Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in wholeheartedly supporting Robert E. Rubin for the position of Secretary of the Treasury. I have no doubt but that Bob will serve our country with a steadiness and honor similar to that evidenced by my old friend, and our former Senate colleague, outgoing Secretary Lloyd Bentsen. I believe that Mr. Rubin has a full understanding and appreciation of the critical link between spiraling entitlement spending and the challenge of deficit reduction. I also believe that he shares my opinion that all tinkering at the margin of deficit reduction, such as eliminating Federal spending for a tse-tse fly program, or Lawrence Welk's boyhood home, or even foreign aid, or eliminating ``Waste, Fraud and Abuse,'' will do little to slow future deficit growth so long as entitlement spending remains unreformed. This morning during Mr. Rubin's testimony before the Finance Committee, he assured the committee that deficit reduction was on the administration's list of priorities, although not its top priority. One reason he gave for this ordering of priorities was that annual deficits were poised to shrink in the short term. That is true, but this is only because of a temporary lull in the growth of the number of retired Americans, a trend which will reverse at the end of this decade and set deficits soaring again. I urge Mr. Rubin and the administration to thoughtfully review that priority list and reconsider placing deficit reduction at the very top. If we postpone our commitment to deficit-reduction, the choices facing us later will be grievous. I have spoken with Mr. Rubin about my commitment to deficit reduction and entitlement reform, and he has responded by citing anew the administration's commitment to health care reform. I was pleased that he made clear that it would be unrealistic to expect that a huge new entitlement such as was presented in last year's Health Security Act would pass this Congress. We agreed that incremental reform was a far more realistic goal, and he spoke first about the necessity of cost containment in any health care reform package. I was pleased by that. Too often health care reform pitches are given in terms of what wonderful promises the Government is going to make in the area of expanded coverage, as opposed to the tough choices which must be made to reduce cost growth. Mr. Rubin focused first on cost containment in his comments to me, and I took favorable notice of that emphasis. Mr. Rubin's credentials are well known to the Finance Committee and to the Senate, and there is no significant opposition that I know of to his nomination, aimed either at his qualifications or his temperament. He is clearly an outstanding choice and I commend the Senate for approving his nomination.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I inquire of my colleague, Senator Pryor. He was waiting to speak before I came in and he requested time to do so.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, if I said that my remarks would not exceed 5 minutes, there would be an audible gasp. However, I want you to observe the clock and you will find that they shall not exceed the period of 5 minutes. I, too, will say a lot more later. I thank my friend from Arkansas, who came here when I did, Senator Pryor, and Senator Heflin, also. We have a special bond in our class which is very strong that crosses party lines. In fact, the other evening we met, the survivors of the class of 1978, and talked about how we might try to make this place work better with bipartisanship. That is an effort that we will pursue with people of the caliber of Senator Pryor and Senator Heflin. But let me just say a word about my friend. Bennett Johnston is a special man, a man of remarkable brightness, energy, and a wonderful sense of humor, and a person who could come to this floor in the midst of a debate on nuclear fission and without a note suddenly be totally in the fray or who could come here on issues of energy, Btu's or public lands and without a note debate for an hour or two taking questions, fielding questions thoroughly engaged. So what I learned from him is a remarkable intellect blended with a wonderful mind and an ability to deal with complex issues, and when everyone else, like in the words of Rudyard Kipling, was ``losing their heads,'' blaming it on you, Bennett would be right there with that wonderful whimsical smile which is difficult to identify sometimes. You never know quite what is being concocted there with that smile. But I have seen it many times, and it is always with a gentleness. So I thank him for what he taught me on nuclear issues as I chaired the nuclear regulations subcommittee as a freshman, and how he helped me on all energy issues when I was again chairing that committee. On public lands issues, I watched my colleague from Wyoming, Malcolm Wallop, work with him and watched Bennett and Malcolm, even though they disagreed strongly, work so well together. They gave us finally an energy bill that was unattainable for decades. I thank him for that. He is dogged, determined, with a persistence and steadiness which is enviable. So I thank him. I have been privileged to travel with him. Whatever they