[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
THE SO-CALLED ``WHITEWATER MATTER''
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, earlier today the distinguished
Republican leader made another in a series of speeches on the Senate
floor regarding the so-called ``Whitewater matter,'' and I feel
constrained to respond.
Mr. President and Members of the Senate, President Clinton has acted
to address questions which have arisen about the so-called Whitewater
matter. He has taken the necessary steps to assure that there will not
be even the appearance of interference in the investigation by anyone
in the Whitewater matter.
I was pleased to learn of the President's decision to name Lloyd
Cutler as the new White House counsel. Mr. Cutler has brought
experience in Government and in the law. He is a man of unquestioned
integrity. He will serve the President and the Nation well.
The investigation is a serious matter. It is being conducted by a
serious man, a special counsel. Robert Fiske is a man of unquestioned
ability as a prosecutor. Mr. Fiske is a lifelong Republican. He was
named as special counsel pursuant to a request led by Republican
Members of Congress for the appointment of the special counsel. His
appointment was applauded by virtually all in this body. The junior
Senator from New York, for example, stated: ``Bob Fiske is uniquely
qualified for this position. He is a man of uncompromising integrity.
He will unearth the truth for the American people.''
Mr. President and Members of the Senate, there is only one way that
Mr. Fiske will not be able to unearth the truth for the American
people. And that is if Congress now conducts a separate inquiry which
will undermine Mr. Fiske's investigation and make it impossible for him
to unearth the very truth which our Republican colleagues have said he
will in fact unearth.
We need to allow Mr. Fiske to do his job. When Republican Senators
called for the appointment of the special counsel, they said, if a
special counsel is appointed, there will be no second-guessing. And,
yet, within minutes after Mr. Fiske was appointed as special counsel,
the second-guessing began, and it continues to this day with requests
for immediate hearings in Congress even in the face of Mr. Fiske's
stated opposition to such hearings. In a letter he clearly and
eloquently set forth the complications which would follow were those
hearings to be held. And yet despite his warning, our Republican
colleagues continue to demand that there be congressional hearings,
risking fatal damage to the investigation which has begun by the
special counsel.
This demand for immediate hearings is clear evidence that the purpose
is purely political. This is partisan politics at its worst, the sole
purpose being to embarrass the President and to score political points.
Why is that so? President Clinton is moving forward on an important
domestic agenda on health care, welfare reform, crime, and campaign
finance reform. As a result, our Republican colleagues have been left
with no real issues. They now seize upon Whitewater in a blatantly
partisan effort to embarrass and weaken the President. I do not think
the American people have been fooled, and we cannot allow their
partisan effort to cause us to take actions which would undermine the
investigation by the special counsel.
Early this week Mr. Fiske wrote the chairman and ranking member of
the Senate Banking Committee requesting that, and I quote Mr. Fiske:
* * *committee not conduct any hearings in the areas
covered by the grand jury's ongoing investigation, both in
order to avoid compromising that investigation and in order
to further the public interest in preserving fairness,
thoroughness, and confidentiality of the grand jury process.
Mr. Fiske went on to say, and again I quote:
We are doing everything possible to conduct and conclude as
expeditiously as possible a complete, thorough, and impartial
investigation. Inquiry into the underlying events surrounding
MGS&L, Whitewater and CMS by a congressional committee would
impose a severe risk to the integrity of our investigation.
Mr. President, Congress has an important oversight responsibility. It
must be met, and it will be met. But it should be met at a time and
under conditions which will not undermine and defeat the special
counsel's investigation.
In January of this year, Judge Lawrence Walsh, the Independent
Counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation, stated, and I now quote Judge
Walsh:
I think the views of some of those in the congressional
committees that there was a possibility of concurrent
activity that the Congress could investigate on television
and that the criminal prosecution could also go on was just
proved to be wrong, and I think the lesson is very clear, as
we spelled out in the report. Congress has control. It's a
political decision as to which is more important, but it
can't have both. If it wants to proceed with a joint
committee or a special committee or have--to compel testimony
by granting immunity, it has to realize that the odds are
very strong that it's going to kill any resulting criminal
prosecution.
In his final report to the court on the Iran-Contra investigation,
Judge Walsh wrote, and again I quote:
Congress should be aware of the fact that future immunity
grants, at least in such highly publicized cases, will likely
rule out criminal prosecution.
The report continues:
Congressional action that precludes, or makes it impossible
to sustain, a prosecution has more serious consequences than
simply one less conviction. There is a significant inequity
when more peripheral players are convicted while central
figures in a criminal enterprise escape punishment. And
perhaps more fundamentally, the failure to punish
governmental lawbreakers feeds the perception that public
officials are not wholly accountable for their actions.
