[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 35 (Wednesday, March 25, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2553-S2563]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS AND OVERSEAS 
               PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Wyoming has an amendment. I would like 
him, at this time, to offer it and ask for its consideration so we can 
set it aside and bring it up after the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator send his amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration? We will take it up after the amendment of Mr. 
Wellstone, which is the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 2133

 (Purpose: To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating 
       certain regulations relating to Indian gaming activities)

  Mr. ENZI. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself and Mr. 
     Bryan, Mr. Reid and Mr. Sessions, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2133.


[[Page S2554]]


  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.

       Notwithstanding section 11(d)(7)(B)(vii) of the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)), the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall not--
       (1) promulgate as final regulations, the proposed 
     regulations published on January 22, 1998, at 63 Fed. Reg. 
     3289; or
       (2) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for, or 
     promulgate, any similar regulations to provide for procedures 
     for gaming activities under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), in any case in which a State 
     asserts a defense of sovereign immunity to a lawsuit brought 
     by an Indian tribe in a Federal court under section 11(d)(7) 
     of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)) to compel the State to 
     participate in compact negotiations for class III gaming (as 
     that term is defined in section 4(8) of that Act (25 U.S.C. 
     2703(8))).

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this amendment be 
considered immediately after the amendment presented by the Senator 
from Minnesota, for which there is a time agreement already.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2128, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized for up to 30 minutes.
  The amendment (No. 2128, as modified) is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.  . ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMF POLICY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     establish an International Monetary Fund Advisory Committee 
     (in this section referred to as ``Advisory Committee'').
       (b) Membership.--The Advisory Committee shall consist of 8 
     members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, after 
     appropriate consultations with the relevant organizations, as 
     follows:
       (1) at least 2 members shall be representatives from 
     organized labor.
       (2) at least 2 members shall be representatives from 
     nongovernmental environmental organizations.
       (3) at least 2 members shall be representatives from 
     nongovernmental human rights or social justice organizations.
       (c) Duties.--Not less frequently than every six months, the 
     Advisory Committee shall meet with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to review and provide advice on the extent to which 
     individual IMF country programs meet requisite policy goals, 
     particularly those set forth as follows:
       (1) in this Act;
       (2) in Article I (2) of the Fund's Articles of Agreements, 
     to promote and maintain high levels of employment and real 
     income and the development of the productive resources of all 
     members;
       (3) in Section 1621 of P.L. 103-306, the Frank/Sanders 
     amendment on encouragement of fair labor practices;
       (4) in Section 1620 of P.L. 95-118, as amended, on respect 
     for, and full protection of, the territorial rights, 
     traditional economies, cultural integrity, traditional 
     knowledge, and human rights of indigenous peoples;
       (5) in Section 1502 of P.L. 95-118, as amended, on military 
     spending by recipient countries and military involvement in 
     the economies of recipient countries;
       (6) in Section 701 of P.L. 95-118, on assistance to 
     countries that engage in a pattern of gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights; and
       (7) in Section 1307 of P.L. 95-118, on assessments of the 
     environmental impact and alternatives to proposed actions by 
     the International Monetary Fund which would have a 
     significant effect on the human environment.
       (d) Inapplicability of Termination Provision of The Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14(a)(2) of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act shall not apply to the Advisory 
     Committee.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will try not to take 30 minutes. 
Since the manager of the bill supports this amendment, if we want to do 
it on voice vote, if that will be better for colleagues, I will be 
pleased to do it that way as well.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I welcome that opportunity. I want to say 
Senators ought to be on notice we will get to the Enzi amendment 
sooner, and I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment says that the Treasury 
Secretary shall appoint an advisory committee, composed of eight 
members, at least two of whom are from organized labor, two from 
nongovernment environmental groups, and two from nongovernmental human 
rights or social justice organizations. This is an advisory group on 
IMF policy, which the Senator in the Chair right now has worked very 
hard on. I know that.
  This advisory group would meet at least twice a year to advise the 
Treasury Secretary on IMF's compliance with existing statutory 
requirements relating to IMF promotion in a variety of different areas: 
High levels of income and employment in other countries, fair labor 
practices, indigenous people's rights, reductions in military spending, 
respect for human rights, and sensitivity to the environmental impact 
of IMF policies.
  The advisory committee shall meet with the Treasury Secretary at 
least every 6 months to review and provide advice on IMF compliance 
with these mandates.
  There is no legislative mandate. All the Treasury Secretary has to do 
is meet twice per year with the committee to hear their views on IMF 
compliance with existing mandates.
  Let me explain to my colleagues why I bring this amendment to the 
floor. We spent, yesterday, altogether 30 minutes in debate on IMF. We 
are talking about, roughly speaking, $17 billion to go to IMF. We are 
talking about countries in Asia--I have heard my colleague from Alaska 
say this very forcefully--that are really right now in economic 
trouble. We are talking about a lot of economic pain. I agree--I am an 
internationalist--what happens in these countries will dramatically 
affect people in our country as well. There is no question about it.
  But I want to suggest to colleagues that the question is whether or 
not the IMF, as I look at the record of the IMF, has been helpful or 
not helpful in helping these economies and helping the people in these 
countries. What happens in some of the Asian countries will 
dramatically affect the lives of people in our country in a number of 
different ways. Either people in countries like Thailand or Indonesia 
will not be able to work at decent jobs, will make subminimum poverty 
wages--in which case, they will not be able to have the money to 
purchase goods--or, because of IMF policies, which has too often been 
the case, they will be forced to currency devaluation and they will try 
to work themselves out of trouble through cheap exports to our country. 
Either way, working families in Nebraska and Minnesota and Alaska and 
around our country are hurt if we do not put some focus in the IMF.
  I am about to go through existing laws and statutes that the IMF is 
supposed to live up to, and I am just going to talk about a whole 
history of noncompliance. We have not had this discussion on the floor 
of the Senate. We should. I mean, if in fact what happens in these 
Asian countries is that we have the IMF pouring fuel on the fire, if 
you have an International Monetary Fund that imposes austerity measures 
on these countries, depresses wage levels, has no respect 
for international labor standards, shows no respect for human rights--
people cannot even organize to make a decent living, people cannot even 
organize in these countries like Indonesia in order to make sure that 
they are paid decent wages--then what is going to happen is, you have 
countries with a populous where the vast majority of the people cannot 
buy what we produce in our country. This is like economics lesson No. 
1. Or--and this has happened all too often because of IMF 
prescriptions--what happens is, these countries try to export 
themselves out of trouble: Currency devaluation, cheap exports to our 
country, and our workers and our families cannot compete.

