[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1028-S1064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      UNFUNDED MANDATE REFORM ACT


                 Amendment No. 139 to Amendment No. 31

     (Purpose: To prevent the adoption of certain national history 
                               standards)

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 139 to amendment No. 31.

  [[Page S1029]] Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after ``SEC.'' and add the following:

       . NATIONAL HISTORY STANDARDS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the National Education Goals Panel shall disapprove, and 
     the National Education Standards and Improvement Council 
     shall not certify, any voluntary national content standards, 
     voluntary national student performance standards, and 
     criteria for the certification of such content and student 
     performance standards, regarding the subject of history, that 
     have been developed prior to February 1, 1995.
       (b) Prohibition.--No Federal funds shall be awarded to, or 
     expended by, the National Center for History in the Schools, 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, for the development 
     of the voluntary national content standards, the voluntary 
     national student performance standards, and the criteria for 
     the certification of such content and student performance 
     standards, regarding the subject of history.
       (c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the voluntary national content standards, the voluntary 
     national student performance standards, and the criteria for 
     the certification of such content and student performance 
     standards, regarding the subject of history, that are 
     established under title II of the Goals 2000: Educate America 
     Act should not be based on standards developed by the 
     National Center for History in the Schools; and
       (2) if the Department of Education, the National Endowment 
     for the Humanities, or any other Federal agency provides 
     funds for the development of the standards and criteria 
     described in paragraph (1), the recipient of such funds 
     should have a decent respect for United States history's 
     roots in western civilization.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. GLENN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the 
presence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to address the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, if one is not aware of the history of 
this issue over the past decade or so, this amendment might seem like 
one that we ought to concentrate on and seriously consider.
  It brings up the issue of educational standards, but it takes our 
attention away from the basic reasons for the development of the Goals 
2000.
  When these goals were developed by the Governors in 1989, it came as 
a result of a 1983 report called ``A Nation at Risk.''
  That report was released by the Secretary of Education at the time, 
Ted Bell, who served as Secretary of Education during the Reagan 
administration. It described serious deficiencies in our educational 
system. Those results have been verified by many studies including the 
somewhat recent Work Force 2000 report which pointed out very 
importantly and very critically that this Nation is not presently 
prepared to compete in the international market and will be less so in 
the future.
  Here are some of the problems that created the demand for Goals 2000. 
Too many of our people right now do not even graduate from high school. 
But much more seriously is that only half of those who presently 
graduate have what is considered an acceptable basic education. Even 
more troubling is the fact that two-thirds of that half are 
functionally illiterate to one degree or another. They do not have the 
basic skills necessary to handle an entry level job. This means that 
our school system turns out millions of young people each year needing 
remedial education before they can effectively help us compete in the 
world economy.
  The purpose of ``A Nation at Risk'' was to raise awareness that our 
Nation was facing a serious crisis. The standard of living had been 
slipping for the past decade or more and would continue to slip if we 
did not raise the quality of our education.
  In the late 1980's, the business community was concerned that 
educational reform was not being implemented, even after President Bush 
had convened the national education summit and the Nation's Governors 
had created the goals which, with the input of Congress, are now 
referred to as Goals 2000.
  The need for progress on this issue was important to the business 
community. I remember very well the first meeting I had in my office as 
a new Senator and as member of the Education Subcommittee with a group 
of this Nation's top CEO's whose firms were involved in international 
ventures. I expected that they might come to me and say, ``We have to 
do something about capital gains.''
  They did not. They said that we must fully fund Head Start. If the 
United States did not make sure that everyone had the advantage of 
preschool training, early childhood education, and other compensatory 
programs, we would not produce the kind of high school graduates who 
would be able to compete internationally.
  Our educational failures impact the business community, especially in 
those areas of graduate education which are so critical to our 
competitive edge in high-technology fields. Right now, about 40 percent 
of the slots for graduate schools in critical areas of science, 
engineering, and mathematics go to foreign students because they are 
more competitive for those slots.
  That used to be fine, and I remember in my own State we had many 
foreign students who went to graduate school and ultimately worked for 
IBM. These days, unfortunately, foreign graduate students are not 
staying here. They are not returning the advantage of their skills and 
knowledge to our industries. They are all going home. In other words, 
we are sending about 40 percent of graduates from our schools, which 
are the best in the world, to work for our competitors.
  I wished to raise this specter because this is the kind of problem 
which national standards should address. When we passed Goals 2000, we 
set forth a set of voluntary national goals and standards. In addition 
to the original goals proposed by President Bush and the 50 Governors, 
we expanded upon the goal for math and science competitiveness and 
added such subjects as history and arts.
  What we are talking about today is the beginning of a process of 
developing standards which are necessary for our ability to compete in 
the international economy. I would hate to think we will begin debating 
subjects which are important but unrelated to the more important issue 
of competitiveness and thereby disparage our national and worldwide 
standards.
  Recently, members of the business community spoke about job training 
before the Labor Committee and said that we must enforce worldwide 
educational standards for our people can become qualified for the work 
force of the future. If people do not understand the requirements, they 
will continue presuming that the standards which we have been 
utilizing, the ones which we feel are an acceptable education, are 
quite all right.
  People fail to realize that students in Taiwan graduate 2 years ahead 
of our students in science and math. In addition, studies show that not 
only are we removed from the list of top nations in science and math 
achievement, but that we are at the bottom of the heap.
  My point is that we must concentrate on why the Goals 2000 bill was 
developed. It was deemed necessary to improve the standard of living of 
the Nation: To improve our standards and our competitiveness. While it 
is important for us to stay informed about recommendations for 
important subjects such as history, I am concerned that we will begin 
to forget why we are here, and that is to save the Nation.
  I will introduce a second-degree amendment at an appropriate time 
which will address the concern of my good friend, the Senator from 
Washington, regarding the development of certain standards at the UCLA 
Center for History in Schools, those standards 
[[Page S1030]] which have raised considerable controversy. But we must 
remember that those standards have not been adopted by anyone, and they 
are not in a form to be adopted. In fact, the panel which would approve 
them has not even been named yet. So we are prematurely criticizing 
something which is not even ready to be adopted.
  But more importantly, the amendment requires that anything 
meritorious or relevant or acceptable that is in those standards should 
not be used. Now, I am not sure whether that means the acceptable 
elements could be proposed and later approved, or not. The amendment 
does not say. It simply states that the standards cannot be used and 
that no more money can go to them.
  Therefore my amendment will leave in the final paragraph of the 
amendment of the Senator from Washington, which states the concern 
about how we adopt the history standards, but will remove that part 
which states that we should simply throw away everything that has been 
done in this area and prohibits the information from being used.
  Out of a very substantial number of examples in the history 
standards, only a very few have provoked great controversy. Therefore, 
I will speak again later, when I offer my amendment. But I just want 
everyone to realize that the critical goal is to have an educational 
system second to none which will keep the United States competitive in 
the next century by providing the necessary skilled work force.
  I will also mention the cost of doing nothing and the cost of trying 
to do away with these standards. Right now, over $25 billion each year 
are spent by our businesses on remedial education because of the 
failures of our school system. In addition, we have about a half a 
trillion dollars loss in the economy due to illiteracy, imprisonment, 
and the many other social ills that result from educational shortfalls. 
This is an extremely important issue, and I hope that we will remain 
focused on the primary issue of developing a more competitive nation 
for the future.
  Mr. President, I must oppose the amendment offered by my colleague 
from Washington. The amendment, which has not been subject to any 
hearings or review by the committee of jurisdiction, prohibits the 
National Education Goals Panel and the National Education Standards and 
Improvement Council from certifying any voluntary national content 
standards in the subject of history.
  As my colleagues may recall, under the Bush administration grants 
were awarded to independent agencies, groups, and institutions of 
higher education to develop worldclass standards in all the major 
subject areas.
  The history standards were developed by the UCLA Center for History 
in Schools with the contribution of hundreds of individual teachers, 
scholars and historians. The standards, which have just recently been 
published, have raised concern among some readers. Criticism has 
focused not on the standards themselves but upon the examples of 
activities for students in each grade level. Of the thousands of 
examples, not more than 25 were considered controversial. However, upon 
receipt of public input and criticism the Center for History in Schools 
is reviewing and altering its work. This, in fact is, and should be, 
the appropriate process and primary purpose of public commentary.
  But, I am not here to defend the specific content of these 
standards--that is best left to teachers, educators, and parents. 
Instead, I am concerned that this amendment has much broader 
implications.
  At issue is not so much the specific substance of these standards. 
Indeed, the standards have neither been endorsed by any Federal body 
nor, for that matter, even been finalized. Rather, the issue is whether 
or not we have in place a process for developing world class standards. 
I cannot overstate the importance of this matter. Countless reports 
have outlined that our country is falling behind in international test 
comparisons because our children have not learned the necessary skills 
in order to compete successfully.
  A recent survey of Fortune 500 companies showed that 58 percent 
complained of the difficulty of finding employees with basic skills. 
The chief executive officer of Pacific Telesis reported: Only 4 out of 
every 10 candidates for entry-level jobs at Pacific Telesis are able to 
pass our entry exam, which are based on a seventh-grade level.
  It is no longer enough for Vermont to compare itself to the national 
average. Comparing one State with another is like the local football 
team believing itself to be a champion of national stature because it 
beat the cross town rival. No, we must compare ourselves with our real 
competitors--the other nations of this global marketplace. To date, it 
appears that they are quickly outpacing us in many pivotal areas.
  I have had meetings upon meetings with the chairmen and CEO's of 
major U.S. corporations to urge me to support the development of high 
academic standards. Why? Because the status quo in our schools has 
failed. Too many of our graduates finish school without knowing the 
three R's, much less more rigorous content standards. For our country 
to remain competitive, it is essential that our schools prepare our 
future work force for the demands of the 21st century. Unfortunately, 
until we present our students with challenging content standards that 
goal will not be realized.
  Instead, estimates indicate that American businesses may have to 
spend up to $25 billion each year just for remedial elementary math and 
reading instruction for workers before they can train them to handle 
modern equipment. Not only does this drain critical funds from our 
corporations but it dramatically affects our ability to compete in the 
global marketplace.
  For the past decade the average wage has gone down. The standard of 
living is slipping and wealth is accumulating only at the top.
  Until we are able to prepare our children for the future we will have 
failed ourselves, the next generation and this country. The first step 
to success is establishing strong academic standards so that our 
children leave school ready for the work force or for postsecondary 
education. Remedial education should not be the main function of our 
institutions of higher education or our businesses and corporations. By 
preparing our students while they are in school, we will reduce the 
need for catchup courses so many of our graduates now have to take.
  We have a process in place to get our children ready for the 21st 
century. That process includes reforming our school and creating high 
benchmarks for students. That process is done through the National 
Council on Education Standards and Improvement. NESIC will be a 19-
member council composed of professional educators, representatives of 
business, industry, higher education, and members of the public. The 
council is authorized to certify voluntary national education standards 
and pass their recommendations to the goals panel for final approval. 
The role of the council is to certify that the standards developed in 
each subject area are credible, rigorous and have been developed 
through a broad-based process.
  NESIC provides a mechanism for ensuring that standards remain 
national rather than Federal. If this duty was not being performed by 
such a council, the responsibility for certifying national voluntary 
standards would fall squarely upon the shoulders of the Secretary of 
Education--which would positively result in greater Federal 
involvement.
  This body is a separate entity created to oversee the certification 
of voluntary national standards. It has absolutely no oversight 
authority over States. In other words, States are not required to agree 
with the voluntary national standards, they are not required to accept 
or incorporate any portion of the national standards or even 
acknowledge existence of standards.
  Yet such a national council is essential to States and local schools 
to assist them in weeding out and reviewing voluntary standards. 
Without such an entity, each State will have to undertake that review 
by itself. To do that 50 times over simply does not make sense. 
Clearly, the recommendations of the council are not binding on States. 
The council's certification process is simply a Good Housekeeping seal 
of approval to assist States in determining which standards are 
rigorous and competitive.
  For us to step in and derail this process makes no good sense. By 
passing 
[[Page S1031]] this amendment and legislating a Federal override of 
NESIC's responsibility we not only jeopardize the whole independent 
nature of NESIC, we also jeopardize the process of creating tough 
academic standards. I don't think we have that luxury.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may enter into this debate for a 
moment from a little different angle. I have enormous respect for the 
Senator from Vermont, who has just spoken with great dedication to the 
issue of education. He has devoted a great deal of time to the issue, 
both when he was in the other body as a Member of Congress and since he 
has been in the Senate and is now chairman of the Education 
Subcommittee of the Labor Committee.
  I also can understand where the Senator from Washington is coming 
from in his concerns about the model national history standards which 
have been developed with Federal funds. However, as the Senator from 
Vermont has pointed out, they have not been adopted or certified as 
national standards yet.
  There has been a lot of controversy about these standards as they 
have been proposed--controversy which, I may say, could have been 
anticipated. I was troubled when we first started down the path of 
providing Federal funding for the development of national standards. I 
would like to note that standards in various subject areas have been 
developed by professionals in the field, not by Federal employees as 
some may think. However, where Federal moneys are involved, there is 
often misunderstanding about the nature of the Government's 
involvement.
  I am sure that developing these standards was very difficult for 
these professionals. It is far easier to develop standards, say in the 
field of mathematics or science, because there is more preciseness in 
both of those fields. When you get to history, however, so much 
revolves around a teacher's interpretation of the material that they 
may have in front of them. So I think when you get into particular 
areas of study like history, that it becomes much more difficult to 
develop standards on which there is going to be agreement. Whether it 
is with the particular standards we are discussing now or a totally 
different set of standards, I think you would find just as many people 
with concerns about them.
  Although these are voluntary standards, as has been repeatedly 
emphasized whenever we have had these debates, this is a point which 
often gets lost. One reason I opposed the Goals 2000 legislation which 
was enacted last year is that it took Federal activities in this area 
yet another step further by including an authorization for a national 
council to review and endorse the national standards.
  There is certainly a difference between voluntary national standards 
and mandatory Federal standards--but this is a distinction which is 
generally lost when such standards are put forward, particularly when 
they are likely to come before a group such as the national council 
which is charged with reviewing them. As one who believes strongly that 
the strength of our education system lies in its local base and 
community commitment, I have not felt it wise to expand Federal 
involvement into areas traditionally handled by States and localities.
  I will support the Gorton amendment due to my concern about Federal 
involvement in national standards, even voluntary ones. At the same 
time, I believe the real issue is far broader than the current 
controversy over the history standards. Prohibiting a federally 
authorized council from certifying a particular set of voluntary 
standards is not the real answer. The real problem is that we have 
established in legislation such a group--the National Education 
Standards and Improvement Council, or NESIC--in the first place.
  In the near future, I will be introducing legislation to repeal 
NESIC. My legislation would get the Federal Government out of the loop 
in an area which I believe is best handled by States and localities. 
Many of our States are already developing standards that the teachers 
and educators in the field of history feel is important for the schools 
in their States. But those States do not need to have a Federal seal of 
approval for those standards, voluntary or not. That is why I believe 
we may be missing the heart of this debate.
  Nevertheless, I think the Senator from Washington has addressed a 
real concern regarding the model national history standards that have 
been developed with Federal funds.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak against the Gorton 
amendment. I think the Gorton amendment fails to recognize the immense 
amount of work that has gone into trying to put this country on a road 
to having and pursuing higher national standards, higher standards in 
education throughout the country. This is work that has primarily been 
done by the Governors of this country. I will point out that it began 
in Charlottesville, when President Bush was there with our 50 Governors 
some 5 years ago.
  Today, the National Education Goals Panel is made up primarily of 
Governors. There are eight Governors on this panel, there are two 
administration representatives, and there are four representatives from 
Congress. But clearly the Governors are those who set up the National 
Education Goals Panel. They are the ones who have led the way for this 
country to pursue national education goals and standards.
  The Governors who currently serve on that are an extremely 
distinguished group: Governor Romer, Governor Bayh, Governor Fordice of 
Mississippi, Governor Hunt, Governor Engler, Governor Carlson, Governor 
Edgar, and Governor Whitman of New Jersey. They are a very 
distinguished group of Governors.
  The amendment of Senator Gorton, in my view, would be an insult, if 
we were to pass this amendment, given the current state of 
deliberations by the National Governors and by the National Education 
Goals Panel on national standards. Essentially, this amendment says the 
National Education Goals Panel shall disapprove some proposed standards 
which have not even been presented for consideration before the panel 
as yet. It completely puts the Congress in the position of preempting 
the National Education Goals Panel.
  It further puts us in the business of preempting the National 
Education Standards and Improvement Council, which has not even been 
established. The members of that group, NESIC for short--that is the 
acronym that has been applied to this National Education Standards and 
Improvement Council--have not even been appointed. Yet, we are here 
being asked to adopt legislation directing this unappointed panel not 
to certify certain standards which have not yet been presented to them 
since they are not in existence.
  It strikes me that this is the height of arrogance on the part of 
Congress, to be stepping into an area where we have not had the 
leadership. Just to the contrary, the Governors have had the 
leadership. And we are saying by this amendment, if we adopt it: Do not 
take any action to approve standards. You, the Governors and the other 
members of this panel, disapprove these proposed standards that have 
not yet even been presented to you. And second, if and when we get a 
National Education Standards and Improvement Council appointed, they 
are also directed not to certify any standards along the lines that 
have been proposed.
  I certainly agree that there are major problems with the national 
standards that were proposed on history. I do not think that is the 
issue that is before us today. This whole business of getting standards 
in history is something which was started by the former administration, 
during the Bush administration. I recall the then Chair of the National 
Endowment for Humanities, Lynne Cheney, let the contract at that time 
to have these national standards developed. She has also, I would point 
out, been the main spokesperson objecting to the standards that have 
come back, or the proposed standards.
  My reaction is that clearly she is right, that there are problems 
with what has been proposed, and we need to change what has been 
proposed or, on the contrary, we need to get some 
[[Page S1032]] other standards adopted in the area of history before we 
go ahead.
  But we are not in a position in my opinion as a Congress to be 
directing the National Education Goals Panel, made up primarily of 
Governors in this country, directing them as to what action to take or 
not to take on specific standards at this point.
  The whole standards-setting process I believe has been a very 
healthy, forward looking, progressive effort in this country, and it 
has been bipartisan. It was bipartisan when it was started in the Bush 
administration with the Governors. It has remained so since then.
  I have the good fortune of serving on a council that was established 
by the Congress to look at the whole issue of whether we should have 
national standards. That council came up with a report which said the 
high standards for student attainment are critical to enhancing 
America's economic competitiveness, the quality of human capital, and 
the knowledge of skills. The knowledge and skills of labor and 
management helps determine a nation's ability to compete in the world 
marketplace. International comparisons, however, consistently have 
shown the academic performance of American students is below that of 
students in many other developed countries. The standard setting 
process was a reaction to our concern in this area, and it is a 
reaction which the Governors took the lead in because of the primary 
responsibility for education has always been at the State and local 
level, and should remain there.
  But we found in that council that I served on--this is a quotation 
from the report they came out with:

       In the absence of demanding content and performance 
     standards, the United States has gravitated toward having a 
     de facto minimal skills curriculum.

  That is what the Governors were trying to deal with in the standard 
setting process. We should not allow our concern about some specific 
set of proposed standards which have not even been presented to the 
National Education Goals Panel for approval yet but we should not allow 
our concern about those specific standards to deflect us from the long-
term objective of having standards, and holding ourselves accountable 
to reaching those standards. They are voluntary standards. They ought 
to be voluntary standards. But still they are standards. They are 
standards for which we believe certain benchmarks are appropriate. And 
clearly I believe that the standard setting process is an extremely 
important part of improving the American education system.
  It would be a tragedy for us to step in before the first set of those 
standards have been presented to the National Education Goals Panel for 
approval and pass legislation directing how the National Education 
Goals Panel and the Governors who make up the majority of that group, 
are to dispose of standards.
  So I hope very much that we will defeat the Gorton amendment. I know 
Senator Jeffords has an alternative which I will plan to support and 
speak for at that time. But I hope very much that the Congress does not 
overreach and try through this amendment that has been presented by the 
Senator from Washington to usurp the authority which I think has 
rightfully been seen as resting with the Governors of this country.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Washington.
  To my mind, this amendment is an unwarranted governmental intrusion 
into what is basically a private effort. It also constitutes 
micromanagement to a degree that is neither wise nor necessary.
  First, the national standards that are being developed, whether in 
history or any other discipline, are purely voluntary. This was made 
clear in the Goals 2000 legislation and reinforced in the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  Second, the voluntary standards do not have to be submitted to either 
the National Education Standards and Improvement Council or the 
National Goals Panel. That, too, is voluntary. If the organization that 
developed the standards wants to submit them, they may do so at their 
own volition. It is not required.
  Third, certification is nothing more than a Good Housekeeping Seal of 
Approval. It carries no weight in law, and imposes no requirements on 
States or localities. They are free to develop their own standards, and 
may use or not use the voluntary national standards as they wish.
  Fourth, the history standards in question are proposed standards. 
They have not been finalized. Quite to the contrary, representatives 
from the National History Standards Project have met with critics and 
have indicated their willingness to make changes in both the standards 
and the instructional examples that accompany the standards. Their 
commitment is to remove historical bias and to build a broad base of 
consensus in support of the proposed standards.
  Fifth, make no mistake about it, these proposed standards were not 
developed in secret or by just a few individuals. They are the product 
of over 2\1/2\ years of hard work. Literally hundreds of teachers, 
historians, social studies supervisors, and parents were part of this 
effort. Advice and counsel was both sought and received from more than 
30 major educational, scholarly, and public interest organizations.
  Mr. President, I strongly believe that we should not interfere with a 
process that is still in play. We should not inject ourselves in a way 
that might impede both the important work being done in this area and 
the effort to develop a broad base of consensus. Accordingly, I would 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and to support instead the 
substitute to be offered by the Senator from Vermont.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton]. In fact, I ask unanimous 
consent at this point that I be added as an original cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I support this amendment because it puts the Senate on 
record opposing the national standards for U.S. and world history 
which, while not endorsed by any Federal agency, were developed with 
Federal tax dollars first issued in 1991. While not a Federal mandate 
in that sense, they are voluntary, nonetheless, I rise to speak in 
opposition to them because they carry the imprimatur of the Federal 
Government, and have the capacity to broadly affect the course of 
education and the teaching and understanding of history by succeeding 
generations of our children, the American children.
  Mr. President, I should make clear, as I believe the Senator from 
Washington has made clear, that I support the idea of setting national 
voluntary standards to upgrade our education and to give us something 
to aim for. But I must say that the standards that were produced, the 
national standards for U.S. and world history that are at the core of 
what this amendment is about, were a terrific disappointment and may 
undercut some of the fundamentals, the core values, the great 
personalities and heroes of America and Western civilization and world 
history. By doing so, we put our children at risk of not being fairly 
and broadly educated.
  While the hope of those involved at the time that these standards 
were authorized, which goes back some years, was clearly to encourage 
State and local educators to raise standards in the teaching of history 
to elementary and secondary school students, the draft proposed is full 
of the kind of valueless, all-points-of-view-are-equally-valid nonsense 
that I thought we had left behind--and I certainly believe we should 
leave behind--in the teaching of our children.
  The history that many of us who are older learned in school obviously 
had its failings. It was not as inclusive as it should have been in 
many ways. But at least it provided core information about who we are 
as a nation and how our world and our Nation have progressed over time.
  Mr. President, we have a lot to be proud of in American history. 
This 
[[Page S1033]] great idea of America grew out of the Enlightenment and 
was established--now more than 200 years ago--by a courageous, 
principled, and patriotic group of Founders and Framers who were not 
casual about what they were doing.
  They were motivated by an idea, by a set of values, and it is part of 
our responsibility as this generation of adults, let alone as this 
generation of elected officials and national leaders, to convey that 
sense of our history--about which we have so much to be proud--to our 
children.
  First, in the interest of truth, because the American idea is a 
unique idea and has dramatically and positively affected the course of 
world history since the founding of this country--not just the course 
of world history in a macro sense, in a cosmic sense--it has positively 
affected, in the most dramatic way, the course of the lives of millions 
of Americans and millions of other people around the world who have 
been influenced by the American idea and by American heroes. And we 
ought not to let that be disparaged. We ought not to let that 
uniqueness, that special American purpose, be lost in a kind of 
``everything is equal, let us reach out and make up for the past 
exclusions in our history'' set of standards.
  So to me this is consequential. I guess the social scientists tell us 
that our children should think well of themselves if we expect them to 
do good things; that they have to have a good self-image. They mean 
this in the most personal sense of how parents raise children, how 
society gives children an impression of themselves. I say that in a 
broader sense of citizenship, our country has a responsibility, 
honestly and accurately conveying some of the blemishes as well as the 
great beauty of our history, to give our children a sense of self-worth 
as Americans. And part of that is respecting the great leaders in 
America that have gone before.
  Mr. President, these draft standards are, alternatively, so 
overinclusive as to lose major events in American and world history, 
major participants, leaders, heroes in American and world history, in a 
tumble of information about everybody and everything. And then, on the 
other hand, they are oddly underinclusive about important events, 
people and concepts. Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, 
Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers, just to name a few, appear nowhere 
in these standards.
  Thomas Edison, whose most memorable invention has become the very 
symbol of a good idea--the light bulb--is not mentioned. Albert 
Einstein, whose extraordinary contributions to our sense of the 
physical universe, let alone beyond, who changed our understanding of 
our existence in so many dramatic ways--not mentioned. The Wright 
Brothers, whose courage and boldness and inventiveness, steadfastness--
with the development of airplanes, flight--has dramatically affected 
the lives of each of us and of society--not even mentioned in these 
standards.
  In another way, in the world history standards, slavery is mentioned 
briefly in reference to Greece. The only other discussion of slavery 
concerns the transatlantic slave trade.
 Slavery, to the world's shame, existed in many cultures over many 
centuries, and those examples are not mentioned.