Mr. President, a serious investigation conducted by a serious man,
with full and independent authority, is now underway. We should let
that investigation continue and let the chips fall where they may. If
there has been any wrongdoing, I am convinced Mr. Fiske will determine
that, and there will follow appropriate prosecution and punishment, as
there should be. If there has been no wrongdoing, I am confident he
will say that in his report to the court.
We should not now be taking any steps which make his task impossible
or anymore difficult. We must get on with the issues that the American
people care deeply about. We cannot allow the political tactics and the
political agenda of some in the minority to obstruct the President's
agenda for America: Health care reform, job creation, crime control,
welfare reform and, most importantly, continued economic growth.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments made by the
distinguished majority leader. I do not wish to engage in controversy
with him over this matter, but I would like to have printed in the
Record comments by the New York Times in their lead editorial this
morning.
The New York Times is not known as being substantially supportive of
Republican efforts in the past, and they have seen fit to comment on
this issue in ways that I think are instructive and are appropriate at
this point.
I will submit the entire editorial and ask that it be printed in the
Record, but if I might, first, I would like to read a few paragraphs
from it that I think are appropriate here.
The Times says:
A potentially destructive battle over how best to
investigate the Whitewater affair has erupted between
Republicans who are pressing for congressional hearings and
the independent counsel, Robert Fiske, who is pursuing a
criminal investigation.
That is the subject the majority leader just outlined for us on the
floor.
The Times goes on to make the majority leader's case in the first
sentence.
It says:
Mr. Fiske fears that a rogue Congress could foul up his
work--which it could if it plunges ahead with abandon.
Then the Times makes a case that I think we must pay attention to:
But Congress has a clear right to ask questions about
Government regulation of the savings and loan mess in
Arkansas and, even more urgently, about whether the recently
disclosed White House meetings with bank regulators
represented an attempt to obstruct justice.
The concluding paragraphs of the editorial summarized the issue very
well, from my point of view.
It says:
Like most prosecutors, Mr. Fiske seeks complete control of
the case. But he ignores the fact that similar congressional
hearings in the past have produced significant new
information that has ended up helping prosecutors to make
their case. Indeed, Mr. Leach notes, it was questioning by
Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York at a recent hearing that
led to the disclosure of the White House meetings and
prompted Mr. Fiske to expand his investigation to include
them. So, too, congressional Watergate hearings brought out
the existence of crucial White House Tapes.
There should be room for give here by both sides. Mr. Leach
and D'Amato should grant Mr. Fiske a headstart, probably
measured in weeks.
May I repeat that: The New York Times is suggesting that we give Mr.
Fiske a headstart in his investigation, but that it should be measured
in weeks.
Then the Times goes on to conclude:
But Mr. Fiske cannot reasonably expect Congress to put off
its hearings indefinitely, especially when the history of
such hearings does not support his worst fears.
That is the end of the editorial.
I ask unanimous consent the editorial be printed in the Record at
this point.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
How to Investigate Whitewater
A potentially destructive battle over how best to
investigate the Whitewater affair has erupted between
Republicans who are pressing for Congressional hearings and
the independent counsel, Robert Fiske, who is pursuing a
criminal investigation.
Mr. Fiske fears that a rogue Congress could foul up his
work--which it could if it plunges ahead with abandon. But
Congress has a clear right to ask questions about government
regulation of the savings and loan mess in Arkansas and, even
more urgently, about whether the recently disclosed White
House meetings with bank regulators represented an attempt to
obstruct justice.
The challenge now is for both sides to figure out a way for
Congress to conduct legitimate inquires without impeding a
thorough and fair criminal investigation.
The White House and many Democrats complain that
Republicans are merely out to embarrass the President and
Mrs. Clinton. That is surely true of some--but the public has
a right to know whether the White House is abusing its power.
Mr. Fiske concedes that Republicans like Representative Jim
Leach are correct to insist on Congress's oversight
responsibility. Even so, he fears that any hearings ``would
pose a severe risk'' to his inquiry. That exaggerates the
danger, so long as Congress refrains from granting key
witnesses immunity--a problem that ultimately doomed Iran-
contra prosecutions. The Republicans have already said they
would not offer immunity.
Mr. Fiske is on stronger ground when he argues that
Congressional hearings could lead to ``tailored'' testimony
from witnesses who might adjust their stories after gaining
access to documents or testimony before Congress. That risk,
however, can be minimized if Congress agrees to delay its
hearings and give Mr. Fiske time to interview the major
players, especially those in the White House and the Treasury
Department. In any case, the risk is not sufficient to
justify asking Congress to abandon its oversight role until
the end of an investigation of uncertain length.
