Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 6 (Wednesday, February 4, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 6 (Wednesday, February 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S379-S400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. GRAMS:
S. 1603. A bill to provide a comprehensive program of support for
victims of torture; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE SURVIVORS OF TORTURE SUPPORT ACT

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, most people do not realize that torture is
practiced or condoned in more than 100 countries.

We all agree that torture is a horrible act. It is designed to
physically and emotionally cripple individuals, to render them
incapable of mounting an effective opposition to a regime or a system
of beliefs.
Torture does not affect just the victim--it sends a strong message to
the victim's family, community, and nation that dissent will not be
tolerated. Torture is not used as a weapon just against an individual--
it is used as a weapon against democracy.
As a nation, we cannot stand by and continue to let the victims of
torture suffer in silence. We must do more than proclaim that the
practice of torture is abhorrent. We must provide assistance to torture
survivors, for they truly are not able to help themselves.
The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' will assist victims of
torture both here and abroad. While the practice of torture is not a
problem in this country, many victims of torture flee to the United
States to seek refuge.
As many as 400,000 torture survivors now live in the United States.
Many of the survivors may not be getting the assistance they need.
Other survivors of torture remain abroad; they deserve effective
treatment as well.
The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' makes changes in U.S.
immigration policy to account for the special needs of torture
survivors.
This bill designates torture victims as refugees of special
humanitarian concern.
It ensures expedited processing for asylum applicants who present
credible claims of subjection to torture. It also establishes
procedures for taking into account the effects of torture in the
adjudication of such claims.
This bill grants the presumption that such applicants shall not be
detained while their asylum claims are pending, and provides exemption
from expedited removal procedures for individuals in danger of being
subjected to torture.
Many times, torture survivors are not identified by U.S. officials
because consular, immigration, and also asylum personnel have not
received adequate training in either the identification of evidence of
torture or the techniques for interviewing torture victims.
The ``Survivors of Torture Support Act'' requires that the Attorney
General and the Secretary of State provide training necessary for these
officials to recognize the effects of torture on victims, and the way
this can affect the interview or hearing process.
It also requires special training in interview techniques, so that
survivors of torture are not traumatized by this experience.
Torture survivors can be productive members of American society if
they have access to treatment. That is why this bill provides $50
million over three years for treatment of victims of torture in the
United States and abroad.
My home state of Minnesota is fortunate to have the first
comprehensive treatment center in the United States for victims of
torture.
The Center for Victims of Torture has treated more than 500 patients
since it was established in 1985, and by helping those patients
overcome the atrocities suffered in their homelands, has assisted them
in becoming productive members of our communities.
In addition to providing treatment to persons who have been tortured
by foreign governments, the Center has been active in providing
training and support for treatment centers abroad. I have learned a
great deal from visiting the Center and meeting its clients and staff.
Support for legislation to assist torture survivors has been
increasing since Senator Dave Durenberger first introduced it in 1994.
I have worked closely with my colleague from Minnesota, Senator
Wellstone, in developing legislation to address the very real needs of
these survivors. While we have chosen different paths in bringing this
issue before the Senate, our bills differ primarily in approach.
Therefore, I applaud his efforts and look forward to working closely
with him to move legislation forward in 1998 that will assist victims
of torture who reside in the U.S. and also abroad.
The United States should take a leading role in encouraging the
establishment of additional treatment programs both at home and also
abroad.
We are making progress in this direction. The U.S. is now the largest
contributor to the United Nations voluntary fund for victims of
torture. We must continue to support treatment centers, like the one in
Minnesota, which help those who cannot help themselves.
Again, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
______

By Mr. D'AMATO (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1604. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
repeal the restriction on payment for certain hospital discharges to
post-acute care of imposed by section 4407 of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997; to the Committee on Finance.

MEDICARE TRANSFER REPEAL LEGISLATION

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to
repeal a provision of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997 that is
particularly onerous and unfair to New York's and our nation's
hospitals. The provision is one that expands the definition of a
Medicare transfer and it is inherently counterintuitive to assuring the
delivery of appropriate health care services to patients.
As many of my colleagues might recall, I was actively involved during
the Senate's debate of the BBA in fighting for the elimination of the
transfer provision. I thought then, and I still believe now that it is
bad health care policy that runs counter to the mission that we should
be advocating when we make policy: to encourage the providers of health
care in our communities to provide the most appropriate care for the
good of their patients. Along with my colleague Senator Dodd, last
year, we were able to mitigate the impact of the original transfer
provision in the final BBA that was enacted. Unfortunately, we were not
able to eliminate it from the BBA and that is why I am here today,
offering legislation to finish the job we started last summer.
Included in the BBA was a provision that would expand the definition
of a Medicare acute care transfer to include discharges to any
rehabilitation or psychiatric hospital, nursing home or home health
agency. This policy is scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 1998,
for 10 Medicare hospital procedures that will be determined by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services. What this means for hospitals
that transfer patients is that the hospital would no longer get paid
the appropriate payment (a DRG payment)--they would instead get paid a
lesser amount--just because the patient was discharged to receive a
more appropriate level of care. This policy would only apply for
patients that are transferred in under the average length of stay.
Let me give you an example: a patient goes into the hospital for one
of the 10 designated procedures, for example, a hip operation, which
has an average length of stay of 10 days. At 7 days, the patient's
doctor wants to transfer him to a rehabilitation hospital to continue
his recovery. This is where the transfer policy would have an effect:
the hospital that discharged him would no longer receive the payment
that is due to them--the DRG payment. Instead, they would receive a
lesser per diem payment, merely because the patient was discharged to
receive a more appropriate, cost effective level of care.
Let me spend a moment here talking about the hospital payment system.
The DRG system was put into place by Congress to create the proper
incentives for providing an appropriate level

[[Page S380]]

of care for patients. It is a system that is built on average: patient
cases that have higher lengths of stay are ``underpaid'' and cases that
have lower than average lengths of stay are ``overpaid'' because,
regardless of the length of stay, hospitals get the same payment. The
new transfer policy would begin a serious erosion of the DRG system
and, as a result, create the wrong incentives for hospitals. Hospitals
that are faced with receiving a lesser payment for providing the
appropriate care for a patient, will undoubtedly change their behavior:
they will end up keeping a patient in the hospital longer--until the
average length of stay is reached, and then transfer the patient to a
post-acute care facility. As a result, the transfer policy creates a
disincentive for hospitals to efficiently provide the most appropriate
level of care for their patients.
The transfer policy is not necessary. Patients that use post-acute
care services tend to have more complicated health care needs and
longer hospital stays than those patients that don't use post-acute
care. For this reason, the transfer policy does not address a problem
in the Medicare system that needs fixing. Even the Prospective Payment
Assessment Commission rejected this policy change because they believed
it was bad health care policy and that it provided the wrong incentives
for a hospital prospective payment system.
It also creates billing documents for our hospitals who would be held
responsible for the future actions of former patients. This sets up our
hospitals for future allegations of fraud. For example, a hospital
discharges a patient, who goes home from the hospital, expecting to be
cared for by a family member. Suddenly, the family member becomes ill
and unexpectedly cannot care for a patient. The patient's doctor calls
the local home health care agency, who now sends a nurse out to the
patient's home for 3 weeks of home care. The hospital has no knowledge
of this and will bill Medicare for the full DRG because it believed
that the patient was discharged and at home recovering. The hospital is
unaware of actions of the patient and therefore would have no reason to
bill the Medicare program differently. The government later could cite
the hospital for fraud because they billed the Medicare program
improperly. Hospitals are faced with the impossible and untenable task
of tracking the future actions of patients that left their care.
Repeal of the transfer policy is the only way to right a very
misguided policy that was adopted last year. I urge my colleagues to
support legislation that will eliminate a provision of the BBA that is
bad health policy and disruptive to a system that aims to assure that
patients receive the right care in the most appropriate setting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
included in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1604

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR
CERTAIN HOSPITAL DISCHARGES TO POST-ACUTE CARE.

(a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)), as amended by section 4407 of
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat.
401), is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (I)(ii), by striking ``not taking in
account the effect of subparagraph (J),'', and
(2) by striking subparagraph (J).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat.
251).
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, Mr. D'Amato,
Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Reid, Mr. Torricelli, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1605. A bill to establish a matching grant program to help States,
units of local government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests
for use by law enforcement officers.

THE BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1998

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today Senator Leahy and I are
introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998, a bill to
establish a matching grant program to help State, Tribal and local
jurisdictions purchase armor vests for the use by law enforcement
officers. We are pleased to be joined in this effort by the
distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Hatch, and Senators D'Amato, Faircloth, Hollings, Johnson, Kennedy,
Reid, Torricelli and Dodd. This bill expands on legislation I
introduced last month to help law enforcement.
There are far too many law enforcement officers who patrol our
streets and neighborhoods without the proper protective gear against
violent criminals. As a former deputy sheriff, I know first-hand the
risks which law enforcement officers face everyday on the front lines
protecting our communities.
Today, more than ever, violent criminals have bulletproof vests and
deadly weapons at their disposal. In fact, figures from the U.S.
Department of Justice indicate that approximately 150,000 law
enforcement officers--or 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 state and
local officers--do not have access to bulletproof vests.
The evidence is clear that a bulletproof vest is one of the most
important pieces of equipment that any law enforcement officer can
have. Since the introduction of modern bulletproof material, the lives
of more than 1,500 officers have been saved by bulletproof vests. In
fact, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has concluded that officers
who do not wear bulletproof vests are 14 times more likely to be killed
by a firearm than those officers who do wear vests. Simply put,
bulletproof vests save lives.
Unfortunately, many police departments do not have the resources to
purchase vests on their own. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of
1998 would form a partnership with state and local law enforcement
agencies in order to make sure that every police officer who needs a
bulletproof gets one. It would do so by authorizing up to $25 million
per year for a new grant program within the U.S. Department of Justice.
The program would provide 50-50 matching grants to state and local law
enforcement agencies and Indian tribes to assist in purchasing
bulletproof vests and body armor. To make sure that no police
department is left out of the program, the matching requirement could
be waived for those jurisdictions that cannot afford it.
While we know that there is no way to end the risks inherent to a
career in law enforcement, we must do everything possible to ensure
that officers who put their lives on the line every day also put on a
vest. Body armor is one of the most important pieces of equipment an
officer can have and often means the difference between life and death.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1605

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed
in the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law
enforcement officer in the United States had the protection
of an armor vest while performing their hazardous duties;
(2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that more
than 30 percent of the almost 1,182 law enforcement officers
killed by a firearm in the line of duty could have been saved
if they had been wearing body armor;
(3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the
risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not
wearing an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers
wearing an armor vest;
(4) the Department of Justice estimates that approximately
150,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers,
nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor;
(5) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian
country has risen sharply, despite decreases in the national
crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety
crisis in Indian country''; and
(6) many State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies,
especially those in smaller communities and rural
jurisdictions,

[[Page S381]]

need assistance in order to provide body armor for their
officers.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to save lives of
law enforcement officers by helping State, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies provide those officers with armor
vests.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Armor vest.--The term ``armor vest'' means body armor
that has been tested through the voluntary compliance testing
program operated by the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center of the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), and found to comply with the requirements of
NIJ Standard 0101.03, or any subsequent revision of that
standard.
(2) Body armor.--The term ``body armor'' means any product
sold or offered for sale as personal protective body covering
intended to protect against gunfire, stabbing, or other
physical harm.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the Department of
Justice.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the same
meaning as in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).
(5) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' means any officer, agent, or employee of a State,
unit of local government, or Indian tribe authorized by law
or by a government agency to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of
criminal law, or authorized by law to supervise sentenced
criminal offenders.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
(7) Unit of local government.--The term ``unit of local
government'' means a county, municipality, town, township,
village, parish, borough, or other unit of general government
below the State level.

SEC. 4. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

(a) Grant Authorization.--The Director may make grants to
States, units of local government, and Indian tribes in
accordance with this Act to purchase armor vests for use by
State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers.
(b) Applications.--Each State, unit of local government, or
Indian tribe seeking to receive a grant under this section
shall submit to the Director an application, in such form and
containing such information as the Director may reasonably
require.
(c) Uses of Funds.--Grant awards under this section shall
be--
(1) distributed directly to the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe; and
(2) used for the purchase of armor vests for law
enforcement officers in the jurisdiction of the grantee.
(d) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Director may give preferential
consideration, where feasible, to applications from
jurisdictions that--
(1) have a violent crime rate at or above the national
average, as determined by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; and
(2) have not been providing each law enforcement officer
assigned to patrol or other hazardous duties with body armor.
(e) Minimum Amount.--Unless all applications submitted by
any State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe for a
grant under this section have been funded, each State,
together with grantees within the State (other than Indian
tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year under this
section not less than 0.75 percent of the total amount
appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to this
section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands shall
each be allocated 0.25 percent.
(f) Maximum Amount.--A State, together with grantees within
the State (other than Indian tribes), may not receive more
than 5 percent of the total amount appropriated in each
fiscal year for grants under this section.
(g) Matching Funds.--The portion of the costs of a program
provided by a grant under this section may not exceed 50
percent, unless the Director determines a case of fiscal
hardship and waives, wholly or in part, the requirement under
this subsection of a non-Federal contribution to the costs of
a program.
(h) Allocation of Funds.--Not less than 50 percent of the
funds awarded under this section in each fiscal year shall be
allocated to units of local government, or Indian tribes,
having jurisdiction over areas with populations of 100,000 or
less.
(i) Reimbursement.--Grants under this section may be used
to reimburse law enforcement officers who have previously
purchased body armor with personal funds during a period in
which body armor was not provided by the State, unit of local
government, or Indian tribe.

SEC. 5. APPLICATIONS.

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Director shall promulgate regulations to carry out
this Act, which shall set forth the information that must be
included in each application under section 4(b) and the
requirements that States, units of local government, and
Indian tribes must meet in order to receive a grant under
section 4.

SEC. 6. PROHIBITION OF PRISON INMATE LABOR.

Any State, unit of local government, or Indian tribe that
receives financial assistance provided using funds
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may not
purchase equipment or products manufactured using prison
inmate labor.

