not to be a roadblock to important measures related to health and safety of the American people, or to tie the hands of agencies trying to carry out daily operations, or streamline or to delay steps taken to reduce or streamline Government. I have said many times I have no doubt that there are some regulations within these three volumes that are good and necessary, and we should move with all swiftness to enact them. But I also know that there are some regulations that are not necessary. There are not cost effective. They do not streamline bureaucracy; they expand it. Let us put a hold on these and take a look to make sure that we do what we can do to reduce Government, reduce spending, and ease the crushing economic burden that the Federal regulations have created for the private sector and local governments. Mr. President, in looking at this list of regulations that was announced or cataloged by the November 14 release, there are over 4,300 regulatory actions proposed for the year 1995 and beyond; primarily 1995 and 1996. Between October 1994 and April 1995 the Clinton administration is scheduled to issue 872 rules. Mr. President, I will just say I am sure some of the rules are needed, but I am quite confident many are not. I am quite confident that many are not cost effective. Many have not been analyzed for scientific analysis, many of which the benefits to not exceed their cost. We should stop those regulations. This moratorium will allow us to have the time to review those regulations, plus allow those that are beneficial to go forward. Let us stop those that are not. Mr. President, I wish this was not necessary. I wish the administration would have taken our suggestion and made the moratorium, and made it on their own initiative. Then they would have total control over deciding what is effective and what is in order. They refused that offer. Maybe they will reconsider. Congressman DeLay, myself, Senator Bond, Senator Hutchison, also Congressman McIntosh met with representatives of the administration yesterday and requested such actions. They did say they would be willing to talk with us, and hopefully those talks regulations. In the event they are not, we plan on proceeding ahead with this legislation. I have several cosponsors of this legislation, which I will now read for the record as well: In addition to myself, we have Senators Bond, Hutchison, Dole, Grassley, Ashcroft, Coverdell, Abraham, Thompson, Burns, Shelby, McConnell, Faircloth, Thomas, Smith, McCain, Craig, Coats, Santorum, Mack, Gregg, Murkowski, Lott, Kyl, Thurmond, Hatch, Helms, Inhofe, Simpson, Grams of Minnesota, Frist, Gramm of Texas, Bennett, and Kempthorne. Mr. President, there are additional cosponsors out there. My point is that this act has overwhelming support in the Senate. I hope that the administration will take our suggestion and impose voluntarily this moratorium. If not, it is my intention to pursue this, not necessarily as an amendment on this legislation; I want this legislation to pass. I want it to pass and I want it to be signed. I want it to become law. I have noticed that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to have an affinity to try to love a piece of legislation to death and want to put every amendment they can on a bill. This bill I have just introduced is an attractive amendment. It may well pass on this bill. I decided to introduce it separately. We are requesting the Governmental Affairs Committee to have hearings on it as quickly as possible. I might mention that the House of Representatives is having hearings on this this Thursday. They plan on moving forward on it as well. I think we have provided exceptions that are necessary for the orderly transition of Government, for regulations that are necessary to go forward. It also provides for at least delay through the month of June to allow us to review other regulations to make sure that they are beneficial and cost effective. Mr. President, I have this bill, and I will send it to the desk and introduce it accompanying my statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator withhold before he makes the point of order----

Mr. NICKLES. So I can address the Senate for a few minutes? Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Domenici for his statement and also I compliment our colleague from Nebraska for his bill. I was hoping in a way it would be a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. But I just tell my colleague from Nebraska, who is now the ranking member of the Budget Committee, I think the Budget Act should be amended. I will work with him to amend it. I do not think it should be amended on the floor of the Senate today. We do not have to pass--I just make mention to my colleagues--we do not have to pass every amendment that might be around in our first week in session. I know there are ideas on campaign reform. There are ideas on lobbying reform. I hope the majority would like to pass a bill to make Congress abide by the laws like everyone else in the country. The House has already passed it and the Senate has not. I really would like the Senate to pass it. I introduced it in 1991. We did not win that time. I remember at that time the majority leader was Senator Mitchell. He spoke out very vigorously and he convinced a lot of people and we lost. I would really like to pass it. I would like to pass it clean. I am interested in amending the Budget Act. I think our budget procedures do not work very well and one of the things I would like to