  The Holocaust in Nazi Germany received significant attention, as it 
should. But the death, persecution, and humiliation in a cultural 
revolution in China go by with barely a whisper. There is nothing in 
the cold war section of these standards, this experience that dominated 
the lives of most of us in this Chamber from the end of the Second 
World War to 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed. The section on the 
cold war does not give the reader, the student, the teacher, the sense 
that that conflict involved principles at all, involved ideals. It 
describes it, in my opinion, solely as a contest for power. There is no 
indication that we were fighting a battle for democracy--not just a 
system, a way of government, but a way of government that has a 
particular view of what humans are all about, and a particular view 
that is rooted, I think, in the idea and the principle that people have 
a Creator. We say it in our founding documents, ``that all men are 
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
inalienable Rights,'' not a casual accident of nature, but a conscious 
act by a Creator. Democracy is on the one hand, and totalitarianism is 
on the other, which denies all of that. The cold war is described 
blandly and revealingly in one sentence as ``the swordplay of the 
Soviet Union and the United States.'' Inadequate, to put it mildly; 
insulting, to put it more honestly and directly.
  We do not need sanitized history that only celebrates our triumphs, 
Mr. President. But we also do not need to give our children a warped 
and negative view of Western civilization, of American civilization, of 
the accomplishments, the extraordinary accomplishments and 
contributions of both.
  I recognize that the Federal Government is not talking about forcing 
these standards on anybody. These standards were always intended to be 
voluntary, and I recognize that the standards we are talking about are 
not final. They are in a draft form. But the standards, by virtue of 
their being developed with Federal funds, have the unavoidable 
imprimatur of the Federal Government. Ten thousand of these are 
available throughout America. It is a very official-looking text. I, 
for one, worry that some well-meaning official of a local school 
district will get hold of it and think this is what we in Washington 
have decided is what the teaching of American and world history ought 
to be all about. In fact, I have been told that text book publishers 
are waiting to see what happens next with these standards so they can 
make their own plans as to whether to adopt the draft standards 
wholesale. In fact, I have heard also that some school districts are 
close to adopting them.
  I think it is particularly appropriate that my colleague from 
Washington has chosen this bill about mandates and Federal involvement 
in our society for us to speak out, to make sure that no one 
misunderstands these standards, to hope that teachers, parents, and 
students will understand the ways in which some of us feel they are 
deficient, and that, as the business of setting such standards goes 
forward from here, they will be developed with a better sense of 
balance and fairness and pride.
  History is important. We learn from it. It tells us who we are, and 
from our sense of who we are, we help determine who we will be by our 
actions. The interest in these standards, in some sense, confirms the 
importance of history. And what I am saying, and what I believe Senator 
Gorton is saying, is that we should celebrate the vitality of that 
interest in history by starting over to develop standards that more 
fairly reflect the American experience, not to mention world history, 
and to particularly give better and fairer attention to the positive 
and optimistic accomplishments and nature of the American people.
  I thank the Chair, and I congratulate my friend from Washington for 
taking the initiative on this matter.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just make one additional point. I 
heard my good friend from Connecticut and my friend from Washington.
  I think it is particularly ironic that this amendment is being 
considered on the so-called Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. This 
bill that is being considered before the Senate today, the bill that is 
proposed to be amended, says in its preface:

       To curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates 
     on State and local government; to strengthen the partnership 
     between the Federal Government and State and local and tribal 
     governments; to end the imposition, in the absence of full 
     consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on State, 
     local and tribal governments.

  Mr. President, we did try to defer to the States when we set up the 
education goals panel in the legislation, the Goals 2000 legislation, 
last year. We established that panel with eight Governors, four State 
legislators. And those 12 who represent the States would be offset by 
six representing the National Government, two from the administration 
and four Members of Congress.
  Now we have taken this 18-member panel, the National Education Goals 
Panel, set them up and given them the responsibility to review 
proposals that 
[[Page S1034]] are made for national standards. And here in Senator 
Gorton's amendment, we are proposing to step in before any standards 
have been presented to them and to legislatively prohibit them from 
adopting a set of as yet unproposed standards.
  Now this is a Federal mandate, it is a mandate by this Senate, by 
this Congress to that National Education Goals Panel, made up primarily 
of State government representatives, and telling them what they shall 
and shall not do.
  I, quite frankly, think it is insulting to the Governors, who are 
giving of their very valuable time to serve on this National Education 
Goals Panel, for us to be rushing to the Senate floor and passing 
legislation of this type before they have even been presented with 
anything in the National Education Goals Panel.
  I am one of the two Senators that serves on the National Education 
Goals Panel. I represent the Democratic side. Senator Cochran 
represents the Republican side. We have not had a meeting to discuss 
these proposed standards. In fact, the proposed standards have not even 
been put on the agenda to be discussed at future meetings, and yet the 
Senate is considering going ahead and adopting an amendment by the 
Senator from Washington which says, ``Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the National Education Goals Panel shall disapprove'' 
these standards in whatever form they ever come to us.
  Mr. President, I have no disagreement with my friend from Connecticut 
about the substance of the proposed standards that have been developed 
under the funding of the National Endowment for Humanities and the 
contract that Lynne Cheney let when she was in that position. I agree 
there are some serious problems there. But let us defer to that group 
primarily representing States and allow them at least to do some of 
their work before we step in and dictate the result. Particularly, let 
us not dictate the result as an amendment to a bill which is designed 
to end the imposition of Federal mandates on State, local and tribal 
governments.
  I think it is the height of irresponsibility for us to proceed to 
adopt this amendment at this stage. I really do think those Governors 
and State legislators who are serving on that National Education Goals 
Panel deserve the chance to do the job which they are giving of their 
valuable time to do before we step in and try to overrule them and 
second-guess something which they well may decide not to do. I have no 
reason to think they are less patriotic or less concerned about a 
proper depiction of U.S. history than we here in the Senate are. And I 
think we should give them a chance to do the right thing.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, first, I should like to say with respect 
to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, that it is 
always a pleasure to deal with him on the same side of an issue just as 
it is very dangerous to disagree with him and attempt to prove a case.
  But as I have listened to the case presented against this amendment 
by three of my colleagues, one of my own party and two of the other, it 
seems to me that they argue in an attempt to have it both ways. Each of 
them was a strong supporter of Federal legislation, Goals 2000, which 
was designed to come up with national standards for the teaching of 
various subjects in our schools. Each of them, as far as I can tell, 
approved of spending some $2 million of Federal taxpayer money to 
finance a private study which resulted in these national standards.
  But when it comes to our debating these highly controversial and I 
firmly believe perverse and distorted standards for world and American 
history, we are told we should butt out; we, the Congress of the United 
States, should have nothing to say about national standards for the 
teaching of American history. Or, in the alternative, the Senator from 
New Mexico says it is too early because they have not been adopted yet.
  Would his argument be different if this commission had in fact 
adopted these standards? Well, of course not. His argument would be 
even stronger that we should have nothing to do with this process. Far 
better to express the views of Members of this body, and I hope of the 
House of Representatives, on a matter which is of deep concern to many 
of our citizens before some potential final action has been taken than 
to wait until afterwards.
  But, Mr. President, this volume does not look like a rough draft. 
Nothing in this volume, for which we have paid $2 million, indicates 
that it is only tentative, it is subject to huge revisions. This is a 
set of standards which without regard to whether or not it is approved 
by a national entity has already been distributed in some 10,000 copies 
to educational administrators and interested people all across the 
United States which already has behind it the force of being a national 
project financed with national money.
  I believe it more than appropriate that this technically nongermane 
amendment should be added to a bill on mandates, the bill we are 
discussing here today. While the Goals 2000 entity, the National 
Education Standards and Improvement Commission, cannot enforce its 
judgments on the States, they will certainly be given great weight by 
each of these States. And that council is a Federal entity. It may well 
be made up of some Governors as well as some Members of this body and 
some legislators and the like, but it is a national body created by the 
Congress with a national purpose.
  Nothing in my amendment, in which the Senator from Connecticut has 
joined, tells any Governor or State educational administrator that he 
or she cannot accept this book today, lock, stock, and barrel, if he or 
she wishes to do so.
 It does say that a Federal entity will not certify it as worthy of 
consideration as a guide for the teaching of American history. In that 
sense, each of these people is part of a national entity created by the 
Congress with a Federal purpose. Not only is it appropriate for Members 
to instruct such a group, I believe it to be mandatory.

  We created the group. If it is our view that this is, in fact, a 
perverse document that should not be the basis for teaching American 
history, now is the time we should say so. Not after it has been 
adopted by several States. Not after it has been adopted by this 
national organization, but right now.
  Opponents cannot duck behind the proposition that somehow or another 
they are taking no position. By voting against this amendment, they are 
taking the position that it is perfectly appropriate for these 
standards to be presented to the States of the United States as the way 
in which to teach the history of the United States of America.
  The very individual, Lynne Cheney, then Chairman of the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, who came up with much of the financing 
for this, finds these standards to be totally outside of what she or 
the Endowment expected or participated.
  And the critics are not from some narrow group in the United States. 
They represent the broadest possible mainstream of American thinking. 
Former Assistant Secretary of Education, Chester Finn, now at the 
Hudson Institute, called these history standards ``anti-Western,'' and 
``hostile to the main threads of American history.'' Elizabeth Fox-
Genovese, professor of history of women's study at Emory University 
declared ``The sense of progress and accomplishment that has 
characterized Americans' history of their country has virtually 
disappeared'' from these standards.
  The president of the Organization of History Teachers, Earl Bell, of 
the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, called the world history 
standards ``even more politically correct than U.S. history 
standards.'' Charles Krauthammer, writing in the Washington Post, said 
that these proposed standards reflect ``the new history'' and ``the 
larger project of the new history is to collapse the distinction 
between fact and opinion, between history's news and editorial pages. 
In the new history, there are no pages independent of ideology and 
power, no history that is not political.'' Herman Beltz, history 
professor at the University of Maryland said ``I almost despair to 
think what kids will come to college with. I'm going to have to teach 
more basic things about the Constitution 
[[Page S1035]] and our liberal democracy.'' Albert Shanker, president 
of the American Federation of Teachers, described the original draft of 
World History Standards as ``a travesty, a caricature of what these 
things should be--sort of cheap shot leftist view of history.'' 
Finally, of course, Lynne Cheney said ``the World History Standards 
relentlessly downgrade the West just as the American history standards 
diminish achievements of the United States,'' both calling into 
question ``not only the standard-setting effort but the Goals 2000 
program under which these standards became official knowledge.''
  In U.S. News & World Report, John Leo wrote:

       This won't do. The whole idea was to set unbiased national 
     standards that all Americans could get behind. Along the way 
     the project was hijacked by the politically correct. It is 
     riddled with propaganda, and the American people would be 
     foolish to let it anywhere near their schools.

  Mark my words: To vote against this amendment is to vote approval of 
certifying a set of books, in this case entitled ``National Standards 
for United States History,'' paid for by the American taxpayer, 
submitted to a Federal organization for its approval. I want to repeat, 
we do not tell any school district or any State that if it wants to 
treat this as a bible that it is forbidden to do so. All we do is to 
tell an organization we created that it is not to certify these 
standards. That they are unacceptable. That they denigrate the Western 
and the American experience, ignore the most important achievements of 
our history, and that if the Federal Government wants to do this job it 
ought to start over and do it again with people who have a decent 
respect for American history and for civilization.
  I am a Senator who, unlike my distinguished colleague who sits next 
to me here, the junior Senator from Kansas, who voted in favor of Goals 
2000 and in favor of national standards. And like others now seriously 
must question my own judgment in doing so, if this is the kind of 
product which is going to arise out of that process.
  I believe very firmly that if we are to have national standards, if 
we are to have support not only of this Congress but of the American 
people for national standards in education and various subjects, we 
must do much better than this. Not later. Not a year from now. Not 3 
years from now. This is the time to say, ``This doesn't measure up.'' 
It does not reflect the American experience. It is not an outline of 
what we should be teaching our children about the history of this 
country, and for that matter, the history of the world.
  The vote, like it or not, is on whether or not you agree or disagree 
with what has been produced here. Turn down this amendment, we are 
telling this national council ``everything is OK; approve it, and go 
right ahead.'' Accept the amendment and we will have a positive impact 
not only on the teaching of our American history but of future 
standards in other subjects which are still incomplete. We may yet be 
able to save the true goals of Goals 2000.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator a question as to 
his intent in the future, if the Senator would yield?
  Mr. GORTON. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Washington, Mr. 
President, if it would be his intent every time a standard is developed 
for consideration, that we in the Congress would pass legislation for 
or against that before the goals panel got a chance to consider it?
  Mr. GORTON. My answer to the Senator from New Mexico is that is a 
very good question, to which the answer is ``no.''
  I sense that educational goals are likely to fall into two 
categories, one of which is more likely to be controversial than the 
other. Some of the standards in other areas--for mathematics, for 
example, or for the teaching of physics--will, I think, be very 
unlikely to be found controversial or be driven by ideology.
  In the case of a set of standards which come from a narrow 
perspective, a narrow political perspective, it is certainly possible 
that there will be future debates, as there ought to be. I think the 
future debates are more likely to be driven by public reaction to these 
standards than they are by the preferences of individual Members of the 
Senate. This Senator was made aware of the standards by the blizzard of 
criticism which they created almost from the day that this book was 
published.
  Now, by the fact that so many traditional historians in the United 
States find them so terribly objectionable, my deep hope, I say to the 
Senator from New Mexico, as a member of this national commission, will 
be that a decent respect for American traditions in the future in this 
and in the study of other kinds of social services on the part of those 
academics who generally dominate their writing such standards, will 
result in no action at all on the part of the Congress, because while 
there may be elements of controversy and particular standards, that 
controversy will not reach the fundamental basis of the very philosophy 
or ideology out of which they arise.
  So I hope that this is not only the first time that we take up a 
subject like this, but the last time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just ask one additional question. 
The education goals panel, to which we are here giving instructions 
prohibiting them from taking certain action, is scheduled to meet a 
week from Saturday here in Washington, with Governor Bayh--I believe he 
is the new Chair of the education goals panel.
  What is the Senator intending to do by this action, by this vote, by 
this amendment? What is he intending to tell that group of Governors, 
and others who sit on that panel, about what their responsibilities are 
for considering standards in the future? Should they wait until we get 
some reading from the Congress as to whether or not there has been too 
much public concern?
  I am just concerned that we are setting a precedent which essentially 
makes their job irrelevant or their role irrelevant if we are going to 
have public debates in the Congress and pass mandatory legislation 
dictating how they are to proceed every time a new set of proposals 
comes forward.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, there 
is hardly an important commission or entity or agency in the United 
States whose controversial decisions or operations do not create 
controversy or debates on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  We are elected by the people. We have strong views on particular 
subjects. Of course, frequently, well beyond this particular council, 
we are going to have debates on ideas which other people, appointed by 
the President or appointed by us, deal with.
  As the Senator from New Mexico well knows, there is not the slightest 
doubt that we will be engaged in a debate sometime later this year on 
the future of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and Members will 
attack and defend the way in which Federal money is spent by that 
independent organization, as it is by a myriad of other organizations.
  As for the meeting a week from Saturday of this particular 
Commission, I would be astounded if this amendment were the law by 
then. Certainly the speed with which we have dealt with this unfunded 
mandates bill so far hardly indicates that it is going to be through 
this body and the House of Representatives, the differences between the 
two settled, on the President's desk and signed by the President by a 
week from Saturday.
  So I suspect that legally, at least, that Commission will be 
perfectly free a week from Saturday to take whatever action it wishes.
  I strongly suspect that many of those who are elected to positions in 
their own States and are appointed members of this Commission may have 
reached the same conclusion that I and others have at this point, and I 
strongly suspect that they will give great weight to the way in which 
this vote comes out. But they are going to give that great weight 
either way.
  If we vote in favor of this amendment, even though it has not become 
law, I think that will greatly influence that council in rejecting 
these standards. By the same token, if we turn down this amendment, my 
opinion is that many members of that council will, in effect, say the 
Congress has approved these standards and they ought to go ahead and do 
so themselves.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
   [[Page S1036]] Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. GORTON. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued the call of the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  I rise to speak about where we are at this time with this bill, to 
make the point that I have been basically on my feet since 12 noon 
trying to offer a very important and timely amendment that has 
bipartisan support, that is about an issue of great importance to the 
people of this country because, indeed, it is about law and order in 
this country.
  On December 30, there was a horrible shooting in Massachusetts at a 
health care clinic.
  The following day there was a shooting in Virginia, at a health care 
clinic. Obviously, at that time, the U.S. Senate, this 104th Congress, 
had not taken its place here and we were unable to respond, as I know 
we would have in a timely fashion, to condemn the violence and to call 
on the Attorney General to take the appropriate action to ensure the 
safety of those innocent people at those clinics around this country. 
As soon as I got back here I made a number of calls to Democrats and 
Republicans and I put together a resolution which currently has 21 
cosponsors, some of them from the Republican side of the aisle.
  I knew that this Senate had a lot of important business, but I also 
believed in my heart we would take 60 minutes or 30 minutes, or some 
time to go on record, speaking out as Americans--not Republicans, not 
Democrats--Americans speaking out against that violence.
  I was very hopeful when I heard the majority leader, the new majority 
leader, Senator Dole, speak out on national television, condemning the 
violence and saying that he was appalled at the violence. I said to 
myself, we will have bipartisan support so we can go on the record in 
this U.S. Senate. I know my Republican friends have a contract, a 
Contract With America or for America--or on America, some people call 
it--and they believe in that contract. Some of the things in there are 
good. A lot of it is awful, in my opinion. And they are on a timetable 
to move that through.
  But I have to say that, while I believe the bill before us is very 
important--and I say to the occupant of the chair I know how much he 
worked, so hard on this unfunded mandates bill. I myself come from 
local government. I had to deal with the most ludicrous mandates in the 
1980's that you could believe. I would love to be able to get a bill 
before us that does not go too far, that is sensible. And I want to 
work toward that end. I have a number of amendments that deal with it.
  But I thought, as reasonable men and women, we could respond to a 
terrible problem we have in our country, and I was very heartened when 
I had bipartisan support. The Senator from Maine and I worked in a 
bipartisan fashion to speak to the majority leader, to speak to the new 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee. This goes back many days ago. Can 
we not set aside the bill for a very short time, the unfunded mandates 
bill, to take up this resolution in a bipartisan spirit and move on?
  I waited. I was very patient, because I really wanted to get this 
done in the appropriate spirit of cooperation. The manager of the bill, 
someone I have grown to respect and admire and like, has been very open 
with me. I have to say the majority leader himself has continued the 
dialog with me. However, he has informed me that he does not want this 
to be pursued; that he will block my every effort to offer this as a 
second-degree amendment to the committee amendments in the hope that I 
can work out an agreement with some of those on the Republican side of 
the aisle who objected to this coming forward.
  I have to say, both sides of the aisle put out what we call a hotline 
here to advise Senators that this was a proposal, and on the Democratic 
side there was no objection. There was objection on the Republican 
side. The majority leader would like to work this out.
  I have read my amendment over. There was one phrase in it that I 
agreed we could change. I offered to make that change.
 I have to tell you, I think the amendment as it stands is very 
reasonable. It only has a small resolved clause:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the United States 
     Attorney General should fully enforce the law and recommend 
     to Congress any further necessary measures to protect persons 
     seeking to provide or obtain or assist in providing or 
     obtaining reproductive health services from violent attack.

  I cannot imagine any reasonable person opposing that ``resolved'' 
clause. I have looked at it again and again. We are calling on the 
Attorney General to fully enforce the law and recommend to Congress any 
further necessary measures needed to protect decent people.
  I think it is important to note that there have been over 1,600 
incidents of arson, bombing, vandalism, and assault against 
reproductive health care clinics and the people who work there since 
1977. This is not a problem that has started yesterday. Last year, 
there were over 130 incidents, 50 reports of death threats to doctors 
and other clinic workers, 40 incidents of vandalism, 16 incidents of 
stalking, 4 acts of arson, 4 murders, and 3 attempted bombings. That is 
what is going on in America.
  I think we should be able to agree in a bipartisan fashion to a very 
simple statement that we call on the Attorney General to fully enforce 
the law and to come back to us if she thinks other measures should be 
taken. My goodness, we are not asking for more dollars here. We are not 
asking for anything more than the law be fully enforced and that, if 
for some reason, more needs to be done, that we be told about it.
  I want to hold up, here, a poster which is a sample of what is being 
distributed across America today. It is a ``wanted'' poster, with 
pictures and names of physicians. The language is frightening. ``Wanted 
for killing unborn babies in the South Bay.'' This is from California. 
The language is violent language, and I hope that the people behind 
these kinds of posters will rethink their language.
  I know they are committed to an issue that they feel deeply about. I 
defend their right to peacefully protest. As a matter of fact, if they 
were not able to do that, I would join them in that fight, I believe so 
much in America and freedom of speech. But I do think, again, we have 
often used the example: We have freedom of speech, but when we yell 
``fire'' in a crowded theater, perhaps it is going to lead to something 
horrible.
  This is leading to something horrible, to people being killed. I have 
met the families of these physicians who have been murdered. They lost 
dads and they have lost moms. I met the families of the volunteers who 
helped the women trying to obtain their health care, one of them a 
retired military person, shot down dead trying to protect women 
exercising their rights. So when you say, ``How can a doctor deliver 
babies one day and kill them the next,'' you have to think about the 
words that you are using.
  I hope that we will come together on all sides of this issue and 
recognize that we resolve our problems here in America, not the way 
they do it in Bosnia, not the way they do it in Haiti, not the way they 
do it in Russia, but by fighting for laws that we think are right. And 
by the way, we passed one of those laws, and we did it in a bipartisan 
way. But it seems to me that as we went on record then, we should go on 
record now.
  Since 1982 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has 
investigated 148 clinic bombings and arson causing $12 million in 
property damage. Doctors working in clinics go to work every morning 
haunted by murderers. They have their homes picketed and their children 
followed to school. At one time one of the organizations mounted a 
national campaign called ``No Place to Hide'' complete with ``Abortion 
Busters Manual on How to Attack.'' They placed doctors' names and 
addresses on ``wanted for murder'' posters, distributed fliers listing 
the 
[[Page S1037]] times, dates, and places for picketing medical clinics 
and physicians' homes and churches. And other groups put out a handbook 
calling it a ``How-to Manual of Means to Disrupt and Ultimately Destroy 
Satan's Power to Kill Our Children.'' The book provides 99 covert ways 
to stop abortion. It advocates ``Super Glue'' for jamming locks on 
clinic doors, cutting off water power, breaking windows, spray painting 
walls, and expresses ways to use muriatic acid--I have talked to people 
who worked in clinics who are aware of this--including injecting it 
into the clinic ceilings and ventilating systems.
  The book also has a recipe for homemade plastic explosives and 
suggestions on how to make a bomb threat and techniques for uncovering 
unlisted phone numbers and addresses. In a section of the book claiming 
to be an interview, a member of this organization says, ``I ask you 
what would you do if your very own child was scheduled for execution in 
the morning.'' And the answer comes back in this book: ``One, blow the 
place to kingdom come; and, be there with all the guns and ammunition 
in the morning just in case.''
  I cannot believe we cannot take an hour's time out on a bipartisan 
resolution like this simply calling on the Attorney General to do all 
she can do enforce the law, the law that we passed in a bipartisan 
fashion. I have been so willing to cooperate with the majority leader, 
and to his credit he has been very direct with me, I will say that. But 
I have been blocked from offering this.
  I do not ever remember blocking anyone from the other side from 
offering an amendment. I really might fight their amendment. I might 
argue against their amendment. But I never tried to block their ability 
to offer an amendment. I am very saddened that this is where we are. I 
think the American people must wonder. We are debating mandates. That 
is good. But that mandate law is going to take a while to be put in 
place. It will create a huge bureaucracy. You should be ready for it. I 
mean, that mandates bill will have bills make more stops than the local 
bus on the way to becoming a law. And we will debate that.
  But this amendment is merely a sense of the Senate that puts the 
Senate on record in a bipartisan way. All we are saying is, ``Attorney 
General, enforce the law. Enforce the law even if you need to come back 
and tell us what else you have to do.''
  We know one American who killed Dr. John Britton and his volunteer 
escort James Barrett outside of the clinic in Florida. He claimed it 
was justifiable homicide. This Senate cannot sit back. I know we move 
slowly, but these incidents occurred at the end of December. We have 
yet to go on record. I think that is wrong. I think that is horribly 
wrong.
  So, Mr. President, I look forward to being able to get this 
resolution before the body. And I will continue to stay here as long as 
it takes so that this Senate goes on record in a bipartisan way and 
says this killing, this violence is wrong, and says in a bipartisan way 
we call on the Attorney General to do all she can to protect those 
clinics.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be brief.
  I would like to thank the Senator from California for her words on 
the floor of the Senate. As I understand it, this is a sense of the 
Senate. It is the sense of the Senate that the U.S. Attorney General 
should fully enforce the law and recommend to the Congress any further, 
necessary measures to protect persons seeking to provide, or obtain or 
assist in providing or obtaining, reproductive health services from 
violent attack.
  Might I ask the Senator, is this what she wants the U.S. Senate to go 
on record for?
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just would like to say to people in 
the country, citizens around the country, that quite often--I have only 
been in the Senate now for 4 years; that puts me in my first term--but 
quite often what we could be doing, the deliberative body that we are, 
is while we are working on a piece of legislation when there are 
compelling issues before us, then we bring amendments out that we think 
are important whereby the Senate takes a position on an extremely 
important question.
  I have to say, given the murders that have taken place in this 
country recently--and murder is never legitimate--the amendment of the 
Senator from California is extremely important. I think people should 
know that basically what has happened here is that she is blocked from 
offering her amendment.
  Mr. President, for the life of me, I do not understand why we could 
not bring this amendment out on the floor, why it could not be a sense 
of the Senate passed. I think it is a terribly important amendment. It 
is a sense of the Senate, but it is an amendment that says that all of 
us, Democrats and Republicans alike, care fiercely about law and order 
and care fiercely about protecting people's constitutional rights, that 
we are opposed to murder, that we are willing to take a strong position 
on this.
  So I thank the Senator for her amendment. I hope that we will be able 
to bring this to the floor and have an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. President, if there are no other Senators seeking recognition or 
interested in speaking right now, I would be pleased to yield the 
floor. Otherwise, I would like to suggest the absence of a quorum. I 
would like to see whether I cannot get an amendment to the floor. But 
could I, first of all, suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set 
aside the pending committee amendment and call up the committee 
amendment on page 33 so that I can offer an amendment to that 
amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object for the time being.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just so my colleague from Oklahoma and 
others following will know what I am trying to do here, like the 
Senator from California, I am anxious to get on with amendments. My 
understanding was that the committee amendment on page 33, if we could 
put aside this committee amendment and move to that committee 
amendment, I might be able to offer an amendment to that amendment.
  I do not think it is an amendment that is controversial. I am trying 
to get an amendment up on the floor which deals with the whole issue of 
whether or not as a part of how we look at accountability committees 
would not be required, if they were going to file reports, to have a 
child-impact statement. So it is an amendment that is straightforward. 
I am prepared to agree to a time limit. It is an extremely important 
amendment. That is the amendment I am trying to bring to the floor.
  I gather that my colleague from Oklahoma has not changed his view on 
this matter. Mr. President, I have tried with all my might, and I am 
blocked from bringing up the amendment at this point. I am anxious to 
get going with amendments and a discussion, and I hope soon there will 
be some sort of break in this impasse.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the legislation before us now? 
Exactly what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dole amendment to the Gorton amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. The Dole amendment would modify the----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Dole amendment is an amendment to the 
Gorton amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GLENN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  [[Page S1038]] Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Washington, which addresses the issue of national 
standards in the area of U.S. history and world history.
  This amendment is very appropriate in light of the discussions which 
have recently occurred and the presentation which has been made now by 
this national standards proposal.
  The question which is before us really is: Is it appropriate for the 
Federal Government to be in the business of setting national standards 
which, although voluntary in name, in actual fact may end up being 
standards that will be used throughout the country and will inevitably 
be enforced upon many school districts in this country?
  Once you have a group which has been funded by the Federal Government 
to the tune of $2 million, producing a set of national standards in any 
curriculum activity, it is inevitable that those standards will be used 
by local groups within activist educational communities to try to force 
that curriculum on local school boards and local school districts. In 
fact, I think it is logical to presume that once a national standard 
has been set and defined by some group which has received the 
imprimatur of the Federal Government, you will see that that standard 
is aggressively used as a club to force local curriculums to comply 
with that national standard.
  This is something that concerned me greatly when we took up the issue 
of Goals 2000, and I argued aggressively at that time that it was a 
mistake to set up this national school board called NESIC. By setting 
up that national school board you were essentially creating a situation 
where the term ``voluntary'' was actually illusory. You would end up 
where the Federal Government would start defining what would be in the 
curriculum of the local school districts, and they would have to comply 
with that not only because local educational activists would start 
litigating for compliance and claiming that local school districts 
which were not in compliance were therefore not teaching properly, but 
also because of the fact that funding from the Federal level will 
inevitably, at some point, be tied into whether or not local school 
districts are complying with these national standards.
  In fact, when we took up the elementary and secondary school bill, 
that was the exact attempt that was made. It was fought off here in the 
Senate by those of us who were members of the conference committee, and 
it did not end up being the final law. But it was an aggressive attempt 
made to apply to local school districts national standards in the area 
of opportunity to learn, and those national standards were going to be 
enforced on the local school districts by using the funding mechanisms 
of the Federal Government as a club to require compliance.
  And so now we have a curriculum exercise coming again from the 
national level which will inevitably, in my opinion, lead to a top-down 
directive as to how a curriculum should be structured in this country. 
There are a lot of problems with that, but there are especially a lot 
of problems with that when the curriculum which is designed, and which 
is being put forward by the national organizations, is so biased and so 
editorial in comment.
  This is a curriculum which spends very little time addressing the 
substance of history and the facts of history and spends a great deal 
of time presenting the editorial comment on history and a revisionist 
view of history. As has been mentioned before, within these standards, 
eight times we see the American Federation of Labor mentioned. We see 
Senator McCarthy mentioned 19 times. Ku Klux Klan is mentioned 17 
times. Granted, the American Federation of Labor did have a major 
impact on American history, and Joseph McCarthy had an impact--passing 
at best--on American history. The Ku Klux Klan was a representative of 
a reprehensible period in our history. But if you are going to put that 
much time into those types of activities, why and how could you 
possibly ignore the mention, as has been pointed out here, of the 
undertakings of people like the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, Albert 
Einstein? It does not really get into the issue of who the combatants 
were in World War I, or the factual events that created the War of 
1812, and what the battle of New Orleans was all about, for example.
 If you want to take a historical event that ought to at least be 
pointed out in our history books, that allowed for the opening up of 
the entire West. It would not have occurred without it. That list goes 
on and on.