SEC. 7. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

In the case of any equipment or product authorized to be
purchased with financial assistance provided using funds
appropriated or otherwise made available under this Act, it
is the sense of Congress that entities receiving the
assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase only
American-made equipment and products.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 to carry out this Act.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, in 1996, one violent crime was committed
every nineteen seconds in the United States. According to the Uniform
Crime Reports, firearms were the weapons used in 29% of all murders,
robberies and aggravated assaults, collectively, that year. When a
crime occurs, no matter what the crime or the weapons used, the first
action taken is to call the police. Law enforcement rushes to the
rescue, risking their own lives in the process.
It is imperative that we do all we can to assist the police in
handling these volatile situations. That is why I join with Senators
Campbell and Leahy in introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Grant Act--a bill that will provide funding for equipment that is
critical to preserve the lives of our law enforcement. The
``equipment'' of which I speak is a bullet proof vest. Under this bill,
the federal government will pay half the cost for the purchase of armor
vests for a State and local law enforcement.
This bill promotes the purchases of these life-saving vests. The need
for them is proven over and over again. Nationwide, the FBI estimates
that nearly one third of the 1,182 law enforcement officers killed by a
firearm in the line of duty since 1980 would be alive if they had worn
a bullet proof vest.
Just this past December, Rochester, New York was rocked by the
shooting of three police officers. Rochester Police Officers Mark G.
Dibelka and Thomas DiFante were both shot in the chest and Sgt. Michael
Kozak was shot in the arm. All three men lived --thanks to the
bulletproof vests. These heroes will live to see the judicial process
at work against the criminal charged with three counts of first degree
attempted murder. Due to the bullet proof vests, we are able to wish
these men a speedy recovery.
In New York City, the lives of two officers were saved with a
bulletproof vest. A convicted drug dealer is accused of shooting two
officers, firing three shots at Detective Wafkey Salem in the chest and
shot at Detective Lourdes Gonzalez' shoulder. These officers lived to
tell their stories.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Protection Act of 1998
authorizes $25 million of federal funds to be matched with State and
localities funds for the purchase of armor vests. Any agent or officer
that prevents, detects or investigates crimes, or supervises sentenced
offenders, will be able to receive a bulletproof vest with the
assistance of this grant--that includes law enforcement and correction
officers.
Special attention is paid to rural areas, with at least 50% of the
funds available to jurisdictions with populations of 100,000 or less.
Each state would receive a minimum of .75% of the total federal funds,
including Puerto Rico. The bill also includes a maximum of 5% that can
be drawn to each state, including the grantees of that state. The only
restriction is that the armor vests are not made by prison labor, a
very reasonable requirement, especially in light of the nature of the
life-saving equipment. This legislation also recognizes that the
equipment purchased with federal assistance should be made in the
United States.
Law enforcement officers risk their lives for people, and we owe it
to them to make sure the risks are at a minimum. We owe it to the men
and women who go to work everyday and have no idea what dangerous
situation awaits them--and we owe it to their families. This bill
should be passed, swiftly and, I hope, with the full support of the
Senate.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am proud to co-sponsor a bill
which

[[Page S382]]

will be an essential component of the war on crime. The Bulletproof
Vest Partnership Act, which was introduced today, will save the lives
of law enforcement officers across the country by helping state and
local law enforcement agencies provide their officers with body armor.
Providing body armor to more law enforcement agencies will greatly
reduce injuries and fatalities among officers. The FBI estimates that
more than 40 percent of the 1,182 officers killed in the line of duty
by a firearm since 1980 would have lived had they worn bullet-resistant
vests. In fact, the FBI considers the risk of death to officers not
wearing armor to be 14 times greater than that for officers wearing
body armor.
Mr. President, today 150,000 law officers in the United States do not
have access to this essential equipment. This is unacceptable. These
brave men and women risk their lives every day to enforce the law and
protect and serve the public. The least we can do is afford them the
greatest degree of protection possible as they fight crime in our
communities.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 will provide state and
local law enforcement officers with the critical equipment they need to
protect their officers in the line of duty. This bipartisan bill will
create a $25 million grant program in the Department of Justice to
provide matching funds to state and local law enforcement agencies to
purchase body armor. I would like to underscore the importance of the
word ``Partnership'' in this bill. This grant program will continue the
effective federal-state-local partnerships that have proved so
successful in the war on crime.
One of the greatest features of this bill, Mr. President, is that it
prefers law enforcement agencies that cannot now provide body armor for
their officers. This is especially helpful to small and rural
jurisdictions. In fact, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act requires
the Justice Department to provide at least 50% of the grant program's
funds to small jurisdictions comprising fewer than 100,000 people. This
provision is especially important in states like South Carolina, where
the vast majority of jurisdictions fit this description.
The Fraternal Order of Police, National Sheriff's Association,
International Union of Police Associations, and Police Executive
Research Forum all endorse this bill, Mr. President. These groups
understand better than anyone the importance of this legislation. They
know from firsthand experience that body armor often can mean the
difference between life and death for an officer.
If we are serious about fighting crime, we must ensure the safety of
our law enforcement officers. The best way to do this is to provide
state and local law enforcement agencies with the funds to purchase new
equipment such as body armor for their officers. Though we cannot
protect every law officer from danger, we can and must ensure that they
have the best equipment available to protect themselves while in the
line of duty.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act will do all these things. I am
proud to co-sponsor it, and I encourage all my colleagues to support
this bipartisan legislation. Let us do our part in the war on crime.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bullet
Proof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 introduced by Senator Leahy and
Senator Campbell. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation and I
want to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues for their work
in addressing this issue. This bill is about saving lives and
protecting the men and women in law enforcement who keep our
communities safe. There are few opportunities for the Congress to help
local law enforcement, and I thank Senators Leahy and Campbell for
bringing this grant program to the attention of the Senate.
The Bullet Proof Vest Partnership Act will establish a $25 million
matching grant program within the Department of Justice to help state,
local and tribal law enforcement agencies purchase needed body armor.
According to the Department of Justice, approximately 150,000 state and
local law enforcement officers, nearly 25 percent, are not issued body
armor. Justice estimates that the risk of fatality for officers while
not wearing body armor is 14 times higher than for officers equipped
with protection on the job.
While law enforcement in my rural state of South Dakota does not face
the volume of high risk and hazardous situations that police forces in
New York or California contend with every day, one preventable death is
too many, and this program will help every community protect their
officers. To that end, Senators Leahy and Campbell were careful to
structure this program to guarantee access for rural states and
communities. Under the small state minimum in the Leahy-Campbell bill,
South Dakota would be eligible for at least $187,000 per year in
federal matching grant funds. The bill also gives the Department of
Justice the discretion to lower or waive the matching requirement for
communities facing financial hardship. Life saving body armor can run
$500-700, keeping bullet proof vests out of reach for many small and
rural communities with extremely limited resources.
I also strongly support the recognition of Indian tribal law
enforcement needs included in this bill. Juvenile crime and gang
activity are on the rise on rural reservations, and resources are
continually scarce. This bill will allow tribes to access funds on
equal footing with state and local police forces. I am committed to
encouraging cooperation between tribal and non-tribal law enforcement
agencies in my state and throughout the country for the important and
shared goal of combating crime nationwide. Recognizing tribal law
enforcement through this grant program is an important step forward.
Mr. President, the need to protect our law enforcement officers is
pressing. This legislation will outfit our law enforcement officers
with the equipment necessary to protect themselves while protecting our
families. I encourage speedy Judiciary Committee consideration of this
initiative and urge full Senate support for this much needed grant
program.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today Senator Campbell and I are
introducing the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998, along with
Senators D'Amato, Dodd, Hatch, Hollings, Johnson, Kennedy, Reid and
Torricelli. I am particularly pleased that the Chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, is an original cosponsor of this
bill. Our bipartisan legislation is intended to save the lives of law
enforcement officers across the country by helping state and local law
enforcement agencies provide their officers with body armor.
Far too many police officers are needlessly killed each year while
serving to protect our citizens. According to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, more than 30 percent of the 1,182 officers killed by a
firearm in the line of duty since 1980 could have been saved if they
had been wearing body armor. Indeed, the FBI estimates that the risk of
fatality to officers while not wearing body armor is 14 times higher
than for officers wearing it.
Unfortunately, far too many state and local law enforcement agencies
cannot afford to provide every officer in their jurisdictions with the
protection of body armor. In fact, the Department of Justice estimates
that approximately 150,000 State and local law enforcement officers,
nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor.
In countless incidents across the country everyday officers sworn to
protect the public and enforce the law are in danger. Last year, an
horrific incident along the Vermont and New Hampshire border
underscores the need for the quick passage of this legislation to
provide maximum protection to those who protect us. On August 19, 1997,
federal, state and local law enforcement authorities in Vermont and New
Hampshire had cornered Carl Drega, after hours of hot pursuit. He had
shot to death two New Hampshire state troopers and two other victims
earlier in the day. In a massive exchange of gunfire with the
authorities, Drega was killed.
During that shootout, all federal law enforcement officers wore
bulletproof vests, while some state and local officers did not. For
example, Federal Border Patrol Officer John Pfeifer, a Vermonter, was
seriously wounded in the incident. I am glad that Officer Pfeifer is
back on the job after being hospitalized in serious condition. Had it
not

[[Page S383]]

been for his bulletproof vest, I fear that he and his family might well
have paid the ultimate price.
The two New Hampshire state troopers who were killed by Carl Drega
were not so lucky. We all grieve for them and our hearts go out to
their families. They were not wearing bulletproof vests. Protective
vests might not have been able to save the lives of those courageous
officers because of the high-powered assault weapons, but the tragedy
underscore the point that all of our law enforcement officers, whether
federal, state or local, deserve the best protection we can provide,
including bulletproof vests.
With that and lesser-known incidents as constant reminders, I will
continue to do all I can to help prevent loss of life among our law
enforcement officers.
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 1998 will help by creating a
new partnership between the federal government and state and local law
enforcement agencies to help save the lives of police officers by
providing the resources for each and every law enforcement officer in
harm's way to have a bulletproof vest. Our bipartisan bill would create
a $25 million matching grant program within the Department of Justice
dedicated to helping State and local law enforcement agencies purchase
body armor.
In my home State of Vermont, our bill enjoys the strong support of
the Vermont State Police, the Vermont Police Chiefs Association and
many Vermont sheriffs, troopers, game wardens and other local and state
law enforcement officials. Just last week I was honored to be joined by
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, Vermont Commissioner of
Public Safety James Walton, Vermont State Police Director John
Sinclair, Vermont Fish and Wildlife Lieutenant Robert Rooks, South
Burlington Police Chief Lee Graham, South Burlington Vermont Officer
Diane Reynolds as we spoke about state and local law enforcement
officers' need for body armor.
Since my time as a State prosecutor, I have always taken a keen
interest in law enforcement in Vermont and around the country. Vermont
has the reputation of being one of the safest states in which to live,
work and visit, and rightly so. In no small part, this is due to the
hard work of those who have sworn to serve and protect us. And we
should do what we can to protect them, when a need like this one comes
to our attention.
Our nation's law enforcement officers put their lives at risk in the
line of duty everyday. No one knows when danger will appear.
Unfortunately, in today's violent world, even a traffic stop may not
necessarily be ``routine.'' In fact, the National Association of Chiefs
of Police just reported that 21 police officers were killed in the line
of duty last month, nearly double the toll for the month of January in
both 1997 and 1996. More than ever, each and every law enforcement
officer across the nation deserves the protection of a bulletproof
vest.
Senator Campbell and I have the support of the Fraternal Order of
Police and many other law enforcement groups for this proposal. I urge
my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and its quick
passage into law.
______

By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Harkin):
S. 1606. A bill to fully implement the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to
provide a comprehensive program of support for victims of torture; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

THE TORTURE VICTIMS RELIEF ACT

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Torture
Victims Relief Act of 1998. I am joined today by Senator Kennedy and
Senator Harkin as original cosponsors of this measure. This legislation
outlines a comprehensive strategy for providing critical assistance to
refugees, asylees, and parolees who are torture survivors in the U.S.
and abroad. It also protects asylum seekers from being involuntary
returned to a country where they have reasonable grounds to fear
subjection to torture. This legislation provides a focus and a
framework for a newly re-energized debate about where torture
survivors, and our response to the practice of torture by other
countries, fit within our foreign policy priorities.
Late in the 103rd Congress, I introduced with Senator Durenburger the
Torture Victim's Relief Act, which laid down a bipartisan marker on the
issue. I reintroduced it in the 104th, along with Republicans and
Democrats alike, pressing forward on several fronts.
I hope that enactment of this legislation will be a watershed in the
movement to garner broader public and private support, both here and
abroad, for much-needed torture rehabilitation programs. Specifically,
the Torture Victims Relief Act would authorize funds for domestic
refugee assistance centers as well as bilateral assistance to torture
treatment centers worldwide. It would also change our immigration laws
to give a priority to torture survivors and provide for specialized
training for U.S. consular personnel who deal with torture survivors.
Finally, the bill would allow an increase in the U.S. contribution to
the U.N. Voluntary Fund for Torture Victims, which funds and supports
rehabilitation programs worldwide. In 1997 this fund contributed about
$3.4 million to nearly 100 projects in more than 50 countries. I
believe that continuing to expand the U.S. contribution to the fund is
necessary as a show of genuine U.S. commitment to human rights, and I
will continue to push until these programs receive the funding they
need and deserve.
Mr. President, the practice of torture is one of the most serious
human rights issues of our time. Governmental torture, and torture
being condoned by officials of governments, occurs in at least 70
countries today. We need look no farther than today's headlines about
Algeria, Turkey, Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda, China and Tibet to know that we
will be dealing with the problems that torture victims face for many
years.
In many countries torture is routinely employed in police stations to
coerce confessions or obtain information. Detainees are subjected to
both physical and mental abuse. Methods include beatings with sticks
and whips; kicking with boots; electric shocks; and suspension from one
or both arms. Victims are also threatened, insulted and humiliated. In
some cases, particular those involving women, victims are stripped,
exposed to verbal and sexual abuse. Medical treatment is often
withheld, sometimes resulting in death.
In China, torture of detainees and prisoners is not uncommon, as
exemplified by Chen Longde's case. In 1996, one month after his
conviction without trial, Chen leapt from a two-story prison walkway in
an attempt to avoid repeated beatings and electric shocks from a senior
prison official as punishment for his refusal to write a statement of
guilt and self-criticism.
Richard Oketch was tortured by the Ugandan military. He was
imprisoned for a total of a year in various military compounds near his
home. His hands were shackled to his feet, he was denied food and
sleep, and he was beaten regularly. Oketch managed to flee Uganda and
eventually, with the help of the United Nations, he made it to the
United States. However, the emotional scars of watching his family
members and dozens of friends slaughtered left him for a time, unable
to function in society.
Today Oketch holds a master's degree and works as a program
specialist for the St. Paul Public School. He credits his
transformation to the treatment he received at the Minnesota Center for
Victims of Torture. There Oketch received the services he needed to
deal with his grief and become an active member of his community.
Unfortunately, Oketch's story is the exception, not the rule. Most
torture survivors, even those who are granted asylum in the United
States, never receive the treatment they need.

We can and must do more to stop horrific acts of torture, and to
treat its victims. Treating torture victims must be a much more central
focus of our efforts as we work to promote human rights worldwide.
Providing treatment for torture survivors is one of the best ways we
can show our concern for human rights around the world. The United
States and the international community have been increasingly aware of
the need to prevent human rights abuses and to punish the perpetrators
when abuses take place. But too often we have failed to address the
needs of the victims. We pay little if any attention to

[[Page S384]]

the treatment of victims after their rights have been violated.
This commitment to protect human rights is one shared by many around
the world. In 1984 the U.N. approved the United Nations' Convention
Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. The U.S. Senate ratified it in April of 1994.
Although Congress has taken some steps to implement parts of the
Convention, we have not yet taken action to provide sufficient
rehabilitation services in the spirit of the language of Article 14 of
the Convention which provides that the victim of an act of torture has:
``the means for as full a rehabilitation as possible.''
We have also failed to adopt implementing legislation for Article 3
which states that ``No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a
person to another State where there are substantial grounds for
believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.''
Without legislation implementing this article, it is possible for the
United States to return someone to a country even where there are
substantial grounds for believing the person would be subjected to
torture. This legislation would help ensure that the U.S. is fulfilling
its obligation under the Convention Against Torture.
There also exists a great need for the rehabilitation programs
supported by this legislation. Without active programs of healing and
recovery, torture survivors often suffer continued physical pain,
depression and anxiety, intense and incessant nightmares, guilt and
self-loathing. They often report an inability to concentrate or
remember. The severity of the trauma makes it difficult to hold down a
job, study for a new profession, or acquire other skills needed for
successful adjustment into society.
In Minnesota, we began to think about the problem of torture, and act
on it, over ten years ago. The Center for Victims of Torture in
Minneapolis is the only fully-staffed torture treatment facility in the
country and one of just a few worldwide. The Center offers outpatient
services which can include medical treatment, psychotherapy and help
gaining economic and legal stability. Its advocacy work also helps to
inform people about the problem of torture and the lingering effects it
has on victims, and ways to combat torture worldwide. The Center has
treated or provided services to hundreds of people since its founding
in 1985.
Some of the often shrill public rhetoric these days seems to argue
that we as a nation can no longer afford to remain engaged with the
world, or to assist the poor, the elderly, the feeble, refugees, those
seeking asylum--those most in need of aid who are right here in our
midst. The Center for Victims of Torture stands as a repudiation of
that idea. Its mission is to rescue and rehabilitate people who have
been crushed by torture, and it has been accomplishing that mission
admirably over the last ten years. It is a light of hope in the lives
of those who have for so long seen only darkness, a darkness brought on
by the brutal hand of the torturer.
I would like to thank the distinguished human rights leaders who
helped craft this bill, including those at the Center for Victims of
Torture in Minneapolis and others in the human rights community here in
Washington and in Minnesota. Without their energy and skills as
advocates for tough U.S. laws which promote respect for
internationally-recognized human rights worldwide, the cause of human
rights here in the U.S. would be seriously diminished. I salute them
today. We must commit ourselves to aiding torture survivors and to
building a world in which torture is relegated to the dark past. My
hope is that we can help bring about a world in which the need for
torture treatment programs becomes obsolete. I urge my colleagues to
cosponsor this bill, and I urge its timely passage.
I ask unanimous consent that a partial list of organizations
supporting the Torture Victims Relief Act be printed in the Record with
a copy of the bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1606

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Torture Victims Relief
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The American people abhor torture by any government or
person. The existence of torture creates a climate of fear
and international insecurity that affects all people.
(2) Torture is the deliberate mental and physical damage
caused by governments to individuals to destroy individual
personality and terrorize society. The effects of torture are
long term. Those effects can last a lifetime for the
survivors and affect future generations.
(3) By eliminating leadership of their opposition and
frightening the general public, repressive governments often
use torture as a weapon against democracy.
(4) Torture survivors remain under physical and
psychological threats, especially in communities where the
perpetrators are not brought to justice. In many nations,
even those who treat torture survivors are threatened with
reprisals, including torture, for carrying out their ethical
duties to provide care. Both the survivors of torture and
their treatment providers should be accorded protection from
further repression.
(5) A significant number of refugees and asylees entering
the United States have been victims of torture. Those
claiming asylum deserve prompt consideration of their
applications for political asylum to minimize their
insecurity and sense of danger. Many torture survivors now
live in the United States. They should be provided with the
rehabilitation services which would enable them to become
productive members of our communities.
(6) The development of a treatment movement for torture
survivors has created new opportunities for action by the
United States and other nations to oppose state-sponsored and
other acts of torture.
(7) There is a need for a comprehensive strategy to protect
and support torture victims and their treatment providers,
together with overall efforts to eliminate torture.
(8) By acting to heal the survivors of torture and protect
their families, the United States can help to heal the
effects of torture and prevent its use around the world.
(9) The United States became a party to the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment on November 20, 1994, but has not
implemented Article 3 of the Convention.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act:
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided, the terms
used in this Act have the meanings given those terms in
section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)).
(2) Torture.--The term ``torture'' has the meaning given
the term in section 2340(1) of title 18, United States Code,
and includes the use of rape and other forms of sexual
violence by a person acting under the color of law upon
another person under his custody or physical control.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON INVOLUNTARY RETURN OF PERSONS FEARING
SUBJECTION TO TORTURE.