change is our baseline so we do not have inflated baselines. That is something, now, that has gained some popularity. Maybe that can be in part of our Budget Act Resolution. There are some other things we can do in the Budget Act, I think, that also would make sense. When the Senator from Nebraska says that any budget resolution should move us on a path towards a balanced budget, I may well support that. Maybe a direct path. We can negotiate that. But I think the Budget Act probably needs some amendments and I will be happy to work with my colleague from Nebraska to make that happen. I know there are some other amendments that need to be made to the Budget Act in addition to this that is before us today. This particular amendment does not have anything to do with making Congress abide by the laws like everybody else. There are 11 statutes from which Congress has exempted itself, going all the way back to 1935, and we are trying to remedy that. I know colleagues have amendments: We want to ban lobbying; we want to ban gifts; we want to ban this, and try to correct everything that can possibly be wrong in our first week in session. be in session the following week. The majority leader has already said we can take up several of these issues soon. The Senator from New Mexico said we are going to take up a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. We are going to take up implementing legislation. We are going to take up a budget resolution. That happens by statute. It has to happen, I believe, by April 15. We have to pass a joint resolution implementing the budget resolution. So this is going to happen. It does not have to happen today. So the intent of my colleague from Nebraska, I think, is well made. But I hope we will defer it, or postpone it, and let us look at rewriting the Budget Act. Let us not do it on this bill. Let us pass this bill as it is. I would like to pass it today. Let us send it to the President and get his signature on it. I think it would be a positive accomplishment for this Congress and for this President. I yield the floor and I thank my colleague from New Mexico for yielding to me.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to reintroduce the Crime Victims Restitution Act. Last fall when the Senate passed it's version of the crime bill, I lauded the inclusion of my victim's rights and mandatory restitution provisions in the legislation. Three years ago, I introduced the Victim's Rights and Restitution Act, and many of those victim's rights provisions passed as part of the 1990 crime bill. However, each time this restitution provision has passed the Senate it has subsequently been dropped in conference. Pasage of this legislation would signal a great victory for all victims of crime. If these provisions become law, crime victims will enjoy rights at the Federal level that many States already guarantee. Most important are the act's restitution provisions, making criminals pay for their crimes. Under the legislation, crime victims will be entitled to receive full financial compensation directly from the criminal in the form of mandatory restitution. Over the last several years, it seems we have continuously debated what should be done to improve our Nation's judicial system. Now is the time to do something about it. I strongly believe our judicial system needs fundamental reform to help our police officers and courts deal with the overwhelming increase in crime. Furthermore, it is crucial that while trying to facilitate more effective and efficient methods of dealing with criminals, we must not forget about the most important part of the crime-fighting equation: The victims. In 1990, I authored the crime victim's bill of rights which passed as part of the 1990 crime bill. For crimes tried in Federal court, victims now have the right to be notified of and involved in court proceedings, the right to be protected from the accused, the right to be treated fairly and with respect, and the right to be informed of the detention status of the convicted criminal. However, passage of just the victims rights portion of my proposal left some unfinished business. Crime victims should be entitled to compensation for losses sustained from their victimization. This glaring inequity was remedied in the crime bill when it passed the Senate last year. It contained mandates that courts order restitution in all Federal criminal cases. Victims would be able to recover financial losses resulting from the criminal act. This restitution order would be a condition of any form of release for the offender. The legislation would ensure that the criminal not only pays his debt to society, but he also pays his debt to his victim. However, the Democrats in the House voted to delete these provisions from the final crime bill. The provisions of this legislation also overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hughey case which stated restitution could not be ordered for crimes beyond the scope of the offense of conviction. So, if a criminal is convicted of a criminal offense, but plea bargains his way out of a conviction on a second offense, he cannot be held responsible to repay the victim of the second offense. This obvious shortcoming would be corrected by allowing the court to consider the course of criminal conduct and order restitution for crimes other than the offense of conviction. Plea bargains should not result in victims being denied the justice they deserve which certainly includes full restitution from the offender. Over the years mandatory restitution has received the written endorsements of victim rights experts across the Nation including the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Victim Center, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the National Coalition Against Sexual Assault. This landmark victim's legislation needs to be enacted into law. Mandatory restitution, while not healing all the wounds associated with a crime, will provide some compensation to help people who have been victimized and allow them to get their lives back in order. If Congress reconsiders crime legislation this year, these provisions certainly need to be a part of the final bill.