Like most prosecutors, Mr. Fiske seeks complete control of
the case. But he ignores the fact that similar Congressional
hearings in the past have produced significant new
information that has ended up helping prosecutors to make
their case. Indeed, Mr. Leach notes, it was questioning by
Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York at a recent hearing that
led to the disclosure of the White House meetings and
prompted Mr. Fiske to expand his investigation to include
them. So, too, Congressional Watergate hearings brought out
the existence of crucial White House tapes.
There should be room for give here by both sides. Mr. Leach
and Mr. D'Amato should grant Mr. Fiske a head start, probably
measured in weeks. But Mr. Fiske cannot reasonably expect
Congress to put off its hearings indefinitely, especially
when the history of such hearings does not support his worst
fears.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest that this is an appropriate
counterpoint to the presentation made by the majority leader.
Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending Cochran amendment and also the pending Danforth amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1485
(Purpose: To provide the Congress and executive branch agencies with
timely statements of the potential regulatory impacts, including
economic and employment impacts, of Federal legislation and regulations
upon the private sector and State and local governments)
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. McCain, Mr. Burns, Mr. Helms, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Danforth, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, and Mr.
Boren, proposes an amendment numbered 1485.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the subtitle, add the following:
SEC. . ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Economic and Employment Impact Act''.
(b) Findings and Purposes.--
(1) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(A) compliance with Federal regulations is estimated to
cost the private sector and State and local government as
much as $850,000,000,000 a year;
(B) excessive Federal regulation and mandates increase the
cost of doing business and thus hinder economic growth and
employment opportunities;
(C) State and local governments are forced to absorb the
cost of unfunded Federal mandates; and
(D) in addition to budget and deficit estimates, Congress
and the executive branch decision makers need to be aware of
regulatory cost impacts of proposed Federal actions on the
private sector and State, local, and tribal governments.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(A) to ensure that the people of United States are fully
apprised of the impact of Federal legislative and regulatory
activity on economic growth and employment;
(B) to require both the Congress and the executive branch
to acknowledge and to take responsibility for the fiscal and
economic effects of legislative and regulatory actions and
activities.
(C) to provide a means to ensure that congressional and
executive branch action are focused on enhancing economic
growth and providing increased job opportunities for the
people of United States; and
(D) to protect against congressional or executive branch
actions which hinder economic growth or eliminate jobs for
the people of United States.
(c) Economic and Employment Impact Statements for
Legislation.--
(1) Preparation.--The Director of the Congressional Budget
Office (referred to as the ``Director'') shall prepare an
economic and employment impact statement, as described in
paragraph (2), to accompany each bill or joint resolution
reported by any committee (except the Committee on
Appropriations) of the House or Representatives or the Senate
or considered on the floor of either House.
(2) Contents.--The economic and employment impact statement
required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) An estimate of the numbers of individuals and
businesses who would be regulated by the bill or joint
resolution and a determination of the groups and classes of
such individuals and businesses;
(B) A determination of the economic impact of such
regulation on individuals, consumers, and businesses
affected.
(C)(i) An estimate of the costs which would be incurred by
the private sector in carrying out or complying with such
bill or joint resolution in the fiscal year in which it is to
become effective, and in each of the 4 fiscal years following
such fiscal year, together with the basis for each such
estimate.
(ii) Estimates required by this subparagraph shall include
specific data on costs imposed on groups and classes of
individuals and businesses, including small business and
consumers, and employment impacts on those individuals and
businesses.
(D) An estimate of the costs that would be incurred by
State and local governments, which shall include--
(i) the estimates required by section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
(ii) an evaluation of the extent of the costs of the
Federal mandates arising from such bill or joint resolution
in comparison with funding assistance provided by the Federal
Government to address the costs of complying with such
mandates.
(3) Report not available.--If compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (1) is impracticable, the Director
shall submit a statement setting forth the reasons for
noncompliance.
(4) Statement to accompany committee reports.--The economic
and employment impact statement required by this subsection
shall accompany each bill or joint resolution reported or
otherwise considered on the floor of either House. Such
statement shall be printed in the committee report upon
timely submission to the committee. If not timely filed or
otherwise unavailable for publication in the committee
report, the economic and regulatory statement shall be
published in the Congressional Record not less than 2
calendar days prior to any floor consideration of a bill
or joint resolution subject to the provisions of this
subsection by either House.
(5) Committee statements optional.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect
the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, regarding preparation of an
evaluation of regulatory impact.