  Then in the area of discussing how we as a culture came together, the 
fact that we are a Western-based culture appears to be something that 
this historical standard which is being promoted here tries to ignore, 
possibly even reject, and certainly undermines, as it spends an 
incalculable amount of time pressing the logic that should be taught as 
being the logic of Muslim scholars and scholars who really have very 
little relevance to what is the core culture of the American society, 
which is Western, whether you like it or not; that is what we come 
from. You cannot really understand America's heritage unless you 
understand our Western culture. You also cannot understand our 
Government, or the way we function, unless you at least have passing 
knowledge with people like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and even 
historical figures like Paul Revere, and the people who fought for the 
Sons of Liberty in Boston. Yet, these individuals who played a fairly 
significant role in defining our course in history as a Nation are 
virtually ignored.
  History is about individuals, whether you like that or not. History 
is about individuals. Individuals have a major impact on the course of 
our lives. The study of major individuals within history is necessary 
if you are going to understand the course of history.
  You cannot possibly understand 20th century world history unless you 
understand Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin, or Lenin. You cannot 
understand American history unless you look at people like Daniel 
Webster and what he did, or Thomas Edison and what he did, or Albert 
Einstein and what he represented, or the Wright Brothers and what they 
represented.
  Yet, this new curriculum would essentially ignore the concept that 
individuals matter and would base its thought process on a revisionist 
view of what history is and how individuals impacted it.
  The proposal, as it comes forward, for all intents and purposes, 
ignores the cold war as a confrontation of ideology. The Soviet system, 
which was an outgrowth of Marxism, does not even discuss the concept, 
for all intents and purposes, that it was the United States culture of 
freedom, of individuality, of individual rights going up against a 
culture of totalitarianism, of collectivism, and of the usurpation of 
the individual and the replacement of individual rights with the right 
of the State. That confrontation, over which this country spent 
billions of dollars and lost many, many American lives is, for all 
intents and purposes, passed over as a casual event, an event that is 
not of enough significance to spend a great deal of time on or an event 
which is caricatured through the representations of somebody like 
Joseph McCarthy.
  The rewriting of history, I believe, we found throughout various 
cultures is extremely risky. A culture that lies to itself about what 
its history was, tries to undertake revisionist history and teaches its 
children revisionist history, is a culture that is going out on thin 
ice. This was seen in most recent examples in this century in the 
Soviet history system or in the Chinese history system as it presently 
exists today or, of course, in the German history system of the 1930's 
and early 1940's where, essentially, people who have a political 
philosophy--totally repugnant, of course, in our terms, but it was a 
political philosophy--defined history in terms of their political 
philosophy.
  One cannot look at this book which has been proposed on American 
history and not conclude that what we have here is a group of folks who 
wanted to define American history in the terms of their political 
philosophy. They have, it appears, only a passing interest in factual 
history; virtually no interest, actually, in factual history; and a 
deep interest in cultural history, but it is a cultural history which 
they are 
[[Page S1039]] going to define in their terms and under their 
procedure. OK, if they want to view history that way, that is their 
decision. If that is the way these folks who have decided to rewrite 
American history wish to view our times and the times of our ancestors, 
that is their decision. But the problem here is that they are taking 
that view of the world and they are putting it upon educational systems 
throughout this country by having it nationalized and having it receive 
the imprint of appropriateness, the seal of correctness, through 
Federal financing and what will probably be Federal activity through 
the national school board, NESIC.
  And that is what is wrong with it. It is not only incorrect history, 
in my humble opinion--and I guess people can disagree with that--and 
very much revisionist history and politicized history and editorialized 
history, but it is also an attempt to take that editorial viewpoint and 
subject school districts throughout this country to it by designating 
it as the correct history.
  Well, I do not believe that the Federal Government should be in the 
business of defining the correct history. And I certainly do not feel 
it should define the correct history for the State of New Hampshire or 
for the school systems within my State. And I especially do not 
appreciate it when that correct history is so grotesquely biased in its 
presentation.
  There was some discussion earlier by a Senator as to the effect of 
the drafting of this even if it is not endorsed by NESIC. I think we 
need to look at that, because this is the first exercise of this nature 
that has come forward.
  I am extremely concerned that, because of the nature of the community 
of historians who dominate the intellectual process of defining our 
history in this country, we are going to find that this correct history 
will become the standard of the new textbooks.
  Anybody who has had the experience of dealing with American history 
textbooks knows that they go in sort of fads. They go through periods 
of one textbook being in and the next textbook being appropriate. And 
because textbooks are so expensive for school systems and so expensive 
to produce, they tend to be single entities that become very big best 
sellers and dominate the curriculum within the school systems.
  My concern is that what we have created here is the ability of an 
insidious monster. I guess all monsters are insidious,
 but this one is especially so because, as a practical matter, what we 
have created here is the core of what I suspect textbooks are going to 
look to. Because if you are a textbook creator and a writer or 
publisher, you are going to say you want to pick the course of least 
resistance and the easiest approach. You are going to say, ``Well, here 
is the Federal Government that spent $2 million to produce this 
cultural treatise. Why should I go out and reinvent the wheel? I am 
just going to take over what has been done by the Federal Government. 
After all, it has been done by the Federal Government, so who could 
ever argue with me,'' I, the publisher, ``if I undertake the 
republication of this document basically in the form it was produced?''

  And so we have created a situation where, I suspect, inevitably the 
core elements of this cultural document will end up being part of the 
text in a textbook initiative which will be promoted across the 
country, and it will have been done at taxpayers expense and at our 
history's cost. And that will be unfortunate.
  I hope that the publishers of this country who produce our textbooks 
will take note of the debate on this floor and sense the significant 
concern that is being expressed here about the quality of the 
workmanship of this product, because it is not good quality and it does 
undermine the teaching of history in this Nation, in my opinion.
  So I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Senator from 
Washington.
  I also wish to associate myself with the Senator from Kansas when she 
came to the floor earlier and stated that she intended to offer an 
amendment to repeal NESIC and end this national school board 
experiment. It should never have been proposed in the first place. It 
was a mistake and we should terminate it right now. The Federal 
Government does not have a role in this area, and it certainly should 
not be putting taxpayers' dollars at risk in this area.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from New Hampshire for 
his eloquent support.
  During the period of time this was actively debated between myself 
and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and others, he and I have 
reached an agreement, which I find to be most constructive.
 As a result of that agreement, I intend in just a moment to ask 
unanimous consent to modify the Dole second-degree amendment, to modify 
it in a manner which would turn it from a statute to a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution.

  Since technically if the committee amendment to strike is ultimately 
adopted it will all fall. In any event, the most important, the vital 
part of what we are doing is really to express the views of this Senate 
to this National Education Standards and Improvement Council.
  It will do so in the fashion that I asked for. We will have a vote on 
it. The vote will be far more one-sided than it would have been on the 
original amendment, and I have every confidence that the National 
Standards Council will listen to what the Senate has to say. If it does 
not, any Member is free to bring up the subject at any future time. 
This will also help the progress of the underlying bill, S. 1, itself.


           Amendment No. 139 to Amendment No. 31, as Modified

  Mr. GORTON. With that in mind, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Dole second-degree amendment be modified in the fashion which 
I have already sent to the desk.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I do not 
believe I will object, but I want to clarify this.
  Ordinarily, a person who puts in the amendment would modify his own 
amendment. Is this something the Senator has worked out with the 
majority leader?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I answer my friend, it is the second-
degree amendment to my original first-degree amendment that was 
prepared by the majority leader as a courtesy to me. I have worked it 
out with his office and he agrees to it.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 139), as modified, to amendment No. 31, is as 
follows:

       Strike all after ``SEC.'' and insert:


                    ``  national history standards.

       ``(a) In General.--It is the sense of the Senate that the 
     National Education Goals Panel should disapprove, and the 
     National Education Standards and Improvement Council should 
     not certify, any voluntary national content standards, 
     voluntary national student performance standards, or criteria 
     for the certification of such content and student performance 
     standards, on the subject of world and United States history, 
     developed prior to February 1, 1995.
       ``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       ``(1) voluntary national content standards, voluntary 
     national student performance standards, and criteria for the 
     certification of such content and student performance 
     standards, on the subject of world and United States history, 
     established under title II of the Goals 2000: Education 
     America Act should not be based on standards developed 
     primarily by the National Center for History in the Schools 
     prior to February 1, 1995; and
       ``(2) if the Department of Education, the National 
     Endowment for the Humanities, or any other Federal agency 
     provides funds for the development of the standards and 
     criteria described in paragraph (1), the recipient of such 
     funds should have a decent respect for the contributions of 
     western civilization, and United States history, ideas, and 
     institutions, to the increase of freedom and prosperity 
     around the world.''

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to comment and thank my 
colleague from the State of Washington for his willingness to work with 
me to modify this amendment. I have devoted considerable time and 
effort to the National Education Goals Panel and I appreciate Senator 
Gorton's understanding of my concerns about the role of that Panel and 
especially about preserving the national character of the Panel and its 
work. In adopting 
     [[Page S1040]] this amendment we are expressing displeasure 
     with the current version of the national history standards, 
     but we are also saying two very important things:
  First, that the U.S. Senate is not interfering with the National 
Education Goals Panel doing its work and performing its duties under 
the law; and
  Second, that the U.S. Senate is not interfering with the appointment 
of the work of the National Education Standards and Improvement Council 
or the performance its duties under the law.
  I think these are important points to make as we take this action.
  Again, my thanks to Senator Gorton for his courtesy and understanding 
with respect to this very important issue.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to commend Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, for his 
successful effort to modify the Gorton amendment. The modified 
amendment expresses a sense of the Senate but does not bind the panel 
on which Senator Bingaman serves. We have asked that panel to serve as 
independent persons bringing their own experiences and talents to an 
important task. They should not be dictated to by Washington if we wish 
them to sue their best judgment and to usefully spend their valuable 
time. The modification allows for that independent functioning to 
continue. I particularly commend Senator Bingaman for his energy in 
achieving the modification and to Senator Gorton for agreeing to modify 
his original language.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Gorton's 
amendment. I do not oppose the principle that national standards in 
history for the Nation's schools should respect our country's roots in 
Western civilization. I completely agree with that concept. It is 
vitally important that our students learn that the foundations of our 
democracy owe a great debt to our European ancestors.
  The National Center for History in the School is the group that 
received the contract to develop the history standards. It has a sole 
source contract awarded by President Bush's Director of the National 
Endowment for the Humanities, Lynn Cheney. The Center agreed with 
critics, and it will revise the standards and reissue them this next 
spring.
  But this amendment represents extreme congressional interference in 
the work of the National Education Goals Panel. This distinguished and 
independent group was created by President Bush, Governor Clinton, and 
other Governors after the Education Summit in 1989. Last year, in the 
Goals 2000 Act, Congress endorsed the Goals Panel and gave it statutory 
authority to review any standards that were voluntarily submitted to 
it.
  A process of certification for voluntary national and State standards 
was established by Congress last year in title II of the Goals 2000 
Act. It provides a process for a through and objective review and 
certification of the standards.
  The distinguished Americans serving on the panel have been assigned 
the responsibility of making judgments on the criteria for 
certification and on the overall determination as to whether a specific 
set of standards should be certified.
  The Panel includes Senators Bingaman and Cochran, Congressmen 
Goodling and Kildee, Governors Jim Edgar of Illinois, John Engler of 
Michigan, Daniel Fordice of Mississippi, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Jim Hunt 
of North Carolina, Roy Romer of Colorado, and Christine Todd Whitman of 
New Jersey. Secretary of Education Richard Riley is also a member of 
the panel.
  The amendment says, in effect, that the Senate does not trust the 
judgment of these distinguished officials serving on the panel to carry 
through their responsibilities and determine whether history standards 
are appropriate.
  In approving the Goals 2000, Congress took great care to assure that 
the important and sensitive process of certification would be carried 
out in a careful and thoughtful way. We should let the panel do its 
work and I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe a rollcall has already been 
ordered on this second-degree amendment. Also, if there are no other 
persons that wish to speak, I am ready to have a rollcall vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator add my name 
as a cosponsor to his amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would do so now, as I have forgotten 
another matter. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia be added as a cosponsor to the amendment as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask that this Senator be added as a 
cosponsor to the amendment as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior 
Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] be added as a cosponsor to the original.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I believe all Senators who wish to 
address this particular issue have done so. It would be in order, so I 
suggest we go forward with the vote at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment numbered 139, as modified. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The Clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--1
                                     

       
     Johnston
       
  So the amendment (No. 139), as modified, to amendment No. 31, was 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We now have amendment 31, as amended, before 
the body.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard. The clerk will 
continue the call of the roll.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I might have the attention of Mr. 
Kempthorne and the managers on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate is not in 
order.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I note in both committee reports, the report 
by 
[[Page S1041]] the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the report by 
the Budget Committee, the following language--page 12 of the committee 
report from the Committee on the Budget; page 15 from the committee 
report of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Let me read this. Then 
I want to make an
 inquiry.

  Mr. President, I read as follows. I will presently read from the 
report of the Committee on the Budget, page 12:

       This section provides two new Budget Act points of order in 
     the Senate. The first makes it out of order in the Senate to 
     consider any bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     that contains a Federal mandate unless a CBO statement of the 
     mandate's direct costs has been printed in the Committee 
     report or the Congressional Record prior to consideration. 
     The second point of order would lie against any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     increased the costs of a Federal intergovernmental mandate by 
     more than the $50,000,000, unless the legislation fully 
     funded the mandate in one of three ways:
       1. An increase in direct spending with a resulting increase 
     in the Federal budget deficit (unless the new direct spending 
     was offset by direct spending reductions in other programs);
       2. An increase in direct spending with an offsetting 
     increase in tax receipts, or

  And this is the one I wish to ask Senators to pay close attention to.

       3. An authorization of appropriations and a limitation on 
     the enforcement of the mandate to the extent of such amounts 
     provided in Appropriations acts.
       The Committee notes that ``direct spending'' is a defined 
     term in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act. The Committee also intends that in order to avoid the 
     point of order under this section, any direct spending 
     authority or authorization of appropriations must offset the 
     direct costs to States, local governments, and Indian tribes 
     from the Federal mandate.

  Notice, ``If the third alternative is used''--in other words, 
authorization of appropriations--if that alternative is used, ``a 
number of criteria must be met in order to avoid the point of order.''

       First, any appropriation bill that is expected to provide 
     funding must be identified. Second, the mandate legislation 
     must also designate a responsible Federal agency . . .

  Let me read that again. Let me read that paragraph again.

       Second, the mandate legislation must also designate a 
     responsible Federal agency that shall either: implement an 
     appropriately less costly mandate if less than full funding 
     is ultimately appropriated . . . or declare such mandate to 
     be ineffective.

  This is page 12.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Page 12. OK.
  Mr. BYRD. The report of the Committee on the Budget.
  The same language is in the other committee report but upon different 
pages. Page 12, right at bottom.

       To avoid the point of order, the authorizing committee must 
     provide in the authorization legislation for one of two 
     options:
       1. The agency will void the mandate . . .

  Now, this is the executive branch agency. I hope Senators will get 
this.

       The agency will void the mandate if the appropriations 
     committee at any point in the future provides insufficient 
     funding to states, local governments, and tribal governments 
     to offset the direct cost of the mandate.
       2. The agency [meaning an instrument of the executive 
     branch] can provide a ``less money, less mandate'' 
     alternative, but this alternative requires the authorizing 
     legislation to specify clearly how the agency shall implement 
     that alternative.

  Mr. President, I do not believe that this body should pass worrisome 
provisions such as this, that may lead to greater litigation and 
further complicate the issue. I understand that this provision--and I 
hope that I can verify this by one or both managers on both sides of 
the aisle--I understand that this provision was not in S. 993; am I 
correct? Of last year?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes, that is correct. That is not in S. 993.
  Mr. BYRD. So this was not in the bill of last year. But it is 
something that is new now, as it has come to the floor in the bill that 
is before us and is referenced in both committee reports: The Budget 
Committee and the Committee on Governmental Affairs. It seems to me it 
is incumbent on the Senate to eliminate this provision until such time 
as the issue is more fully debated.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Is it the Congressional Budget Office, or what 
executive agency is that referred to on page 12?
  Mr. BYRD. It does not name the agency. It is obviously--to me--not 
the Congressional Budget Office. It says, ``responsible Federal 
agency.'' To me, it is referring to an executive branch agency, some 
agency in the executive branch.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Then is it not the case that we are into the separation 
of powers? We have a case where we could not avoid the executive, and 
certainly the executive cannot legislate by mandating the end of a 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Absolutely.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Repealing the legislation, in essence, by--what does it 
say, mandating--``void the mandate?'' How do you void the mandate 
without legislation? So they have the executive agency legislating? Is 
that the case?
  Mr. BYRD. That is the way I read it. The agency here overrules----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. As the distinguished Senator has correctly, in my judgment 
pointed out, this is a separation of powers issue.

       The agency will void the mandate if the appropriations 
     committee at any point in the future provides insufficient 
     funding to states, local governments, and tribal governments 
     to offset the direct cost of the mandate.
       2. The agency can provide a ``less money'' less mandate 
     alternative. . . .