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 5, the Peace Powers Act of 1995, introduced by Majority Leader Dole. This is a much-needed piece of legislation, in that it not only unties the President's hands in those instances where he needs to act to ensure American interests, it also enacts important reforms in the manner in which the United States participates in U.N. operations. First, S. 5 repeals the unworkable--and probably unconstitutional-- War Powers Resolution. This is long overdue. I, like many of my colleagues, have always believed that the Framers of the Constitution always intended that the President should be able to act with dispatch to protect American interests in his capacity of Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. While Congress retains the power of the purse, and the continuing right to cut off funds at will, there is no clear right for Congress to preemptively subject the President to a drop dead date in the conduct of military operations. This bill does retain the consultation and reporting provisions of the War Powers Resolution, which have not been controversial and with which all administrations have complied, in the spirit of cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. A major provision is section 5 of the bill, which amends the United Nations Participation Act to prohibit the President from placing any element of the U.S. Armed Forces under the command or operational control of any foreign national in any UN peacekeeping operation. This is a matter that commands strong support among the American public, who do not want to see our service personnel placed willy-nilly under the control of non-Americans, exposed to dangers in operations that may have little if any relation to American interests. I am pleased to point out that this provision is very similar to an amendment that I attempted--unsuccessfully, at that time--to add to the Department of Defense appropriations bill in 1993. However, as President Clinton has shown himself more and more willing to delegate his constitutional power to international bureaucrats at the United Nations, the wisdom of this prohibition has become more and more apparent. I look forward to its becoming law in the very near future. Finally, S. 5 includes provisions to reform the way U.N. peacekeeping is incurred by the Defense Department in U.N. peacekeeping operations will be credited to the United States against our assessments to the United Nations. No more would the United States be, in effect, stuck with the bill twice: the first time, when the Defense Department expends resources to support a U.N. mission, and the second time when the U.N. bills us for our share of the same mission. Also, the Peace Powers Act requires that advance notice of funding sources for peacekeeping operations be identified before the U.N. Security Council votes to establish, extend, or expand U.N. peacekeeping operations. This would prevent ``deficit voting'' by the Clinton Administration--which has treated peacekeeping, in effect, as a sort of ``international entitlement program,'' where we commit to an operation and only worry about paying for it afterward. The Peace Powers Act is the start of what I hope will be a major reexamination of U.S. priorities in the national security area. In particular, the Clinton Administration, in the view of many of us, has not approached its responsibilities in this area with sufficient seriousness. For example, we have seen the way in which the Clinton Administration has completely mishandled the nuclear crisis involving North Korea. In fact, while the Clinton Administration claims that preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a top priority, its actions, as evidenced by the October 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea may do more to promote nuclear proliferation. The agreed framework commits the United States to provide North Korea with immediate economic, political and security benefits in return for Pyongyang freezing its nuclear complex. What signal does this send to other would-be proliferators? That building a nuclear weapons complex, in violation of an international accord--namely, the 1968 Nonproliferation Treaty--is the best way to get economic aid, political concessions, and national security assurances from the United States. Here is what Iraqi foreign minister Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf [sah-YEED sah-HAHF] had to say about the United States-North Korean deal: ``What does North Korea get for its refusal?'', [referring to international inspections of two sites suspected of holding nuclear weapons-related materials] ``They get a $4 billion light-water reactor, get a couple billion dollars in addition, plus unlimited oil deliveries. What do we get? We get nothing.'' [As related to the Washington Post