(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the United States shall not expel, remove, extradite, or
otherwise return involuntarily an individual to a country if
there is substantial evidence that a reasonable person in the
circumstances of that individual would fear subjection to
torture in that country.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``to return involuntarily'', in the case of an individual,
means--
(1) to return the individual without the individual's
consent, whether or not the return is induced by physical
force and whether or not the person is physically present in
the United States; or
(2) to take an action by which it is reasonably foreseeable
that the individual will be returned, whether or not the
return is induced by physical force and whether or not the
person is physically present in the United States.

SEC. 5. IMMIGRATION PROCEDURES FOR TORTURE VICTIMS.

(a) Covered Aliens.--An alien described in this section is
any alien who presents a claim of having been subjected to
torture, or whom there is reason to believe has been
subjected to torture.
(b) Consideration of the Effects of Torture.--In
considering an application by an alien described in
subsection (a) for refugee status under section 207 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, asylum under section 208 of
that Act, or withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)
of that Act, the appropriate officials shall take into
account--
(1) the manner in which the effects of torture might affect
the applicant's responses in the application and in the
interview process or other immigration proceedings, as the
case may be;
(2) the difficulties torture victims often have in
recounting their suffering under torture; and
(3) the fear victims have of returning to their country of
nationality where, even if torture is no longer practiced or
the incidence of torture is reduced, their torturers may have
gone unpunished and may remain in positions of authority.
(c) Expedited Processing of Refugee Admissions.--For
purposes of section 207(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1157(c)), refugees who have been subjected to
torture shall be considered to be refugees of special
humanitarian concern to

[[Page S385]]

the United States and shall be accorded priority for
resettlement at least as high as that accorded any other
group of refugees.
(d) Processing for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.--
Section 235(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(iv) Special procedures for aliens who are the victims of
torture.--

``(I) Expedited procedures.--With the consent of the alien,
an asylum officer or immigration judge shall expedite the
scheduling of an asylum interview or a removal proceeding for
any alien who presents a claim of having been subjected to
torture, unless the evidence indicates that a delay in making
a determination regarding the granting of asylum under
section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or the
withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of that Act
with respect to the alien would not aggravate the physical or
psychological effects of torture upon the alien.
``(II) Delay of proceedings.--With the consent of the
alien, an asylum officer or immigration judge shall postpone
an asylum interview or a removal proceeding for any alien who
presents a claim of having been subjected to torture, if the
evidence indicates that, as a result of the alien's mental or
physical symptoms resulting from torture, including the
alien's inability to recall or relate the events of the
torture, the alien will require more time to recover or be
treated before being required to testify.''

(e) Parole in Lieu of Detention.--The finding that an alien
is a person described in subsection (a) shall be a strong
presumptive basis for a grant of parole, under section
212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(5)), in lieu of detention.
(f) Exemption From Expedited Removal.--Section 235(b)(1)(F)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1225(b)(1)(F)) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``, or to an alien described in
section 5(a) of the Torture Victims Relief Act''.
(g) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Attorney General should allocate resources sufficient to
maintain in the Resource Information Center of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service current information
relating to the use of torture in foreign countries.

SEC. 6. SPECIALIZED TRAINING FOR CONSULAR, IMMIGRATION, AND
ASYLUM PERSONNEL.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall provide
training for immigration inspectors and examiners,
immigration officers, asylum officers, immigration judges,
and all other relevant officials of the Department of
Justice, and the Secretary of State shall provide training
for consular officers, with respect to--
(1) the identification of torture;
(2) the identification of the surrounding circumstances in
which torture is most often practiced;
(3) the long-term effects of torture upon a victim;
(4) the identification of the physical, cognitive, and
emotional effects of torture, and the manner in which these
effects can affect the interview or hearing process; and
(5) the manner of interviewing victims of torture so as not
to retraumatize them, eliciting the necessary information to
document the torture experience, and understanding the
difficulties victims often have in recounting their torture
experience.
(b) Gender-Related Considerations.--In conducting training
under subsection (a) (4) or (5), gender-specific training
shall be provided on the subject of interacting with women
and men who are victims of torture by rape or any other form
of sexual violence.

SEC. 7. DOMESTIC TREATMENT CENTERS.

(a) Amendment of the Immigration and Nationality Act.--
Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1522) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(b) Assistance for Treatment of Torture Victims.--The
Secretary may provide grants to programs in the United States
to cover the cost of the following services:
``(1) Services for the rehabilitation of victims of
torture, including treatment of the physical and
psychological effects of torture.
``(2) Social and legal services for victims of torture.
``(3) Research and training for health care providers
outside of treatment centers, or programs for the purpose of
enabling such providers to provide the services described in
paragraph (1).''.
(b) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Health
and Human Services for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, but
not from funds made available to the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, there are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 412(g) of that Act (relating to assistance
for domestic centers and programs for the treatment of
victims of torture), as added by subsection (a), the
following amounts for the following fiscal years:
(A) For fiscal year 1999, $5,000,000.
(B) For fiscal year 2000, $7,500,000.
(C) For fiscal year 2001, $9,000,000.
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to this subsection shall remain available until expended.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998.

SEC. 8. FOREIGN TREATMENT CENTERS.

(a) Amendments of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.--Part
I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end of chapter 1 the
following new section:

``SEC. 129. ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

``(a) In General.--The President is authorized to provide
assistance for the rehabilitation of victims of torture.
``(b) Eligibility for Grants.--Such assistance shall be
provided in the form of grants to treatment centers and
programs in foreign countries that are carrying out projects
or activities specifically designed to treat victims of
torture for the physical and psychological effects of the
torture.
``(c) Use of Funds.--Such assistance shall be available--
``(1) for direct services to victims of torture; and
``(2) to provide research and training to health care
providers outside of treatment centers or programs described
in subsection (b), for the purpose of enabling such providers
to provide the services described in paragraph (1).''.
(b) Funding.--
(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1999, 2000,
and 2001 pursuant to chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the President $5,000,000 for fiscal year
1999, $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2000, and $9,000,000 for
fiscal year 2001 to carry out section 129 of the Foreign
Assistance Act, as added by subsection (a).
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to this subsection shall remain available until expended.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1998.

SEC. 9. MULTILATERAL ASSISTANCE.

(a) Funding.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 pursuant to chapter 1
of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the United Nations Voluntary
Fund for Victims of Torture (in this section referred to as
the ``Fund'') the following amounts for the following fiscal
years:
(1) Fiscal year 1999.--For fiscal year 1999, $3,000,000.
(2) Fiscal year 2000.--For fiscal year 2000, $3,000,000.
(3) Fiscal year 2001.--For fiscal year 2001, $3,000,000.
(b) Availability of Funds.--Amounts appropriated pursuant
to subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President, acting through the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations, should--
(1) request the Fund--
(A) to find new ways to support and protect treatment
centers and programs that are carrying out rehabilitative
services for victims of torture; and
(B) to encourage the development of new such centers and
programs;
(2) use the voice and vote of the United States to support
the work of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and the
Committee Against Torture established under the Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment; and
(3) use the voice and vote of the United States to
establish a country rapporteur or similar procedural
mechanism to investigate human rights violations in a country
if either the Special Rapporteur or the Committee Against
Torture indicates that a systematic practice of torture is
prevalent in that country.
____

Partial List of Organizations Supporting the Torture Victims Relief Act

Advocates for Survivors of Trauma and Torture, Baltimore,
MD.
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Immigration Lawyers Association.
American Kurdish Information Network (AKIN).
American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association.
Amnesty International U.S.A.
Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace.
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Center for Victims of Torture.
Church in America.
Church World Services Immigration and Refugee Program.
Coalition Missing.
Episcopal Church People for a Free Southern Africa.
Guatemala Human Rights Commission/U.S.A.
Human Rights Access.
Human Rights Advocates.
Human Rights Watch.
Institute for Study of Genocide.
Institute for the Study of Psycho-Social Trauma.
International Campaign for Tibet.
International Human Rights Law Group.
Khmer Health Advocates, West Hartford, CT.
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service.
Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs, Evangelical
Lutheran.
Marjorie Kovler Center for the Treatment of Survivors of
Torture.

[[Page S386]]

Maryknoll Justice and Peace.
Mental Disability Rights International.
Midwest Coalition on Human Rights.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the U.S.
People's Decade of Human Rights Education.
Physicians for Human Rights.
Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights.
Rocky Mountain Survivors Center, Denver, CO.
Travelers Aid of New York.
Ursuline Sisters of Mt. St. Joseph.
United Church Board for World Ministries.
United Methodist General Board of Church and Society.
Washington Kurdish Institute.
Washington Office on Latin America.
World Organization Against Torture U.S.A.
World Sindhi Institute.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. McCain, Mr.
Hollings, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1609. A bill to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991
to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for the Next
Generation Internet program, to require the Advisory committee on High-
Performance Computing and Communications, Information Technology, and
the Next Generation Internet to monitor and give advice concerning the
development and implementation of the Next Generation Internet program
and report to the President and the Congress in its activities, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.

the next generation internet research act of 1998

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, advances in computer networking have led to
some of the most significant developments of the last decade. We have
all been touched one way or another by the Internet and the networking
protocols that form the World Wide Web. Its presence is being felt in
schools, businesses and homes across the country. Many people already
come to rely on the Internet as their source for news and information.
Now, electronic commerce is beginning to emerge as a significant source
of network traffic, so it appears that more individuals are relying on
the Internet for purchases as well.
By any measure, the Internet is a success. It is a fast-paced living
laboratory where every day brings new innovation and applications. The
Internet's culture of rapid innovation stems from its days as a
research vehicle sponsored by the Defense Advanced Projects Research
Agency (DARPA). This original federal investment in university based
research and development has grown to pay dividends to our country in
the form of new technology, new jobs and economic growth. The Internet
has also served as a case study in the proper role of the federal
government in science and technology. Although the research was first
sponsored by the Department of Defense, multiple agencies have come to
play a significant role in the development and commercialization of the
Internet. In particular, the National Science Foundation demonstrated
how to successfully transition the management of an operational system,
the Internet, from the public to the private sector.
Today's Internet is a flexible, robust network, but already some of
its limits have been reached. There are fascinating applications
running in the laboratory that simply cannot be run on the Internet as
it is today. Recently, I had a first hand look at a prime example: the
virtual reality ``Immersion Desk'' collaboration. As a physician, I
found it fascinating to take a guided tour of a human ear, seeing its
structure in three dimensions, and able to interact with the guide and
the structure in real time. It was immediately obvious to me the
educational benefits that will come from putting similar devices in the
hands of our nation's teachers and students. However, until the
Internet's infrastructure limitations have been overcome, these
applications will remain outside the reach of those who can benefit the
most.
Some of the limits that now impede advanced applications can be
overcome through a straightforward application of existing technology,
but there is an entire class of problems that requires new approaches.
I believe that our nation's research and development enterprise holds
the key. That is why I rise today to offer the ``Next Generation
Internet Research Act of 1998.'' This legislation funds the agencies
that are involved in creating advanced computer networking technology
that will make tomorrow's Internet faster, more versatile, more
affordable, and more accessible than today. The agencies funded by this
legislation: The Department of Defense (DOD), the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DoE), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), each have a role to play in moving
forward the state of the art in computer networking and network
applications. The NGI program will provide grants to our universities
and national laboratories to perform the research that will surmount
these technical challenges and create a network that is 100 to 1000
times faster than the current Internet.

Today, many that are located in rural areas of the country such as
portions of eastern Tennessee, find that high speed access to the
Internet is too expensive and difficult to obtain. Researchers from
select states enjoy access to high bandwidth Internet connections at
costs that are sometimes one-eighth the rate of their rural colleagues.
This legislation acknowledges this geographical penalty and encourages
networking researchers to look at this problem as a research challenge.
Emphasis must be placed on finding new technology that permits high
speed information access without leaving large sections of the country
behind.
Mr. President, I believe that the passage of this legislation will
continue the tradition of prudent and successful federal investment in
science and technology. The Internet truly is a success story. One that
could not have been written without federal support. One that has
already paid for itself through the creation of jobs and technology for
Americans. The last chapter of the Internet success story is far from
being written, and with this legislation, we are helping to ensure that
the Internet will reach its potential to provide greater educational
and economic benefits to the country. I ask for support in passing this
key legislative initiative.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this legislation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1609

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Next Generation Internet
Research Act of 1998''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

(a) Terms Used in This Act--For purposes of this Act--
(1) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' has the meaning given
such term by section 230(e)(1) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1)).
(2) Geographic penalty.--The term ``geographic penalty''
means the imposition of costs on users of the Internet in
rural or other locations attributable to the distance of the
user from network facilities, the low population density of
the area in which the user is located, or other factors, that
are disproportionately greater than the costs imposed on
users in locations closer to such facilities or on users in
locations with significantly greater population density.
(b) Definition of Network in High-Performance Computing Act
of 1991.--Paragraph (4) of section 4 of the High-Performance
Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5503) is amended by striking
``network referred to as the National Research and Education
Network established under section 102; and'' and inserting
``network, including advanced computer networks of Federal
agencies and departments; and''.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

(a) In General.--The Congress finds that--
(1) United States leadership in science and technology has
been vital to the Nation's prosperity, national and economic
security, and international competitiveness, and there is
every reason to believe that maintaining this tradition will
lead to long-term continuation of United States strategic
advantages in information technology;
(2) the United States' investment in science and technology
has yielded a scientific and engineering enterprise without
peer, and that Federal investment in research is critical to
the maintenance of United States leadership;
(3) previous Federal investment in computer networking
technology and related fields has resulted in the creation of
new industries and new jobs in the United States;
(4) the Internet is playing an increasingly important role
in keeping citizens informed of the actions of their
government; and
(5) continued inter-agency cooperation is necessary to
avoid wasteful duplication in

[[Page S387]]

Federal networking research and development programs.
(b) Additional Findings for the 1991 Act.--Section 2 of the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5501) is
amended by--
(1) striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) A high-capacity, flexible, high-speed national
research and education computer network is needed to provide
researchers and educators with access to computational and
information resources, act as a test bed for further research
and development for high-capacity and high-speed computer
networks, and provide researchers the necessary vehicle for
continued network technology improvement through research.'';
and
(2) adding at the end thereof the following:
``(7) Additional research must be undertaken to lay the
foundation for the development of new applications that can
result in economic growth, improved health care, and improved
educational opportunities.
``(8) Research in new networking technologies holds the
promise of easing the economic burdens of information access
disproportionately borne by rural users of the Internet.
``(9) Information security is an important part of
computing, information, and communications systems and
applications, and research into security architectures is a
critical aspect of computing, information, and communications
research programs.''.