  Here we have a Federal agency, an executive branch agency that can 
nullify the action of the Congress. In essence, it can repeal a law of 
the Congress or it can modify it. I am disturbed about that. I would 
like to hear----
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, on page 12, as you read this, you will 
note that it does state in parentheses--and this is very important, 
``pursuant to criteria and procedures also provided in the mandate 
legislation.''
  In other words, we do not leave this at the discretion of an agency. 
The agency itself will be determined by the authorizing committee. They 
will so state, which Federal agency will be dealing with this.
  In that legislation also, I say to the Senator, they will choose one 
of those two options. If they choose the option that states that should 
a subsequent appropriations bill not provide full funds, then that 
authorizing committee in its legislation is going to specify to that 
agency the criteria upon this scaling back. If they were to choose the 
other option, which is should the subsequent appropriations bill not 
provide the funds, then, again, based on the criteria as outlined by 
the authorizing committee, under those directions that agency would 
then so state. But it would be, again, at the direction of the 
authorizing committee in legislation that would then have to be passed 
by Congress.
  It does not in any way leave that to the discretion of the Federal 
agency.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, why do we leave it in the hands of a Federal 
agency to determine whether or not a mandate should be nullified or 
should be modified?
  Why should a Federal agency determine on the basis of ``less money, 
less mandate''? Why should not the legislative branch do this? Why not 
require that an agency seek the approval of the Appropriations 
Committees and suggest a reprogramming? That is done from time to time. 
But why turn a decision of this sort--it is a final decision--over to 
an executive branch agency? It seems now we are setting up a procedure 
here that stands in direct conflict with the provisions of article I, 
section 1, the very first sentence of the U.S. Constitution, which 
vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, the triggering mechanism is on the fund amount. In 
other words, if they choose the option that it is to provide the funds 
through a subsequent appropriations bill, and that appropriations bill 
provides full funds, then again there is no further recourse except to 
implement and mandate.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If that authorizing committee chose the option that 
[[Page S1042]] said, in the event it does not provide full funds, that 
is the threshold, and if that subsequent appropriation does not hit 
that threshold, then that Federal agency can in fact do a scaleback. 
But it is based upon language by the authorizing committee. The 
authorizing committee directs the criteria for that scaleback. It does 
not leave it up to the discretion of the agency.
  Mr. BYRD. Why not eliminate these two paragraphs, eliminate the risk 
of litigation, eliminate the risk of running afoul of the Constitution 
in respect to the separation of powers? This troubles me. Why have 
language in the bill that would open up further litigation? If we truly 
intend to limit or to rescind future Federal mandates and not fully 
fund them, then I believe such actions should be taken by the Congress.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thought for a moment that the Senator from Idaho had 
explained this to me. But in looking it over again, I have difficulty 
getting the sequence of events as to how this is going to happen and in 
what sequence. It says that the third alternative here--that is, the 
authorization for appropriations--a number of criteria must be met in 
order to avoid the point of order. First, any appropriations bill that 
is expected to provide the funding must be identified. So far so good. 
Second, the mandated legislation must also designate a responsible 
Federal agency. That is fine. We can designate the agency that will 
implement the mandate, that shall either, one, implement and 
appropriate a less costly mandate if less than full funding is 
ultimately appropriated, or--this is really a big ``or''--declare such 
mandate to be ineffective.
  Does that mean that we are authorizing after we have imposed a 
mandate and provided the funds--it says ``or'' allow that agency to 
declare the mandate ineffective. So they could, if they decide, as I 
read this--and I want to be corrected because this is an immensely 
complex bill. Does this mean that agency, if they find that we have not 
fully funded that mandate, could provide for a less costly method of 
implementing it? And I assume we have designated them and given them 
the authority on the front end. The bill is already passed and we have 
given them the authority to come up with a less costly method of 
implementing the mandate or declaring it inoperative. Am I reading that 
correctly?
  Mr. BYRD. That is the way I read it. I think we are opening up a 
Pandora's box here, if we are going to provide authority to an 
executive branch agency to modify or to nullify a mandate if the 
Appropriations Committees of the Congress do not provide the full 
appropriations. It seems to me we are saying that an executive branch 
agency can have the authority to void the entire mandate, or to 
determine how much of the mandate shall go into effect; ``less money, 
less mandate.''
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from 
Arkansas, in his sequencing scenario, the authorizing committee in its 
language would determine which option it chooses. If it chooses the 
option that states that in the event that subsequent appropriations do 
not provide full funding, then it so states that mandate will not 
become effective. That is at the direction of the authorizing 
committee. So that is a separate issue here. If, however, that 
authorizing committee chooses the other option, which is that in the 
event full funding is not provided in a subsequent appropriation, then 
a Federal agency is directed--directed by the authorizing committee--to 
scale back that amendment. But the criteria for the scaling back again 
are included in the language of the authorizing committee.
  Let us say the executive agency is carrying out the direction of 
legislative branch. It is carrying out the direction as specified, and 
it does not leave these decisions to the discretion of that executive 
agency.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may comment on that very last sentence, this says 
that if the appropriation is less than the amount this agency 
determines to be needed to fully implement the mandate, you are giving 
that agency two options as I read this. They can either cut the mandate 
to some extent, modify it to make the money fit the mandate, or, as I 
started out a moment ago, or declare the mandate to be ineffective.
  I think the Senator and I both are reading this the same way now. 
What I am really suggesting is that this is a tremendous discretion 
that we are handing to the executive branch to declare that we either 
have not funded it fully and, therefore, they are going to cut it, or 
they are just going to torpedo it altogether.
  Now, why would we want to give the agency that kind of authority? 
Obviously, we feel the mandate is important or we would not have passed 
the bill.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield for 
the purpose of the colloquy between and among other Senators, including 
myself, without my losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Again, I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, to the Senator from Arkansas, I can only reiterate 
what the process is. The authorizing committee, of necessity, has had 
to work closely with the appropriate appropriations committee. There 
has been communication, so that there is, based on that communication, 
based upon the progress of that bill, the authorizing committee knows 
if in fact the money will be appropriated. They will know that it is 
either a yes or no issue. So, again, they will choose the option. It 
does not allow--does not allow--the executive agency to make that 
determination as to whether or not they just rule that there is not 
enough money, so we are going to wipe it out, because the authorizing 
agency has that power, and they initiate that power in the language of 
the authorizing committee, which is then passed by Congress.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me make one observation. I am not going to pursue 
this and belabor it any further. But as I read this language here, 
Senator Chiles used to say ``the mother tongue is English,'' and this 
is the way I read this English. The sequence would be that the 
authorizing committee would authorize appropriations. I assume that the 
authorizing committee would either say such sums as shall be necessary, 
or if they have a CBO figure, what it is going to implement that, they 
would authorize that amount to be appropriated. The Appropriations 
Committee on which I sit would subsequently decide, also based on what 
CBO says it would cost to implement the mandate, and the figure might 
be different than the one the authorizing committee used when they 
passed the authorizing legislation.
  But assume for the purposes of our argument that the authorizing 
committee says it will take $100 million to implement this mandate; the 
Appropriations Committee comes along, as we usually do several months 
later, to discuss whether we want to appropriate this $100 million or 
not, because it may be that CBO by that time has said--let us assume 
for the purpose of argument--it will only take $90 million. So we 
appropriate $90 million. This Federal agency down here--as I read this, 
it says that if they find that our appropriation is not sufficient, 
after we have made our very best estimate on it, used the best 
information we could get from CBO, or somebody else, the agency down 
there says, well, you flunked, you did not appropriate enough money; 
this is going to cost $130 million to implement this, or $150 million.
  Mr. BYRD. It might be years later.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It could be. It could be any time in the future.
  Mr. BYRD. Because it is every year we are talking about.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly. So they say that because you goofed, we are 
going to take it upon ourselves to vastly reduce the mandate, no matter 
how critical it might be--it might be asbestos, water well pollution, 
or whatever, and they can say we are going to either severely reduce 
the requirement on the cities, counties, and States, or, two, we are 
negating the mandate. Now you are giving them an option, Senator. Even 
[[Page S1043]] though we may have appropriated $90 million, to say that 
is not enough to get the water hot, so we are negating the entire 
mandate. Is that a fair reading of it?
  Mr. BYRD. That is the way I read it.
  Mr. GLENN. There were a number of changes from S. 993 which we 
brought out of committee last year. A lot of changes were made in S. 1. 
Most of them, I was part of. This particular change was not in S. 993, 
and I was not part of this.
  Let me address this a little different way. The point made is a very 
good one. The point, basically, is that we are giving away our 
legislative authority when we say to an agency: You have authority to 
void something. I think that was probably a poor choice of words in 
this. What we were trying to cover in these two parts, I believe--and I 
ask my friend from Idaho to correct me if I am wrong--was to say where 
the authorizing committee put in a certain amount that in our best 
judgment was going to take care of this and then there were no 
appropriations followed up for it, then what happens? Well, what we 
should have said was that the agency will not be responsible for 
carrying out the enforcement of this mandate instead of saying the 
agency has the authority to void what the Congress has done--in that 
case, where there is no money. That is in the first case. So I think 
the void-the-mandate language was probably a poor choice of words in 
this. It was not intended to pass along legislative authority over to 
an agency.
  No. 2 says, OK, we authorize certain things in committee to take care 
of this mandate, but the appropriators did not have all that money. But 
they said maybe it would have required $100 million. They say, well, we 
just do not have that; you have $60 million to carry this thing out. In 
that case, the agency can provide an alternative of less money, of less 
mandate, but this alternative requires the authorizing legislation to 
specify clearly how the agency shall implement that alternative. In 
other words, we would give scaled-back advice if that is necessary. So 
I think the one that the distinguished colleague from West Virginia 
cites here, the voiding the mandate, was probably language that should 
not have been in there to begin with. I think it would have been better 
if we said if there is no money, then the agency is not required to 
carry out the mandate. That would not pass authority, to void a 
legislative act of the Congress over to an agency.
  Mr. BYRD. Under the Constitution, only the Congress has the power to 
enact laws, and only the Congress can appropriate moneys. If there is a 
need to rescind or to repeal or to modify, why does the legislative 
branch not do that? Why turn that over to some unelected bureaucrat--
and this is no disparagement of bureaucrats, because we have to have 
them--why turn that over to an unelected bureaucrat, who is given no 
power under the Constitution? I am one who believes that the Congress 
cannot give away power that is vested in the Congress, and the Congress 
only, by the Constitution.
  Mr. GLENN. If the Senator will yield, let me make an analogy here. I 
think we do this all the time, if it is taken in the light just stated.
  Mr. BYRD. We delegate certain authority.
  Mr. GLENN. Then we say there are no appropriations to carry it out. 
For instance, we require by law a nuclear cleanup in this country. So 
we say the agency is supposed to go out there--the Department of 
Energy--and make an assessment of all these places and do a nuclear 
cleanup. They are supposed to do the best job possible. In some places 
we will not have money appropriated to do that. The authorization is 
still there. And in some places we will partially fund that operation. 
That does not mean that the authorization should come back to Congress 
and be changed. It just means that the authorization is still there, 
but we have not been able to provide enough money to do it. So we say, 
``Do what you can.''
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may make an observation, then I will withdraw from 
this colloquy. This would have been much better, in my opinion--and I 
would want to think about it because there are probably better 
solutions--but if the language of this bill had said: At such time as 
the designated Federal agency--or if at any time the Federal agency 
determines that the appropriated amount is insufficient to fully comply 
with the mandate, to execute the mandate, such agency shall report 
their findings to the Congress forthwith for such determination as the 
Congress chooses to make. Would that not solve it?
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I believe, I say to my friend from 
Arkansas, that, as you have just stated it, in essence that is what we 
have provided here.
  The Senator from West Virginia is correct. We should not give our 
power away. But we do not. We make that determination. We make that 
determination. If the funds are not there, we, the Congress, have 
stated that that mandate will not take effect. We, the Congress, have 
stated----
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am reluctant to interrupt the Senator, but that is not 
the way I read it. We give the agency the right to say that they do not 
have to implement that mandate. If they find there is less money than 
is necessary to carry out the mandate, you give them the option of 
reducing the mandate or torpedoing the mandate. That is what the 
Senator from West Virginia and I are both objecting to.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the distinguished Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator.
  I think both the Senator from Arkansas and the Senator from West 
Virginia are to be commended for raising this point and calling the 
Senate's attention to it. I think it is a valid point of concern worth 
looking at.
  As I look on page 23 of the bill, the bill deals specifically with 
this provision and it is one of the three options that is laid out. 
These have already been noted by the distinguished Senators. One, the 
alternative of Congress that it has been paid for; two, the option of 
raising the funds and paying for them, the one you all have called our 
attention to; and the third alternative, where they authorized the 
spending and then developed options.
  One of the things of great comfort to me is the specific language, 
because what it calls for is Congress itself to set out the procedures 
that the agency must follow. And let me quote, because I think it is 
the language that we will be concerned with.
  Under (III), it says:

       Identifies the minimum amount that must be appropriated in 
     each appropriations bill referred to in subclause (II), in 
     order to provide for full Federal funding of the direct costs 
     referred to in subclause (I); and
       (IV)(aa) designates a responsible Federal agency and 
     establishes criteria and procedures under which such agency 
     shall implement less costly programmatic and financial 
     responsibilities of State.

  And so on.
  In other words, it is Congress specifically that is charged with and 
must set the procedures and set the guidelines. Under (bb), it says:

       Designates a responsible Federal agency and establishes 
     criteria and procedures to direct that, if an appropriation 
     Act does not provide for the estimated direct cost of such 
     mandate as set forth under subclause (III), such agency shall 
     declare such mandate to be ineffective . . .

  An so on.
  I think this is very comforting because it makes it clear here there 
is no delegation of power; that the decision as to what the procedures 
are is set forth by Congress, that the decision as to what the criteria 
are is set forth by Congress.
  In the constitutional law on this area of improper delegation, I 
think it is very comforting and very reassuring to this Senator 
because, as long as Congress is the one that sets the procedure, as 
long as Congress is the one that sets the criteria, as long as Congress 
is the one that sets the standards, then the delegation is proper under 
the case law.
  On the other hand, if this language should fail to be in there, if 
Congress had not taken on the responsibility of setting the criteria 
and procedure, then indeed we would have a constitutional question.
  I, for one, appreciate the point being raised. If the Senators have 
further questions about it, I will be happy to respond with specific 
constitutional cases where the matter has been considered.
   [[Page S1044]] But I am at least reassured, as I look at the 
language on page 23 and page 24, that the fact that Congress 
specifically sets the procedures and criteria gives us the comfort 
level we need.
  Mr. BIDEN. May I ask the Senator from Colorado a question on that 
point?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield for that purpose.
  Mr. BIDEN. As I read Morrison versus Olson and other separation of 
powers cases, the fact is that the judgment made by the Supreme Court 
as to whether we can or cannot delegate authority, any branch in the 
Federal Government may or may not delegate authority, relates not to 
whether they have set up procedures, but relates to whether or not the 
delegation of authority goes to the essence of the function of that 
branch.
  For example, we could not set in motion here, even if we wanted to, 
by legislation, a proposal that said the President of the United States 
of America shall, under the following circumstances, not only nominate 
but in fact confirm a Federal judge. We could not do that. We could lay 
out in great detail the circumstances under which a President could 
take over the whole responsibility of putting someone on the bench, and 
that would be an unconstitutional delegation of power under the 
separation of powers doctrine.
  Now, I would be very, very interested, because I know, and I mean 
this sincerely, how learned my friend is in the law. But I have made 
the serious mistake of teaching constitutional law on this subject for 
the last five semesters, and I have been forced to read all these 
cases. I am not suggesting that I have the book on this issue, but I am 
suggesting to you I have read no case where there is the ability for 
someone to conclude from reading the case that you can, if you set out 
proper procedures, delegate authority which is essentially legislative 
or for the President. The President could not turn around and say, ``By 
the way, I, by Executive order, from now on am asking the U.S. Senate 
to name who will be nominated for the Court and also move forward and 
confirm those persons.'' He could not do that.
  Now, again, I know everybody does not want to prolong the debate, but 
I think this is a critical question, and one that the Senator from 
Arkansas and the Senator from West Virginia, I believe, have suggested 
is easily reconcilable.
  For example, as I read the Budget Act, you could, in fact, have done 
what they did in the Budget Act. The Budget Committee retains the 
judgment of whether or not they will, in fact, conclude that something 
is within or beyond the budget resolution. They do not delegate it to 
an alphabet agency. They do not delegate it to another branch of 
Government.
  So I would be very anxious--and I am not trying to put the Senator on 
the spot--but I would be very anxious to hear now the case law that he 
thinks sustains his position, or give him time to do that. And this is 
not meant by way of just trying to be obstreperous or to embarrass. I 
truly do not know of any cases that sustain the assertion made by the 
Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me thank my distinguished friend from Delaware.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I continue to hold the floor and I ask the 
Chair for that right.
  I yield for the purpose of the colloquy.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator for accommodating a dialog on this 
subject.
  I want to mention that I think my distinguished friend from Delaware 
may sell himself short. He indicates he has taught constitutional law 
for only 5 semesters. I personally have served on the Judiciary 
Committee, where he has been chairman for eight semesters. I do not 
know how much other legal education he has engaged in, but I, at least, 
have found him quite informative and quite thoughtful in this area--
occasionally correct, as well--in his judgments as we move forward, and 
I think always helpful as we look into this.
  Let me suggest to my friend that if indeed what were suggested here 
would be to delegate a legislative function to these agencies, then I 
would be in wholehearted agreement with him. I think it is quite clear 
the intent of this bill and I think it is quite clear under the 
constraints we must follow that we can only delegate enforcement of 
policy decisions, not the function of legislating itself.
  And while I hope the sponsors of this bill, which includes myself, 
will be open to any reasonable suggestions in this area, I must say, 
from looking at it, at least my conclusion is that the language we see 
on pages 23 and 24 is very helpful in that area, because it not only 
includes Congress being required to set forth procedures, as my 
distinguished friend referenced, it also includes specific language 
requiring Congress to set forth the criteria on which this judgment 
must be made.
  So I think it is quite clear from the language that this is not a 
delegation of legislative authority. It is simply a requirement that 
they enforce criteria and procedures set down. I want to reiterate my 
hope that if there is an improvement in language we would consider it 
and look at it. I think the point is very valid. In terms of recitation 
of a constitutional law in this subject and specifically the cases, I 
think that is a valid request, a reasonable one, and I would be happy 
to include that in the Record.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from West Virginia had 
the floor, and I would be guided by whatever he wishes. I can come back 
to this later or we could continue, whatever the Senator suggests. I 
have no preference in the normal order of things. I know there were 
other Senators here to speak on this and other issues, before me.
  Maybe what I should do with the Senator's permission is gather up, 
since I just walked on the floor and did not anticipate being involved 
in this debate, some of the case law to which I refer and come back and 
maybe continue this debate if the Senator from West Virginia thinks 
that is appropriate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the distinguished Senator will 
continue to elucidate on this point and enlighten the Senate so that we 
may better understand how to approach this matter.
  I do not want to continue to hold the floor. The Senator from South 
Carolina is seeking the floor, also.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief comment?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. GLENN. The agency will void the mandate, the red-flagged 
language, to the Senator from West Virginia. And rightly so, indicating 
we would be passing our authority off to an agency when we should not 
do that.
  Now, if we come back and look at the actual language in the bill, it 
is not written quite that way. On page 24, in that second section, 
starting in the middle of the page, it says basically that the 
authorizing committee will designate a responsible Federal agency and 
establish criteria and procedures to direct that if an appropriations 
act does not provide for the estimated direct costs of such mandate as 
set forth under subclause 3, such agency shall declare such mandate to 
be ineffective.
  It does not say it voids it. It does not pass legislative authority, 
the way I interpret that, but it just states the obvious. If there is 
not an appropriation to cover this, that the mandate becomes 
ineffective as of October of the fiscal year for which the 
appropriations is not equal to the direct costs of the mandate.
  Mr. BYRD. Of course this may be 5 years, may be 10 years.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield just on that one issue?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from West Virginia is raising a number of 
questions including the constitutional delegation. But there is another 
problem here. If an appropriations committee as many as 5 years or 10 
years later is not allowed under this language to determine that a 
lesser appropriation will do the job, it is bound by a previous 
authorization bill that could be 10 years earlier, which made an 
estimate which may be absolutely a wild estimate. Five years later, 10 
years later. An appropriations committee does not allow under this bill 
to make a determination that a different amount, a lesser amount, would 
fully fund that mandate.
  That is one of the many issues that is raised with this language. 
Now, there are other issues. There are specificity 
[[Page S1045]] issues. And the Senator from West Virginia is also 
putting his finger on a critical constitutional issue here. I will say 
one other quick comment. This is the new language.
  Mr. BYRD. It was not in the bill last year.
  Mr. LEVIN. It was not in the bill last year. This was a language that 
was in a bill introduced on a Wednesday night, which went to a hearing 
on Thursday morning, which was intended to go to a markup on a Friday 
morning which we had to plead for a delay of over the weekend for the 
markup to a Monday morning. When we made an effort to get a committee 
report on this, we denied that committee report so that it could come 
to the floor the next day. This is the language that was not in last 
year's report which is very new, novel, significant language.
  Now, I repeat: I am someone who supported last year's bill. But I 
think this goes too far and raises very significant questions which are 
worthy of real examination on the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Exactly, and we have a cloture motion which we are supposed 
to vote on tomorrow morning, which if adopted leaves us with 30 hours 
only. And the Senator from Michigan may have 1 hour. That is all he can 
have. This locks in, as the distinguished Senator from Michigan has 
stated, it locks in for the life of any new mandate, 5 years, 10 years, 
20 years, or whatever the CBO estimates for every future year.
  This means that even if we find in some future year--5 years down the 
road, 10 years down the road--the Senator from West Virginia may not be 
here if it is 20 years down the road--that a mandate can be met for 
less money, we nevertheless must appropriate the minimum contained in 
the bill that sets up the mandate for all future years.
  If less is appropriated in any year, then the agency decides. We have 
an unelected bureaucrat who, perhaps, will make the decision under a 
different administration or perhaps under a different administration, 
last one or two administrations, different members of the 
Appropriations Committee, different members of the authorizations 
committee.
 We have an unelected bureaucrat making that decision.

  I say that unelected bureaucrat is not only unaccountable to the 
people, but if we leave it in the hands of the Congress, that is where 
it ought to be. Then the American people know whom to vote against. 
They at least know whom to vote against if they do not like a mandate 
being cut back.
  But under this process this amendment would put in place, to whom do 
they complain if they do not like the mandate? To whom do they complain 
under this process? Why do we not leave it in the hands of the 
Congress? That is where the Constitution puts the power under article 
I, the power to legislate. Article I, section 1. Article I, section 9, 
power to appropriate.
  I am very concerned about this language, Mr. President. I should 
think we ought to have more time to debate this point so that we can 
scrutinize it, focus on it, subject it to the microscope and be sure we 
make a correct decision. With the cloture motion pending here, I have 
an amendment prepared that would strike this. It would strike it, 
strike the language. If the cloture is invoked tomorrow, if we cannot 
reach a decision today, and cloture is invoked tomorrow, that is the 
only amendment I can offer. I cannot offer an amendment, then, to 
modify. I might be able to find a way but it would be very difficult to 
offer an amendment, then, that would modify and bring together language 
that was beside the point by a meeting of the minds on both sides of 
the aisle. We would be prohibited from doing that.
  Why not eliminate all reference to appropriations committee here? Let 
the authorizing committees pay for it out of their allocation. Or let 
them, through the pay-go process, let them provide the money. Let them 
raise the taxes, or whatever is required, to meet the full funding. 
Strike all reference to appropriations. Let us out of it.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Again, there is a point I would like to make, Mr. 
President. The Senator stated that this locks us in.
  There is nothing to preclude that in a subsequent year as we find 
that perhaps, now, based on actual cost, those costs have changed. It 
is no longer based on estimate but actual cost; that Congress can 
revisit that, because in keeping with the spirit of what the Senator 
from West Virginia has said, Congress speaks. We do not delegate. This 
might cause us to revisit the mandates a little more often than every 
5, 10, 20 years, which is welcome news to our State and local partners.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, strike out all reference to appropriations, and then 
the authorizing committees could review them every year if they want 
to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Again, I know our friend from Utah has some good 
information on this issue that I hope he will be able to impart to the 
Senate.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial 
from today's New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 18, 1995]

                      What's the Rush on Mandates?

       Environmentalists and others whose interests are served by 
     Federal regulation have a name for the three main elements of 
     what promises to be a sustained Republican effort to 
     deregulate American society: the ``Unholy Trinity.'' The term 
     connotes both respect and fear. There is merit in all three 
     ideas. Yet critics fear that, taken together, they will 
     cripple a quarter-century of Federal efforts to protect 
     everything from the environment to worker safety.
       The ideas grew out of Newt Gingrich's ``Contract With 
     America.'' One would require compensation when property 
     values are diminished by Federal regulation. A second would 
     subject regulations to independent cost-benefit analysis, 
     otherwise known as ``risk assessment,'' that could make it 
     more difficult for Federal agencies to carry out rules. The 
     third would make it harder for Congress to approve costly new 
     ``unfunded mandates''--obligations imposed on state and local 
     governments without the Federal dollars to pay for them.
       These are seductive notions with big consequences. All will 
     need careful legislative handling. Unfortunately, that is not 
     happening with the first of the three to take legislative 
     form--an unfunded-mandates bill that began a fast-track trip 
     through Congress last week. The bill which contains sensible 
     suggestions and serious flaws, received only cursory 
     inspection by two Senate committees. It is now on the Senate 
     floor and will hit the House next week. That is much too 
     fast.
       Unfunded mandates have long been a sore point with mayors 
     and governors, who say the cost of carrying out Washington's 
     agenda denies them flexibility. Under the proposed 
     legislation, any bill imposing a Federal mandate of more than 
     $50 million must include an estimate by the Congressional 
     Budget Office of its non-Federal costs. It must also include 
     the money to pay for the mandate.
       A single legislator could block any new mandate that does 
     not meet these conditions. The objection could be overridden, 
     but only after separate votes to override in both houses. 
     Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, would raise the threshold by 
     requiring 60 votes to approve an unfunded mandate.
       Forcing Congress to reach a higher level of accountability 
     cannot be a bad idea. That is why a bill of some sort is 
     certain to pass and why President Clinton is likely to sign 
     it. So what's to complain about? There are at least two big 
     flaws. First, the bill sets up a two-track system that would 
     discriminate against the private sector. Private companies 
     would still have to obey (and pay for) Federal mandates. 
     Unless Congress gave governments the necessary funds, they 
     could ignore them.
       That could put private businesses at a competitive 
     disadvantage. Laws governing waste disposal, for example, 
     require expensive landfills to prevent contamination of the 
     underlying water table. Private waste-disposal companies 
     would still have to build and operate these landfills, but 
     state and local governments would not unless Congress 
     underwrote the costs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which can 
     usually be counted on to support Republican initiatives, have 
     complained that the bill would severely skew the marketplace.
       Some environmentalists suggest a compromise: Apply the 
     unfunded-mandates prohibition to strictly governmental 
     functions, like education and welfare; where mandates apply 
     to both private and public entities, both should pay. The 
     Clean Water Act, for example, imposes equally strict rules on 
     the discharge of both industrial and municipal wastes. Would 
     unfunded local governments now be free to pollute? That 
     unthinkable outcome is a real possibility under the 
     Republican bill.
       Another big problem is that the bill applies to new law and 
     does not address the billions in unfunded mandates from old 
     law. That could have the perverse effect of discouraging 
     efforts to fix outdated legislation; any new law that imposes 
     unfunded mandates could run into a Congressional roadblock--
     even though the new law represents a vast improvement over 
     its predecessor.
       The bill before the Senate is a carelessly drafted answer 
     to legitimate complaints. 
     [[Page S1046]] Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Joseph 
     Lieberman of Connecticut, Democrats who are sympathetic to 
     the measure, are using every parliamentary tactic in the book 
     to delay the bill until it is fixed. More power to them. A 
     bill that could reshape basic relations between Federal and 
     local governments, penalize the private sector and threaten 
     the environment should not be railroaded.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I promised the majority leader I would 
suggest the absence of a quorum at the end of my statement. I want to 
keep my commitment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I do not want to forgo that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent--and then you can go ahead and 
object because I am not trying to stop that. Sometime, somewhere I 
would like to get recognized so I can speak. We will go ahead with the 
quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. BYRD. You cannot reserve the right to object.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will continue to 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may retain my 
right to the floor and allow the colloquy to continue among Senators 
Hollings and----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. There is no colloquy. I want to be recognized in my own 
right.
  Mr. BYRD. I was trying to find a way the Senator----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It is easy to do. Everybody else can be recognized. You 
all have been up here for days and weeks. I never have been recognized 
on this score, and I would like to be recognized, but I will await my 
turn.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator from South Carolina was here before I was and 
sought the floor. I hope that he would seek recognition and get the 
floor. But I had to keep my commitment to the majority leader. I yield 
the floor. I hope the Senator from South Carolina will seek the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, may I get recognized?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I was not privy to 
the discussion that the majority leader had with the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, but what I would like to do is make a 
unanimous-consent request that the Senator from South Carolina be 
allowed to now speak, no amendments would be in order; that following 
that, we could then allow a colloquy to continue on this issue raised 
by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it is quite obvious I would like to talk 
and without restriction, like any other Senator, like 100 of us here. I 
do not have to get unanimous consent. I will await my turn after 
amendments and after all of your rigmarole takes place. I do not think 
I have to go through my courteous friend, the distinguished Senator 
from Idaho, to be recognized. I will await my time.
  Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator from Idaho yield for a question----
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I will yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. Without losing his right to the floor. I would like to 
ask the Senator from Idaho, we are here, we have amendments to offer. 
The bill is open for amendments. Why can I not offer my amendment?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I will be happy to respond to the Senator from Iowa. 
It is because we are trying to work out an issue that deals with an 
amendment from the Senator's side of the aisle. I have been told that 
we are close, but because of the fact that a number of Senators on his 
side of the aisle are very concerned to protect that issue for a 
Senator from the other side of the aisle, we have not been able to get 
other approval to move forward on some of these amendments. That is the 
reality.
  So until I am told we have resolved the issue on the Senator's side 
of the aisle, I felt that it was very healthy to have this discussion 
about the bill itself. I think it helps all of us. So that is why, with 
all due respect. It is because we are concerned about a Senator on the 
other side of the aisle.
  Mr. HARKIN. Might I further ask the Senator, is there an objection on 
this side of the aisle then to anyone offering an amendment? Is there 
an objection that has been raised on this side of the aisle? I would 
like to ask that question for the record, and if so, I would like to 
know who.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will continue to call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, could we get some idea as to how much longer 
we are going to have to sit here without the ability to offer an 
amendment? Here time is running. It is 6 p.m. We have a cloture motion 
that is supposed to be voted on in the morning and there are several 
amendments. We have not had an opportunity to offer these amendments.
  Mr. HARKIN. I have one.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. In response to that, it is my hope that we are 
momentarily away from being allowed to go forward with an amendment, 
which is from the Democrat side. And, again, as floor manager, knowing 
the number of amendments that are there, waiting for action so we can 
finally have the sort of dialog that we had a few moments ago on this 
bill, and lay it out there--I would love nothing more. That is what I 
have been pushing for.
  But again, I must say, with all due respect, because of legitimate 
concerns--and I respect this--from Senators on your side of the aisle, 
to protect a Senator from your side who will be offering an amendment, 
I assume very soon, we have not been able to move forward with some of 
the other amendments. That is the situation.
  So I hope we are just moments away from a green light from the 
parties on both sides of the aisle on that amendment so we can proceed.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope this is not going to be charged up to 
Byrdlock.
  I do not say this unkindly to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. I have the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator knows the Senate is a continuing body, 
except for now. I have never seen, in my brief 28 years, this nonsense. 
What he wishes and hopes for and everything else--do not give me about 
our side of the aisle and everything else--everybody takes their turn. 
Things take time to work out. We cannot move forward with this 
amendment, or I could get recognized and talk.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I would suggest to my friend from South Carolina, 
with a great deal of respect, that I have throughout this day been 
floating and 
[[Page S1047]] suggesting unanimous-consent agreements to bring these 
amendments to the floor. And there has been objection from your side.
  So I think I have followed what is prescribed in the Senate rules, in 
the spirit of trying to get the amendments. I would like nothing more 
than to get these amendments out on the floor so we can debate them and 
vote on them.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, so the record may be clear, there have been 
no objections from this Senator today.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I do not find our side objecting. I find constantly the 
other side objecting. That is the whole point.
  Mr. BYRD. This Senator is not objecting. I think the distinguished 
Senator from Idaho is doing the best he can. I think he is trying to 
follow some injunctions placed on him from higher up. I cannot fault 
him for that. But I wonder how much longer we are going to be remaining 
in this state of limbo. We cannot offer amendments. We cannot even get 
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and take up an 
amendment by Mr. Hollings. Where is the problem? Why all the rush? This 
is what I have been saying all along.
  I have been rather amused to see a new term in the legislative 
lexicon, ``Byrdlock.''
  But is this Byrdlock? I hope this delay is not charged against 
Byrdlock.
  Why can we not debate the bill? Why can we not offer amendments? We 
have a cloture amendment that is going to be voted on in the morning 
and scores of amendments waiting here.
  If this is not putting the boot heel on the neck of the minority, 
pray tell me what it is? What is this? Who has the lock on the Senate 
now? The Senator from South Carolina has been sitting in his seat for 
an hour--or longer. After the last vote, he stood and sought 
recognition. A quorum was begun and the effort to call it off was 
objected to.
  Then the distinguished majority leader came into the Chamber. I said 
I would like to call off the quorum call and make a statement. He said, 
``Well, will you put in a quorum--put us back in a quorum?''
  I said yes. I did not know we were going to be locked out for the 
next half hour or hour, or whatever it is.
  I hope that we can get some idea of how much longer we are going to 
have to sit here in a state of limbo, and not be able to offer an 
amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield without losing his right to the 
floor?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. I do not want to keep the floor. I just want to make 
sure this delay is not charged up to Byrdlock.
  Mr. GLENN. Let me explain this. About 5 hours ago, Senator Boxer 
sought the floor for an amendment. There was objection on the 
Republican side to her bringing that up.
  And she has continually sought the floor on this and tried to work 
this out--tried to work out the differences with those who objected to 
her amendment on the other side.
  It has to do with a statement and with legislation she wanted to make 
that basically deals with abortion clinics and some protection and so 
on into those areas. There were some people on the other side who had 
been negotiating this on behalf of five or six other Senators on the 
Republican side. Because we are in a situation here where the committee 
amendments are the things being considered, still technically on the 
floor, only amendments to that are permitted. So she has been frozen 
out, as this arrangement has not been able to be worked out. She has 
thought a number of times this afternoon they had this worked out. She 
was disappointed each time; it was not worked out.
  We are told now, maybe after all, maybe it is now worked out so the 
language in her proposal, her amendment, will now be acceptable to 
those who disagreed with it on the other side.
  In the meantime--because only one amendment could apply, under Senate 
rules, because it is the committee amendment en bloc that we have been 
working on all this time--there have been continual amendments put in 
to keep her frozen out by the leadership on the other side.
  That just is an explanation of exactly what has happened.
  She feels, I believe now, that they perhaps are within minutes of 
getting approval, I believe. I do not know whether that approval has 
been forthcoming or not. They were checking once again for about the 
sixth or seventh time in the last 4\1/2\ or 5 hours. That is how we got 
to where we were. I think we have been referring back and forth, one 
side to the other. I wanted to explain exactly what the situation was 
and how we got here.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GLENN. It is not my--Senator Byrd still has the right to the 
floor. He retains the right to the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. No.
  Mr. GLENN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
                 Amendment No. 141 to Amendment No. 31

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that States should not 
       shift costs to local governments, and for other purposes)

  Mr. BRADLEY. 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 New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 141 to 
     amendment No. 31.