by Rolf Ekeus [EH-kyoos], director of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq.] Under the agreed framework the United States will: Immediately provide North Korea with close to $4.7 million worth of heavy oil; establish liaison offices with North Korea; begin relaxing trade restrictions; and cancel the annual United States/South Korean military exercise ``Team Spirit.'' And North Korea's shooting down of a United States helicopter that accidentally strayed north of the snow-obscured border-line--and then holding the surviving pilot prisoner--has not diluted this Administration's eagerness to deal with North Korea. But even more astounding is that despite months of North Korean intransigence over allowing international nuclear inspections, the Clinton administration agreed to provide these valuable assets without ensuring international inspections. Only after about 5 years into the agreement's implementation, and close to the completion of the first of two light water reactors, is North Korea required to come into full compliance with the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits the diversion of nuclear materials from peaceful purposes to weapons use and obligates signatories to accept ``safeguards'' to monitor and verify compliance. And it is only at this point that the special inspections of the two nuclear waste sites will be allowed. To give another example, I applaud the proposal of my colleague, Senator McConnell, the incoming Chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, to take a new look at our foreign aid to Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union in light of some of the things that are happening there. Senator McConnell has called for cutting aid to Russia upon evidence that Moscow is directing or supporting the violation of another nation's sovereignty. In addition, I am sure my colleagues feel as I do about the disturbing television pictures we are seeing from Chechnya [chech-NYAH], and the actions of Russian forces there. While Chechnya is legally part of Russia and not a neighboring country, I am concerned what these actions may indicate about the direction of the Russian Government and its commitment to democratic reform. So, as I have said, Mr. President, there are many issues for us to take a look at in the 104th Congress. The Peace Powers Act is an excellent beginning. I hope it will rapidly be enacted.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am very pleased to join Senator Grassley, Senator Lieberman and my colleagues in the introduction of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1994. This legislation applies 10 labor and employment laws to Congress: First, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, second, the Federal Labor-Management Relations Act 1978, third, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, fourth the Civil Rights Act of 1964, fifth, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, sixth, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, seventh, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, eight, Employee Polygraph Protection Act; ninth, Work Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and tenth, Veterans Reemployment Act. James Madison is often quoted in relation to the issue of congressional coverage. He said, ``Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as on the great mass of society.'' But I am concerned that the meaning of his words is lost due to their frequency of use in this debate. What was Madison getting at, and what was so important for him to incorporate this phrase into the Federalist Papers? I believe he had a profound sense of public accountability and integrity in mind when he penned those words. He also remembered the degenerating effect of aristocracy upon the people. Today, we are in a much different time period, but are never-the-less confronting the same issues as Madison and our founding fathers. To bolster the integrity of this institution, now is the time for the adoption of congressional coverage legislation in keeping with our American tradition. Congress has been exempting itself from employment and labor laws since 1935. I suspect this was done in a sincere effort to maintain a separation of powers. It was also done in a time when Congress was a far simpler organization, not the enormous bureaucracy we have today. Because Congress has changed, so must the laws governing it. Until we are prepared to live under the laws, Congress should not be imposing them on anybody else. If business or private individuals run afoul of any labor, employment and health and safety laws, they face bureaucratic headaches and possible Federal court litigation. Congress has exempted itself from these laws completely or has limited redress with no right to full judicial appeal. During consideration of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, I offered an amendment which would have made Congress and its instrumentalities subject to all regulations and remedies contained in many of the employment, discrimination, and health and safety laws enacted since the 1930's. Later, I introduced the amendment as a free-standing bill, the Congressional and Presidential Accountability Act both the 103d and 104th Congresses. Adopted in lieu of my amendment was a provision authored by the Majority Leader George Mitchell and Senator Grassley which provides procedures to give Senate employees protection under several civil rights laws and limited judicial review. Under the