SEC. 4. PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to served as the first authorization in a series of
computing, information, and communication technology
initiatives outlined in the High-Performance Computing Act of
1991 (15 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.) that will include research
programs related to--
(A) high-end computing and computation;
(B) human-centered systems;
(C) high confidence systems; and
(D) education, training, and human resources; and
(2) to provide for the development and coordination of a
comprehensive and integrated United States research program
which will--
(A) focus on the research and development of a coordinated
set of technologies that seeks to create a network
infrastructure that can support greater speed, robustness,
and flexibility than is currently available and promote
connectivity and interoperability among advanced computer
networks of Federal agencies and departments;
(B) focus on research in technology that may result in
high-speed data access for users that is both economically
viable and does not impose a geographic penalty; and
(C) encourage researchers to pursue approaches to
networking technology that lead to maximally flexible and
extensible solutions wherever feasible.
(b) Modification of Purposes of the 1991 Act.--Section 3 of
the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15 U.S.C. 5502)
is amended by--
(1) striking the section caption and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 3. PURPOSES.'';

(2) striking ``purpose of this Act is'' and inserting
``purposes of this Act are'';
(3) striking ``universities; and'' in paragraph (1)(I) and
inserting ``universities;'';
(4) striking ``efforts.'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``network research and development programs;''; and
(5) adding at the end thereof the following:
``(3) promoting the further development of an information
infrastructure of information stores, services, access
mechanisms, and research facilities available for use through
the Internet;
``(4) promoting the more rapid development and wider
distribution of networking management and development tools;
and
``(5) promoting the rapid adoption of open network
standards.''.

SEC. 5. DUTIES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Title I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15
U.S.C. 5511 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:

``SEC. 103. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

``(a) In General.--In addition to its functions under
Executive Order 13035 (62 F.R. 7231), the Advisory Committee
on High-Performance Computing and Communications, Information
Technology, and the Next Generation Internet, established by
Executive Order No. 13035 of February 11, 1997 (62 F.R. 7231)
shall--
``(1) assess the extent to which the Next Generation
Internet Program--
``(A) carries out the purposes of this Act;
``(B) addresses concerns relating to, among other matters--
``(i) geographic penalties (as defined in section 2(2) of
the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998); and
``(ii) technology transfer to and from the private sector;
and
``(2) assess the extent to which--
``(A) the role of each Federal agency and department
involved in implementing the Next Generation Internet program
is clear, complementary to and non-duplicative of the roles
of other participating agencies and departments; and
``(B) each such agency and department concurs with the role
of each other participating agency or department.
``(b) Reports.--The Advisory Committee shall assess
implementation of the next Generation Internet initiative and
report, not less frequently than annually, to the President,
the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, and the United States House of
Representatives Committee on Science on its findings for the
preceding fiscal year. The first such report shall be
submitted 6 months after the date of enactment of the Next
Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 the last report
shall be submitted by September 30, 2000.''.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Title I of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (15
U.S.C. 5511 et seq.), as amended by section 5 of this Act, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``SEC. 104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated for the purpose
of carrying out the Next Generation Internet program the
following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Agency FY 1999 FY 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Department of Defense............... $42,500,000 $45,000,000
``Department of Energy................ $20,000,000 $25,000,000
``National Science Foundation......... $25,000,000 $25,000,000
``National Institutes of Health....... $5,000,000 $7,500,000
``National Aeronautics and Space
Administration....................... $5,000,000 $5,000,000
``National Institute of Standards and
Technology........................... $5,000,000 $7,500,000''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague
Senator Frist in introducing legislation to authorize the Next
Generation Internet (NGI) Program for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. This
bill funds the NGI program, which actually involves six agencies, at
$102.5 million for FY99 and $115 million for FY2000. It would also
require the Advisory Committee on High Performance Computing and
Communication Information Technology and Next Generation Internet to
oversee the program and report to the President and the Congress on its
activities.
As everyone in the Senate knows, I have been a long and ardent
supporter of the Internet and Internet-related research. In fact, I
would point to the current Internet as an example of what the
government can do right. When the Internet was started, it was a
government funded network for researchers and military personnel. It
was expected to grow, but not into the commercially supported network
with a $250 billion market base that it is today, and it is still
growing. This rate of return on a rather modest government investment
is something that any investment banker would love to achieve. An added
benefit is that this modest government investment has allowed U.S.
industry to become the world leader in most Internet-related markets.
I also want to commend the Clinton Administration for their steadfast
commitment to a clearly needed leadership role in charting the future
of the Internet, and yet in also working closely with the affected
industries, the academic community, and many others whose contributions
to future applications and possibilities are almost endless. I am
pleased to now work with Senator Frist, the dedicated chairman of the
Senate's Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, to
provide a further foundation for this important work through this
legislation.
The current Internet is a victim of its own success. As more and more
people come on-line, the network gets more and more crowded. People are
beginning to think that the ``www'' in Internet addresses stands for
``world-wide wait'' rather than ``world-wide web''. Therefore, I fully
support the idea of increasing the speed, reliability and usefulness of
the Internet. With increases in speed and efficiency of data transfer,
hopes of distance learning with real-time video and audio, remote
access image libraries, and more use of telemedicine, will become
practical realities. In addition, with increases in bandwidth, I am
sure that U.S. researchers will come up with new applications that we
cannot even think of today.
Do not think that it is a coincidence that all the applications I
just listed have to do with remote access to data. The ability to give
those that do not have easy physical access quick and reliable
electronic access to resources is, I feel, one of the Internet's
greatest benefits to society. As history has shown us, it would be
extremely easy for a situation to arise in which there are states with
NGI capabilities and states without, if there is not balanced
representation in the decision-making process. Due to the increased
computing power and ability to collaborate with other NGI network
institutions,

[[Page S388]]

NGI states could have a large advantage over non-NGI states when
applying for grants and participation. With this in mind, I am glad to
point out that this bill formally addresses geographic concerns for
rural institutions and users.
As I stated earlier, I have always been a firm supporter of the
Internet, and will continue to support research in this area. This bill
authorizes an innovative inter-agency program to increase the speed,
reliability and usefulness of the Internet. I encourage my colleagues
to support this bill.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Akaka, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerrey, Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Levin, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Moseley-
Braun, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Bumpers, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1610. A bill to increase the availability, affordability, and
quality of child care; to the Committee on Finance.

the child care a.c.c.e.s.s. act

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the bill I send to the desk I send on
behalf of myself and 24 of my colleagues whose names are included on
the introduction of the legislation. The bill I have sent to the desk
is called the Child Care and ACCESS bill, ``ACCESS'' standing for
Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security. As I said, I am
pleased to be joined by 24 of my colleagues. There may be others in the
coming days who care to join us in presenting what we believe is a
comprehensive approach to dealing with an issue that I think all
Americans--certainly I hope all in this Chamber--will recognize as a
crisis: That is the crisis of child care.

Almost on a daily basis, we read stories of children in child care
settings who are left alone and then are discovered either with serious
injury or worse. Many of them are left in certified and accredited
child care centers. These stories highlight the critical importance of
this issue. This is an issue that now affects 13 million children, the
overwhelming majority of whom come from families where there is either
a single parent or both parents must work in order to provide for the
basic needs of their families.
We have often felt in this country that we should not ask parents to
make a choice between the job they need and the children they love, so
child care has become a necessity. The question now is can we make it
affordable for families? At a cost of $4,000 to $10,000 a year per
child, is care accessible for parents who need it? Is the care they
find going to be in a quality setting, where a child is safe? If the
provider is a qualified parent, obviously her or she can provide for
the needs of the child. But in this country, we know that too often
qualified parents, in order to provide for the economic needs of their
family, must provide a child care setting for their children.
There's the issue of after-school care. 5 million children are home
alone in this country. Any chief of police in this Nation will tell you
that the most dangerous time for these children is not after 11 p.m. at
night when many of the curfews are invoked, but rather between 3 and 8
o'clock, in the afternoon, when children are unsupervised. We don't
have after-school programs for these kids where they can either stay in
school or be involved in a worthwhile outside academic experience. So,
there is a need here.
When we discuss child care, we must also consider recent findings
concerning early child development. We know how important these first
36 months of a person's life are, about the development of synapses
that occur, about the nurturing that must go on in those years. We must
make sure that parents can find quality care where there children will
be intellectually stimulated, not simply warehoused.
What we are doing today is presenting a piece of legislation which
tries to deal in a comprehensive way with this issue of child care.
This bill recognizes the needs of parents, working parents, middle-
income families, those who are striving to achieve a middle-income
status, poorer families in this country, providers who want to provide
good child care but don't have the resources to do so, businesses that
want to help their employees either by providing a child care setting,
and businesses that want to assist their employees with help in
attaining child care support.
This legislation also includes an expansion of the Family and Medical
Leave Act, a piece of legislation that was signed into law 5 years ago
tomorrow. It has already benefited literally thousands and thousands of
families across this country.
Today as part of this legislation we are calling for an expansion of
the Family and Medical Leave Act by lowering the threshold from 50
employees to 25. We think by including 13 million more Americans who,
when faced with the crisis of choosing between their children and their
jobs, ought not to be asked to make that choice.
So this legislation includes an expansion of the Family and Medical
Leave Act.
At any rate, the challenge before us is certainly a significant one,
and that is to create a child care system that works for America's
families. As I said, for far too many families today when it comes to
child care, they either have no choices or very bad choices. Here are
some of the appalling statistics. They are incontrovertible,
undeniable.
Child care quality: Only one in seven child care centers provides
care that promotes healthy development; child care at one in eight
centers actually threatens children's health and safety.
Infants and toddlers, our youngest and most vulnerable children, fare
the worst. Almost half of infant and toddler care in our country
endangers the health and safety of those who are in those centers.
No State in this Nation has child care regulations in place that can
be characterized as good quality standards. Two-thirds of the States
have regulations that don't even address the basics--care giver
training, safe environments, appropriate provider-child ratios.
Even though we know that well-paid, educated and trained providers
make a difference between poor and good quality child care, we pay
caregivers in this country--almost all of them women--abysmally, some
of them at well below the poverty levels, even though they're caring
for our most precious possessions.
As someone said not too long ago, children represent 27 percent of
America's population, but they represent 100 percent of our future.
These are the children that will be asked to be good employees, good
employers, good citizens, and good parents, making a contribution to
this Nation in the 21st century.
Yet, for the 13 million children who are in child care environments
today, the results are not good at all. We can either recognize that in
this country and try and do something about it, or we can sit back and
allow our system to continue to deteriorate and then face the judgment
of history as to why we didn't stand up and try and put up some of the
resources that we have to help these families.
How does a family making $20,000 or $25,000 or $30,000 a year, with 2
or 3 children, afford care at $7, $8, $9, $10 thousand per year per
child. The cost of some child care settings is in excess of some
universities.
Child care providers and centers workers average only $12,000 a year
in pay, Madam President. That is just at the poverty level for a family
of three. Home based providers average $9,000 a year. That is their
income.
Those are the people we are asking to provide for our children,
making several thousand dollars below the poverty level.
These numbers and statistics, by the way, come from national surveys
and studies done by child care centers around the Nation. As I
mentioned earlier, full day child care costs run from $4,000 to $10,000
per child. Because of a lack of funding, only an estimated one out of
10 eligible families actually received help in paying for care through
the child care block grants which Senator Hatch and I authored eight
years ago in this very Chamber.
Good quality child care does cost more than mediocre quality, but not
a lot more. An investment of only an additional 10 percent has a
significant, positive impact on quality.
And many types of child care remain unavailable at any cost, Madam
President. Many new parents are dismayed

[[Page S389]]

to learn that care for infants is virtually nonexistent, and the
problem is only getting worse. The General Accounting Office estimates
that by the time the 50-percent work participation goal is reached in
2002, 88 percent of infants needing child care will not be able to find
it. This corresponds to 24,000 young children in Chicago alone without
child care.
Let me repeat that. The General Accounting Office, not a partisan
organization, estimates that by the time we reach the 50-percent work
requirement in 2002, 4 years from now, 88 percent of infants in this
country that need child care--we are not talking about choices now, it
is not a question that someone is in an income category where they have
a choice as to whether or not they are going to put a child in child
care or stay home. We are talking about people who absolutely have to
have child care. Eighty-eight percent of them will not be able to find
it.
We cannot let that happen, and this ought not to be a partisan debate
about whether or not we see the facts. We know what is going to occur.
Do we stand up and try and address it?
In addition, there is a glaring lack of after-school programs. As I
mentioned earlier, 5 million children are home alone. Eighth graders
left home alone after school reported a greater use of cigarettes,
alcohol, marijuana, the gateway drugs, than those who are in adult-
supervised settings.

The challenge, again, facing us is a straightforward one: to find a
way to support families in the choices about how their children are
cared for. I know that some will argue that child care is a private
problem, one that families should be left to solve on their own.
However, we don't expect families to shoulder the financial costs of
educating their children alone. We provide public schools. We don't
expect families to shoulder the burden of providing health care for
their children alone. The vast majority of families have that cost
subsidized through their employers. And as a nation, we have an
interest in well-educated and healthy children, and so we accept that
the Federal Government, States and employers play a role in getting us
to these laudable goals of public education and health.
Yet, when it comes to child care, we set families adrift. We tell
them that it is a private problem, you have to solve it alone. The
result is a system in which parents have less, not more, choices. The
result is a nation in which child care is too often unaffordable,
unavailable and unsafe. I believe that it is a compelling national
interest in making sure that our children are safe and well cared for.
I rise today to offer this plan that I have sent to the desk that
will broadly improve the ability of families to make the right choice
when it comes to their children's care. Twenty-four of my colleagues
and myself--25 of us--have offered this bill. There are several main
parts in our initiative. Let me touch on them briefly.
One, improving the affordability of child care. Our legislation would
provide an additional $7.5 billion over 5 years through the child care
and development block grant, that I mentioned that Senator Hatch and I
authored some eight years ago, to increase the amount of child care
subsidies available to working families. This investment will double
the number of children served by the block grant to 2 million by the
year 2003.
Secondly, we enhance the quality of child care in early childhood
development. This legislation will provide some $3 billion over 5 years
to encourage States to invest in activities known to produce
significant improvements in the quality of child care. For example, we
help the States with this $3 billion to bring provider-child ratios to
nationally recommended levels.
Again, I think most people understand this. Even if you have a well-
trained adult, if they have too many children they are watching over,
it doesn't work well. So we get to these ratios that those who
understand this issue think are acceptable. With smaller infants, it is
a very small ratio. As the children get a little older, the ratios can
be a little broader.
We improve the enforcement of quality standards by conducting
unannounced inspections.
Let me, as an aside, say that we had the head of the Defense
Department's child care program testify the other day before a group of
us. This is the best child care program in the world, by the way. Our
Armed Forces serve 200,000 children all over the world everyday.
The Defense Department would be the first to tell you not too many
years ago they had the most dreadful system which was the subject of
severe criticism as a result of national reports that were done on
them. They have turned this around and, as I said, have now set up one
of the best systems, if not the best system certainly, in this country
if not in the world.
One of the things they do is they have unannounced inspections of
child care centers on military bases. Just recently, I went to the
child care facility at the submarine base in Groton, CT. Really, they
are doing a magnificent job--the providers, the staff, the children.
This is a great sense of pride for our military personnel, our men and
women, who must by necessity have child care.
In the case of submariners, the men are off on submarines for weeks
and weeks on end. Their spouses, if they are married with families, are
working to supplement their incomes, and they need child care. To the
Defense Department's great credit, they put in place a great system.
Unannounced inspections make a difference.
Conducting background checks on child care providers. Today, it is
hardly done at all. Someone can move from State to State, get a job and
then we find out there is a long record of abuse and other problems,
and that goes on every day.
Improve the compensation, education, and training of child care
providers. I have already shared the statistics on what the average
salaries are, $12,000 and $9,000. We pay parking attendants in this
country higher salaries than we do people who take care of America's
children. Your car is more likely to have someone with a better salary
watching over it than your child. That is unacceptable, or should be,
to all of us in this country.
Educating parents on how to find good quality child care and ensuring
that high quality care is available to children with disabilities.
Those are some of the ways in which we try to help our States in this
bill.
Thirdly, we increase the availability and quality of school-age child
care. This initiative will provide $3 billion over 5 years to increase
the supply and quantity of school-age care through child care
development block grants. In addition, we incorporate the model
developed by Senator Boxer which ensures that schools play a central
role in these efforts by providing the 21st century community learning
centers with $1 billion over 5 years to create before- and after-school
programs.
Again, as an aside, I think all of us would agree, I hope, that our
taxpayers build wonderful schools around our country, marvelous
facilities. In many instances, they open at 8 or 9 in the morning, but
then close in the afternoon, and are not open in the evening, weekends,
vacations, summer months. We want to see the school buildings get more
community use for children in after-school programs, adult education,
summer programs, when kids are out of school. There ought to be ways in
which we incorporate the use of these facilities to a larger extent
than we have been able to.
Fourthly, we expand the dependent care credit. This initiative would
also expand the existing dependent care tax credit by nearly $8 billion
over 5 years, following the model of Senator Harkin's earlier child
care bill.
We would adjust the sliding scale to increase the credit for families
earning under $60,000 and index the credit for inflation to keep pace
with the rising child care costs.
We would also make the credit refundable so that families with little
or no tax liability, those making under $30,000 a year, can receive
assistance with child care expenses. I hope that this will not be a
matter that ends up being a significant debate. On refundability,
again, when people have incomes under $30,000, they don't pay Federal
taxes or very few taxes, and if we don't make this refundable, then
they are not going to get the benefit. It is to people at that income
level struggling to make ends meet, it seems to me, that refundability
is absolutely critical if they are going to get help.