  Let me just go through some existing laws right now that are supposed 
to govern the International Monetary Fund. By the way, they are in 
noncompliance. The problem is, the administration has not spent much 
time really insisting on accountability. The problem is, we have turned 
our gaze away from this. I wish our country would be stronger in 
supporting international labor standards, stronger in supporting 
environmental standards, stronger in supporting basic human rights for 
people. But we have not done that.

       The Secretary of Treasury shall direct the United States 
     executive directors of the international financial 
     institutions to use the voice and vote of the United States 
     to urge the respective institution [this covers

[[Page S2555]]

     the IMF] to adopt policies to encourage borrowing countries 
     to guarantee internationally recognized worker rights and to 
     include the status of such rights as an integral part of the 
     institution's policy dialog with each borrowing country.

  I suggest to colleagues, even though we have not discussed this on 
the floor of the Senate, that the IMF has ignored this law and that the 
International Monetary Fund pays precious little attention to whether 
or not these countries that we bail out live up to internationally 
recognized labor rights.
  Mr. President, to go on:

       Beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the 
     United States executive director of each multinational 
     development bank not to vote in favor of any action proposed 
     to be taken by the respective bank which would have a 
     significant effect on the human or environmental assessment 
     for at least 120 days before the date of the vote until an 
     assessment analyzing the environmental impacts of the 
     proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action has 
     been completed by the borrowing country or institution.