(d) Economic and Employment Impact Statement for Executive
Branch Regulations.--
(1) Preparation.--Each Federal department or executive
branch agency shall prepare an economic and employment impact
statement, as described in paragraph (2), to accompany
regulatory actions.
(2) Contents.--The economic and employment impact statement
required by paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) An estimate of the numbers of individuals and
businesses who would be regulated by the regulatory action
and a determination of the groups and classes of such
individuals and businesses.
(B) A determination of the economic impact of such
regulation on individuals, consumers, and businesses
affected.
(C)(i) An estimate of the costs which would be incurred by
the private sector in carrying out or complying with such
regulatory action in the fiscal year in which it is to become
effective and in each of the 4 fiscal years following such
fiscal year, together with the basis for each such estimate;
(ii) The estimate required by this subparagraph shall
include specific data on costs on groups and classes of
individuals and businesses, including small business and
consumers, and employment impacts on those individuals and
businesses.
(D) An estimate of the costs that would be incurred by
State and local governments, which shall include--
(i) an estimate of cost which would be incurred by State
and local governments in carrying out or complying with the
regulatory action in the fiscal year in which it is to become
effective and in each of the 4 fiscal years following such
fiscal year, together with the basis for such estimate;
(ii) a comparison of the estimates of costs described in
clause (i), with any available estimates of costs made by any
Federal or State agency;
(iii) if the agency determines that the regulatory action
is likely to result in annual cost to State and local
governments of $200,000,000 or more, or is likely to have
exceptional fiscal consequences for a geographic region or a
particular level of government, a statement by the agency
detailing such results or consequences; and
(iv) an evaluation of the extent of the costs of the
Federal mandates arising from the regulatory action in
comparison with funding assistance provided by the Federal
Government to address the costs of complying with such
mandates.
(4) Report not available.--If compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (1) is impracticable, the agency or
department shall submit a statement setting forth the reasons
for noncompliance.
(5) Statement to accompany federal regulatory actions.--The
economic and employment impact statement with respect to a
regulatory action required by this subsection shall be
published in the Federal Register together with the
publication of such regulatory action. If the regulatory
action is not published in the Federal Register, the economic
and employment impact statement shall be made available to
the public in a timely manner.
(6) Definition of ``regulatory action''.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term ``regulatory action'' means any
substantive action by a Federal agency (required to be or
customarily published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a
final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry,
advance notices of proposed rulemaking, notices of proposed
rulemaking, interim final rules, and final rules and
regulations.
(e) Provision for National Security Emergency Waiver.--
(1) Congressional economic impact statements.--The Congress
may waive the requirements of subsection (c) at any time in
which a declaration of war is in effect, or in response to a
national security emergency at the request of the President.
(2) Executive regulations economic impact statements.--The
President may waive the requirements of subsection (d) at any
time in which a declaration of war is in effect, or in
response to a national security emergency as determined by
the President in consultation with Congress.
(f) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment I sent to the desk today is
on behalf of myself and Senator Reid, Senator McCain, Senator
Murkowski, Senator Burns, Senator Helms, Senator Bennett, Senator
Danforth, Senator Domenici, Senator Grassley, and Senator Boren.
Mr. President, this amendment is germane and is about
competitiveness. I think when we talk about competitiveness, we must
not miss the point and the fact that the Government can do a great deal
of harm through overzealous regulation. One way to alleviate this
problem is to give policymakers the tools necessary to evaluate the
proposed policy on its economic and regulatory impact.
That is why, today, Senator Reid and myself are offering the Economic
Employment Act as an amendment to Senate bill 4, the National
Competitiveness Act.
The economic and employment impact statement was reintroduced at the
beginning of Congress as a freestanding legislation and was offered as
an amendment to the EPA Cabinet bill last year, and it received 48
votes. We have all been here before, and we know the escalating cost of
regulation is a serious problem. The administration has acknowledged
that it is a problem. The national performance review estimated private
sector compliance costs to be at least $430 billion per year--9 percent
of our gross domestic product.
The premier paper on the cost of Federal regulation, entitled the
``Cost of Regulation,'' was prepared for the GSA Regulatory Information
Service Center by Thomas Hopkins in August 1992. This analysis
estimated that the Federal regulation cost to the private sector and
State and local governments was $581 billion, or $5,934 per household,
in 1993.
It should be noted that the $5,934 per household is in addition to
$11,881 in taxes paid per household, for a total Federal burden of
$17,816 per household.
Other economists estimate the private sector and State and local
compliance burden to be as high as $860 billion per year. It is time
for Congress and the regulators to have better information on the cost
of new legislation and regulation, and to be accountable to
individuals, consumers, businesses, and State and local governments for
those costs.