adopted amendment, the Senate was permitted to establish an internal enforcement mechanism under civil rights laws. This was a good beginning. Since my efforts on the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the efforts of those before me on this issue including Senator Grassley, the joint committee to reorganize Congress and the bipartisan task force on Senate coverage were established and further analyzed and researched the issue. The bipartisan task force on Senate coverage report was sent to the majority and Republican leader on November important function in analyzing the issue of congressional coverage, as members of the task force Senator Grassley and I believed its conclusions would only perpetuate the current lack of accountability to the laws of the land by Congress. Following the task force conclusions, I was pleased to join Senator Grassley and Senator Lieberman in the introduction of the Congressional Accountability Act during the 103d Congress. I believe this legislation met the principles set forth by James Madison. During the 103d Congress, the House overwhelmingly approved 427 to 4, similar legislation introduced by Congressman Shays and Congressman Swett. Following the House action the Democratic leadership in the Senate blocked any action and the 103d Congress ended without covering Congress under the laws of the land. The legislation before us today will bring Congress under the coverage of labor, civil rights and health and safety laws from which it has been exempt. I am proud to say that I believe this Congress will finally do the right thing and ensure that Congress lives under the laws it imposes on other and perhaps the consequence will be to ensure that Congress will now understand how the laws it passes actually work. Our legislation establishes an independent Office of Congressional Compliance to administer and enforce these laws. It also allows a congressional employee the right to sue in Federal court under those laws which allow a similarly situated private sector employee the right to sue. This right is extended to collective bargaining and occupational safety and health claims. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to end the practice of Congress living above the law and help to regain the trust and confidence of the public.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I along with Senators Helms, Smith, and Grassley introduce legislation that will give States greater flexibility in enacting laws that link school attendance to welfare benefits. These innovative State initiatives are known as Learnfare. We are all aware that this Congress will face the larger issue of comprehensive which emphasizes individual choice and responsibility as the key to leaving welfare and getting out of poverty, not a bloated bureaucracy. A very significant part of that reform which will break the welfare cycle is education and innovative Learnfare programs. State governments all over the Nation are looking for new ways to reduce the prevalence of welfare dependency and lower high school dropout rates. Learnfare calls on adults to be held accountable for their actions, and holds parents on public assistance accountable for the education of their children. This is just plain common sense. Most policymakers agree that education is the best way to break the cycle of generational poverty that plagues our Nation's poor. Children who drop out of high school are more likely to be unemployed, more likely to turn to a life of crime, and more likely to end up on welfare than their peers who remain in school. We must take every measure possible to insure that every child in the country benefits from our Nation's educational systems. Pioneered in Wisconsin, Learnfare is the linkage of AFDC dollars to school attendance. Interest in these programs has been voiced from Massachusetts to California and from Washington to Florida as well as the State of Oklahoma. Currently, States are able to enact these measures by obtaining a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand their mandated Job Opportunities and Basic Skills [JOBS] programs to include school-age dependents of AFDC recipients. Unfortunately, States seeking to gain this waiver have met with Federal, bureaucratic stonewalling. I want to stress that this is not a mandate on the States but simply gives them the option by removing barriers which currently exist if they chose to implement a Learnfare program. My legislation will remove this Federal stumbling block by amending the State programs section of the social Security code's AFDC regulations to allow States the option of implementing Learnfare programs. Doing away with the necessity for a Federal waiver will encourage States to implement innovative ways of keeping at-risk youths in school. It is important to note that this legislation places no mandates on the States--it simply gives them the option to establish a program if they chose. Knowing the importance of educational opportunities, the Nation's Governors adopted a 90-percent graduation rate as one of the national education goals. Learnfare will help attain this goal. I truly hope this will be the first step toward reestablishing the once commonplace notion that individuals are answerable for their actions. Requiring responsible actions of welfare recipients will create a two-way obligation between the States and those on welfare. States are obliged to assist recipients in getting off the welfare rolls and recipients, in turn, are encouraged to use their benefits to better their situation. We must challenge all Americans to take a stake in our Nation's education systems. As the debate on welfare reform unfolds, I challenge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that it is a key part of any welfare reform package. It will give the States the opportunity to enact programs the ensure every school-age child in America the educational opportunity they deserve.