  Again, another law that the IMF is supposed to live up to, another 
relevant statute that there ought to be an environmental impact 
statement. We ought to look at what these countries are doing; we ought 
to look at where the money is going. These countries--or many of these 
countries--are in noncompliance, and the IMF just turns its gaze away 
from this, as does the United States, our Government. This is not in 
the name of our people, because I think people in our country support 
human rights, support respect for the environment.
  Human rights title:

       The U.S. Government in connection with its voice and vote 
     in the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 
     the International Development Association, the International 
     Finance Corporation, the InterAmerican Development Bank, the 
     African Development Bank [so on and so forth] the 
     International Monetary Fund, shall advance the cause of human 
     rights including by seeking to channel assistance toward 
     countries other than those whose governments engage in a 
     pattern [and I am quoting] of gross violations of 
     internationally recognized human rights such as torture or 
     cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, 
     prolonged detention without charges, or other flagrant denial 
     to life, liberty and the security of person.
  Mr. President, in this connection, let me point out that a labor 
leader in Indonesia, Mochtar Pakpahan--we are about to provide the IMF, 
and the IMF is about to provide, based upon, in part, the U.S. 
contribution, Indonesia with bailout money--and this man, this labor 
leader, I say to my colleagues, is in prison. Why is he in prison? He 
is in prison for organizing workers in support of a higher minimum 
wage, people who work for wages that don't enable them or their 
families even to be able to have enough food to eat. And this man's 
crime, this labor leader's crime in Indonesia is that he has organized 
workers to get better wages.
  I just read the statute that applies to IMF policy. The way I read 
this--maybe I will read it again--is that the ``International Monetary 
Fund shall advance the cause of human rights, including by seeking to 
channel assistance toward countries other than those whose governments 
engage in gross violations of humans rights of citizens.''
  What do we think is happening in Indonesia? Does any Senator on the 
floor of the Senate want to defend the Government of Indonesia for 
imprisoning a labor leader?
  Mr. President, I will suggest--and I will go on and read other laws 
that apply to the IMF--that what is wrong with this IMF provision, the 
amendment that we are going to vote on eventually, is that nowhere in 
here do we have any conditions dealing with labor, human rights 
standards, nowhere in here do we have any conditions dealing with 
environmental standards, nowhere in here do we have any discussion 
about the importance of promoting employment and higher wage levels for 
the citizens of these countries.
  So, it is a flawed institution. I am all for making sure these 
countries do better, but I don't think the IMF is going to help these 
countries do better. In fact, I think what the IMF does over and over 
again is make matters worse. I look at the record in some of these 
countries, and I see no evidence whatsoever that IMF policies have led 
to an improvement in the living standards of people in these countries. 
For the bankers, yes; for the investors, yes; and for some of these 
governments which are all too often corrupt, yes, but not for the 
people.
  We have an IMF agreement. I know that the Chair has worked hard on 
this. I know that the Senator from Alaska has been involved in this. 
And that is why I come out with an amendment that is very reasonable, 
because all this amendment says is, look, we have these existing 
statutes, it is already law, this is what the IMF is supposed to live 
up to, but we have a clear record of flagrant noncompliance.
  At the very minimum, let's make sure the Secretary of the Treasury 
meets with an advisory committee made up of some non-Government people 
dealing with human rights, dealing with labor, dealing with the 
environment at least twice a year so that we can put this on the radar 
screen.
  I know colleagues feel strongly that we must do something. I hope it 
works out. But I have to say that on the basis of the record of the 
IMF, I see no evidence whatsoever that the IMF's economic policies are 
going to help the Asian countries or help the people in the Asian 
countries. Instead, what I think is going to happen, since we have not 
had any clear provisions with real teeth in this legislation--and the 
best I can do today is to get a strong vote on this advisory committee, 
and I am intending to send a message to the administration.
  Secretary of the Treasury Rubin is a fine Secretary. He is skillful, 
he has been gracious, and I think he is committed to doing better. It 
isn't even personal, because I think he believes that we have to do 
better. But in all due respect, we at the very minimum ought to begin 
to put these questions on the table. We ought to put these issues on 
the table. In all due respect, I say to my colleagues, I am just 
telling you this is a flawed institution.