[[Page S390]]

No. 5, supporting family choices in child care. Our legislation would
also provide new support for families who make the difficult choice to
forgo a second income or career and to stay at home to care for their
children. We would allow stay-at-home parents with children under the
age of 1 to claim a portion of the dependent care credit. This credit
would also be made refundable to allow stay-at-home parents earning
under $30,000 to benefit, and it is phased out for families earning
over $70,000.
There is a bill that has been introduced by our colleague from Rhode
Island, Senator Chafee. The Presiding Officer may, in fact, be a
cosponsor of that bill. I know we have worked together on these issues.
There is a difference here because the proposal being offered, I
believe, by Senator Chafee treats parents who stay at home exactly the
same way we treat parents who can't stay at home.
In our bill, we do it a bit differently. I am very sympathetic of
providing some help to parents who can make the choice, but if we
provided it on a totally equal basis, it just becomes far too
expensive. What we have done here is said, look, we are going to
provide this assistance to you in the first year of that child's life.
That cuts the cost by two-thirds. The reason I say that is because
there are people out here who have no choice. I want to make this case.
It is one thing to have the choice, that is a wonderful luxury, but for
the overwhelming majority of the 13 million children who are in child
care centers, their parents don't have the choice, they have to be
there.
It is not a question of ``I would like to stay home, I have another
spouse that is earning enough.'' It is not a question of ``I want to go
play golf or go to the club and play cards.'' These are people trying
very hard on their own or with their spouse to hold their families
together. So the choice doesn't exist for them.
So it is not exactly equal in that sense. But I do think we should
try to recognize and offer help where they do have stay-at-home
parents, particularly for that first year. So we do provide that
provision in our bill. I think it is a worthwhile one. I am hopeful we
can reach some common ground.
Madam President, we also expand the Family and Medical Leave Act,
which I have already mentioned at the outset of my remarks. I invite my
colleagues to go to a children's hospital in your State. Go to the
waiting room in those hospitals. You will meet the parents who need
protection under Family and Medical Leave. They will tell you about the
difficulties. They will tell you, if they work for someone who employs
25 to 50 people, how difficult it is. There's the problems with health
care, the insurance benefits.
You go out to NIH here. Go to the Ronald McDonald House. Talk to
parents who have children with extended illness problems where they
can't stay at home, and they have to travel and be with their children.
Talk to C. Everett Koop, a pediatrician. He will tell you about a
child's recovery rate when they are with a parent, with a loved one who
is with them.
This ought not to be a controversial item, Madam President, to
provide family and medical leave for working families, to be with their
parents, to be with their children during a time of crisis. I just do
not understand when people raise the kind of objections to trying to
help out people in that situation. It ought to be a sense of national
mortification that every other nation you can name provides a family
and medical leave process.
I can count colleague after colleague in this Chamber who had a
problem with their children, had a problem with their parents, missed
votes, did not go to committee hearings, and in fact had they been here
and not been with their family they probably would have been subjected
to political attack, that their priorities were wrong, that they were
down here voting when they should have been with their children or
parents at a time of illness.
If we believe that to be the case among ourselves, is it asking too
much to say, too, to parents who work outside of public life, that when
they are faced with that crisis, that they ought not to have to choose
between their job and their families?
So I hope we can expand this benefit to the 13 million working people
in this country who do not have the luxury of the Family and Medical
Leave Act that others have enjoyed for the past 5 years.
Madam President, No. 6, we encourage private sector involvement,
which is a very important element in all of this. Child care cannot be
the sole responsibility of Government, State, local or Federal. So our
legislation will create a new discretionary program of competitive
challenge grants in which communities that generate funds from the
private sector would be eligible for matched Federal grants to improve
the availability and quality of child care on a communitywide basis.
This program would be authorized at $1 billion over 5 years. Based on
the legislation of the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, which was
approved, I might add, by the full Senate during the budget
reconciliation bill of last year but dropped in conference, we would
provide a new tax incentive to open high-quality, on-site child care
centers or to assist employees in finding and paying for child care
offsite.
Many businesses, Madam President, understand what their employees are
going through, and they want to help. But they are not affluent
businesses. If they could get a little bit of help on paying their
Federal taxes by providing onsite child care or assisting their
employees, I think we would do a lot to expand the availability and the
quality of child care. So we offer that to employers.
Seventh, Madam President, we ensure the quality of Federal child care
facilities. We would also ensure that the Federal Government would lead
by example in providing its workers only the highest quality of child
care. Many people would be surprised, I think, to hear that currently
Federal child care facilities are exempt from State quality
regulations. In this bill we require that all Federal child care
centers meet all State licensing standards.

Madam President, this is a comprehensive package. I have run down
through the major provisions in a brief way. It is a long bill. It
covers a lot of territory, a lot of ground. But it is a bold agenda, I
think one that people of common purpose can come to. As the Presiding
Officer and I see my colleague from Vermont, the chairman of the Labor
and Human Resources Committee, who is on the floor here, back in
October, November we convened a group of us here, Democrats and
Republicans, to try to fashion a compromise bill. We spent long hours,
I know our staffs did, in trying to hammer out a bill that we could
have presented to the full Chamber here in January. That was my hope. I
know it was the hope of the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from
Maine.
Well, that did not happen. I am not going to spend time here on why
things didn't happen. There are various elements. But a new bill was
introduced by Senator Chafee. I do not agree with all of it. There are
parts I do agree with. In fact, there are parts that are exactly alike
in both of these bills.
I urge the leadership, the distinguished majority leader, Senator
Lott, the distinguished Democratic leader, the minority leader, Senator
Daschle, who is a cosponsor, I might add, of this bill, that we try to
set some time aside for this issue if we are only in session for 70
days, 100 days out of the 300 days left in this calendar year--at least
that is what we have been told. I realize this is a big bill. It is not
small. It is a lot of money over 5 years. A lot of ideas need to be
thought out carefully. But we ought to be getting about the business,
Madam President, of doing just that. This issue becomes more of a
crisis and more of a problem and arguably more costly the longer we
wait to address it.
To the President's great credit, he identified this issue during his
State of the Union Message--after school care, affecting millions of
working families, early childhood development, that zero to 3 range,
the brain studies that all of us are now very familiar with, the infant
care, the provider assistance, the family assistance through the
credits, the Family and Medical Leave Act. We ought to get about the
business of trying to get a bipartisan bill that all of us can claim
credit for. So we can say to the American public in 1998, ``We heard
your concerns. We recognize the problems coming down the road. We
stepped up to the plate. We resolved our differences, and we presented
you with our best efforts in this regard.''

[[Page S391]]

My sincere hope, Madam President, is that is what exactly will happen
in these coming days. As I said, it is a bold agenda. It is
comprehensive. And we must try to work together if we are going to
succeed in that regard.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Summary of Dodd Child Care Bill: The Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. Act

(Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security)

improving the affordability of child care

Provide an additional $7.5 billion/5 years through the
Child Care and Development Block Grant to increase the amount
of child care subsidies available to working families. This
investment will double the number of children served by the
block grant to 2 million by 2003.

enhancing the quality of child care and early childhood development

Provide $3 billion/5 years to encourage states to invest in
activities known to produce significant improvements in the
quality of child care and early childhood development, for
example: bring provider-child ratios to nationally
recommended levels; improving the enforcement of licensing
standards, through unannounced inspections; conducting
background checks on child care providers; improving the
compensation, education and training of child care providers;
educating parents on the availability and quality of child
care; creating support networks for family child care
providers; establishing links between child care and health
care services; and ensuring the availability and quality of
child care for children with special health care needs.

increasing the availability and quality school-age child care

Provide $3 billion/5 years to increase the supply and
quality of school-age care. Through the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers, provide $1 billion/5 years to
encourage schools to create before and after-school programs.

expanding the dependent care tax credit

Adjust the sliding scale to increase the credit for
families earning under $60,000 and index the current expense
limits for inflation to help the credit keep pace with rising
child care costs. Make the credit refundable so that families
with little or no tax liability (those making under $30,000)
can receive assistance with child care expenses.

supporting family choices in child care

Allow stay-at-home parents with children under the age of 1
to claim a portion of the department care tax credit. This
credit would also be made refundable to allow families
earning under $30,000 to benefit and is phased out for
families earning over $70,000.
Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to include
businesses with 25-50 employees. This would protect an
additional 13 million working Americans and their families
and provide coverage for 71% of the private workforce (an
additional 14%).

encouraging private sector involvement

Create a new discretionary program of competitive
``challenge grants'' in which communities who generate funds
from the private sector would be eligible for matched federal
grants to improve the availability and quality of child care
on a community-wide basis. Authorize at $1 billion over 5
years.
Provide a 25% tax credit to employers ($500 million/5
years) for operating on-site child care centers, contracting
for off-site child care, contributing to the costs of
accreditation or operating resource and referral systems.

ensuring the quality of federal child care facilities

Require federal child career centers to meet all applicable
state licensing standards.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I am honored to be an original cosponsor
of Senator Dodd's important initiative to improve the affordability,
availability and quality of child care in the United States. I believe
that American families will welcome this legislation.
We all know that high quality, affordable child care is an important
concern to working families. The number of working mothers with
preschool-age children has increased five-fold since 1947. More than
ten million children of working mothers are in child care--and this
number will increase as our strong economy enables welfare parents to
find jobs. Child care belongs on the top of the national agenda.
This legislation uses a number of strategies to improve child care
for American families. Most families struggle to cope with the costs of
child care. Under this legislation, low-income working families will
benefit from increased subsidies for child care services through the
Child Care and Development Block Grant. Families who have little or no
tax liability will receive new assistance through refundability of the
Dependent Care Tax Credit, while an adjusted sliding scale and indexed
expense limits will enhance the tax credit for families with incomes
below $60,000.
This legislation also provides funds for significant quality
improvements. Through block grant funds, States will be encouraged to
invest in meaningful strategies that improve quality of care and
enhance early childhood development, such as lower provider-to-child
ratios, new training and education opportunities for child care
providers, higher wages for child care workers, and greater enforcement
of state licensing standards. In addition, new funding for school-age
child care will encourage schools to create before- and after-school
programs.
Finally, Senator Dodd has structured this legislation to encourage a
significant private sector role in child care improvements. By
expanding the Family and Medical Leave Act, establishing competitive
``challenge grants'' for community-based child care improvements, and
developing a new tax credit for employers that provide child care
opportunities to their employees, this legislation recognizes the
important role that community organizations and private businesses have
to play in meeting American families' child care needs.
I am pleased to support such an important investment in American
families and America's children. We know how important a child's early
years are to its later intellectual, emotional and physical
development. All American families have great dreams for their children
and seek the best care possible during these critical early years. And
all families deserve a chance at the American dream. Through this
legislation, Congress will be doing its part to help American families
work towards a successful future.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join in the introduction
of the Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. Act. The initiative is designed to
improve access, quality and affordability of child care.
Access to child care is a necessity for all working parents.
Nationwide, 55% of children under age six have both parents (if they
live with two parents) or their single parent in the labor force. That
figure rises to 61% of school age children who have both or their only
parent in the labor force. In my home state of New Mexico, 54% of
preschool and 63% of school age children have both or their only parent
in the workforce.
Another way of thinking of the magnitude of the issue is to consider
that more than half of all preschool children are away from their
parents most of the day and two out of three school age children are
likely to require child care before or after school. With the passage
of the TANF legislation in 1997, a number of mothers will be entering
the workforce for the first time and will require child care if they
are to succeed in the job market.
Mr. President, while I may not agree with every portion of the bill,
I believe that we need to improve child care access, quality, and
affordability for our working families. I believe that this bill
affords us the best approach to these child care issues and urge others
to join in support of this initiative.
Access is a problem for many parents and expansion of the child care
and development block grants is one step toward increasing the
availability of child care programs. Accessibility grows even more
complicated when we look at our rural areas of the country. Each
community has unique circumstances to overcome, such as a lack of
resources, programs, and transportation. Since the issues of
availability and access are addressed in this initiative, I am hopeful
that individual states will be able to address their most critical
needs.
Yet, Mr. President, improving access without improving the quality of
the child care is an empty gesture. Staff education and training are
among the most critical elements in improving quality. Currently, many
states do not require providers who care for children in their homes to
have any training prior to serving children. I am told that 33 states
allow teachers in child care centers to start work without prior
training. This legislation includes incentives to encourage states to
invest in activities that will enhance provider-child ratios, improve
the enforcement of licensing standards, improve