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would first like to commend Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn for once again introducing the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. Senator Kempthorne has been especially stalwart in pushing unfunded mandate legislation to the forefront and keeping the Senate's focus on this important issue. Particularly, I am pleased the legislation includes my language to require executive branch agencies to do a cost estimate of regulatory actions, which was a key component of my legislation, the Economic and Employment Impact Act. On October 27, 1993, Governors, State legislators, county officials and mayors from across the Nation came to Washington and declared ``National Unfunded Mandates Day''. They sent a very loud and clear signal to Congress and the Clinton administration that State and local governments and the taxpayers can no longer afford the exploding costs of unfunded Federal mandates. The simple fact is when the Federal Government passes an unfunded mandate on the States and local governments, they must then raise taxes, reduce other spending or borrow. Mandates on the private sector also add great costs to the economy. The ultimate loser in this cycle is the U.S. taxpayer. According to a U.S. Conference of Mayors' survey of 314 cities, the cost of unfunded Federal mandates to cities alone for 1993 was $6.5 billion. The Federal Clean Water Act--$3.6 billion, Federal Solid Waste Disposal--$1 billion, and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act--$0.6 billion were the most costly unfunded mandates. On the private sector side, the Chamber of Commerce has recently reported the result of a survey of its membership which identified the issue of unfunded mandates and their costs on the private sector and State and local governments as the No. 1 issue. Several States and local governments did their own studies of the costs of unfunded Federal mandates. The city of Columbus, OH found that compliance with Federal environmental regulations alone will cost the city up to $1.6 billion over the next 10 years, which equals $850 annually per household. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act forces Congress to know how much Federal mandates on States and local governments and the private sector cost. In addition, it will require that the Federal Government pays the costs incurred by complying with mandates on State and local governments. This legislation will ensure that the economic impact of major legislative and regulatory proposals on State and local governments and the private sector are given full consideration in Congress and the executive branch before they become policy. One of the primary reasons for the explosive growth in Federal mandates is Washington's ignorance of exactly how much they costs States, local governments and private citizens, regardless of how well- intended they may be. This legislation seeks a solution to that problem by requiring the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] to estimate the impact of Federal mandates to State, local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector. In order to ensure the cooperation of CBO and the committees in providing this valuable economic impact information to the full Senate, the legislation before us requires a majority point of order to lie against any Federal mandate legislation which does not have a CBO cost estimate of the impact of that legislation on State and local governments or the private sector. Mandates costing greater than $50 million affecting State and local governments will not only have an estimate of the costs but also include the money or taxes to pay for the mandate. If it does not pass both tests a majority point of order will lie against the legislation. The economic impact analysis requirement for legislation which affects the private sector is vitally important. The private sector provision command CBO to provide an impact statement of the costs and the effect on the economy of legislation with mandates which exceed $200 million in any of the next 5 years. This requirement is similar to legislation, the Economic and Employment Impact Act, Senator Reid and myself offered as an amendment to the National Competitiveness Act, and was approved by voice vote by the full Senate. Another important element of this legislation that is also a key component of the Economic and Employment Impact Act, is the requirement for economic impact analysis of regulatory actions exceeding $100 million by executive branch agencies. The author of this act should be commended for requiring a cost analysis for regulations affecting State and local governments and the private sector. The cost of Federal mandates has unleashed havoc upon State and local governments and the private sector. Congress and the administration must stop passing the costs of their good ideas without knowing the costs of those ideas and assuming responsibility for the undue economic burdens on the local governments, the private sector and the U.S. taxpayer.