have said about Mary is not enough. That is a special woman, and it has been a great honor and privilege to travel with him. Whether it was in Vietnam or China or around the world, dealing with nuclear issues, any time Bennett rose to give the greetings or receive the acknowledgment from another head of state, we just all sat back and knew it would be done with wonderful compassion, skill, and a completely tactful presentation. He was our spokesman, and whatever side of the aisle you were on, you never even questioned that. So a gentle, congenial man of very steady demeanor will be greatly missed. It is not easy to find people who will do this kind of work and take what goes with it. We are thin-skinned sometimes. I know I am. But he just smiles and takes it, and can dish it right back in beautiful fashion and always with a gentler, much gentler, recipe than it has been dished out to him. So to Bennett and to Mary, and their dear family, and to the son-in- law who will serve us in Congress on the other side of the aisle, I wish them all well. It has been a rich personal privilege for Ann and for me to come to know Bennett and Mary Johnston, and we love them. We wish them well in whatever they may wish to do in the future. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to express my firm support for congressional coverage legislation. This bill represents a most fundamental ingredient in the recipe to reform this institution. By exempting itself from the laws it passes, Congress is truly losing touch with the practical consequences of those laws. And today, we have a Congress in Wonderland passing legislation that does not reflect true workplace realities. Over the years we have heard some very artful explanations as to why Congress continues to exempt itself from the very laws it passes. We have heard that the constitution prevents executive branch enforcement of employment laws on Congress. We have heard that the constitution's ``Speech or Debate'' clause protecting Members of Congress from legal challenges against them includes their actions as employers. And we have also heard how being a Member of Congress embodies certain highly unique circumstances not faced by other employers. I must say, not one of these explanations warrants these continued exemptions. One of the biggest reason why Congress so freely exempts itself is because it is not governed by statute--rather we live by our own rules. We set rules which allow us to go about our merry way with little fear that if we do happen to cross the line from time to time, it doesn't really matter because there is no practical enforcement mechanism. The current system allows us to change the rules at any time--and for any reason. For example, when the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was signed into law, Senators were held personally liable for any unlawful discrimination. But lo and behold, this provision was quietly dropped from the 1993 legislative branch appropriations bill. Another example involves the minimum wage law. Last time we increased the minimum wage to $4.25 an hour, Congress was covered. But because the law was so burdensome, the U.S. Congress effectively exempted itself from the bill's major provisions a short time later. Just imagine if we allowed private employers to behave like this. Imagine an employer tailoring regulations to suit his convenience, and changing them whenever he chooses. Congress would cast a most disapproving eye upon that. So would the public. Mr. President, it is no wonder why business organizations have made congressional accountability their top legislative priority. If Congress is forced to live with the laws it passes, it may act with considerably more prudence. Congressional accountability could well become a practical tool in our legislative work. True congressional coverage would provide each of us with immediate impact as to the successes, failures and unanticipated implications of our programs. Exemptions, on the other hand, insulate us from the real impact of the laws we pass. We need to know how our laws feel to those out there in the real world where the rubber hits the road. Congressional accountability is an issue of necessity. New employment laws are increasingly rushed through congress on unrelated bills, with no opportunity for public hearings or debate. It is imperative that we put the brakes on the accelerating speed of carelessly enacted employment requirements. Congressional accountability is also about simple fairness. We do indeed deal with a lot of very complicated issues here in the U.S. Senate, but this issue is not really very complicated at all. The rest of American voters are out there paying taxes, complying with Federal regulation after Federal regulation, and playing by the rules. On the other hand, there is the perception that we continue to sit here in our ivory towers issuing our decrees, yet, telling the American public to ``Do as we say, not as we do.'' It is only fair that our own congressional employees should be completely covered by employment laws. I urge the Senate to pass the Congressional Accountability Act. To pass it cleanly, kept free of unnecessary and nongermane amendments. I thank the chair.