[[Page S392]]

the compensation of child care providers, and offer training and
education to child care providers. It is essential that we have child
care staff who are trained to provide the necessary care and then have
salaries commensurate with their training to retain them in the field.
It is a credit to those who have worked in crafting this bill that they
have ensured that child care for children with special health care
needs will be addressed as well.
My state currently has many families who cannot find the quality,
affordable child care they need to ensure that their children are well
cared for and safe. Currently, child care is unaffordable for many
working families in New Mexico. Full day child care for one child can
easily cost $4,000 to $10,000 per year, which is a lot of money in a
state where the average per capita income is $18,803. This is beyond
the reach of many families. These families simply cannot afford the
cost of quality child care in addition to all of the other demands on
their monthly budget. Increasing the Child Care and Development Block
Grants will increase the amount of child care subsidies available to
working families.
Finally, Mr. President, this bill addresses a critical area: the
issue of after school care for school age children. Good after school
options can help children and teens do well in school and stay out of
trouble. It is estimated that nearly 5 million children are left
unsupervised by an adult after school each week. Studies have shown
that juvenile crime actually peaks between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. when
many children are unsupervised. Additionally, I am told that one study
found that eighth graders left home alone after school reported greater
use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than those who were in adult
supervised settings. Our initiative will allow us to strengthen local
resources and is designed to improve the quality of care in after
school programs.
In closing, the legislation covers the full spectrum of child care
from early childhood to adolescent after school needs. I look forward
to participating in the debate on making child care affordable and
accessible. I am hopeful that the Senate will move forward on these
issues of utmost importance to our working families, parents and
children alike.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in
sponsoring the Child Care ACCESS Act to improve the affordability,
availability and quality of child care.
One of the major accomplishments of the last session was to help make
college more affordable for working Americans. We passed bipartisan
legislation to increase Pell Grants to the highest level in history and
to provide tax credits for college expenses. As a result, more
Americans will now be able to afford college.
We must now turn our attention, with the same firm resolve, to the
education of our young children and making child care affordable,
available and safe. This must be the top priority for this Congress.
The recent research on brain development has provided the importance
of the first three years of a child's life. Early education
opportunities are essential for the positive emotional, physical and
social development of children.
Last year's appropriations bill included several important provisions
related to early childhood education and development. We increased
funding for the Early Head Start program by $66 million and provided
and 11% increase in early intervention programs for infants and
toddlers with disabilities. We also provided an additional $50 million
for the Child Care and Development Block Grant to improve the quality
of care for infants. I would have liked to do more, but we were
constrained by provisions in the budget agreement. These
accomplishments set the stage for us to do much more during 1998.
Mr. President, many low and middle-income families simply cannot
afford high quality or even get decent child care. According to the
Children's Defense Fund, child care can cost between $3,000 and $8,000
for each child. This clearly makes child care inaccessible to many low-
income and middle-income working parents with young children. The need
for safe and affordable child care is great and this legislation will
provide families with the help they need.
Last year, the President and First Lady sponsored the first White
House Conference on Child Care. The child care concerns facing families
was summed up quite simply by Secretary of Health and Human Service
Secretary Donna Shalala. Can they afford it? Can they get it? Can they
trust it? This legislation is a comprehensive response to those
questions.
First, the bill improves the affordability of child care for low-
income families by providing additional resources for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant. This new funding will double the number of
families who can qualify for these subsidies. Second, it provides
significant additional assistance for many middle income families
struggling with these huge costs.
We have all heard concerns about the difficulty working families have
in securing child care subsidies. In Iowa, eligibility for Block Grant
assistance is restricted to families who earn less than 125% of
poverty--or less than $1,389 per month for a family of three. I have
long championed the need for parents to have the opportunity to work
rather than to be on welfare. But, we cannot expect that to happen
without sufficient resources to pay for child care.
I am pleased that this legislation includes a significant increase in
the child care tax credit, similar to a measure I introduced in 1996
and 1997. A key feature of this legislation is to make the credit
refundable so that those will the greatest need--those that making near
the minimum wage would be able to receive this tax benefit. Under
current law, they are not eligible.
However, low-income families are not the only ones who are struggling
to pay for child care. Middle income families also need relief and this
legislation expands the Dependent Care Tax Credit and makes this credit
refundable. The limits of the existing tax credit was last changed in
1982 and it has been seriously eroded by inflation. Under existing law,
a working family with two children in child care making $30,000 can
receive only $960 which, in Iowa often that amounts to only a fraction
of child care costs. This is a huge burden on young working families.
The tax law in this area is especially unfair since other tax
provisions allow some taxpayers with generous company benefits to
acquire tax reductions equal to over $1500 for child care with only a
single child in day care.
In 1996 and 1997, I introduced legislation to substantially increase
the assistance available to working families and to make those benefits
refundable so lower income families would also benefit. My proposal
provided for a benefit of up to $2300 when two children are in day
care. I am pleased that the proposal being introduced today, and the
proposal submitted by the President reaches that same level. Because of
need to keep this overall proposal within our ability to pay for it
without eating into the surplus, the benefits start to phase down for
families making over $30,000 in this proposal. I would favor starting
to phase out the size of the increased benefit at a higher level
covering a larger share of middle income families if we can find the
additional offsetting funding.
A key feature of the tax provision is to make the credit refundable
so that those with the greatest need--those that making near the
minimum wage would be able to get this benefit, that is currently
available to higher income families. While some make technical
arguments against the provision regarding budget and tax policy issues,
I feel that we must do more to help working families bear this
considerable cost and help their children receive decent child care so
important to establish a good foundation for their years in school and
thereafter. And, I find it most unreasonable that those with the most
need would be receiving less benefit then those with far more
resources.
After our constituents tell us about the trouble they have paying for
child care, the next thing we hear is that they can't find child care,
especially for children who are school age. An estimated five million
children spend some times each week as ``latchkey'' children without
the supervision of an adult. Further, the Department of Justice tells
us that most juvenile crime occurs during the hours of 3 and 8 pm.

[[Page S393]]

This legislation addresses this critical need by expanding funding to
improve the supply and quality of child care for school age children.
In addition, more funds would be made available to the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers to help public schools create before and
after school activities for their students.
Finally, families want quality child care that they can trust and
this legislation provides additional funding to encourage states to
improve the quality of child care. These funds could be used for a
variety of different activities that we know make a difference such as
providing additional training for providers or reducing provider-child
ratios.
The legislation also provides a modest tax credit to allow a parent
to stay at home with children under the age of one and provides a tax
credit to employers for expenses related to child care for their
workers.
Mr. President, this legislation provides the most comprehensive
response for families struggling to meet their child care needs and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1608. A bill to provide for budgetary reform by requiring the
reduction of the deficit, a balanced Federal budget, and the repayment
of the national debt; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee
on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4,
1977, as modified by the order of April 11, 1986, with instructions
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to
report or be discharged.

THE AMERICAN DEBT REPAYMENT ACT

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have, of course, from time to time
addressed the Senate at this point in the day because I am introducing
a piece of legislation called The American Debt Repayment Act.
I think this is an important piece of legislation, and it certainly
is very timely when we take into consideration that Congress now has
the President's budget before us for consideration. Recently the
President submitted to Congress what he claims to be a balanced budget
for the fiscal year 1999. I would like to welcome him to the ball game
of talking about a balanced budget.
Since I was elected as a Member of Congress in 1990, I have fought to
balance the budget using real numbers. In fact, I was a member of the
House Budget Committee that passed the first balanced budget in over 25
years only to see this detailed, responsible plan vetoed by the
President.
As happy as I am that the administration has come close to realizing
what the Republican led Congress has known all along, that we can
balance the budget while maintaining responsible spending habits, I am
deeply concerned that all progress could be lost if we do not diffuse
the ticking time bomb of the Federal debt. The Federal debt now stands
at over $5.4 trillion. That is almost $20,000 for every man, woman and
child in the United States. If we do not begin a procedure for paying
down the debt and funding the Social Security trust fund, entitlement
programs will consume the entire Federal budget by the time the baby
boomers retire. This is of great concern to me, and we cannot be
shortsighted in dealing with the future of our children and
grandchildren.
The news, however, is not all bad. As I said, the President has
submitted a budget that balances on paper beginning with the fiscal
year 1999. While the reality could be different, this is still 4 years
ahead of the 2002 timetable that was laid out by previous Congresses.
Balancing the budget is clearly not the end but, rather, is only the
beginning. From the outset, many of us have realized that once the
budget is balanced, the Federal Government has the responsibility to
retire the Federal debt. Included in the balanced budget agreement of
1997 was an amendment of mine, and it expressed the sense of the
Congress that the President submit a plan to pay down the debt when he
submitted his budget. He did not follow this congressional guideline
and that is one of the reasons why I feel I must come to the floor
today and introduce the American Debt Repayment Act with my good friend
from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. It is clear that now is the time to begin
that process and commit to retiring the Federal debt.
Let's talk a little bit about what I call the debt tax. The debt tax
is the amount of hard-earned tax dollars that Americans send to
Washington to pay the interest on the debt. With the Federal budget in
balance, we can begin to pay down the debt and decrease the annual
gross interest payments of $355 billion. I repeat that, $355 billion is
what we are paying in gross interest. This is $355 billion that could
be spent on any number of programs, or more beneficially, in my view,
tax relief for American families. In real terms, American families are
paying an annual debt tax of about $5,300 to pay interest on the debt.
As any consumer knows, the interest on unpaid debt compounds quickly,
which is exactly what has been happening to our country. We need to
relieve our citizens of this burdensome tax.
Now, there are reports that we might actually realize a surplus
before the fiscal year 1999. While I am not ready to take it to the
bank yet, I believe that is exactly what we should do with any surplus,
take it to the bank and retire the Federal debt. The Congressional
Budget Office is predicting a $5 billion deficit for fiscal year 1998.
That is down from a forecast of $120 billion at the beginning of the
year. I believe that we can and should deliver a balanced budget to the
American people beginning with this fiscal year.
I am a realist and understand that we cannot retire the Federal debt
immediately. What we can do is create a plan by which we pay down the
debt over a set number of years. I have such a plan. My legislation,
the American Debt Repayment Act, seeks to amortize and pay off the debt
in the year 2028. That is as simple as it gets. My plan puts the
Federal Government on a 30-year mortgage to pay its creditors and place
our country on sound financial ground.

Let me share some of the numbers. If we assume a 4.5 percent growth
in revenues and similar growth in Federal spending, we could retire the
Federal debt in the year 2028 by maintaining a balanced budget and by
amortizing the debt payments just like you would pay a home mortgage.
Just as important, this plan does not break our promise to the American
people under the balanced budget agreement.
By doing so we save over 3.7 trillion tax dollars in interest
payments and free at least that much for tax relief or programs. In
fact, if we stick to baseline outlays we will be able to provide over
$370 billion in tax relief or program spending through the year 2007
while sticking to the American Debt Repayment Act to pay off the debt.
I would like to take an opportunity to refer to my chart that I have
on the floor where I have placed for the Members to see an amortization
schedule on how we are going to pay off this huge debt Americans are
faced with today, which is about $5.5 trillion. If we start paying down
on the debt in fiscal year 1999, we have a $11.6 billion payment that
we start out with and each year we increase the amount we pay down on
the debt by $11.6 billion. If we continue that plan, by the year 2028
we have no debt. And what we have saved the American people over that
same period of time, and I have it in red here, is $3.7 trillion. By
paying down the debt, we have saved the American people in interest
savings more than $3.7 trillion.
By the year 2014 the savings in interest payments could be applied
directly to the $11.6 billion to continue to pay down the debt. So this
is a very realistic plan. It is a very simple plan. It is less than 1
percent of our total budget that we have in the fiscal year, our total
budget being somewhere around $1.7 trillion. It is a plan that I think
the Senate should adopt. It is called the American Debt Repayment Act.
My hope is that we can set an example for the country as well as the
House and send over to the President a plan that will balance the
budget by 2028.
In the end, we will realize tremendous benefits from paying down the
debt. It is well-known that the United States economy performs well
when Government follows sound budgetary policies. I believe that
enacting a plan to retire the debt can only foster economic growth and
stability.
Many of my colleagues have come to the floor to discuss reduction
plans, and for the most part we all agree on the necessity to do so.
But the problem

[[Page S394]]

with plans that call for one-half or one-third of any surplus to repay
the debt is that any President or Congress can produce a budget without
a dime of surplus even though revenues continue to increase.
I believe that any money left over after $11.6 billion has been
committed to the debt should go to tax cuts, and I will fight against
tax cuts for any extra spending. As I indicated earlier under my plan
we can pay down the debt and lessen the tax burden on the American
family.
Mr. President, the Federal Government has not reduced its debt burden
since 1959. We did not have a deficit in 1969, but it has been way back
to 1959 since there has been any effort to reduce the debt burden. We
have a historic opportunity to begin the process of retiring the
Federal debt. We must eliminate the debt tax by retiring the Federal
debt and restoring financial security to the trust funds and the
American people.
The American Debt Repayment Act is the only real plan to retire the
national debt. This plan puts forth real numbers with a set payment and
a balanced budget requirement to retire the Federal debt. So long as
the Federal Government carries a $5.4 trillion debt, we cannot tell our
children and our grandchildren that we have provided for their future.
By enacting my and Senator Enzi's plan, we can maintain responsible
spending levels within the Federal Government while providing for
future generations.
Again, I thank my friend from Wyoming and look forward to the
Senate's action on this plan.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I too rise as an original cosponsor to
express my support for the American Debt Repayment Act and to
congratulate Senator Allard for all of his work on this very important
issue.
While Congress was not in session, I traveled several thousand miles
across Wyoming. At town meetings I constantly and consistently heard
comments such as, ``What surplus? If there is any surplus, please pay
down the debt. Don't squander any of it on new spending ideas.''
If recent CBO estimates hold true, we have the lowest deficit in
about 30 years. We did not get to that point by exercising fiscal
restraint, however. We still spent too much--nearly $1.7 trillion every
year. I voted against the spending portion of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 because it seemed clear more could have been done to cut down
the size and scope of the Federal Government and get our fiscal house
in order faster. If not for the unexpected revenues that came as a
result of 7 years of economic expansion, we would not even be close to
eliminating the Federal deficit today.

In recent days, I have seen a unique attitude transformation take
place in this city. Even though a budget surplus, or even a zero
deficit--only estimated, of course--has not occurred yet, the
administration has not hesitated to offer over $100 billion worth of
new and expanded programs that would easily create a larger deficit in
its proposed balanced budget. There are even more tax proposals. It
seems the eye for spending is still bigger than our taxpayers' wallets.
Even though the economy is strong, I am surprised that so few are
concerned about the debt we as a nation are in danger of passing on to
our children and our grandchildren. It seems we are tied to the
immediate gratification we receive from spending money, spending money
that we do not even have. We do not see the danger that looms in the
not too distant future if we do not stop spending on credit and with
reckless abandon. That danger is a massive Federal debt and changing
demographics that will place a tremendous amount of pressure and burden
on young taxpayers who, if no changes are made to the entitlement
programs, will see a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system and a
mountain of debt so high and an economy so weak there will be no hope
of paying it off. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that we deserve
these benefits. Meanwhile, we will will it to our children to figure
out a way to pay for them.
The interest, just the interest that we are now paying on the Federal
debt has reached about 15 percent of the total budget outlays. That
amounts to $250 billion that cannot be used for education or military
readiness and our national defense or people. The only way we can cut
down on the amount of interest paid is to pay down the Federal debt.
We have a Federal debt of over $5.5 trillion. We must run budget
surpluses not just for 1 or 2 years but for 30 or more years to pay off
that debt. And the surpluses are not even projected to last that long.
I believe the administration and Congress should heed the words of the
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He noted in his
testimony to the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday, January 29, 1998,
that we should be cautious in our spending because Federal revenues are
not guaranteed and they may fall short of our expectations.
He again advised that ``we should be aiming for budgetary surpluses
and using the proceeds to retire outstanding Federal debt.'' That will
keep the economy sound and protect Social Security.
The American Debt Repayment Act follows the advice of Chairman
Greenspan. It requires budgetary surpluses every year, with these
surpluses going toward payment of the Federal debt. These payments
would amortize the debt over the next 30 years, similar to house
mortgage payments, only on a $5.5 trillion mansion. Anyone who
purchases the house must pay the mortgage that accompanies it. Why
should the Federal Government be exempt from a similar requirement?
It's the ethical thing to do, and it just makes sound economic sense.
Yes, we bought a house for us and our kids, and we will pass on the
house and the debt. But let's be sure it's a responsible debt with the
payments current.
Now is the time to start making these mortgage payments and begin to
chip away at that mountain of debt. It is irresponsible, reckless, and
selfish to wait any longer. Any delay will jeopardize the national
security and economic freedom of us, our Nation, and our children.
Some may ask if we can afford to do this now. In response, I would
borrow the words of former President Ronald Reagan:

If not now, when? If not us, who?

I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for his very fine statement and yield
the remainder of my time. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Lott, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Allard,
Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Burns, Mr. Campbell,
Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato,
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Gramm, Mr. Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Helms, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lugar, Mr.
Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Roth, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire,
Mr. Smith of Oregon, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Hollings,
Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Johnson):
S.J. Res. 40. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the
physical desecration of the flag of the United States; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.

flag desecration constitutional amendment

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great honor and reverence that I
rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Cleland, to introduce
a Constitutional Amendment to permit Congress to enact legislation
prohibiting the desecration of the American flag.
Mr. President, symbols are important. They remind us of who, and
what, we are. Those of us who are married, for example, wear wedding
rings to symbolize the commitment we have made to share our lives with
another person. For those of us who are Christians, the cross serves to
remind us of the importance of faith and sacrifice.

[[Page S395]]

Similarly, Jews unite behind the Star of David, which tells them they
are of an ancient faith and lineage. These representations are not
trivial. They help bind us together and give us a common identity.
In similar fashion, the American flag serves as a symbol of our great
nation. As a religious symbol serves to remind its adherents of their
common identity, the flag represents in a way nothing else can, the
common bond shared by an otherwise diverse people. Whatever our
differences of party, race, religion, or socio-economic status, the
flag reminds us that we are very much one people, united in a shared
destiny, bonded in a common faith in our nation.
Nearly a decade ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reminded
us of the significance of our unique emblem when he wrote:

A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and
national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize
the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the
special history that has animated the growth and power of
those ideas. . . . So it is with the American flag. It is
more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination,
and the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling
colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of
equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill
for other peoples who share our aspirations.