  Mr. BRADLEY. 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 pending amendment inserted the following:

     SEC. 107. IMPACT ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Congress should be concerned about shifting costs 
     from Federal to State and local authorities and should be 
     equally concerned about the growing tendency of States to 
     shift costs to local governments;
       (2) cost shifting from States to local governments has, in 
     many instances, forced local governments to raise property 
     taxes or curtail sometimes essential services; and
       (3) increases in local property taxes and cuts in essential 
     services threaten the ability of many citizens to attain and 
     maintain the American dream of owning a home in a safe, 
     secure community.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Federal Government should not shift certain costs 
     to the State, and States should end the practice of shifting 
     costs to local governments, which forces many local 
     governments to increase property taxes;
       (2) States should end the imposition, in the absence of 
     full consideration by their legislatures, of State issued 
     mandates on local governments without adequate State funding, 
     in a manner that may displace other essential government 
     priorities; and
       (3) one primary objective of this Act and other efforts to 
     change the relationship among Federal, State, and local 
     governments should be to reduce taxes and spending at all 
     levels and to end the practice of shifting costs from one 
     level of government to another with little or no benefit to 
     taxpayers.

     SEC. 108. EFFECTIVE DATE.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the amendment I propose is an amendment I 
talked about both with the majority and the minority staff. They 
understand that it is a simple sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It says 
very simply that this is a bill that deals with unfunded mandates of 
the Federal Government on the State government, and it would be the 
sense of the Senate that States should not apply unfunded mandates on 
local governments that lead to increased property taxes.
  Mr. President, so far in this debate, we have focused primarily on 
the unfunded mandates that the Federal Government is said to impose on 
the States. However, I would like to take a moment to draw the Senate's 
attention to an equally important set of mandates. I am referring to 
the unfunded mandates that Governors and State legislators impose on 
local governments and, more important, the burden that these mandates 
impose on taxpayers.
  Taxpayers' main concern is their total tax burden, not how this 
burden is divided among Federal, State, and local governments. As 
elected officials at every level can attest, cutting taxes and 
expanding services are far preferable to the converse--especially if 
someone else picks up the tab. However, as we all know, the person who 
ultimately picks up this tab is the taxpayer.
  Mr. President, in order to address the burden that this form of cost 
shifting imposes on taxpayers, I have sent to the desk a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution in the form of an amendment to this bill. This 
resolution simply states that just as the Federal Government should 
not, in the absence of careful consideration, shift costs to the 
States, 
[[Page S1048]] the States should end the practice of shifting costs to 
local governments, which frequently has the effect of raising local 
taxes.
  When Governors and State legislators shift costs to local governments 
in an effort to cut taxes and balance their operating budgets, they are 
not reducing the overall tax burden; they are merely changing the 
collection point. Instead, what happens is that local authorities who 
have no other source of revenue are forced to either raise property 
taxes or cut services. As a practical matter, however, these services--
such as fire, police, trash, and water services--are often essential to 
the safety and well-being of our communities. Therefore, the effect of 
cost shifting by State governments is, all too often, to increase local 
property taxes.
  These State-imposed mandates and the impact they have on taxpayers 
are by no means inconsequential. In New Jersey, the State imposes no 
less than 36 separate unfunded mandates on local governments. These 
unfunded State mandates cost New Jersey taxpayers over $150 million 
each year. In my State, as in many others, the main source of local tax 
revenue is the property tax. In fact, local property taxes make up over 
98 percent of all local tax
 revenue in New Jersey. Therefore, for every dollar in costs that the 
State shifts to local governments, these governments are forced to 
raise property taxes by an equal amount.

  In 1991, the cost of New Jersey's property taxes was over $1,250 per 
person, not even per household. Since then, property taxes have only 
gone up. In fact, over the last 7 years, property tax collections in 
New Jersey rose over 64 percent and, this last year, property taxes 
rose faster than during any year since 1990. The upshot is that in 
Orange, NJ, the average homeowner saw an $800 increase in property 
taxes in 1994. Sadly, these homeowners were not alone. In Mansfield, 
the average homeowner saw a $600 increase in her property taxes in 
1994. In Teaneck, the increase was $237; in Lyndhurst, $479; in Lodi, 
$100; in Dumont, $139; and in Alpine, the average homeowner paid over 
$1,000 more in property taxes in 1994 than in 1993.
  Property taxes affect everyone: while homeowners pay them directly, 
renters pay them indirectly. In addition, high property taxes 
disproportionately affect those who are often the most at risk in our 
society. For many older citizens, especially those who live on a fixed 
income, high property taxes threaten their ability to remain in their 
homes. For many younger, middle-class families, high property taxes 
often mean that they must defer or abandon their dreams of owning a 
home.
  Ultimately, Mr. President, this resolution is about honesty and 
responsibility. It is about honesty in how governments fund the 
services that they provide. It's also about responsibility and the need 
for government at all levels to take responsibility for its actions.
  Government officials are loath to raise taxes. Yet, we also see 
problems in our States that need to be addressed. The result, too 
often, is that we pass a law, and we pass the buck. Mr. President, I am 
not passing judgment on specific mandates, at either the State of 
Federal level. In fact, many of these mandates have helped to ensure 
the safety and well-being of our fellow citizens. Instead, I am simply 
stating that if government officials, at any level, intend to pass a 
new regulation, they should be honest about the cost that this 
regulation will impose on taxpayers. They should not attempt to hide 
the cost by shifting it downstream. Unfortunately, rather than being 
honest and taking responsibility for their actions, too many government 
officials appear to have signs on their desks that read, ``The Buck 
Stops * * * Over There.''
  In order to call attention to the need for government officials at 
all levels to fully consider the impact that cost shifting has on 
taxpayers, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I am joined in sponsoring this amendment by Senator 
Chafee and others.
  Mr. President, I hope we will be able to get a vote on this as the 
pending business before the Senate.
  I am prepared to move to a vote at any time. A Senator has the right 
to the floor when he is recognized, and I certainly would like to 
respect the agreements that have been struck between the minority and 
the majority. At the same time, when there was an open slot in the 
amendment process, I took advantage of that amendment slot.
  It is a very simple amendment, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I 
hope it will be adopted. I have checked with both the minority and the 
majority, and it deals simply with the issue of State unfunded mandates 
on local governments leading to higher property taxes.
  Mr. GLENN. I will be glad to accept the amendment on our side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. If the Senator will yield, we, too, will accept the 
amendment on our side.
  Mr. BRADLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays. I want a rollcall vote on 
this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have worked out an agreement. We 
will have two votes back to back beginning at 7:15. The first vote will 
be on the Bradley amendment. The second vote will be on the Boxer, et 
al., amendment. There will be 1 hour of debate on the Boxer amendment 
equally divided.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Bradley amendment be temporarily set 
aside so the Senator from California may be recognized and that we have 
those votes back to back at 7:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I would 
simply like to make the point that it is the Bradley-Chafee amendment.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I might 
inquire of the majority leader, I understand he asked unanimous consent 
that we have 1 hour of debate right now on the Boxer amendment and at 
7:15 vote on the Bradley amendment, then vote on the Boxer amendment 
right after that, and that when we get back to the bill it will be open 
for amendments at that point in time?
  Mr. DOLE. I think, in fact, I would rather have the votes start at 
7:30, if there is no objection. The first vote will be at 7:30 on the 
Bradley-Chafee amendment and the second vote will be on the Boxer, et 
al., amendment. And then it is open for other amendments. There are 
numerous amendments.
  Mr. HARKIN. Is it the majority leader's intention to continue the 
Senate in session so we may offer amendments at that point in time?
  Mr. DOLE. Yes.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Reserving the right to object further, I do not intend 
to object. Could we order the yeas and nays on the Bradley amendment? I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I ask for the yeas and 
nays on the Boxer, et al., amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is not in order at this time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in 
order to order the yeas and nays on the Boxer amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would the majority leader yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's 
request?
   [[Page S1049]] Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I shall 
not. I ask the majority leader who is controlling the time on the 
Republican side on the Boxer amendment?
  Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles].
  Mrs. BOXER. Then I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Bradley amendment is temporarily set 
aside.
  The Senator from California is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 142 to Amendment No. 31

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General 
  should act immediately to protect reproductive health care clinics)

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration, pursuant to the unanimous consent 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Simon, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Pell, Mr. 
     Inouye, Ms. Mikulski, and Mrs. Feinstein, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 142 to amendment No. 31.
       At the end of the amendment add the following:

     ``SEC. 108. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING PROTECTION OF 
                   REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS.

       ``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) there are approximately 900 clinics in the United 
     States providing reproductive health services;
       ``(2) violence directed at persons seeking to provide 
     reproductive health services continues to increase in the 
     United States, as demonstrated by the recent shootings at two 
     reproductive health clinics in Massachusetts and another 
     health care clinic in Virginia;
       ``(3) organizations monitoring clinic violence have 
     recorded over 130 incidents of violence or harassment 
     directed at reproductive health care clinics and their 
     personnel in 1994 such as death threats, stalking, chemical 
     attacks, bombings and arson;
       ``(4) there has been one attempted murder in Florida and 
     four individuals killed at reproductive health care clinics 
     in Florida and Massachusetts in 1994;
       ``(5) the Congress passed and the President signed the 
     Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, a law 
     establishing Federal criminal penalties and civil remedies 
     for certain violent, threatening, obstructive and destructive 
     conduct that is intended to injure, intimidate or interfere 
     with persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health 
     services;
       ``(6) violence is not a mode of free speech and should not 
     be condoned as a method of expressing an opinion; and
       ``(7) the President has instructed the Attorney General to 
     order--
       ``(A) the United States Attorneys to create task forces of 
     Federal, State and local law enforcement officials and 
     develop plans to address security for reproductive health 
     care clinics located within their jurisdictions; and
       ``(B) the United States Marshals Service to ensure 
     coordination between clinics and Federal, State and local law 
     enforcement officials regarding potential threats of 
     violence.
       ``(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the United States Attorney General should fully enforce 
     the law and protect persons seeking to provide or obtain, or 
     assist in providing or obtaining, reproductive health 
     services from violent attack.
       ``(c) 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.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I took the unusual step of having the 
clerk read this resolution in full because I think that it very clearly 
says more than anyone could express, because it took a lot of time and 
a lot of people's help, that there is no place for violence in our 
society and that we must come together as a U.S. Senate when such 
violence occurs and speak with one voice.
  The reason I have been so persistent for these past 2 weeks is 
because I feel it is essential that this U.S. Senate, the most 
deliberative body in the world, the one with the most magnificent 
traditions of debate, thought, of deliberation, that we take the time, 
even if it means setting aside some other business, to deal with an 
immediate issue.
  We are working on the unfunded mandates bill. It is very complicated. 
It is very complicated. I happen to like the notion behind it. But as I 
look at some of the bureaucracy that may be created as a result of it, 
I have some pause. As I look at whether or not illegal immigration 
might be covered in it, I have some pause. As I look at its impact on 
children and pregnant women, the frail and elderly, on child 
pornography laws, child abuse laws and child labor law, I have some 
pause.
  So it is a very complicated piece of legislation. But what is not 
complicated, Mr. President, to understand is that there is violence in 
our land and it takes many forms. If there is one area in which I 
believe I should make a contribution, it would be in the area of 
violence in America--whether it is on our streets, whether it is in the 
homes, whether it is in schools, wherever it occurs, including 
reproductive health care clinics. I have made many statements 
throughout this day and last week and before that on the history of 
violence at clinics. And so I have been pursuing a very clear sense of 
the Senate that the Attorney General should act fully and enforce the 
law and protect the decent, law-abiding citizens of this land, who 
happen to be in or around health care clinics.
  I want to say that the manager of the bill, the Senator from Idaho, 
has been most gracious to me. I want to say that he has understood 
quite clearly how deeply I felt about this issue, and he has made every 
effort to bring about a resolution to my problem which, clearly stated, 
was I could not find a way, Mr. President, to bring this up before the 
body until an agreement was worked out.
  The majority leader, Senator Dole, was very straightforward with me. 
He said, ``You need to work this out and then we will bring it up. But 
if you do not have an agreement with my side, we are not going to bring 
it up.'' Obviously, that set up somewhat of a problem for me.
  I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] and I want to 
thank the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] for working with me, with 
Senator Murray, and with many of the people who wrote the FACE bill, to 
come up with an acceptable resolution, which has just been read to the 
U.S. Senate.
  I want to particularly thank the cosponsors of my bill. The bill that 
I introduced was one of the first pieces of legislation condemning this 
violence, which included three Republican Senators--Senators Snowe, 
Chafee and Jeffords. I want to thank them very much. And I thank my 
original cosponsors who were there the day I introduced the bill, 
Senator Murray and Senator Feingold. The other Senators who are 
cosponsors are Senators Kennedy, Campbell, Simon, Lautenberg, Dodd, 
Baucus, Levin, Lieberman, Moseley-Braun, Harkin, Pell, Inouye, 
Mikulski, Feinstein, Kerry, and Bradley. And today Senator Reid and 
Senator Wellstone were added to that list.
  I am very proud that we have reached an agreement so that the will of 
25 Senators who believed in this enough to go on this bill will get 
some attention.
  At this time, I will yield to the Senator from Washington, Senator 
Murray, 10 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California, who 
has been very persistent on this issue and deserves a great deal of 
gratitude and credit from all of us for insisting that we bring before 
us this very important sense of the Senate that speaks to the violence 
that has been occurring at reproductive health care clinics in this 
Nation.
  We are all aware of the violence that has ravaged neighborhoods 
throughout our Nation. And I have to tell you every time kids gather in 
my kitchen or I talk to my next door neighbors or my parents, the first 
words out of their mouths is not unfunded mandates or line-item veto, 
it is: ``What are you going to do about the issue of violence in this 
country?'' They tell me they fear walking in their neighborhoods, fear 
going to their schools, and they want to know what we are going to do.
  Well, the campaign of terror that is being perpetrated against 
doctors and patients in reproductive health clinics is a frightening 
example of this violence. The message that this violence sends to our 
children--that the world is a frightening place--is intolerable. When 
they see a gunman at a clinic, it reinforces in their minds that this 
[[Page S1050]] world is not a safe place. It is incumbent upon us as 
the elected leaders in this Nation to tell our children that we will do 
all we can to make sure that their world is safe.
  I read yesterday's Washington Post and was very struck by the article 
that appeared. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 17, 1995]

         Clinic Killings Follow Years of Antiabortion Violence

                (By Laurie Goodstein and Pierre Thomas)

       Militant antiabortion activists have been waging a 
     protracted campaign of violence against women's health 
     clinics and the people who work in them over the past decade, 
     creating a climate of terror long before a gunman opened fire 
     last month at clinics in Massachusetts and Virginia.
       The killings of two doctors, two clinic staff members and a 
     voluntary escort over the past 22 months have captured 
     national attention. But the tally of violence over the past 
     12 years includes 123 cases of arson and 37 bombings in 33 
     states, and more than 1,500 cases of stalking, assault, 
     sabotage and burglary, according to records compiled by the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the clinics 
     themselves.
       ``We have seen a consistent pattern, acknowledging the fact 
     that people are willing to go to any means for their cause,'' 
     said Ralph Ostrowski, chief of ATF's arson and explosives 
     division. ``In the past we would have acts of violence 
     directed at property. Now we see acts of violence directed at 
     people.''
       Nearly all antiabortion leaders say they are aware of the 
     scope of the violence and have condemned it, and say no one 
     in their groups is associated with such tactics. They 
     describe the violence as an aberration.
       ``There is not this collective soul-searching on the part 
     of our movement because we have been responsible and we have 
     been non-violent,'' said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director 
     of the Christian Defense Coalition. There are ``extremists in 
     every movement. . . . I think that extremists opposed to 
     abortion got frustrated, felt they were losing the battle and 
     felt it
      was incumbent upon themselves to resort to violence.''
       The Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue, went 
     further and accused ``those in the abortion-providing 
     industry'' of committing most of the violence in an attempt 
     to discredit the antiabortion movement. He should he would 
     soon bring evidence to Washington that would undermine the 
     government's statistics.
       However, ATF spokeswoman Susan McCarron said of the 49 
     people prosecuted so far, ``We found that all expressed 
     antiabortion views. There is nothing in our cases that would 
     show it's providers or supporters of abortion that are doing 
     these acts, but we investigate all leads.''
       Immediately after hearing the news of the killings last 
     month in Brookline, Mass., Cardinal Bernard Law, archbishop 
     of Boston, issued a statement asking for a moratorium on 
     protests at abortion facilities. But his plea has been 
     rejected by other prominent figures across the spectrum in 
     the antiabortion movement--including Benham, Cardinal John J. 
     O'Connor of New York and Judie Brown of the American Life 
     League.
       Like many other antiabortion leaders interviewed, Benham 
     said he sees no connection between angry rhetoric and violent 
     action. ``This whole thing isn't about violence. It's all 
     about silence--silencing the Christian message. That's what 
     they want,'' Benham said of abortion rights leaders. ``They 
     screech and scream about us crying fire in a crowded theater. 
     And I agree it is wrong, unless there is a fire. If there's a 
     fire in that theater, we better call it that. Our 
     inflammatory rhetoric is only revealing a far more 
     inflammatory truth.''
       In most cases, the violence has disrupted clinics where a 
     large portion of staff time is devoted not to abortions but 
     to routine women's reproductive health care--pap smears, 
     teaching and supplying birth control methods, and treating 
     sexually transmitted diseases. Phone calls to a dozen clinics
      targeted by the violence found that six of them did not even 
     provide abortion services.
       At the Women's Pavilion Clinic in South Bend, Ind., which 
     does perform abortions, in recent years somebody has hacked 
     holes in the roof with an ax, shot out the windows and sent 
     repeated death threats to gynecologist Ulrich Klopfer by 
     phone and mail, said Marni Greening, the clinic's director. 
     Meanwhile, protesters with a group called the Lambs of Christ 
     have regularly barricaded the doors and blockaded the 
     driveway, undeterred by repeated arrests.
       In the early hours of Mother's Day 1993, someone connected 
     a hose to the clinic's outdoor spigot and fed it through the 
     door's mail slot, flooding the clinic's entry room. The 
     person or persons then poured in butyric acid, a nearly 
     indelible substance that smells like feces and vomit and 
     becomes more potent in water. The clinic had to shut down for 
     7\1/2\ weeks to get rid of the smell, Greening said.
       The unrelenting and unpredictable nature of the violence 
     has produced a resolute fatalism among the staff. Klopfer 
     said he was shot at last week as he drove home from work. He 
     reported it to federal marshals, but, he said: ``If it's 
     going to happen, it's going to happen. I'm realistic enough. 
     Look at all the people shooting up the White House, and that 
     has a hell of a lot better security than I do.''
       Owners of the Hillcrest Clinic in Norfolk, where John C. 
     Salvi III allegedly fired about 23 shots, sustained $250,000 
     worth of damage in an arson case in 1984 and another $1,000 
     in damage in a bombing in the next year. Staff members there 
     have stopped commenting about attacks.
       At the Planned Parenthood clinic in Lancaster, Pa., clinic 
     director Nancy Osgood remembers a 3 a.m. phone call in 
     September 1993 when she rushed to the clinic in time to see 
     the brick building smoldering, gutted by fire. The Lancaster 
     facility does not perform abortions, although other Planned 
     Parenthood clinics do.
       No suspects have been arrested in that arson, although 
     national abortion rights groups offered a $100,000 reward for 
     tips on this and other crimes. ``Finally we have national 
     leadership talking about this being domestic terrorism. We've 
     said that for years,'' Osgood said.
       ATF agents have arrested 49 people
        in 77 of the bombing and arson cases. Thirty-three cases 
     have been closed because they have exceeded the statute of 
     limitations. The 50 cases still under investigation 
     include an arson at the Commonwealth Women's Clinic in 
     Falls Church last July 31.
       Damages range from $150 at a Brooklyn N.Y., clinic that was 
     the target of two Molotov cocktails in 1993, to $1.4 million 
     caused by an arson fire at Family Planning Associates in 
     Bakersfield, Calif., in September of the same year. The total 
     damage to property amounts to more than $12 million.
       A federal task force of officials with the ATF, FBI, U.S. 
     marshals and lawyers from the Justice Department's criminal 
     and civil divisions was created in 1993, and stepped up its 
     efforts after Paul D. Hill shot to death two people at a 
     Pensacola, Fla., clinic last July. A grand jury is currently 
     hearing evidence in Alexandria.
       Authorities are focusing on whether there is a national 
     conspiracy, although some officials privately note they have 
     not found evidence to support that at this stage in the 
     investigation. Several law enforcement officials say it is 
     more likely they will find separate conspiracies conducted by 
     small cadres of activists, as well as campaigns carried out 
     by individuals.
       Some of the incidents match the description of tactics in 
     ``The Army of God'' manual that law enforcement officers 
     found buried in the yard of Rochelle ``Shelly'' Shannon, an 
     Oregon activist convicted of shooting Wichita doctor George 
     Tiller, and awaiting trial on eight counts of arson at 
     clinics in several states.
       ``Annihilating abortuaries is our purest form of worship,'' 
     the manual says. It gives explicit instructions for home-
     brewing plastic explosives, fashioning detonators, 
     deactivating alarm systems, and cutting phone, gas and water 
     lines.
       Some federal investigators suspect that there is no 
     organized ``Army of God.'' They believe the manual has not 
     been widely distributed, but may have provided guidance in 
     several cases of arson, bombing and sabotage. The butyric 
     acid attack on the Women's Pavilion in South Bend precisely 
     matches tactics described in the manual.
       After the recent shootings in Massachusetts, in which two 
     clinic receptionists were killed and five people
      wounded, the Justice Department ordered federal officials to 
     record every threat against clinics and their staffs, and 
     began to enforce the civil provisions of the Freedom of 
     Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law. Enacted last year, 
     the law makes it a federal crime to physically block 
     access to clinics, damage their property or injure, 
     interfere with or intimidate their staff or patients.
       Last week a federal judge in Kansas City, Mo., used the 
     civil provisions of the FACE law to issue a temporary 
     restraining order against Regina Rene Dinwiddie for 
     threatening and intimidating staff and clients at the Planned 
     Parenthood of Greater Kansas City clinic.
       Antiabortion protesters say the law is being used to limit 
     their freedom of speech. But federal officials are beginning 
     to crack down on the death threats that have become 
     increasingly common. There were about 400 death threats and 
     bomb threats logged in 1994 alone.
       On Jan. 7, signs were found posted at four clinics in Long 
     Island saying, ``Danger: This is a War Zone. People are being 
     killed here like in Boston. You risk injury or death if you 
     are caught on or near these premises,'' said Karen Pearl, 
     executive director of Planned Parenthood of Nassau County.
       The threats follow clinic staff members to their homes and 
     neighborhoods. Carolyn Izard, a nurse and clinic director at 
     Little Rock Family Planning Services in Arkansas, arrived 
     home one day to find her neighborhood was papered with fliers 
     calling her a ``death camp worker.''
       ``It backfired on them,'' Izard recalled. ``I got calls 
     from neighbors that told me that they supported me 100 
     percent and they were furious that this kind of brochure was 
     left on their doors for their children to see.''
       Curtis Stover has seen a dramatic change in the protesters' 
     behavior in the 21 years he's performed abortions in Little 
     Rock. ``Before, all they would do is quietly carry placards 
     around and not do much,'' Stover said. Now, ``every other 
     sentence is full of 
     [[Page S1051]] the word `murder.' Patients come in and they 
     yell at them not to murder their babies. I've had picketers 
     tell me I was going to die by a certain date.''