Modifications to the amendment offered last spring have been made to
address some of the concerns that were raised during the debate.
This modified economic and employment impact act would require that
bills and joint resolutions reported out of committee, except for the
Appropriations Committees, considered by Congress be accompanied by an
economic and employment impact statement.
The statements will contain the positive and negative effect on
individuals, consumers, businesses, and State and local governments.
Further, it would require that regulatory actions issued by the
executive branch agencies also be accompanied by such a statement.
This amendment addresses the concerns raised last year, including the
duplication of Congressional Budget Office efforts, the requirement for
two analyses, and holding up conference reports.
In addition, we have addressed the concerns about change in the
Senate rules by not making any changes to the standing rules of the
Senate. This is in contrast, I might tell my colleague from South
Carolina, to the legislation we had last year that did have changes to
the rules of the Senate which raised a great deal of concern by Senator
Byrd and others. We made no changes to the rules of the Senate.
This amendment addresses duplication concerns by shifting the
responsibility by providing the estimate from the Government Accounting
Office to the Congressional Budget Office, who currently provides
similar impact statements on legislation affecting State and local
governments as required by section 403 of the Budget Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to give the responsibility of
providing the regulatory impact statement to an organization within the
legislative branch which has the technical expertise to provide better
and more consistent estimates than we have had in the past. Currently,
each committee is asked under the rules to provide such estimates.
Unfortunately, meaningful impact statements are rarely provided.
This amendment complements the purpose of this bill, which is to
promote industrial competitiveness and economic growth in the United
States. U.S. businesses' greatest hindrance to growth right now is
excessive regulation. The intent of this amendment is to establish a
procedure to ensure better and more efficient regulation.
The process this legislation establishes does not pass judgment on a
bill or regulation as good or bad but simply provides complete
information as Congress and the regulators consider legislation and
regulations.
Mr. President, in my opinion, this amendment is good government.
Information on cost and benefits of regulation means better and more
efficient regulation.
Again, Mr. President, we had similar legislation introduced by
Senator Reid and me last year. Some complaints were made because we
were amending the Senate rules. We do not amend the Senate rules. Last
year people made complaints and said: Wait a minute. You are using GAO
instead of CBO. This year we are using CBO.
So we have tried to make it simple. We have tried to make it plain.
We do not amend the rules. Yet we do say before we consider really
significant legislation that could have detrimental impact on the
economy, that could have detrimental impact on individuals, that could
have detrimental impact on businesses, we should know the costs. We
should know how many people's jobs are at risk.
Although there are private estimates we should have CBO which right
now CBO does. The Congressional Budget Office does this for any
legislation that would impact on State and local governments. We expand
that to include individuals and businesses.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coats as a
cosponsor as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me ask a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I just resist further bureaucracy. The
Senator says the CBO already does this with respect to States and he
can see the result with respect to State and local governments. They
are marching on Washington on account of unfunded liabilities. I hope
that that will not happen now with the Senator's amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will allow me to yield, the present law
under the Budget Act, Section 403 says that economic impact statement
should be compiled or made before legislation that affects State and
local Governments.
I would readily concur with my colleague that has not necessarily
prevented us from passing legislation that has adverse impact on State
and local governments.
Anyway, we do have in present law under the Budget Act what they
should do. This would expand that information service to at least be
provided for legislation that would have some impact on individuals and
on businesses as well.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as you can see in a flash, this again
does not relate to the underlying S. 4 bill with respect to technology.
Now we have pending with set-asides a Danforth amendment relative to
Finance Committee tax credits, a Cochran amendment relative to
pesticides, and now we have the Nickles amendment on economic impact
statements.
The story is told that of the Puerto Rican terrorists who came here
some years back. They came in the railroad station and walked straight
to the Capitol. The Senate was closest, so they went first to the
Senate Chamber. They sat in the gallery, looked down and saw very
little activity, and what activity there was was hard to understand.
They thereupon went over to the more lively Chamber, the House of
Representatives, and shot the place up.
I hope the Americans watching right now do not have a similar
reaction here because we have very little activity. What is going on
here is totally out of the whole cloth, whether you're talking about an
amendment to reduce pesticides regulation, an amendment relative to
GATT treaty, or, in a minute, an amendment with respect to Whitewater.
And, now, an amendment with respect to bureaucracy and the CBO reports.
Next there will be an amendment to take this whole thing to the Finance
Committee and ask them why they have not unconstitutionally passed a
tax bill which under the Constitution, of course, should originate in
the House of Representatives.
Having said that, let me yield to my distinguished colleague from
Arkansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
____________________