Justice Stevens' words ring true. After all, for over 200 years, this
proud banner has symbolized hope, opportunity, justice and, most of
all, freedom, not just to the people of this nation, but to people all
over the world.
Perhaps no three events symbolize the importance of this national
symbol better than the great battle to our North that gave rise to our
national anthem, the ``Star Spangled Banner''; the raising of the
American flag on the Island of Iwo Jima by United States Marines during
World War II; and the planting of the flag upon the moon.
When Francis Scott Key, imprisoned on a ship in Baltimore Harbor,
looked to the besieged Fort McHenry he penned the immortal question ``O
say does that star spangled banner yet waive, o'er the land of the free
and the home of the brave?'' That dark night, he witnessed the
bombardment of the fort, and knew that if it fell, the tide of the war
could turn. In the early morning light, Key gazed out across the water
to see if the fledgling nation had survived. And one glorious symbol
gave him his answer.
In the second verse of our great national anthem, Key described what
he saw: ``On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep, where
the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes--What is that which the
breeze o'er the towering steep--as it fitfully blows, half conceals,
half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam in
full glory reflected now shines on the stream. `Tis the Star Spangled
Banner, Oh long may it wave o'er the land of the free and the home of
the brave.'' When Francis Scott Key looked out that morning, oh how he
must have felt to have seen that yes, that banner did wave and that the
hope of the nation was preserved.
At a similarly cricial point in this nation's history, Americans
rallied around a photograph of United States Marines raising the flag
on the island of Iwo Jima during World War II. That heroic image,
immortalized in the Marine Corps Memorial next to Arlington National
Cemetery, instantly came to symbolize the determination and courage of
all the brave Americans fighting in that great struggle for the very
survival of America as a free nation. Seeing the American flag raised
on an island so close to the enemy's shore, so far from home, gave the
country the will it needed to fight on.
Fifty years later, the planting of the flag on that small pacific
island remains one of our nation's most powerful images, reminding us
that throughout our history, through the generations, from the Battle
of Bunker Hill, to the Civil War, to Operation Desert Storm, on every
continent and ocean, in every corner of the world, Americans have
fought, and in many cases given their lives, fighting under this flag
for the nation and the ideals it represents.
And who can forget the fact that the greatest honor bestowed upon
those who have died in battle or otherwise given great service to this
nation, is to have the flag draped over their caskets. It is a reminder
to the living that they owe their freedoms to those who have fallen and
a promise to the dead that their country has not forgotten them.
It is not only in war that this national symbol has served to unite
us. Few who saw it live on television will forget the moment when Neal
Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted the American flag on the moon. This
moment, perhaps more than any other, demonstrated that we are a nation
of restless explorers, of dreamers, always ready to reach for the
stars. The flag planted upon that alien soil was a testimony to the
hard work, the ingenuity, and the pioneer spirit of the American
people.
I am therefore proud to rise today to introduce a constitutional
amendment that would restore to Congress the right to protect our
unique national symbol, the American flag, from acts of physical
desecration.
Restoring legal protection to the American flag is not, nor should it
be, a partisan issue. Fifty four Senators, both Republicans and
Democrats, have joined with Senator Cleland and myself as original
cosponsors of this amendment.
Now, some have argued that this Amendment actually violates American
principles. They contend that preventing the physical desecration of
the flag actually tramples on the sacred right of Americans to speak
freely. I disagree. Restoring legal protection to the American flag
would not infringe on free speech. If burning the flag were the only
means of expressing dissatisfaction with the nation's policies, then I,
too, might oppose this amendment. But we live in a free and open
society. Those who wish to express their political opinions may do so
in the media, in newspaper editorials, in peaceful demonstrations, and
through their power to vote.
Certainly, smashing in the doors of the State Department may be a way
of expressing one's dissatisfaction with the nation's foreign policy
objectives. And one may even consider such behavior speech. Laws,
however, can be enacted preventing such actions--in large part because
there are peaceful alternatives that can be equally powerful. After
all, right here in the United States Senate, we prohibit speeches or
demonstrations of any kind, even the silent display of signs or
banners, in the public galleries. As a society, we can and do place
limitations on both speech and conduct.
Moreover, contrary to the claims of some, restoring legal protection
to the American flag would not overturn or otherwise constrict the
First Amendment. Rather, it would merely overturn an interpretation of
that amendment by the Supreme Court, in which the Court, by the
narrowest of margins, held that flag burning was a form of protected
free speech. I believe the Court's majority had it wrong--that its
decision flew in the face of over 200 years of American history:
burning the flag is conduct--conduct for which there exists numerous
peaceful alternatives--and may be prohibited. The amendment Senator
Cleland and I propose would correct the Supreme Court's error and
restore to Congress and the States the power they historically had to
protect the American flag from acts of physical desecration.
Nor would restoring legal protection to the American flag place us on
a slippery slope to limit other freedoms. The flag is unique as our
national symbol. There is no other symbol, no other object, which
represents our nation as does the flag. Accordingly, there is no basis
for concern that the protection we seek for the American flag could be
extended to cover any other object or form of political expression.
For many years, our flag was protected, by federal laws and laws in
48 states, from acts of physical desecration. No one can seriously
argue that freedom of speech or freedom of expression was diminished or
curtailed during that period. Restoring the protection of law to our
flag would not prevent the expression, in numerous ways safeguarded
under the Constitution, of a single idea or thought.
I would note that the effort to restore legal protection to our
national symbol is a movement of the American people. It has been
initiated by grassroot Americans; numerous civic, veterans and
patriotic organizations, led by the American Legion, joined together in
the Citizens Flag Alliance, working to build support across this

[[Page S396]]

nation for a constitutional amendment to restore the historical
protection of our flag. And forty-six states have passed resolutions
urging Congress to send a flag protection amendment to the states for
ratification.
That is no small support. I believe we need to support them.
I therefore think that the will of the people should not be
frustrated by this body. This resolution should be adopted, and the
flag amendment sent to the states for their approval.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the proposed
amendment be included in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 40

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States within 7 years after the date of its submission for
ratification:

``Article--

``The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical
desecration of the flag of the United States.''.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very honored to be a cosponsor with my
dear friend from Georgia, Senator Cleland. I appreciate the efforts he
has put forth in this battle, and having served in the military as he
has done with such distinction and with such courage and heroism I
think we ought to all listen to him and I for one will certainly do
that. I am proud and privileged to be able to work with him. So I yield
the floor to my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, the
distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. I
applaud his stalwart leadership on this important matter.
Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of a Constitutional amendment
to prohibit the physical desecration of the United States flag.
Like many Americans, I was troubled when the Supreme Court ruled in
two cases, Texas v. Johnson, and United States v. Eichman, that
statutes protecting the United States flag were unconstitutional
violations of the First Amendment right to free speech. I respected the
wisdom of the Justices of the Supreme Court, yet I was saddened that we
no longer were able to rely upon statutory authority to protect the
flag.
I was especially saddened in light of the views expressed by such
distinguished past and present Supreme Court Justices as Justices
Harlan, Warren, Fortas, Black, White, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, and
O'Connor. These Justices have each supported the view that nothing in
the Constitution prohibits the states or the federal government from
protecting the flag. Nonetheless, the current Supreme Court view
stands. That is what brings us here today.
The flag is not a mere symbol. It is not just a symbol of America. It
IS America. It is what we stand for. It is what we believe in. It is
sacred.
I do not have to tell the Senate what the flag means.
Just ask the soldier who proudly marches behind the flag what it
means to salute the flag of the United States.
Ask the newly sworn citizen what it means to claim the flag of the
United States for his or her own.
Ask the grieving widow or mother of a slain soldier who is presented
with the flag that draped the soldier's casket.
Being from the South and being a history major in college, it was
only natural that I become a student of the Civil War. For those who do
not believe in the flag, I would point to the literally hundreds of
citations given to men in battle during the Civil War for acts of valor
associated with the flag.
Soldiers were routinely awarded the Medal of Honor, America's highest
military award, for defending the United States flag and carrying it
forward into battle. Many of these awards were awarded posthumously.
These brave men knew the meaning of the flag.
The flag unites Americans as no symbol can. Only God and the United
States Constitution itself stand above the flag.
Everywhere history has been made in this country, the flag has been
present.
It was the United States flag that inspired our National Anthem.
It was an American flag that was raised when Jesse Owens stunned Nazi
Germany.
It was a United States flag that was hoisted in Iwo Jima.
It was the United States flag that was planted on the Moon.
Those who would desecrate the flag would desecrate America. I cannot
stand by that. Therefore, I stand for a Constitutional amendment.
This amendment is simple. It vests only Congress with the authority
to protect the flag through statute. We need not fear that the states
will create a hodge-podge of flag protection statutes. Instead,
Congress can create one uniform statute for the entire nation.
According to opinion surveys, 3 out of every 4 Americans support
protecting the flag from desecration. Forty-nine states have enacted
resolutions to calling on Congress to pass a flag protection amendment.
I believe we ought to let the American people decide this important
matter. Therefore, I lend my support to efforts to send this initiative
to the American people for ratification.
Unfortunately, it has been the Senate that has blocked these efforts.
The House has twice passed resolutions that would begin the formal
process of amending the Constitution to protect the flag. The Senate
has failed to respond to the overwhelming majority view of the American
people.
I believe now is an especially important time to reinforce our
support for the American flag. The United States is unquestionably the
world's only remaining superpower. Our leadership around the world is
unrivaled. The principles of democracy and freedom that guided our
forefathers in establishing our great nation are seen as shining
examples for the world.
Everywhere that communism has failed, where dictators have been
overthrown, where tyranny has been rooted out, people look to America.
And it is an American flag that leads our ambassadors, our troops, our
citizens, and our hope as we lend our support and leadership to those
nations struggling to overcome their past.
People who seek asylum from religious, political, and ethnic
persecution look for an American flag flying over our embassies abroad
to guide them to the place where their human rights will be respected
and protected.
Let us now send a strong signal to the world that we truly cherish
this great symbol. Let us now use this opportunity to show the world
that we reaffirm our commitment to the ideals the flag stands for.
Indeed, as Supreme Court Justice Stevens said in his dissent from
Texas v. Johnson:

The freedom and ideals of liberty, equality, and tolerance
that the flag symbolizes and embodies have motivated our
nation's leaders, soldiers, and activists to pledge their
lives, liberty, and their honor in defense of their country.
Because our history has demonstrated that these values and
ideals are worth fighting for, the flag which uniquely
symbolizes their power is itself worthy of protection from
physical desecration.

These are powerful, wise words. Words we should all heed.
Let us now stand in support of the Flag of the United States of
America. I urge my colleagues to join with us in support of this
resolution.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this joint resolution, the Flag
Desecration Constitutional Amendment, proposes an Amendment to the
Constitution that would empower Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of our Flag. I am proud to join Senator Hatch and my other
colleagues as a sponsor.
Two years ago the Senate came close to passing this amendment. At
that time, ninety percent of Alaskans who contacted me supported this
effort. I am confident their stance has not changed. Alaskans support
our flag and the freedom it represents. Alaskans strongly support the
protection of this symbol of freedom.
Our flag has a special place in my heart and the hearts of all
Americans. As those who have served overseas know, the flag was our
reminder of America and our freedom. Freedom much greater than any
country ever offers. Our missions oveaseas were to protect that freedom
and the flag

[[Page S397]]

which symbolizes it. Too many have devoted their lives for our country
for us not to protect its most sacred symbol.
Forty-eight states had laws preventing flag desecration before the
Supreme Court struck them down. The flag is a direct symbol of our
country. Fifty stars for fifty states. I remember the day the forty-
ninth star was pinned on the flag. Having played a role in the Alaska
statehood movement, I can say it was one of the proudest moments in my
life. I support every effort to preserve the sanctity of America's
flag.
The Supreme Court has given us a choice. We can accept that the First
Amendment allows the desecration of America's flag. Or we can change
the law to prevent it. The power to amend the Constitution demands a
cautious respect. It is a considerable power--one that has helped chart
the course of our history. We should not jump headlong into amendments.
But we should not be afraid to act on our beliefs, either. The people
of Alaska are strong in their belief that our flag should not be
desecrated, and we support this amendment.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I add my name as an original cosponsor
of a constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of
the American flag.
I know that there are many who believe that the desecration of our
country's flag is the ultimate expression of their political freedoms,
but I do not believe all speech is free. Our country pays a price when
we see demonstrations which tear down our standard bearer of national
integrity. Our flag represents the values upon which this nation was
founded and our charter of government established in Philadelphia in
1787. When we no longer value the flag as a symbol of national unity
and allegiance to this compact, our Republic is weakened.
Burning our country's flag is not political free speech, it is
political garbage. As a society, we have placed parameters on free
speech. A person who shouts fire in a crowded theater does not enjoy
the protection of freedom of speech. A person whose words incite
violence does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. I firmly
believe that no legitimate act of political protest should be
suppressed. Nor should we ever discourage debate and discussion about
the Federal government. However, to allow the physical desecration of
our national symbol is to allow the ties that bind us as a country, the
ties that bind one generation to the next in their love and respect for
this country, to be weakened. When we no longer value our flag, we lose
value for our country, our government, and each other.
Over two hundred years after the ratification of our nation's Bill of
Rights, the United States Supreme Court erroneously ruled that the
desecration of our national symbol is protected speech in the case of
Texas vs. Johnson. In response to this decision, the United States
Senate overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act, which was also
declared unconstitutional by the high court. The Supreme Court's action
has made it clear that a constitutional amendment is necessary for
enactment of any binding protection of the flag. Up to this point,
neither House of Congress has been able to garner the two-thirds super
majority necessary for passage of a constitutional amendment. But
because grassroots support for this amendment continues to grow, I have
joined with members on both sides of the aisle to again try passing
this amendment. I am hopeful that this time we will get the necessary
votes.
Let me close by recalling the words of a Union Soldier in his last
letter to his wife dated July 14, 1861. He said, ``my courage does not
halt or falter. I know how American civilization now bears upon the
triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went
before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution, and I am
willing, perfectly willing, to lay down all my joys in this life to
help maintain this government and pay that debt.''
Today, our task here in the Senate seems trivial in comparison. But
if we want the flag that hangs in school rooms, over courthouses, in
sports stadiums and off front porches all across America, to continue
symbolizing that same commitment to country, then it is a challenge we
cannot fail to meet.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today, we begin the process of restoration.
Restoration and renewal. Today, we look to our past, our history, as
prologue of our future. We examine the events of recent years in the
context of history in an effort to restore and renew our faith in this
place we call America. They lynchpin of this process will be our
restoration of what our flag--our American flag, the flag of these
United States, the flag of what our founders referred to as ``We, the
People''--means to us as a people, as citizens, as people united in the
common cause of Freedom.
Our flag is no mere piece of cloth, even a brightly-colored piece of
cloth--it is the symbol of our nation, and it stands for our ideals,
our freedom, our hopes and dreams and, yes, our faith in our nation and
in one another.
Let's consider this common cause, freedom. Some may say that we need
no symbols to embody this cause. I might agree with those people if I
had no knowledge of our history or how the American flag is viewed by
people around the world.
For many, in this country and around the world, the American flag is
the symbol of the freedom that they long for, that they strive to
achieve and to preserve and that they honor. America has been called a
``melting pot'', where people of many cultures and nationalities come
together to live, work and raise their families. Immigrants all, save
those native Americans whose roots in this land we must also continue
to honor and preserve, we recognize our fortune derived by living in a
country where we don't merely talk about freedom, we practice and work
to preserve it.
Symbols such as our flag don't just appear and receive acceptance.
The flag hanging at the Smithsonian didn't come to be so large by
chance--those who made that flag wanted our people to see it waving in
the breeze and take cheer and for our opponents to see it and beware.
The flag was born in our struggle for independence, and continues to
exist in our struggle to ensure freedom for all Americans and other
peoples of this world.
Our flag has survived burning and desecration in this country and in
other countries. It will survive, as will our faith in our country and
our freedoms, no matter the strength of our enemies. We who believe in
this country must recognize that our symbols, such as our flag, are
important and must be protected and preserved for they are the very
embodiment of the ideals, hopes and dreams they stand for. We must
protect our flag just as we would protect those ideals.
In 1942, Congress recognized that the flag should be treated in a way
more special than the way we treat any other symbol. That year, the
Congress enacted the Flag Code to set requirements for how the flag
should be displayed and honored. In that day and time, the question was
not how to prevent destruction and desecration but merely to set rules
for the care and handling of the flag. There was no thought given to
doing what we propose to do today because it was beyond thought that
conditions would exist in this country that would require such action.
Even then, Congress recognized that with freedom comes responsibility.
It is time that we recognize that responsibility again as our
predecessors in the Congress in 1942 did.

