[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.

                          ____________________