  Mrs. MURRAY. In the first paragraph it says:

       Militant antiabortion activists have been waging a 
     protracted campaign of violence against women's health 
     clinics and the people who work in them over the past decade 
     * * * The tally of violence over the pass 12 years includes 
     123 cases of arson and 37 bombings in 33 States, and more 
     than 1,500 cases of stalking, assault, sabotage and burglary, 
     according to records compiled by the * * *  ATF and the 
     clinics themselves.

  I think it is high time this Senate goes on record that we do not 
condone these acts of violence.
  Women's health care providers across the Nation are facing bombings, 
arson, kidnappings, and assaults. As they go to work each day, these 
health care providers must contemplate the possibility that an 
antichoice extremist will try to kill them. The shootings at clinics in 
Massachusetts and Virginia are only the most recent examples.
  One doctor in my State of Washington wrote to me recently and said:

       Every time I walked toward the building, I thought to 
     myself that some antichoice terrorist could have set a bomb 
     and that my life could be on the line. Fortunately, so far I 
     have been able to work unimpeded, but with every assault on a 
     clinic around the country, I worry about the safety of my 
     staff as well as that of my patients. The next time a gun is 
     fired, it could well hit a patient or staff member. The 
     psychological toll all this takes on clinic staff is 
     enormous, as you can well imagine.

  I ask my colleagues to step back and view this issue as a parent. 
That is how I view it. I have a young daughter and I cannot express the 
fear that I have that perhaps some day if the horrible should happen 
and my daughter is raped, that not only should she have to go through 
the trauma of an abortion, but she would have to fear for her life when 
she attempts to get access to safe health care.
  The same article that appeared in the Washington Post yesterday has 
an important paragraph that we must also remember.
  It says:

       In most cases, the violence has disrupted clinics where a 
     large portion of staff time is devoted not to abortions but 
     to routine women's reproductive health care--pap smears, 
     teaching and supplying birth control methods, and treating 
     sexually transmitted diseases.

  Let us remember that women go to these clinics for pap smears as 
well. Their lives have been endangered, and we need to protect them.
  Last year, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances 
Act and the President signed it into law. The law outlaws clinic 
violence while protecting lawful picketing and lawful protests not 
accompanied by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction.
  Mr. President, I fully support our first amendment rights under the 
U.S. Constitution. However, with the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
Entrances Act we properly acknowledged that violence is not a mode of 
free speech. It is time for all of us, no matter how we feel about the 
issue of abortion, to let our Nation know that we will not tolerate 
violence as a means of protest.
  I am proud to cosponsor this sense-of-the-Senate resolution urging 
the Attorney General to fully enforce the law. And I urge my colleagues 
to support it as well. Again, I thank my colleague from California, 
Senator Boxer, and I yield back my time to the Senator from California.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would like to yield 10 minutes to 
the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho for 
yielding me 10 minutes.
  This is an important amendment, Mr. President, because it is a 
forceful condemnation against violence. It might be thought unnecessary 
to condemn violence because it is so obvious that violence is the major 
problem in the United States today, with the crime wave, and the major 
problem in the world with conflicts and wars going on all around the 
world. But it is important to have this forceful condemnation against 
violence, because people are standing up and saying that these acts of 
violence, these acts of murder, are justifiable homicide, which is an 
absolute absurdity under the law.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer has been a law enforcement 
officer, an attorney general of Missouri. This Senator spent 12 years 
in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office--4 years as an 
assistant, trying murder cases, robbery, rape, and arson cases, and 
then 8 years as district attorney of an office which handled 30,000 
criminal trials a year and some 500 homicide cases.
  There is no justification whatsoever for saying that murder is 
justifiable homicide when it is related to someone who performs an 
abortion.
  Under the laws of the United States, Roe versus Wade and Casey versus 
Planned Parenthood, there is a period during which this is lawful 
conduct, and how anyone can say that it is justifiable homicide is an 
absolute absurdity.
  I thank the Chair for nodding in agreement, because I make a point 
which is very obvious to anyone who has had any experience in law 
enforcement and, beyond that, to any thinking American. But in 
newsprint today, stories are carried about people who make this 
contention. And some of the public opinion polls show a response --one 
poll showed 3 percent of the people have this idea. It should be 
labeled as emphatically as possible that it is an absurdity.
  When the Senate of the United States speaks out, as I am confident 
the Senate of the United States will speak out tonight, in condemning 
this kind of violence, it will make an impact. This condemnation should 
ring from every speaker in America who has an opportunity to speak out, 
from the President of the United States, to Members of the House, to 
Members of the Senate, ministers, priests, and rabbis from the pulpit, 
and anywhere anyone can make a speech.
  It is atrocious when you think of 130 incidents of death threats, 
stalking, chemical attacks, bombings, arsons, attempted murder, to say 
nothing of the four murders which have been perpetrated and the fear 
that is being created at 900 health clinics around the country.
  The point has been made, but it is worth reinforcing, that the 
majority of activities at these clinics do not involve abortion at all. 
The Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, which I 
chair, will have a hearing on the range of medical services which are 
performed. As already mentioned: Pap smears, mammograms, other health 
services for women. These women are being terrified.
  The resolution calls for the creation of task forces and coordination 
by U.S. Marshals Service; that is fundamental to help law enforcement, 
to have the agencies of the law work together.
  There are substantial funds available at the present time; more than 
$1 billion available to local prosecutors on applications which would 
be made. I think that the Department of Justice would look very 
favorably upon applications which were made along this line.
  There is also considerable funding in the crime bill to protect women 
against violence. So funds are available in additional amounts.
  The final part of resolution, stating that, ``It is the sense of the 
Senate that the United States Attorney General should fully enforce the 
law and protect persons seeking to provide or obtain, or assist in 
providing or obtaining, reproductive health services from violent 
attack,'' is just very, very fundamental.
  Not that it is necessary, but there is an additional clause which 
protects first amendment freedoms of expression.
  I think Cardinal Law in Boston was right on target when he made a 
plea to desist from any conduct which could be remotely connected with 
inciting violence at these clinics. First amendment freedoms have to be 
protected so that people can speak up.
  I think that it is a very, very important statement to have this kind 
of a forceful condemnation against violence, especially in the context 
where so many people are absurdly talking about justifiable homicide.
  I urge my colleagues to have the strongest conceivable vote in 
support of this important resolution.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield as much time as she may consume 
to 
[[Page S1052]] the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] who was a very 
early sponsor of this resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I thank Senator Boxer for yielding me time.
  Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Boxer sense-of-
the-Senate resolution. I join Senator Boxer and the other cosponsors in 
expressing our outrage at the recent killings of clinic workers in 
Massachusetts.
  I wish to thank my colleague from California for offering this sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. I am only sorry that we were not able to 
bring this to the floor in a more timely fashion. But her steadfastness 
in pursuing our right to speak up, speak out, and vote on this issue is 
really to be a source of kudos to her.
  When we come to the content of this resolution, we have to say that, 
sadly, this is not the first time we have come to the floor to express 
our outrage at senseless killing of health care providers. That is what 
we are talking about--health care providers. We came to the floor when 
the antiabortion extremist Paul Hill shot and killed Dr. Gunn. We were 
here when Dr. John Britton and Lt. Col. James Barrett were brutally 
murdered in Pensacola. And we are here again tonight to decry the 
deaths of Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols and the five other 
individuals who were seriously injured earlier this month.
  The killing must stop, and it must stop now.
  It is no longer simply a protest against abortion. Peaceful protests 
have given away to extremism. Protest has turned to violence. This is 
not the American way. The United States of America, through its 
Constitution, provides people the opportunity to speak out, to have 
dissenting views, and to do it in an atmosphere that is protected by 
law. But, unfortunately, that is not where we are now.
  For those physicians and other people who work at the Planned 
Parenthood clinics, doctors are being forced to wear bulletproof vests. 
This is the United States of America. A doctor, instead of putting on a 
white lab coat, must put on a bulletproof vest to meet the compelling 
needs of his patients; clinics are being forced to build fortresses to 
protect their staff; patients are being forced to use escorts to get 
into the clinics. And even with all of these precautions, the killings 
continue.
  I cannot tell you how saddened I am by this. Women in this country 
are being sent a message that they risk their lives if they seek 
reproductive health care. Let me repeat that. In the United States of 
America, women risk their lives if they seek reproductive health care. 
That is an injustice.
  Last year, this body adopted a rule of law--it was called the Freedom 
of Access to Clinic Entrances Act--to put an end to this violence. But 
the success of this law now rests with the Attorney General. I believe 
she has taken important steps to enforce this bill.
  But the Attorney General must take all necessary steps to ensure that 
not one more health care worker loses his or her life in a facility 
that happens to perform abortions. The Attorney General must do all 
that can be done to see that no more individuals are injured, maimed or 
murdered. She must enforce the law so that individuals are protected 
from violent attack.
 Every effort must be made to stop the terrorism that reproductive 
health clinics and their staffs endure. The message must be clear: That 
these attacks will be met with the harshest response. And the message 
must be clear to the opponents of the freedom to choose, that this type 
of extremism will not be tolerated, and it is not American.

  The violence has gone too far. It is time to return to civility, to 
decency, to the principles on which this country were founded. A woman 
should not be at risk of losing her life to get the health care she 
needs.
  Let me say this about protests. In the United States of America 
people can protest. When we passed the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
legislation, we ensured that nonviolent peaceful protests be allowed to 
occur. Mr. President, I am in politics because I was a protester, a 
nonviolent protester who organized her community out of the basement of 
St. Stanislaus Church to protest the highway, a 16-lane highway, that 
was going to sweep through my neighborhood, taking the homes of older 
European ethnics, and the first black home ownership neighborhood in 
Baltimore.
  So I know what it is like to be a nonviolent protester, to organize 
people in a way that is joyful, exciting, creative. Know what we did? 
We did not go out and beat a mayor up. We did not bomb the Secretary of 
Transportation. We held a festival. We held a festival to show what our 
neighborhoods were. And in that neighborhood where I now live and 
commute from Baltimore every day, stands the neighborhood that I helped 
save.
  And by being a protester the people did not punish me. They rewarded 
me and sent me to the Baltimore City Council, from there, the House of 
Representatives, and then to be here in the U.S. Senate.
  For everyone in the United States of America whose views I either 
agree or disagree with, I want to guarantee them the right of continued 
nonviolent protest. So the words of Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and 
that methodology is there. We are acting like these are the Bull 
Connors of reproductive freedom. In the old days those who were against 
civil rights bombed churches, killed children; Bull Connor turns the 
fire hoses on them. This is the same thing.
  So, now, we have to stop that. We have to stop it with the law. Why 
do women go to these clinics? Who goes? They are ordinary women, many 
of whom who have no health insurance. They have bad backs, they have 
varicose veins, and they want to see a doctor. And their GYN is their 
primary care physician. That is what they want to go there for, general 
primary care, information about reproductive freedom, and some, because 
of either medical necessity or medical appropriateness, will have an 
abortion. That is why they go.
  I call upon the religious leaders of this country to speak out 
against this. I call upon the Attorney General of the United States to 
enforce the law. Tonight I call upon the U.S. Senate to pass the Boxer 
resolution. Let us make sure that America is the land of the free.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. President, as someone who is deeply committed to ensuring choice 
and quality of women's health I certainly rise in strong support of the 
amendment that has been offered by the Senator from California. I, 
first of all, want to also thank and commend the Senate majority leader 
for ensuring the consideration of this amendment during the 
deliberations of unfunded mandates. This issue is very timely. It is a 
matter of life and death, when we consider what has happened in 
abortion clinics all over America. I am pleased we are able to consider 
this resolution. I am sorry it is under the circumstances under which 
we are considering it in light of what happened in Brookline, MA, with 
the recent killings.
  This amendment is appropriate because it expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the U.S. Attorney General should fully enforce the law. The 
Attorney General must use all the tools at her disposal to protect 
persons seeking to obtain or provide reproductive health services from 
violent attacks. We have seen in recent months, regrettably and 
tragically, an alarming trend toward violence and terrorism against 
reproductive health clinics. Too often, those extremists who oppose a 
woman's right to reproductive health have resorted to intimidation and 
even violence in order to prove their point. Peaceful civil 
disobedience is one thing, but these acts have far crossed the line of 
acceptable behavior.
  We are a nation that prides ourselves on our diversity, diversities 
of views, ideas, and values. As a nation of laws we simply cannot and 
we simply will not tolerate cold-blooded murder. Nor can we tolerate 
bombings, vandalism, assault, bombings, arson, destruction of property, 
and the physical prevention of people from entering medical clinics.
  Yes, we are a nation of diversity, and that diversity depends first 
and foremost on our adherence to the laws 
[[Page S1053]] made by our elected representatives of the people. It is 
this fact that distinguishes our democracy from other forms of 
government and that has contributed over time to our Nation's peace and 
prosperity.
  Last year, as we all know in response to many of these tragic 
incidents, the 103d Congress considered, deliberated, and enacted the 
freedom of access to clinic legislation. As a Member of the House of 
Representatives, I was an original cosponsor and worked with many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both bodies in this 
institution, in order to ensure that it became the law of the land.
  This new law makes it a Federal offense to block the entrance to a 
medical clinic offering reproductive services, and to use force or the 
threat of force to intentionally interfere with or injure anyone 
attempting to obtain or provide reproductive services. The Supreme 
Court has made clear that these rights of peaceful protest do not 
extend to threats and violence, as made clear in recent decisions. In a 
6 to 3 ruling last June the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Madsen 
versus Women's Health Center that restrictions of protesters were 
constitutional, including the establishment of a buffer zone between 
the clinic entrance and elsewhere.
  In 1993, the court filed a unanimous opinion in the case of Wisconsin 
versus Mitchell, a hate crimes case. The Court held that physical 
assault was not among the forms of allowable ``expressive conduct,'' 
and decried violence as a form of civil disobedience. But the terrorist 
acts at medical clinics in the past months have crossed the lines of 
peaceful disobedience, and they mark the beginning of an alarming 
trend.
  According to the National Abortion Federation, 61 percent of 
nonhospital abortion providers report being the target of some form of 
harassment including personal harassment of themselves and of their 
families away from the facility. From 1977 to 1983 there were 149 
incidents of violence against health clinics. Since then, reproductive 
health providers have reported almost 1,500 acts of violence. Not 
always shootings, not only in Norfolk and Brookline, but also 
kidnapping, burglary, arson, telephone threats, stalking, invasion, and 
vandalism.
  In 1994 there were over 130 incidents nationwide of violence or 
harassment directed at clinics and the people who work there. In the 
horrifying shootings of Brookline, MA, which resulted in the tragic 
deaths of two women are clear indication that the violence is 
continuing. As many others have indicated here this evening, what kind 
of clinics have been targeted for the terrorist tactics? Clinics which 
provide not just reproductive health services, but clinics which 
provide essential pediatric care, prenatal care, childhood 
immunization, diagnosis and treatments of STD's, contraceptive 
services, mammograms, Pap smears and other forms of counseling for 
women. In fact, more than 90 percent of clinics provide these health 
services in addition to reproductive health services.
  In my home State of Maine, Mr. President, medical clinics and 
physicians have been targeted. So far, thankfully, without the life-
threatening violence that occurred in Brookline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes allotted have expired.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield 3 additional 
minutes.
  Ms. SNOWE. Three physicians at the Penobscot Bay Women's Health 
Center in Rockport, ME, decided to cease offering full services because 
of concern for the safety of patients and the staff after 3 years of 
protests.
  After a week of picketing and threats, Dr. Gregory Luck chose to 
close the medical clinic in Falmouth, ME, offering a full range of 
women's health services that has been opened for more than 10 years, 
rather than risk violence against his patients and staff. Dr. Luck, in 
closing his practice, said he could not guarantee the safety of his 
patients. Women, he said ``have been subjected to harassment 
irrespective of whether they planned to visit my office or any other 
office and irrespective of what medical service they required,'' he 
said in announcing the decision.
  As we have seen in U.S. News & World Report this week, it says 
``physicians under fire,'' having to wear bullet-proof vests, and 
carrying guns and weapons to protect themselves, to provide for the 
safety of their employees. It is regrettable in this country we have 
reached this point in time.
  Mr. President, safe, affordable and accessible reproductive health 
services are crucial to the well-being of women. We must send a message 
to would-be terrorists that violence and threats of violence and 
vandalism at these centers will not be tolerated and will be punished 
under the fullest extent of the law.
  Congress needs to act on behalf of the families and friends of those 
who have tragically died because of their belief in a woman's right to 
decent medical services. Congress needs to act on behalf of low-income 
women who depend on such clinics for their personal health needs, the 
rural woman who already faces burdens and barriers to access, but most 
importantly, for all women and their families who depend on safe access 
to the health care that they need and that they deserve.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment. 
Again, I want to thank the Senator from California and the Senator from 
Idaho for yielding me this time.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will you inform me as to how much time I 
have remaining on my the side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 remaining minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Senator from Illinois is interested, I can yield 
her 5 minutes at this time. I yield the Senator from Illinois up to 5 
minutes at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to commend and congratulate 
Senator Boxer for this initiative, and I hope this body, in a 
resounding unanimous vote, makes it clear that we condemn in the 
strongest terms the violence that has occurred, the extremism that has 
occurred, and the taking of innocent life as a form of protest by any 
group in this country.
  The Congress, I believe, must send a clear, unequivocal signal that 
this country will not tolerate the use of terror, violence, and murder 
to express disagreement with the current laws relating to abortion.
  Whether one supports abortion or not--and I have made it clear and, 
in fact, my colleagues and I sometimes have a minor disagreement on 
this point, that I do not personally support abortion. I do, however, 
in the strongest terms support the right of a woman to choose to have 
an abortion. I do not believe that it is the Government's role to 
intervene itself and interpose itself in so personal and private a 
moral decision as to whether or not to carry a child to term. I believe 
that that is an issue that women, of whatever stripe, have to maintain 
as a matter of fundamental constitutional liberty, and the Supreme 
Court of the United States, in Roe versus Wade in 1973, agreed with 
that point of view.
  Within the parameters, it recognized a woman's right under the 
Constitution to control her body, a woman's right to choose to have an 
abortion. For those of us who are not pro-abortion but rather are pro-
choice, it becomes a distinction that is a very important one. It means 
that Government must, on the one hand, keep its hands off women's 
bodies; Government must, on the one hand, continue to preserve the 
liberties and freedoms that women have to decide whether or not to be 
parents. But at the same time, Government has an obligation and a 
responsibility to protect people in the exercise of their legitimate 
rights under the Constitution of this country.
  That is what is at issue here: That we have legitimate rights that 
have been established under the law in this country, and the question 
is whether or not in these United States the rule of law will 
predominate or whether or not we will allow ourselves to be dictated to 
and controlled by extremists and, indeed, extremists who become 
murderers.
  The murders that occurred most recently are horrendous, horrendous 
[[Page S1054]] acts. I believe every person of conscience should, in 
the strongest terms, condemn that violence and condemn murder, 
certainly as a way of expression. That is not an expression of one's 
free speech. That is not anything but plain--it is what it is, which is 
murder. We must always be clear that if we are concerned about life, if 
we celebrate and want to protect life, then we have to stand four 
square with those who are exercising their right to live and exercising 
their rights under this Constitution.
  And so since this country has the rule of law and not the rule of 
individuals who will enforce their point of view from the barrel of a 
gun, since that is the rule of law in this country, I believe that in 
this Senate it is appropriate to stand up for that right and for this 
Senate to express in the clearest terms that we condemn extremism, we 
certainly condemn murder, and we condemn any effort to interfere with 
someone's exercise of rights they enjoy under the Constitution of this 
country.
  Local police must make the enforcement of the Freedom of Access to 
Clinic Entrances Act, which we passed last year in a bipartisan vote, 
an absolute priority of theirs. Our Justice Department, I believe, has 
every obligation to look into the network of individuals who are 
extremists in this area and who could deprive Americans, and 
particularly women, of their rights not only to choose abortion, but to 
choose appropriate health care, to choose to get counseling, to choose 
to go to places where they can receive physical care for their 
condition.
  These clinics provide a lot of different services, as has been 
pointed out by previous speakers. It is not simply a place where one 
might go for abortion services. Indeed, if anything, one of the real 
concerns is that these clinics may be less capable of providing 
counseling against the transmission of AIDS, against the transmission 
of disease; that they will not be able to play the public health role 
that they are uniquely situated to play because of the intimidation, 
because of the violence, and because of the extremism.
  When that extremism reaches the fever-pitch point that it has now, I 
think it is altogether appropriate for those of us in this body to 
stand up for the rule of law, to stand up for the right of women to 
choose and to make their own decisions about their private health care, 
and to make it very clear that we condemn in the strongest terms the 
violence that has occurred.
  That is the purpose of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that has 
been filed by Senator Boxer and of which I am a cosponsor, and that is 
certainly the initiative behind this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I 
call on all of my colleagues, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, 
to support the Boxer amendment. Thank you.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this amendment. The 
Senate must go on record unequivocally to condemn the use of violence 
against abortion providers, and to call on law enforcement authorities 
to do everything in their power to prevent such violence and protect 
citizens from it.
  The most recent deadly assaults occurred at two clinics in Brookline, 
MA, on December 30. Two women who worked as receptionists at the 
Brookline clinics had their lives brutally cut short. Five other people 
were seriously wounded. My heart goes out to these victims and their 
families.
  This kind of vicious, hateful assault against women and health care 
providers cannot be tolerated in any community in America. No effort 
can be spared to make sure that these despicable crimes are not 
repeated anywhere else.
  Women must be able to seek reproductive health care without fear of 
violent assault. Doctors should be able to practice their profession 
without wearing bullet-proof vests. Clinic staff should be able to go 
to work each day in safety.
  Abortion is a constitutionally protected right, and it must be safe 
and accessible. Last year, Congress passed the Freedom of Access to 
Clinic Entrances Act with broad, bipartisan support, and President 
Clinton signed it into law.
  That law gives the Attorney General the tools she needs to prevent 
violence and obstruction and to punish such acts whenever and wherever 
they occur with the full force of Federal law.
  The Justice Department has already brought several enforcement 
actions under this law, and it is actively investigating other possible 
violations. In addition, the Attorney General has directed U.S. 
attorneys around the country to coordinate a joint effort by Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement authorities to ensure that clinics and 
providers in every community are adequately protected.
  Some have suggested that the new Federal law is somehow responsible 
for fomenting violence at abortion clinics, because it allegedly closes 
off peaceful picketing as an outlet for those with strongly held views 
against abortion. Any such suggestion is nonsense.
  The clinic access law does not prohibit or punish peaceful picketing 
or any other expression protected by the first amendment. On the 
contrary, it specifically permits it. What the act prohibits is 
violent, threatening, obstructive, or destructive conduct--none of 
which has ever been protected by the Constitution. For that reason, all 
of the Federal courts that have reviewed the law since President 
Clinton signed it last year have upheld it. Tough laws against clinic 
blockades and clinic violence are not the problem. They are the 
solution.
  I commend President Clinton and Attorney General Reno for their 
vigorous enforcement of the new Federal law, and for their commitment 
to work with State and local law enforcement authorities to protect 
clinics throughout the country. We must do everything in our power to 
guarantee public safety and prevent the use of violence against 
patients and providers.
  It is a privilege to join Senator Boxer in urging adoption of this 
amendment. I hope that every Member of the Senate will vote in favor of 
this important measure.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from 
California in proposing this important piece of legislation expressing 
the outrage of this body over abortion clinic violence.
  No matter what our views on abortion might be, I am sure that every 
decent American mourns the senseless murders that have been committed 
at abortion clinics.
  On the first day of this session, I rose to discuss the broad 
implications of abortion clinic violence. I would like to reiterate 
some of the points that I made at that time.
  I am deeply saddened that my State has joined others that have seen 
the horror and felt the pain of this senseless violence.
  The Friday morning before New Years Eve, at 10 a.m., Shannon Lowney, 
a 25 year old activist working as a receptionist at a clinic in 
Brookline, MA, looked up and smiled at a man who had just walked into 
her office. It was John Salvi.
  He pulled a collapsible Ruger rifle from his bag--aimed it at 
Shannon--and fired at point blank range. He killed Shannon and wounded 
three others.
  And now, in mourning her death, we ask ourselves: Who was Shannon 
Lowney and what did her life show us?
  Her friends called her ``Shanny'' and she was a caring, committed 
young woman who represents the best of her generation. She cared about 
people. She tutored Spanish-speaking children in Cambridge, helped poor 
villagers in Ecuador, worked with abused children in Maine, and last 
week she finished her application to Boston University for a masters in 
social work.
  She was one of those rare people who confronted injustice and acted 
on her deep and abiding belief that we are all in this together--we are 
community and each of us must accept our personal responsibility within 
that community.
  The irony and the tragedy is that--to John Salvi--Shannon's life 
meant nothing--the good and decent life of someone who truly cared 
about others was taken in the name of ``life''.
  Mr. President, no matter what our views on abortion might be, I am 
sure that every decent American mourns the senseless murder of Shannon 
Lowney and is touched by the loss of someone so young and so committed 
to working with others.
  Contrast Shannon's life and her motives with the life and motives of 
a 
[[Page S1055]] man like John Salvi--A man who killed one person and 
wounded five others and then left Planned Parenthood and walked a few 
blocks to the Preterm Health Services Clinic. He asked Lee Ann Nicols, 
a 38-year-old receptionist engaged to be married this year, whether 
this was the preterm clinic.
  She said yes and he shot her from less than one yard away--killing 
her on the spot.
  He then said, ``in the name of the mother of God'', aimed at Richard 
Seron, a lawyer working as a security guard, and shot him once in each 
arm. He shot one other person, 29-year-old June Sauer once in the 
pelvis and once in the back, and then he left.
  Five people injured--two people killed.
  And now we must ask: Who is John Salvi and what does his life show 
us?
  On Christmas Eve Salvi delivered a sermon about the Catholic Church 
and its failure to see the true meaning of Christ. But what was his 
motivation for cold-blooded murder?
  Paul Hill, the Minister currently on Florida's Death Row, gives us 
some insight into John Salvi's motivations. Hill gave us a chilling 
reason for killing a doctor and his assistant in Pensacola. He said 
that ``the bible teaches us to do unto others as you would have them do 
unto you.
  ``Therefore, killing a man who is about to kill an unborn child 
constitutes killing in self-defense.''
  To Paul Hill the murder was a justifiable homicide.
  Mr. President, this syllogism lies at the heart of one of the most 
corrosive dangers the world faces today.
  There are religious teachings that offer justifiable reasons for 
killing, but mainstream religions have always promoted tolerance over 
intolerance, and the only people who use religion to justify cold-
blooded murder are religious fanatics.
  But what happened in Brookline--what happened to Shannon Lowney and 
Lee Ann Nicols--and the tragedy of their deaths--tells us that we can 
no longer dismiss these fringe elements of our society. We can no 
longer let the good people fall victim to intolerance and fanaticism.
  Yes, John Salvi read from the same Bible that Shannon and Lee Ann 
did. The teachings and the words were the same, but their lives could 
not have been more different. It is our task to remember that 
commitment and dedication can be manifest in kindness and concern or 
they can take the hideous form of fanaticism and hatred that motivated 
John Salvi to play God.
  Mr. President. It is incumbent on all of us as a society to 
understand the danger that can be wrought by those who would interpret 
religious teachings as a crusade against others and a justification for 
cold-blooded murder.
  It is our task to understand that we live in dangerous times, and 
that the easy availability of weapons in this society to people like 
John Salvi and Paul Hill has increased that danger, and increased the 
threat to those who chose to show their commitment and their faith by 
helping others build a better life for themselves and for their 
families.
  I believe it is time for both sides in the abortion issue to find a 
way to express their views without increasing the level of the rhetoric 
or the level of violence.
  It is our task to sit down and talk to each other, and I commend my 
friend and constituent, Cardinal Bernard Law, of the Archdiocese of 
Boston, for his efforts to bring both sides together. He has shown 
himself to be an individual of courage in this regard. Even though he 
is strongly pro-life, he has called for an end to anti-abortion 
protests in Boston.
  And he is trying to bring everyone together in an unprecedented 
series of negotiations. Cardinal Law is a leader whose tolerance, and 
deep faith serves as an example to all of us.
  What we achieve together can send a loud and clear message--to those 
who would use their beliefs as justification for murder--that, though 
we may not agree, we are still one people bound together not only by 
our faith and our commitments to our beliefs, but by the expression of 
our common interests through tolerance for our differences and a mutual 
respect and understanding for each other.
  But, make no mistake. The wrong response to these shootings would be 
to turn clinics into armed fortresses on the fringes of our medical 
delivery system, further from those who choose to have the procedure.
  Yes, we must protect workers, medical personnel, and patients, but we 
cannot allow an accepted medical procedure to be limited by the blind 
intolerance of a fanatical fringe.
  So, Mr. President, if this constitutionally protected right is to be 
preserved, and if we are to truly pay tribute to women like Shannon 
Lowney, then we need to protect the safety of those who seek the 
services of these clinics.
  When those shots rang out in Brookline, John Salvi took something 
very precious from us. He took our freedom to believe and to express 
our beliefs as we choose. He took our freedom to act on our beliefs 
without fear of violence. We can never let that happen.
  Mr. President, perhaps the most eloquent tribute to Shannon Lowney 
came from the president of the Planned Parenthood League of 
Massachusetts. Nicki Nichols Gamble said, ``Shannon gave her life so 
that others would be able to have better lives. She was an essential 
link in the chain of women helping women. We will miss her desperately, 
and we will remember her, and we will see to it that her death will not 
be in vain.''
  Today and for many days to come we will mourn the deaths of Shannon 
Lowney and Lee Ann Nicols. The people of my state are shocked and 
outraged at this senseless act of violence that took them from us, and 
I know that I speak for every member of the Senate in extending our 
deepest condolences to their families and friends and to all the 
victims of this tragedy.
  The lesson, Mr. President, is ``tolerance'' and it is a lesson we 
would do well to learn; and--if we do not learn it--we will have 
dishonored the memory of two young women from Massachusetts who lost 
their lives to intolerance in the name of God.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleague if there are any other 
speakers that he knows of at this time on his side, and if there are 
not, I will take about 5 minutes at this time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, yes, I do believe that we have at 
least one more Senator who will be coming to speak on the issue.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will yield myself 5 minutes, and then I 
will yield back to my colleague so we can continue the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Illinois 
for being here; for, yes, being one of the early cosponsors of this 
amendment. I, frankly, do not know of any Senator who is pro-abortion. 
I do know many Senators who are pro-choice on both sides of this aisle. 
That is why it is so important for reasonable people to come together 
around this issue, by the way, people who are pro-choice and people who 
are not, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out. There are times when 
we can all come together. This is one of those times.
  When I was asked about what life in the new Senate would mean for me, 
I responded to one reporter in this way. I said:
  ``I think there will be many issues where reasonable Senators will 
come together from both sides of the aisle, and it will not be a 
partisan issue in every case.''
  And that reporter said: ``Give me an example.''
  I said: ``Clinic violence, the gag rule, a woman's right to choose.''
  This is something that cuts across our party. This is about the 
dignity of women and, therefore, the dignity of all of us, because all 
of us have mothers. Many of us have sisters, wives, and daughters, and 
their dignity is our dignity.
  I am so pleased that after much discussion and debate, we were able 
to reach agreement on a very sensible resolution, I think one that each 
and every Member of this Senate can be proud to vote for.
  I want to use a little time to go back to what is really happening in 
some of the streets of our Nation. And I want to refer to a document 
called ``No Place to Hide,'' which is a campaign being launched by a 
group that calls 
[[Page S1056]] themselves ``pro-life.''
 And I would leave it up to others to decide if that is an appropriate 
term.