Mr. President, I will close by quoting from an address in 1914 by
Franklin K. Lane, then Secretary of the Interior, to the employees of
the Department of the Interior on Flag Day, commenting on what the flag
might say to us if it could speak:

I am song and fear, struggle and panic, and ennobling hope.
I am the day's work of the weakest man, and the largest dream
of the most daring.
I am the Constitution and the courts, statutes and the
statute-makers, soldier and dreadnaught, drayman and
street sweep, cook, counselor, and clerk.
I am the battle of yesterday and the mistake of tomorrow.
I am the mystery of the men who do without knowing why.
I am the clutch of an idea and the reasoned purpose of
resolution.
I am no more than what you believe me to be, and I am all
that you believe I can be.
I am what you make me, nothing more.

[[Page S398]]

I swing before your eyes as a bright gleam of color, a symbol
of yourself, the pictured suggestion of that big thing
which makes this nation. My stars and stripes are your
dream and your labors. They are bright with cheer,
brilliant with courage, firm with faith, because you
have made them so out of your hearts. For you are the
makers of the flag and it is well that you glory in the
making.

Mr. President, we made this flag as we made this nation. We can
destroy this flag or we can protect and preserve it, just as we can
destroy this nation or we can protect and preserve it.
The choice is clear. The result is in our hands. As for me, I pledge
allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
I urge the adoption and passage of this Constitutional amendment.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am proud to join the Chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Hatch, and others in introducing a
constitutional amendment to prohibit the desecration of the flag of the
United States of America. In the 104th Congress we fell a mere four
votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed for the Senate's approval
of a similar amendment. I encourage my colleagues to join in this
effort and hope we will be able to address this matter before the end
of the year.
In a 1989 Supreme Court case, Texas versus Johnson, the Court
erroneously ruled, by the narrowest of margins, 5 to 4, that flag
burning is a constitutionally protected expression of First Amendment
free speech rights. Again in 1990, in U.S. versus Eichman, the Supreme
Court protected flag desecration by declaring unconstitutional a
federal statute designed to protect our flag. I remain dumbfounded by
these decisions. Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, generally
regarded as a First Amendment absolutist once stated ``It passes my
belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars a State from
making the deliberate burning of the American flag an offense.'' It
passes my belief as well.
It is my belief that the American flag does not belong to one person;
it belongs to the American people. When an individual desecrates a flag
I believe he does not destroy private property but a national symbol, a
public monument. Just as an individual cannot spray paint the
Washington Monument as an exercise of free speech, nor should he be
able to vandalize the American flag. I believe the American flag is
``franchised'' to individuals who wish to display it. Thus, those who
choose to display an American flag have an obligation to the American
people and to the country to maintain and respect it.
For more than 200 years Old Glory has symbolized hope, opportunity,
justice and most of all, freedom. For this very reason our flag was
protected from desecration by federal laws and laws in 48 states for
many years. It is the will of the people that the States and Congress
have the power to protect our national symbol. Let us now act on that
will.
Mr. President, it is my firm belief that this constitutional
amendment would protect our flag without jeopardizing the First
Amendment. It would overturn these erroneous interpretations and would
place flag desecration in the same category as other forms of illegal
expression including libel, slander and obscenity. I believe the unique
nature of Old Glory ensures a constitutional amendment protecting it
from desecration would not impinge upon citizens' First Amendment
rights nor would it establish a dangerous precedent. It would simply
prohibit offensive conduct with respect to our nation's most revered
symbol. I urge my colleagues to support this most important amendment.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the proposed
amendment to the United States Constitution to prevent desecration of
our great national symbol. In 1995, I was an original co-sponsor of an
amendment to the Constitution designed to protect the symbol of our
nation and its ideals. When that resolution was defeated narrowly, we
vowed that this issue would not go away and it has not. I stand here,
again, today to declare the necessity of protecting the Flag of the
United States of America and what it represents.
Thoughout our history, the Flag has held a special place in the minds
of Americans. As the appearance of the Flag changed with the addition
of stars as the nation grew, its core meaning to the American people
remained constant. It represents no particular perspective, political
agenda, or religious belief. Instead, it symbolizes an ideal, not just
for Americans, but for all those who honor the great American
experiment. It represents a shared ideal of freedom. The Flag stands in
this chamber and in our court rooms; it is draped over our honored
dead; it flies at half-mast to mourn those we wish to respect; and it
is the subject of our National Anthem, our National March and our
Pledge of Allegiance. As the Chief Justice noted in his dissent in
Texas v. Johnson (1989), ``[t]he American flag, then, throughout more
than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol
embodying our nation * * * Millions and millions of Americans regard it
with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social,
political, or philosophical beliefs they may have.''
There can be little doubt that the people of this country fully
support preserving and protecting the American Flag. The people's
elected representatives reflected that vast public support by enacting
Flag protection statutes at both the State and Federal levels.
Regrettably, the Supreme Court thwarted the people's will--and
discarded the judgment of state legislatures and the Congress that
protecting the Flag is fully consistent with our Constitution--by
holding that the American flag is just another piece of cloth for which
no minimum of respect may be demanded. As a consequence, that which
represents the struggles of those who came before us; which symbolizes
the sacrifice of hundreds; and for which many men and women have died
cannot be recognized for what it truly is--a national treasure in need
of protection.
Further, the question must be asked, what is the legacy we are
leaving our children? At a time when our nation's virtues are too
rarely extolled by our national leaders, and national pride is
dismissed by many as arrogance, America needs, more than ever,
something to celebrate. At a time when our political leaders are
embroiled in scandalous allegations, we need a national symbol that is
beyond reproach. America needs its Flag untainted, representing more
than some flawed agenda, but this extraordinary nation. The Flag, and
the freedom for which it stands, has a unique ability to unite us as
Americans. Whatever our disagreements, we are united in our respect for
the Flag. We should not allow the healing and unifying power of the
Flag to become a source of divisiveness.
The protection that the people seek for the Flag does not threaten
the sacred rights afforded by the First Amendment. I sincerely doubt
that the Framers intended the First Amendment of the Constitution to
prevent state legislatures and Congress from protecting the Flag of the
nation for which they shed their blood. At the time of the Supreme
Court's decision, the tradition of protecting the Flag was too firmly
established to suggest that such laws are inconsistent with our
constitutional traditions. Many of the state laws were based on the
Uniform Flag Act of 1917. No one at that time, or for 70 years
afterwards, felt that these laws ran afoul of the First Amendment.
Indeed, the Supreme Court itself upheld a Nebraska statute preventing
commercial use of the Flag in 1907 in Halter v. Nebraska. As the Chief
Justice stated in his dissent, ``I cannot agree that the First
Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50
States which make criminal the public burning of the flag.''
Nor do I accept the notion that amending the Constitution to overrule
the Supreme Court's decision in the specific context of desecration of
the Flag will somehow undermine the First Amendment as it is applied in
other contexts. This amendment does not create a slippery slope which
will lead to the erosion of Americans' right to free speech. The Flag
is wholly unique. It has no rightful comparison. An amendment
protecting the Flag from desecration will provide no aid or comfort in
any future campaigns to restrict speech. Moreover, an amendment banning
the desecration of the Flag

[[Page S399]]

does not limit the content of any true speech. As Justice Stevens noted
in his dissent in Johnson v. Texas, ``[t]he concept of `desecration'
does not turn on the substance of the message the actor intends to
convey, but rather on whether those who view the act will take serious
offence.'' Likewise, the act of desecrating the Flag does not have any
content in and of itself. The act takes meaning and expresses conduct
only in the context of the true speech which accompanies the act. And
that speech remains unregulated. As the Chief Justice noted, ``flag
burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it
seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any
particular idea, but to antagonize others.''
In sum there is no principle or fear that should stand as an obstacle
to our protection of the Flag. It is my earnest hope that by Amending
the Constitution to prohibit its desecration, this body will protect
the heritage, sacrifice, ideals, freedom and honor that the Flag
uniquely represents.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairman Hatch in
introducing the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment
to protect from physical desecration the flag of the United States.
This is the same resolution that the House has passed, and we hope it
will soon be passed by this body and sent to the American people for
ratification.
Some of my colleagues may remember the time I came to this Senate
floor with memorials from forty-three state legislatures, urging
Congress to take action to protect the American flag from physical
desecration. Those memorials were inserted in the Congressional Record
for all to read. Today that number has swelled to forty-nine states,
eleven more than are needed to ratify an amendment
Since this amendment was proposed in 1989, poll after poll has found
that eighty percent of the American people consistently support a flag
protection amendment. These polls have been performed in times when
flag burnings have been more frequent, and times when the flag burners
have been fairly quiet; yet the result is always the same--Americans
want the flag protected.
Mr. President, today, we have an opportunity to respond to the
American people by passing this resolution and sending a very simple
amendment to the states for ratification. This amendment authorizes
Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United
States. It is a very straight-forward proposal, and the only way this
goal can be accomplished, according to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our flag, which predates our Constitution, articulates ``America,''
more clearly than any other symbol does. Our flag represents the
tapestry of diverse people that is America--as well as the values,
traditions, and aspirations that bind us together as a nation. It waves
as a patriotic symbol of our values. It's amazing to see how our flag
captures basic American values and inspires people to protect them. In
return, the vast majority of the American people want our flag
protected from acts of intentional, public desecration.
We have many songs for our flag and have even named it Old Glory.
That's because our flag holds a special place in our hearts. No other
emblem of our nation has been defended as a symbol of freedom so
animatedly. No other symbol has brought our country closer together,
dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No other
token has drawn immigrants to our nation, with the promise of
democracy. No other artifact inspires us to rise to the same level of
dignity and patriotism.
Our flag's leading troops into battle is an American tradition,
inspiring both families at home and those on the front lines; it has
inspired men and women to great accomplishments; it flies over our
government buildings because it symbolizes our republic; it is
displayed in our schools as a reminder of the importance of learning
and our desire for an educated people; it is flown from the front of
our homes because we are proud to be Americans and we are proud of the
contributions our nation has made; it waves above our places of
business as a testament to the free enterprise system; it hangs in our
houses of worship as a symbol of our freedom to worship God as our
conscience dictates. The flag represents the values, traditions and
aspirations that bind us together as a nation. It stands above our
differences and unites us in war and peace.
The American people want an amendment to protect the flag from
desecration, and they should be given the opportunity to ratify it. We,
as servants of the American people, shouldn't act as stumbling blocks.
Instead, we should respond by passing this resolution. If the American
people don't want this amendment, they can vote to reject it. However,
we should remember that already more than three million people have
signed petitions asking Congress to pass a flag-protection amendment
and send it to the states for ratification. This is the first step in
that process.
Flag desecration is offensive to the majority of Americans. To
publicly desecrate even one flag promotes nothing worthwhile in our
society, communicates no clear message, and tears at the fabric of our
nation. Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, ``One of the high
purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct that
is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of
people--whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution, or flag
burning.'' The U.S. flag is more than just a piece of cloth. It
represents the fabric of our nation. I urge my colleagues to listen to
the voice of the American people and join us in protecting our flag.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I am pleased to join
Senators Hatch and Cleland and others, as an original co-sponsor of
S.J. Res. 40, the proposed constitutional amendment to protect our
Nation's flag.
The act of flag burning--or any other kind of flag desecration--is an
aggressive, provocative act. It is also an act of violence against the
symbol of America--our flag. Even more disturbing, it is an act of
violence against our country's values and principles. The Constitution
guarantees freedom, but it also seeks to assure, in the words of the
Preamble, ``domestic Tranquility.''
Many Americans have given their lives to protect freedom and
democracy as symbolized by the flag. In my own family, my father died
in a service-related accident during World War II. Our family was
presented with his burial flag. That flag means a great deal to our
family--and we believe that the flag deserves protection under the law.
Some people believe that outlawing desecration of the flag--which
this Constitutional Amendment would authorize the Congress to do--would
lead to the destruction of ``freedom.'' I disagree. Our Constitution
was carefully crafted to protect our freedom, but also to promote
responsibility. We are stepping on dangerous ground when we allow
reckless behavior such as flag burning or other forms of physical
desecration of the flag.
The Constitution that our Nation's Founders fashioned has survived
the tests of time, but it has also been amended on 27 occasions. Under
our Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have more power than the
people. The people do not have to accept every Supreme Court decision--
because ultimate authority rests in the Constitution, which the people
have the power to amend.
The idea of amending the Constitution is serious business. We have
found, however, that a simple statute is not enough. We tried that, and
the Court struck it down. We must stand for something or we stand for
nothing. I stand for a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to
ban flag desecration and I am confident that we will succeed in passing
it in this Congress and submitting it to the States for ratification.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, the people of the United States
revere the American flag as a unique symbol of our great nation. It
symbolizes the national unity that exists among diverse people, the
common bond that binds us and makes us Americans. We are a nation that
is defined by democracy. The flag symbolizes this democracy not only to
ourselves, but to all other nations. It is through this democratic
process that we feel free to exercise and enjoy the many liberties
guaranteed to us.
Over the years, Congress has reflected respect and devotion to the
American flag. In 1931, it declared the Star Spangled Banner to be our
national anthem, and in 1949, established

[[Page S400]]

June 14 as Flag Day. In 1987, Congress designated John Philip Sousa's
`The Stars and Stripes Forever' as the national march. Congress also
has established detailed rules for the design and the proper display of
the flag. Today, we have an opportunity to add one more important
gesture of support for our national symbol, to pass an amendment that
prohibits the physical desecration of the Flag of the United States.
Since 1990, 49 states have passed memorializing resolutions calling
on Congress to pass a flag desecration amendment for consideration by
the states.
Public opinion surveys have consistently shown that nearly 80 percent
of all Americans support a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag
desecration and do not believe that freedom of speech is jeopardized by
this protection. Among the grassroots groups that endorse this
legislation is the Citizens Flag Alliance, an alliance comprised of 119
civic, patriotic and veterans organizations, including The American
Legion, AMVETS, the Knights of Columbus, the National Grange, the Grand
Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, and the African-American Women's
Clergy Association.
This amendment, grants Congress and the states the power to prohibit
physical desecration of the flag, but does not amend the First
Amendment.
If we want to embrace the will of the American people, if we want to
reserve the flag's unique status as our nation's most revered and
profound symbol, and if we believe the flag is important enough to
protect from physical desecration, then we should pass this
Constitutional amendment.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this
amendment.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise as an original
cosponsor of a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting the
physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I have fought to achieve Constitutional protection for the flag ever
since the Supreme Court first legitimized flag burning in the case of
Texas v. Johnson in 1989. To date, we have not been successful in out
efforts to pass a Constitutional amendment by the required two-thirds
majority.
However, we have come close, and, most importantly, we have refused
to quit. Last year, the House passed the amendment with the necessary
votes, and I am very hopeful that we will follow suit in the Senate
this year.
Some say that burning or defacing the American flag is not widespread
enough or important enough for a constitutional amendment. I could not
disagree more.
Since the birth of the Republic, the flag has been our most
recognizable and revered symbol of democracy. It represents our Nation,
our national ideals, and out proud heritage.
Men and women of our Armed Forces have put their lives on the line to
defend the principles and ideals that the flag represents. Soldiers
have risked and even lost their lives to prevent the flag from falling.
To say that the flag is not important enough to protect is to say
that the values that hold us together as a Nation are not worth
defending.
Flag burning may be rare, but even it is, it is not acceptable--I
repeat, it is not acceptable. It is not tolerable. I hate to see anyone
burn or deface the flag to make some statement. Why should society let
even one person wrap themselves around some absolute interpretation of
the First Amendment to protect indefensible speech? Have we focused so
much on the rights of the individual that we have forgotten the rights
of the people?
It is clear that the American public strongly favors this amendment.
Opinion polls register overwhelming support. Every state except one has
passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment to protect
the flag. It is a feeling of great pride to know of the sincere
national patriotism that this support represents.
The House has already acted. It is now our turn in the Senate. We
have a profound responsibility to pass this constitutional amendment as
quickly as possible so that it can go to the States for ratification.
I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to join us in this great
effort to restore protection for the American flag. The flag of the
United States, the symbol of freedom and democracy, must always be
protected, and forever wave over the land of the free and the home of
the brave.

____________________