  They put out this leaflet, and I am going to read to you from part of 
it. It says in part, this is the ``No Place to Hide'' campaign.
  And it is supposed to go after workers in reproductive health care 
clinics. It says:

       Try to reason with the doctors, speaking from your heart 
     about the unborn child and the pain and anguish their mothers 
     go through. If they agree--

  The doctors.

       If they agree to stop killing children, ask them to put it 
     in writing.

  Mr. President, when you use terms like this: Ask the doctors to stop 
killing children, what is the message? Then they say:

       Creative fliers similar to the enclosed wanted poster to 
     hand out to people entering the building where the doctors 
     have their practices.

  Here is one of these wanted posters, showing the faces of these 
doctors, and on the top it says, ``Wanted For Killing Unborn Babies.''
  Now, it seems to me it is time for all Americans to come together and 
listen to the words we are using.
  I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record an article from the 
Oakland Tribune dated January 6 at the end of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  This is what they say in this article:

       When you tell someone unstable, like Paul Hill--

  Who killed two people in a clinic in Florida--

       When you tell someone unstable, like Paul Hill, that 
     doctors at Planned Parenthood are murderers who destroy 
     innocent babies, you just can't wash your hands of it when 
     that unstable person kills someone. When your supporters 
     distribute posters saying, ``wanted dead or alive,'' with 
     doctors' names on them, you can't say it has nothing to do 
     with you when someone ends up dead. When you liken abortion 
     to the Holocaust, you are inviting your followers to take the 
     law into their own hands.

  And then they quote one of the gentlemen involved in these 
organizations, and he said,

       Anyone in the war zone has got to expect to be part of the 
     war that's going on.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 2 additional minutes.

       Anyone in the war zone has got to expect to be part of the 
     war that's going on.

  Said this gentleman about the dead woman in Brookline.
  So I say to you, Mr. President and my colleagues, I thank so much the 
Senator from Oklahoma working on the words of this resolution so we 
protect everybody's rights--yes, the rights of the peaceful protesters 
to express themselves fully and completely as we point out in the FACE 
bill they have a right to do, and, yes, the rights of people seeking 
reproductive health care to have their lives protected. I say that we 
cannot ignore the words that are being used, and that, yes, in this 
amendment we are calling on the Attorney General to fully enforce this 
law, to do everything she has to do.
  In essence, I hope that by our speaking out tonight in a bipartisan 
fashion, the word will go out to the people in these organizations to 
think very carefully, Mr. President, of the words they use and the 
things that they print up showing doctors as killers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional 2 minutes have 
expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. And to change their tactics.
  I would at this time save the remainder of my time, which, if I am 
correct, is approximately 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would reserve that 5 minutes.
                               Exhibit 1

                       [From the Oakland Tribune]

               Anti-Abortion Leaders Must Rein in Troops

       The president can send a regiment of soldiers to guard 
     abortion clinics, and the women and men who work there can 
     arm themselves to the eyeballs. But violence at clinics is 
     not going to stop until leaders of the anti-abortion movement 
     exert strong moral leadership over their flock.
       It sounds odd, doesn't it--telling anti-abortionists to 
     show morality. After all, isn't that what the anti-abortion 
     movement is all about? Its adherents hold the bedrock belief 
     that a fetus is an independent human being. When they stop an 
     abortion they believe they are saving life.
       But you can't be ``pro-life'' and condone murder. Two 
     murders took place in Brookline, Mass, last week--the victims 
     were receptionists at places where abortions take place. An 
     anti-abortion activist from New Hampshire, John Salvi, has 
     been accused of the crimes.
       Another anti-abortion crusader, Paul Hill, was convicted 
     last year of similar murders in Florida. There has been 
     violence at other clinics across the country.
       Too many leaders of the anti-abortion movement have washed 
     their hands of these murders emanating from their midst. They 
     say, ``Tsk tsk. Isn't that a shame? But those people are 
     extremists. They have nothing to do with the mainstream anti-
     abortion movement.''


                              Frankenstein

       We have news for anti-abortion leaders: Paul Hill, John 
     Salvi and the others like them in your movement have 
     everything to do with you. You create and nourish them with 
     your language and tactics.
       When you tell someone unstable, like Paul Hill, that 
     doctors at Planned Parenthood are murderers who destroy 
     innocent babies, you can't just wash your hands of it when 
     that unstable person kills someone. When you supporters 
     distribute posters saying, ``wanted, dead or alive,'' with 
     doctors' names on them, you can't say it has nothing to do 
     with you when someone ends up dead. When you liken abortion 
     to the Holocaust, you are inviting your followers to take the 
     law into their own hands.
       When the movement accepts people like Salvi, Hill or the 
     Rev. David Trosch in its midst then it has to accept 
     responsibility for their actions and their speech. Trosch is 
     the Roman Catholic priest suspended for declaring it 
     ``justifiable homicide'' to kill a doctor who commits 
     abortions.
       A man like Trosch incites men like Hill to kill. ``Anyone 
     in the war zone has to expect to be part of the war that's 
     going on,'' Trosch said of the dead women in Brookline.
       Not everyone in the anti-abortion movement is like Trosch, 
     of course. The bulk of people are sincere and well-meaning. 
     The Rev. Flip Benham of Operation Rescue National condemned 
     the attacks in Brookline. ``An eye for an eye, it doesn't 
     work that way,'' Benham said. But to an apparently increasing 
     number of anti-abortionists it does work that way. These 
     movement members see things as Trosch sees them. They see 
     those dead receptionists as grounds troops in a larger war 
     who have no meaning of their own.
       Cardinal Bernard Law of the Boston Archdiocese wants the 
     killing to stop. After the Brookline shootings, he called for 
     an end to the violence and the demonstrations. He told those 
     who protest to search their souls.


                            true leadership

       That is moral leadership. Anti-abortion leaders should 
     search their souls indeed. Are they inciting people to Kill? 
     Is their language too provocative? Are their actions going to 
     lead to violence? Is there a better way to get where they 
     want to go without confrontation? Can they identify people on 
     the fringe before they harm others? Can they isolate those 
     people and get them counseling?
       This is a time for leaders and everyone else in the anti-
     abortion movement to take careful stock of what they stand 
     for. They got into this crusade to save lives. Their cohorts 
     are now taking lives. This is not the way it was supposed to 
     be.
       Paul Hill said that one day soon his behavior--murder--
     would be viewed as normal in the abortion wars, rather than 
     an aberration.
       The only ones who can keep that ghastly reverie from 
     becoming reality are the men and women who lead the movement 
     that created Paul Hill. They need to take their considerable 
     moral energy and turn it inward, for now. It is time to 
     begin, today.

  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized for such time as 
necessary, not to exceed 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  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 
[[Page S1057]] that ``persons exercising their constitutional rights 
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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the sense-
of-the-Senate amendment introduced by Senator Boxer.
  Since 1984, there have been more than 1,500 acts of violence near 
abortion critics.
  In the last 22 months, five innocent people have been shot to death 
at abortion clinics. Five men and women heartlessly slain by murderers 
who call themselves pro-life.
  In the past year, we have already seen two tragedies at abortion 
clinics. Less than 6 months ago, a doctor and his escort were shot to 
death on their way to work in Pensacola, FL.
  Most recently, a 22-year-old man allegedly went on a violent spree, 
attacking abortion clinics in Massachusetts and Virginia, and killing 
two clinic workers in the process.
  Mr. President, how many more innocent people must die before we as a 
society put a stop to this terror?
  How many doctors will be gunned down for performing a legal medical 
procedure?
  How many receptionists will lose their lives simply because they work 
in the line of extremist gunfire?
  Last year, President Clinton signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
Entrances Act, known as FACE. This law made it a Federal crime to 
block, obstruct or intimidate a woman seeking reproductive health 
services, or a doctor trying to perform them.
  But it is now clear that the clinic access law alone will not be 
enough to protect our Nation's doctors and women.
  Attorney General Reno announced in August that she would post U.S. 
marshals outside of threatened clinics. That is also a step in the 
right direction, and I urge the Justice Department to review its 
efforts in this area.
  I applaud the President's announcement earlier this month directing 
all U.S. attorneys around the country to form an immediate task force 
of Federal, State, and local officials to coordinate plans for security 
at all clinics in their jurisdictions.
  And I applaud the President's efforts to improve communication 
between U.S. marshals and reproductive clinics to make sure they are 
prepared to inform the authorities of any potential threats.
  But I ask the administration to continue pursuing a hard line against 
the purveyors of violence and to take further protective measures until 
each 
[[Page S1058]] and every reproductive clinic in the United States is 
safe for doctors, for employees, and for patients.
  The women of this country deserve to go to the doctor without fearing 
that they may never come home.
  They deserve to receive reproductive services without harassment, 
intimidation or even worse, bodily harm.
  And they have a right to undergo legal medical procedures without 
putting themselves, their families or their doctors in such unfair 
jeopardy.
  Let us send a strong message to all those who would use guns to 
express their views, a message that we are going to stand up for the 
women, doctors, escorts, and health care workers across the country 
until all Americans are safe, and all murderers are behind bars.
  Mr. President, I will just take a couple of minutes to summarize 
what, I sense, is an attitudinal problem. We can talk all we want about 
standing up against violence. But very often, the people who talk most 
about violence and getting rid of it are those who support the 
proliferation of guns across our society. It is pretty hard to do away 
with violence when there is almost a gun everyplace that you look, and 
a failure to register those things.
  When we talk about standing up against violence, there is an 
intimation that those who have the right to choose under our 
Constitution, confirmed by the Supreme Court, are themselves committing 
an act of violence, and that is where the process starts. The process, 
not just of killing and assault, but intimidation, is one designed to 
threaten people who decide that they want to make a different decision 
than those on the other side.
  In New Jersey, we have a doctor who offers abortion as part of his 
obstetrical practice, offers abortion if people want it. He has been 
shot at. He has been threatened. His family is constantly under threat. 
He is so frightened by doing what he feels is right professionally, and 
yet he is unable to offer the kinds of services for which he has been 
licensed by the State and by the profession.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can I have 1 more minute, or if my colleague is out 
of time, I will conclude.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield 30 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Just to say this. If we are going to talk against 
violence, it has to start when people violate the law, the law very 
clearly stated. I implore the President and the Attorney General to 
stand up and protect those institutions that offer people a choice in 
how they want to conduct their lives. It is very simple.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator from 
California for her courage and for letting me participate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a minute and a half remaining. I 
wonder if the Senator from Idaho would like to yield some time. I will 
retain that minute and a half just to close off debate at the end, if I 
might.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 14 minutes for the Senator from 
Oklahoma, and a minute and a half for the Senator from California.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded for a parliamentary question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, to whose time is the time being charged 
for the quorum?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I see. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and, Mr. 
President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. On the time of the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection? 
Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 141

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Dorgan, Senator Dole, and Senator Nickles be added as cosponsors to the 
amendment, the Bradley amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, as I said earlier, this is a very simple 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I think the unanimous consent agreement 
allotted 1 hour for debate of the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was controlled by Senator Nickles of 
Oklahoma and Senator Boxer of California.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to 
proceed for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, the amendment we are going to be voting 
on at 7:30 is an amendment that simply says while we are debating 
Federal unfunded mandates on States, it is the sense of the Senate that 
there should not be unfunded mandates from the States to the local 
governments of this country requiring increases in property taxes.
  The fact is the property taxes are much too high in most States, and 
there is a significant reason for that involving unfunded mandates from 
the State government to the local government.
  This simply allows the Senate to go on record saying that we do not 
want high property taxes from unfunded mandates. There are many 
Governors in the country who do not want any mandates from the Federal 
Government but they are not reluctant to apply unfunded mandates to the 
local governments. They are very clear on that.
  I am very pleased to have Senator Chafee as a key cosponsor.
  I yield the floor. If Senator Chafee wants to speak, I hope he will 
come over for the remaining 30 seconds of my 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Robb be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I must rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey. It is true that I 
strongly support the idea that mandate costs should not be forced upon 
subordinate units of government, and that the constitution of my home 
State of Michigan prohibits the imposition of unfunded mandates upon 
local units of government. My inability to support the amendment 
accordingly does not arise from any disagreement with the principle it 
expresses. Rather, my opposition is grounded in larger principles of 
federalism. A core principle of that doctrine is that certain matters 
simply are beyond the ken of the Federal Government. To my mind, the 
proper allocation of mandate costs between State and local governments 
is one such matter. Thus, while I agree with the general principle 
expressed in the Senator's amendment, I think we overstep our proper 
bounds when we tell State and local governments how to structure their 
relationship.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me comment very briefly on the Sense-
of-the-Senate resolution offered by Senator Bradley and me.
  The resolution is, of course, not binding to the States. The last 
thing we want to do is attach a mandate to an unfunded mandates reform 
bill. Instead, we say plainly here that the States should given full 
consideration to mandates they might pass onto their cities and towns. 
That is all.
  I mentioned last week on the floor how ironic it is that Governors 
have asked us to provide relief in this area--while they themselves 
frequently impose unfunded mandates on their counties, cities, and 
towns. As we know, 
[[Page S1059]] cities and towns have no one to pass costs down to.
  S. 1 introduces a clear mechanism for accountability at the Federal 
level. It would be inappropriate and unconstitutional for the Congress 
to install these same restrictions at the State level--yet--the theme 
underlying S. 1 of increased accountability for mandates seems 
applicable.
  Although my plan is to support S. 1, I have concerns about the lack 
of information in certain areas. for instance, do we know how many of 
the mandates imposed upon cities and towns actually originate from the 
Federal Government? To my knowledge, there is no data base or tracking 
system to make this important distinction. However, we have clear 
evidence that State-issued unfunded mandates exist.
  Mr. President, many States have exercised their authority to adopt 
laws which are more stringent than what the Federal Government 
requires.
  For example, my own State of Rhode Island requires every city and 
town to have an adult monitor on every school bus that carries children 
in the fourth grade and below. Did the Federal Government issue this 
mandate? No. Does the State provide the funds for this? No. The cities 
and towns must find the money in their own budgets.
  I will conclude by noting that the Governmental Affairs Committee 
report accompanying S. 1 states on page 3 that, ``* * * local officials 
decry unfunded State mandates as much as they do unfunded Federal 
ones.'' Since we cannot take direct action to remedy this, Mr. 
President, I would hope that the Senate could at least send the message 
that we must be held accountable at all levels.
  I am told that language similar to this was to be included in a 
managers amendment last year on S. 993. It is my view that the need for 
this resolution still exists and so I urge its adoption.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining committee amendments be laid aside in order to consider a 
Levin-Kempthorne amendment regarding feasibility and that no other 
amendment be in order prior to the disposition of the Levin-Kempthorne 
amendment and no call for the regular order serve in place of the Levin 
Kempthorne amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 143

(Purpose: To provide for the infeasibility of the Congressional Budget 
 Office making a cost estimate for Federal intergovernmental mandates, 
                        and for other purposes)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf 
of myself, Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. Glenn, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Kempthorne, and Mr. Glenn, proposes an amendment numbered 
     143.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 19, insert between lines 10 and 11 the following 
     new clause:
       ``(iii) If the Director determines that it is not required 
     under clauses (i) and (ii), the Director shall not make the 
     estimate, but shall report in the statement that the 
     reasonable estimate cannot be made and shall include the 
     reasons for that determination in the statement. If such 
     determination is made by the Director, a point of order shall 
     lie only under (c)(1)(A) and as if the requirement of 
     (c)(1)(A) had not been met.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wonder, since I have 1\1/2\ minutes remaining before 
the vote at 7:30, I would like to protect that right to be able to give 
that 1\1/2\ minutes closing of my argument if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment responds to a lengthy 
discussion that we had yesterday about whether the bill should allow 
the Congressional Budget Office to state when it honestly cannot 
estimate the direct cost of an intergovernmental mandate. The bill 
contains a provision that allows the CBO to be honest with respect to 
its ability or inability to estimate private sector mandates. However, 
there is no comparable language with respect to CBO's estimates for 
State and local governments. That was not inadvertent, as the committee 
reports indicate. But it was wrong. We made an effort in committee to 
correct it. We had no success.
  The amendment we have before us adds such language, and it clarifies 
in those situations where the CBO cannot make an estimate that it may 
say so, and that that will be true for intergovernmental estimates, not 
just for private sector estimates.
  This amendment is important for a number of reasons. I commend the 
managers as well as my cosponsors for agreeing to it and thank them for 
their efforts in working this out.
  This amendment would first provide for truth in legislating by 
allowing the CBO to tell us if they cannot estimate the cost of an 
intergovernmental mandate. This amendment retains a point of order in 
the situation where the estimate cannot be made. The inability to 
estimate direct costs would continue to be a failure to provide a 
statement on the estimated cost for purposes of subsection (c)(1)(A).
  That was the situation that existed in last year's bill. The point of 
order which would remain where an estimate is impossible to be made is 
a point of order which was allowed in last year's bill. The point of 
order, however, lies only with respect to the absence of a cost 
estimate. The point of order with respect to an authorization of 
appropriations would not lie because, practically speaking, it cannot 
lie. Without a CBO estimate, the mechanism in the point of order that 
addresses the authorization of appropriation and the subsequent 
appropriation process does not make sense.
  This amendment, therefore, makes it clear that that portion of the 
point of order in the bill in section (c)(1)(B) does not apply where 
CBO cannot make an estimate.
  Section (c)(1)(B) includes that new point of order which was added in 
this year's bill which was not in last year's bill. That point of order 
would not lie in the event of an inability of the CBO to make the 
estimate.
  I want to again thank Senator Glenn, Senator Kempthorne, Senator 
Exon, and Senator Domenici for their help in making it possible for us 
to have this amendment offered and to hopefully succeed either tonight 
or tomorrow morning to have it adopted.
  I thank the Chair. Again, I thank the managers of the bill.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Mr. President, yesterday we did a colloquy on the CBO's inability to 
make a reliable estimate of mandate costs. Senator Levin was concerned 
primarily that the CBO be given the freedom to not make an estimate. I 
was concerned that the Congress not provide a loophole which would 
frustrate the very intent of this bill, which is accountability and 
informed decisionmaking.
  The purpose of the Levin-Kempthorne-Glenn amendment will be to 
accommodate both interests. If the CBO director cannot make an 
estimate, he or she shall so state it. But the failure of the CBO 
Director to make an estimate will still trigger the point of order.
  This will provide the Senate with the opportunity to debate issues 
concerning the estimate and the funding decisions. It will be the will 
of the Senate at that point to either waive a point or not.
  Mr. President, I believe that this addresses what we were discussing 
yesterday in a thorough discussion and it accomplishes what both of us 
needed to have accomplished. So I appreciate the floor manager and 
Senator Levin.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could quickly ask the Senator from 
Idaho to yield for a question, I hope he would agree that the amendment 
expressly states that the section (c)(1)(B) point of order would not 
lie in such an instance, only the (c)(1)(A) point of order.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. In response to that, Mr. President, there is only one 
point of order, and it has two parts.
   [[Page S1060]] Mr. LEVIN. The first part would lie and the second 
part would not lie. Is that correct?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. As a result of the Director making that statement; 
that is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the vote 
occur at 7:32 so that the Senator retains 1\1/2\ minutes and so that 
the manager on the Democratic side would have an opportunity for a 1-
minute statement, or whatever he needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  I agree completely with Senator Levin. I think he has taken care of a 
problem that we discussed at great length on the floor yesterday. We 
went on and on about this. I will not try to repeat all of those same 
arguments we made yesterday. I think it is ridiculous to require a 
report where they can say they cannot make a report. Senator Levin has 
very properly moved this amendment to take care of that problem. I 
support it fully. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  It is my understanding that Senator Levin will want a rollcall vote 
on this but that it will be put off until morning, and as part of the 
wrap-up by unanimous consent this evening.
  I yield the floor so that our distinguished colleague from California 
can get her time.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Thank you very much.
  Mr. President, based on that, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 
rollcall vote on this amendment, that it occur tomorrow prior to 
cloture vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the rollcall vote will be 
ordered tomorrow.
  The Senator from California is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. After 2 weeks of 
trying to do this, it comes down to a minute and a half. I want to use 
that time to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for working so hard to 
get an agreement. I thank the majority leader. He was very direct with 
me from day one. I knew exactly where I stood. Sometimes it was not in 
such a great situation, but it turned out that we were able to air this 
issue.
  I want to say that I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma that all 
violence must be condemned. I have been on this floor condemning gun 
violence, violence in the workplace, and domestic violence. I was one 
of the authors of the Violence Against Women Act and worked with my 
colleague, Joe Biden, to make sure it became the law of the land.
  Today I am here to talk about the violence to clinics. On December 
30, two young, innocent women that worked as receptionists in women's 
health care clinics were shot to death. The same killer shot up a 
clinic in Virginia. The President expressed outrage. The Attorney 
General has instructed the U.S. attorney and the U.S. marshals to work 
with clinics, and we say to the law enforcement officials it is the 
Senate's turn to act.
  The resolution we propose is straightforward. The resolution, as it 
was amended by the Senator from Oklahoma, expresses the sense of the 
Senate that the Attorney General shall fully enforce the law and 
protect persons seeking to provide or obtain, or assist in providing or 
obtaining reproductive health services, from violent attack.
  We did compromise on this legislation. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to send a very clear statement from this Senate that 
we abhor the violence. It will stop; it must stop. We are a country of 
laws.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from California and the Senator from 
Oklahoma for coming together on a very important resolution. There is a 
vast difference between nonviolence and violence, and that is the 
purpose of this resolution. In my view, it seems to me something that 
we should all vote for. When someone violates the law, they violate the 
law. That is precisely what is being addressed.
  The Attorney General should enforce the law. We should not expect any 
less. I have even gone so far as to say in public comments that I 
understand peaceful demonstration and I understand nonviolence. I 
support each. But some of these actions almost come out to terrorism.
  I hope we will have a broad bipartisan vote for this special issue.
  Mr. President, there will be no more votes after the second vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Bradley 
amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato] and 
the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--5

     Abraham
     Gorton
     Hutchison
     McCain
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     D'Amato
     Helms
       
  So the amendment (No. 141) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no. 142

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Boxer 
amendment No. 142. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The Clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
      [[Page S1061]] Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  So the amendment (No. 142) was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Now, Mr. President, what is the present parliamentary 
situation? What is the pending business?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Without losing his right to the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. GLENN. Without losing his right to the floor, fine.
  What we were doing, we had an amendment that would be voice voted. We 
are trying to work out the agreement on it, so it will not knock out 
some of the earlier agreements today. And that is being worked on right 
now. If we cannot do that tonight expeditiously, we may put that off 
until tomorrow.
  That is the reason I had the quorum call in.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask the Senator, is that the Gorton amendment you are 
working on?
  Mr. GLENN. I am sorry.
  Mr. BUMPERS. What is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gorton amendment is the pending amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is that the amendment the Senator is alluding to?
  Mr. GLENN. No. Mine would be a separate amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So, Mr. President, the Gorton amendment is open to 
amendment, is it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 144

(Purpose: To authorize collection of certain State and local taxes with 
 respect to the sale, delivery, and use of tangible personal property)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 144.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     pending amendment insert the following new title:
         TITLE ____--COLLECTION OF STATE AND LOCAL SALES TAXES

     SEC. ____01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Consumer and Main Street 
     Business Protection Act of 1995''.

     SEC. ____02. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) merchandise purchased from out-of-State firms is 
     subject to State and local sales taxes in the same manner as 
     merchandise purchased from in-State firms,
       (2) State and local governments generally are unable to 
     compel out-of-State firms to collect and remit such taxes, 
     and consequently, many out-of-State firms choose not to 
     collect State and local taxes on merchandise delivered across 
     State lines,
       (3) moreover, many out-of-State firms fail to inform their 
     customers that such taxes exist, with some firms even falsely 
     claiming that merchandise purchased out-of-State is tax-free, 
     and consequently, many consumers unknowingly incur tax 
     liabilities, including interest and penalty charges,
       (4) Congress has a duty to protect consumers from explicit 
     or implicit misrepresentations of State and local sales tax 
     obligations,
       (5) small businesses, which are compelled to collect State 
     and local sales taxes, are subject to unfair competition when 
     out-of-State firms cannot be compelled to collect and remit 
     such taxes on their sales to residents of the State,
       (6) State and local governments provide a number of 
     resources to out-of-State firms including government services 
     relating to disposal of tons of catalogs, mail delivery, 
     communications, and bank and court systems,
       (7) the inability of State and local governments to require 
     out-of-State firms to collect and remit sales taxes deprives 
     State and local governments of needed revenue and forces such 
     State and local governments to raise taxes on taxpayers, 
     including consumers and small businesses, in such State,
       (8) the Supreme Court ruled in Quill Corporation v. North 
     Dakota, 112 S. Ct. 1904 (1992) that the due process clause of 
     the Constitution does not prohibit a State government from 
     imposing personal jurisdiction and tax obligations on out-of-
     State firms that purposefully solicit sales from residents 
     therein, and that the Congress has the power to authorize 
     State governments to require out-of-State firms to collect 
     State and local sales taxes, and
       (9) as a matter of federalism, the Federal Government has a 
     duty to assist State and local governments in collecting 
     sales taxes on sales from out-of-State firms.

     SEC. ____03. AUTHORITY FOR COLLECTION OF SALES TAX.

       (a) In General.--A State is authorized to require a person 
     who is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the State to 
     collect and remit a State sales tax, a local sales tax, or 
     both, with respect to tangible personal property if--
       (1) the destination of the tangible personal property is in 
     the State,
       (2) during the 1-year period ending on September 30 of the 
     calendar year preceding the calendar year in which the 
     taxable event occurs, the person has gross receipts from 
     sales of such tangible personal property--
       (A) in the United States exceeding $3,000,000, or
       (B) in the State exceeding $100,000, and
       (3) the State, on behalf of its local jurisdictions, 
     collects and administers all local sales taxes imposed 
     pursuant to this title.
       (b) States Must Collect Local Sales Taxes.--Except as 
     provided in section ____04(d), a State in which both State 
     and local sales taxes are imposed may not require State sales 
     taxes to be collected and remitted under subsection (a) 
     unless the State also requires the local sales taxes to be 
     collected and remitted under subsection (a).
       (c) Aggregation Rules.--All persons that would be treated 
     as a single employer under section 52 (a) or (b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as one person 
     for purposes of subsection (a).
       (d) Destination.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
     destination of tangible personal property is the State or 
     local jurisdiction which is the final location to which the 
     seller ships or delivers the property, or to which the seller 
     causes the property to be shipped or delivered, regardless of 
     the means of shipment or delivery or the location of the 
     buyer.

     SEC.____04. TREATMENT OF LOCAL SALES TAXES.

       (a) Uniform Local Sales Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Sales taxes imposed by local jurisdictions 
     of a State shall be deemed to be uniform for purposes of this 
     title and shall be collected under this title in the same 
     manner as State sales taxes if--
       (A) such local sales taxes are imposed at the same rate and 
     on identical transactions in all geographic areas in the 
     State, and
       (B) such local sales taxes imposed on sales by out-of-State 
     persons are collected and administered by the State.
       (2) Application to border jurisdiction tax rates.--A State 
     shall not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (1)(A) if, with respect to a local jurisdiction 
     which borders on another State, such State or local 
     jurisdiction--
       (A) either reduces or increases the local sales tax in 
     order to achieve a rate of tax equal to that imposed by the 
     bordering State on identical transactions, or
       (B) exempts from the tax transactions which are exempt from 
     tax in the bordering State.
       (b) Nonuniform Local Sales Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), 
     nonuniform local sales taxes required to be collected 
     pursuant to this title shall be collected under one of the 
     options provided under paragraph (2).
       (2) Election.--For purposes of paragraph (1), any person 
     required under authority of this title to collect nonuniform 
     local sales taxes shall elect to collect either--
       (A) all nonuniform local sales taxes applicable to 
     transactions in the State, or
       (B) a fee (at the rate determined under paragraph (3)) 
     which shall be in lieu of the nonuniform local sales taxes 
     described in subparagraph (A).
     Such election shall require the person to use the method 
     elected for all transactions in the State while the election 
     is in effect.
     [[Page S1062]]   (3) Rate of in-lieu fee.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (2)(B), the rate of the in-lieu fee for any 
     calendar year shall be an amount equal to the product of--
       (A) the amount determined by dividing total nonuniform 
     local sales tax revenues collected in the State for the most 
     recently completed State fiscal year for which data is 
     available by total State sales tax revenues for the same 
     year, and
       (B) the State sales tax rate.
     Such amount shall be rounded to the nearest 0.25 percent.
       (4) Nonuniform local sales taxes.--For purposes of this 
     title, nonuniform local sales taxes are local sales taxes 
     which do not meet the requirements of subsection (a).
       (c) Distribution of Local Sales Taxes.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in subsection (d), a 
     State shall distribute to local jurisdictions a portion of 
     the amounts collected pursuant to this title determined on 
     the basis of--
       (A) in the case of uniform local sales taxes, the 
     proportion which each local jurisdiction receives of uniform 
     local sales taxes not collected pursuant to this title,
       (B) in the case of in-lieu fees described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(B), the proportion which each local jurisdiction's 
     nonuniform local sales tax receipts bears to the total 
     nonuniform local sales tax receipts in the State, and
       (C) in the case of any nonuniform local sales tax collected 
     pursuant to this title, the geographical location of the 
     transaction on which the tax was imposed.
     The amounts determined under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall 
     be calculated on the basis of data for the most recently 
     completed State fiscal year for which the data is available.
       (2) Timing.--Amounts described in paragraph (1) (B) or (C) 
     shall be distributed by a State to its local jurisdictions in 
     accordance with State timetables for distributing local sales 
     taxes, but not less frequently than every calendar quarter. 
     Amounts described in paragraph (1)(A) shall be distributed by 
     a State as provided under State law.
       (3) Transition rule.--If, upon the effective date of this 
     title, a State has a State law in effect providing a method 
     for distributing local sales taxes other than the method 
     under this subsection, then this subsection shall not apply 
     to that State until the 91st day following the adjournment 
     sine die of that State's next regular legislative session 
     which convenes after the effective date of this title (or 
     such earlier date as State law may provide). Local sales 
     taxes collected pursuant to this title prior to the 
     application of this subsection shall be distributed as 
     provided by State law.
       (d) Exception Where State Board Collects Taxes.--
     Notwithstanding section ____03(b) and subsections (b) and (c) 
     of this section, if a State had in effect on January 1, 1995, 
     a State law which provides that local sales taxes are 
     collected and remitted by a board of elected States officers, 
     then for any period during which such law continues in 
     effect--
       (1) the State may require the collection and remittance 
     under this title of only the State sales taxes and the 
     uniform portion of local sales taxes, and
       (2) the State may distribute any local sales taxes 
     collected pursuant to this title in accordance with State 
     law.

     SEC.____05. RETURN AND REMITTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--A State may not require any person subject 
     to this title--
       (1) to file a return reporting the amount of any tax 
     collected or required to be collected under this title, or to 
     remit the receipts of such tax, more frequently than once 
     with respect to sales in a calendar quarter, or
       (2) to file the initial such return, or to make the initial 
     such remittance, before the 90th day after the person's first 
     taxable transaction under this Act.
       (b) Local Taxes.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall 
     also apply to any person required by a State acting under 
     authority of this title to collect a local sales tax or in-
     lieu fee.

     SEC.____06. NONDISCRIMINATION AND EXEMPTIONS.

       Any State which exercises any authority granted under this 
     title shall allow to all persons subject to this title all 
     exemptions or other exceptions to State and local sales taxes 
     which are allowed to persons located within the State or 
     local jurisdiction.

     SEC.____07. APPLICATION OF STATE LAW.

       (a) Persons Required To Collect State or Local Sales Tax.--
     Any person required by section ____03 to collect a State or 
     local sales tax shall be subject to the laws of such State 
     relating to such sales tax to the extent that such laws are 
     consistent with the limitations contained in this title.
       (b) Limitations.--Except as provided in subsection (a), 
     nothing in this title shall be construed to permit a State--
       (1) to license or regulate any person,
       (2) to require any person to qualify to transact intrastate 
     business, or
       (3) to subject any person to State taxes not related to the 
     sales of tangible personnel property.
       (c) Preemption.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, this title shall not be construed to preempt or limit 
     any power exercised or to be exercised by a State or local 
     jurisdiction under the law of such State or local 
     jurisdiction or under any other Federal law.

     SEC.____08. TOLL-FREE INFORMATION SERVICE.

       A State shall not have power under this title to require 
     any person to collect a State or local sales tax on any sale 
     unless, at the time of such sale, such State has a toll-free 
     telephone service available to provide such person 
     information relating to collection of such State or local 
     sales tax. Such information shall include, at a minimum, all 
     applicable tax rates, return and remittance addresses and 
     deadlines, and penalty and interest information. As part of 
     the service, the State shall also provide all necessary forms 
     and instructions at no cost to any person using the service. 
     The State shall prominently display the toll-free telephone 
     number on all correspondence with any person using the 
     service. This service may be provided jointly with other 
     States.

     SEC.____09. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this title--
       (1) the term ``compensating use tax'' means a tax imposed 
     on or incident to the use, storage, consumption, 
     distribution, or other use within a State or local 
     jurisdiction or other area of a State, of tangible personal 
     property;
       (2) the term ``local sales tax'' means a sales tax imposed 
     in a local jurisdiction or area of a State and includes, but 
     is not limited to--
       (A) a sales tax or in-lieu fee imposed in a local 
     jurisdiction or area of a State by the State on behalf of 
     such jurisdiction or area, and
       (B) a sales tax imposed by a local jurisdiction or other 
     State-authorized entity pursuant to the authority of State 
     law, local law, or both;
       (3) the term ``person'' means an individual, a trust, 
     estate, partnership, society, association, company (including 
     a limited liability company) or corporation, whether or not 
     acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity, and any 
     combination of the foregoing;
       (4) the term ``sales tax'' means a tax, including a 
     compensating use tax, that is--
       (A) imposed on or incident to the sale, purchase, storage, 
     consumption, distribution, or other use of tangible personal 
     property as may be defined or specified under the laws 
     imposing such tax, and
       (B) measured by the amount of the sales price, cost, charge 
     or other value of or for such property; and
       (5) the term ``State'' means any of the several States of 
     the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United 
     States.

     SEC.____ 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. In no event shall this title apply to 
     any sale occurring before such effective date.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I understand the majority leader has said 
there will not be any more rollcall votes tonight. Certainly, I am not 
going to try to keep the Senate for any prolonged period of time, but I 
think it would be appropriate to begin debate on this amendment, about 
which I feel very strongly and which I think is a very important 
measure for the Senate to consider. But at some point I will 
discontinue the debate, and it is my understanding that tomorrow, if 
cloture should fail, this would be the pending amendment. So I do not 
want to delay the Senate in getting out of here this evening.
  I just want to say to my colleagues this is an amendment that will do 
more for the States, frankly, in the short term than this entire piece 
of legislation.
  In 1967, the Supreme Court said that the States could not impose a 
tax on a mail order catalog house because it would be a violation of 
due process and the commerce clause. So that was the law of the land 
until 1992, when a case called Quill versus North Dakota was decided by 
the Supreme Court.
  That decision reversed the 1967 decision. It said, No. 1, we are 
changing our mind about due process. It is no longer a violation of the 
due process clause if the States elect to require out-of-State 
companies which send goods into their State to collect the applicable 
sales tax, or use tax. A use tax is effectively the same thing as a 
sales tax, but they call it a use tax because it is a tax on the use of 
the product, not the sale of the product. No. 2, although imposing this 
tax collection burden on an out-of-State company constitutes a burden 
on interstate commerce that is impermissible under current law, the 
Congress has the right to determine if that burden should be allowed.
  So the primary problem that prohibited States in the past from 
levying a sales tax or a use tax on mail order houses--due process--was 
removed.
  Now, I cannot say this often enough, for anybody who is hesitant 
about the thrust of this amendment, that it does not impose a tax on 
anybody. The tax is already there. This amendment simply allows the 
States the discretion of saying to the mail order houses: If you are 
going to ship goods into this State, 
[[Page S1063]] you are going to have to collect the use tax on those 
goods.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not know how many States will do it. Five 
States do not have a sales tax so this amendment would have no impact 
on those States. They would not levy a use tax on mail order products 
because they do not levy sales taxes on their own in-State products.
  The reason this legislation is important is because virtually every 
State in the Union--45 of them to be precise--have a use tax now. It is 
levied not on the mail order house but on the buyer of goods from the 
mail order house. If you order a sweater from L.L. Bean and you ship it 
into Arkansas, even though L.L. Bean doesn't collect the applicable use 
tax, the State of Arkansas says that the purchaser of that sweater 
shall remit a use tax in the exact amount of the sales tax to the State 
revenue department of my State.
  So what you have is a lot of people who are getting a rude surprise 
because the States are beginning, more and more, to find these people 
who are buying big ticket items. People are buying these big ticket 
items and suddenly somebody from the State revenue department in 
Florida or North Carolina knocks on the door and says, ``Friend, that 
boat you bought for $250,000, you owe us $12,000.'' We have letters 
galore in our files from people who have had that rude surprise.
  Now, admittedly, the States collect very little revenue out of this. 
And you know the reason they do not is because the people of your 
respective States of West Virginia, Ohio, Idaho, and the rest of you, 
do not know there is a use tax on the books.
  Mr. President, what do you think mail order sales in this country 
amount to? Just figure it out in your own mind. You open your mail 
every day, and you are getting two, three, four times as many catalogs 
at your house every week as you used to get.
  I will be happy to yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will permit us to 
conclude a couple of things and then, if he wants to continue, I have 
no problem with that. I would like to conclude a couple of things and 
then give the floor back to the Senator. They want to adopt one 
unanimous-consent request. I would like to file a cloture motion, and I 
think the Democratic leader wants to have a colloquy. Then I need to 
make a statement with reference to rule XIX.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOLE. Is that all right with the Senator from Arkansas?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Absolutely, Senator.


        Modification to Committee Amendment On Page 25, Line 10

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arkansas very much. 
We had this amendment worked out over a period of time here. It 
addresses a problem we had yesterday on the floor about committee 
jurisdiction. It has been agreed to on both sides of the aisle. We are 
happy to do it with a voice vote.
  I send an amendment to the desk to modify the committee amendment on 
page 25, line 10, that the previous amendments offered to the language 
proposed to be stricken by the committee amendment be added to the 
modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendment is so modified
  The modification to the amendment is as follows:

       On page 25, strike all after line 10 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(4) Determinations of Applicability to Pending 
     Legislation.--For purposes of this subsection, in the Senate, 
     the presiding officer of the Senate shall consult with the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, to the extent practicable, 
     on questions concuring the applicability of this section to a 
     pending bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report.
       ``(5) Determinations of Federal Mandate Levels.--For 
     purposes of this subsection, in the Senate, the levels of 
     Federal mandates for a fiscal year shall be determined based 
     on the estimates made by the Committee on the Budget.''.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have submitted this. I believe it is 
acceptable on both sides of the aisle. It takes care of a problem we 
debated at long length yesterday on the floor. Does my colleague have 
any comment?
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President I wish to thank the Senator from Ohio, 
the distinguished floor manager. He is correct.
  This is an issue that was of concern between the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and the Budget Committee. Through the evening hours and this 
morning, language has been worked out. I hope this is another clear 
evidence that we are finally moving forward on S. 1, so we can deliver 
unfunded mandate relief to the cities and States. The public sector 
realizes the private sectors are partners on this.
  We agree to this amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. I urge acceptance of the amendment.


      Vote On Committee Amendment On Page 25, Line 10, As Modified
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the committee amendment, as modified.
  The committee amendment on page 25, line 10, as modified, was agreed 
to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    Remarks Expunged From The Record

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier today there was a statement made on 
the Senate floor. I will not repeat the statement, which I think 
violated rule XIX. So I would pose the following question, Mr. 
President:
  If I had called the Senator from South Carolina to order for his 
remarks regarding the Senator from Idaho, was rule XIX violated?

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will read from Riddick's, page 738:
       A Senator in debate, who ``in the opinion of the Presiding 
     Officer'' refers offensively to any State of the Union, or 
     who impugns the motives or integrity of a Senator, or 
     reflects on other Senators, may be called to order under Rule 
     XIX.

  It is therefore the opinion of the Chair that the rule was violated, 
rule XIX was violated.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent the 
offending remarks be expunged from the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas. I will 
just take another minute. I think the Senator from South Dakota, the 
Democratic leader, may want to have a discussion here.
  I wanted to file another cloture motion. Before I did that, I wanted 
to recite precisely what has happened so the record will be made.
  We began debate on S. 1 at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 12. There 
were 14 committee amendments reported. The normal process is to adopt 
the committee amendments en bloc after opening statements.
  We have never been able to adopt the committee amendments. In fact, 
we have had to resort to tabling a few just to get the Senate moving. 
We are now only on committee amendment No. 11 out of 14.
  Cloture was filed Tuesday, January 17, with the hope we could still 
work out a unanimous consent agreement that would provide for an 
exclusive list of amendments. After that, the list has gone up since 
yesterday--on the Democratic side from 30-some to 78, and it is 
climbing; and I must say it has gone up on the Republican side, up to 
30. That is 108 amendments. Yesterday, we were talking about 40-some.
  Our proposed agreement asks that all amendments must be offered by 6 
p.m. tomorrow, and my colleague, Senator Daschle, counteroffered that 
it be offered by 12 noon on Wednesday, January 25. Obviously, when you 
agree on anything that has to be offered, you have to have a pretty 
good relationship or one person will offer an amendment and that will 
be it, and no other amendment can be offered. It has worked in the 
past, and it still may. It has worked out.
  But it seems to me if we are going to complete action on this bill 
anytime next week, I hope my colleagues will help invoke cloture when 
the cloture vote occurs tomorrow morning.
  There was some discussion earlier that if we did not adopt--or deal 
with the so-called Boxer amendment, that 
[[Page S1064]] might prevent cloture from being invoked. That amendment 
has been disposed of. It was a unanimous vote. It was worked out with 
Senator Boxer and Senator Nickles and supported by every Senator who is 
present.
  I hope we can invoke cloture tomorrow and get on with the amendments 
that should be debated on each side. And, having said that, I am happy 
to yield to the Senator from South Dakota before I send the cloture 
motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say I am disappointed that the 
cloture motion will be filed. I respect the decision of the 
distinguished majority leader, but I remind our colleagues that only 
three Democratic amendments have been considered. One amendment offered 
by the majority was debated by the body for over 3 hours this 
afternoon. And I might add it was a nonrelevant nongermane amendment. 
So we have really not had much of an opportunity to debate many of the 
very relevant, germane amendments that reflect the legitimate concerns 
expressed by our colleagues over the course of the last several days.
  Let me just go back, if I may for just a moment, to remind my 
colleagues that this bill was introduced on Wednesday, January 4, with 
very significant and important differences from S. 993, the unfunded 
mandates bill that was reported last year.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing the next day, on 
January 5. There was a markup in Governmental Affairs scheduled for 
Friday, January 6. Senator Glenn, the ranking member, on behalf of 
several Democrats, asked for time to prepare amendments and consider 
issues raised at the hearing. The chairman, Senator Roth, subsequently 
agreed to put the markup over to Monday, the following week, with the 
requirement that all amendments be filed by Friday, January 6, at 10 
o'clock.
  Our committee members complied with that request in good faith.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee then had a markup on Monday, 
January 9, at 10 o'clock. Members were originally told the chairman 
would oppose all amendments because the majority leader wanted to take 
them up on the floor. So our committee members again, in good faith, 
cooperated and delayed offering many of the amendments in committee, 
because they had the expectation that these amendments would be 
properly debated and considered on the floor. Democrats objected to 
eliminating the committee from the legislative process. A markup was 
held, and amendments were offered. All Democratic amendments were 
defeated as a result of this dictate on a partisan vote, except for 
three that were accepted by the chairman.
  At the markup, members were told that there would be no committee 
report. There were strong objections at the time, and, of course, the 
whole controversy relating to the committee report has been very much a 
part of the debate on the floor over the last several days.
  The Budget Committee held its markup at 2:30 that same Monday. At the 
request of the chairman, several Democratic members of the Budget 
Committee agreed to withhold offering their amendments until the bill 
was to be considered on the floor.
  Committee members were then told there would be ample opportunity to 
offer these amendments on the floor, and Democratic members asked that 
a Budget Committee report on S. 1 be filed. It was our understanding 
that there would be a report filed. Of course, that did not happen as 
it was promised.
  So, Mr. President, in summary, let me just emphasize, we have dealt 
in good faith all the way through this process. We had hoped that we 
could have ample consideration of the bill in both the Budget Committee 
and the Governmental Affairs Committee--and that did not happen. We 
were hoping that we could have a report before the bill came to the 
floor--that did not happen. We were told we would have an opportunity 
to consider amendments on the floor--germane amendments in many cases--
and that has not happened.
  In good faith, I think, Senator Dole and I have attempted over the 
last day to find an agreement--and that has not happened, either.
  There is no filibuster going on here. In my view, and I think in the 
view of many of our colleagues, there are very legitimate concerns 
about many of these issues.
  The concerns have to be addressed prior to the time many of us feel 
comfortable voting on final passage. It is my hope and expectation 
that, if we had ample consideration of some of these legislative 
issues, there could be a favorable vote. But certainly, that is going 
to take a reasonable amount of time. I would hope that we could oppose 
the cloture motion tomorrow morning.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think one example is today we spent nearly 
4 hours during a recess to try to work out the Boxer amendment which 
had to do with violence in women's clinics. It is a very important 
issue. It has nothing to do with this bill. And we spent the last 2 or 
3 days not discussing the amendments but discussing parliamentary 
procedure and whether or not we can adopt the committee amendments, 
which generally is a matter of course.
  This is a bill that has not changed a lot since last year. It has not 
changed much since last year. Unless something happened across the 
countryside that this Senator is not aware of, it is supported by the 
Governors, the mayors, the city officials, township and county 
officials, and all the others, as has been indicated by the Senator 
from Idaho in the debate.
  The House will start action on this bill on tomorrow. They will 
probably demonstrate, as they did in the congressional coverage, that 
they can pass the same bill in an hour and 20 minutes that took us 5 
days because of so many amendments that were not germane. I would not 
suggest that we want to be like the House. I am very happy to be the 
U.S. Senate, and am very happy to have been in the House years ago, 
too.
  But it seems to me that we can bring this matter to a close. If 
cloture is invoked, all the germane amendments are going to be there. 
They can be a debated, adopted and disposed of in one way or the other.
  So I hope that tomorrow we can move on this bill. We may not. We have 
one Senator with five relevant amendments; another three, relevant; two 
relevant. We have the same on the Republican side; one Member with one 
or two relevant amendments, whatever they may be. But they add up to 
180 amendments. It is much like the tax bill. I have had a few tax 
bills on the Senate floor.
  So I certainly will continue to work with the distinguished 
Democratic leader. We want to accommodate our colleagues wherever we 
can on both sides of the aisle. And we will continue to work to do 
that.
  I would be willing to ask right now that all the committee amendments 
that have not yet been disposed of be agreed to en bloc. I ask 
unanimous consent that all committee amendments that have not yet been 
disposed of be agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. It is an indication that we are not making progress.


                           The Easter Recess

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wanted to make one correction. We have had 
great difficulty with the Easter recess. I will take the blame for most 
of it. But a letter went out today saying thanks for the extra week. 
What extra week? It is not an extra week. We are not getting 3 weeks 
off. We are getting a week before Easter and a week after.
  By the time the letter went out it had almost the entire month of 
April. It is not going to happen. We will be out April 7 to April 24. 
That is 17 days. We are going to be way behind the House. The House has 
3 weeks. We will be about 2 months behind the House by then at the rate 
we are going.
  So I hope we do not have to put out anymore. If we want a fine letter 
on the Easter recess, we have already put out the hotline.

                          ____________________