  We are about to invest a lot of money in the International Monetary 
Fund, which has a record of imposing economic policies on countries 
which depress the living standards of most of the people in those 
countries. That is the record. As a result, those people don't have the 
economic power, the dollars to consume products that we make in our 
country; as a result, quite often these countries barrel down the path 
of exporting cheap products to our country, and, again, working 
families in the United States of America pay the price.
  It is a lose-lose situation. The people in Indonesia are not going to 
win, the people in Thailand are not going to win, and the people in the 
United States are not going to win.
  Let me go on and read a few other provisions. Talking about the 
International Monetary Fund, one of the goals must be to ``facilitate 
the expansion and balanced growth of international trade and to 
contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high-level 
employment and real income and to the development of productive 
resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy.''
  I have to say to colleagues, I cannot believe that this is a statute 
that applies to the IMF, because that is not what the International 
Monetary Fund has been about. I do not know how anybody here can make 
the case that the IMF's economic prescriptions for these countries have 
been about promoting ``high levels of employment and real income and 
the development of productive resources of all members as primary 
objectives of economic policy.'' That is almost laughable. That is not 
what the IMF has done.
  I think what we have done is we have forfeited a historic opportunity 
to strengthen the position of working people in these other countries, 
to support the human rights of citizens in these other countries, to 
take a look at Thailand and Indonesia, who are among the worst 
offenders in Asia denying worker rights, among the worst offenders in 
Asia in violating the human rights of their citizens, and, basically, 
what we have on the Senate floor is silence on these questions.
  Why don't we have any connection to what are, I think, the most 
important factors in determining whether or not the people in these 
countries are going to do well and the majority of the people in our 
own country are going to do well?

[[Page S2556]]

  As I look at these provisions--and I will go back and I will 
summarize this amendment--this amendment essentially instructs the 
Treasury Secretary to appoint an advisory committee composed of eight 
members, at least two of which will be from organized labor, two from 
nongovernmental environmental groups and two from nongovernmental human 
rights or social justice organizations. This advisory committee will 
meet with the Secretary of the Treasury twice a year, and they will 
talk about IMF policy, whether or not the IMF is in compliance or not 
with existing statutory requirements relating to IMF promotion of high 
levels of income, employment, fair labor practices, indigenous people's 
rights, reductions in military spending, respect for human rights and 
sensitivity to the environmental impact of IMF policies.
  The advisory committee shall meet with the Treasury Secretary at 
least every 6 months to review and to provide advice on IMF compliance 
with these mandates.
  I will say one more time, by way of conclusion, the IMF is not in 
compliance with these mandates, not in compliance with the existing 
laws that apply to IMF, not in compliance on internationally recognized 
labor rights, not in compliance of respect for indigenous people, not 
in compliance in human rights, not in compliance with sensitivity to 
environmental concerns. We have a golden opportunity, and we are 
missing it. That is why I am not going to vote for this amendment that 
deals with International Monetary Fund assistance to these countries to 
make things much better.
  I believe that what we are about to do, the amendment we are going to 
adopt on the International Monetary Fund, will, in fact, not help those 
countries in Asia, not help the peoples of those countries that are 
struggling, and will end up hurting not only people in countries like 
Indonesia, but also will hurt families in our country as well.
  Why in the world don't we have more to say about a brutal 
dictatorship in Indonesia? Why don't we have more to say about the ways 
in which this dictator crushes people in his own country? Why don't we 
have more to say about the depressing of living standards of people in 
Indonesia? Why don't we have more to say about all the ways in which 
those people, not having decent jobs and decent wages, cannot buy what 
our working people produce? Why don't we have more to say about the way 
in which the IMF comes in, bails out the bankers, bails out the 
investors, insists on currency devaluation, insists on austerity and, 
therefore, forces those countries into currency devaluation and to 
exporting cheap products into our country, thereby hurting, again, 
working families in the United States of America? Not a word about 
that.
  I think the Senate is in serious error for not focusing like a laser 
beam on these concerns. But I will thank my colleagues for at least 
supporting this amendment, which I will fight very hard to keep in 
conference committee, because I really do believe that if we can have 
this advisory committee which will meet with the Secretary of the 
Treasury twice a year and which will raise these issues twice a year 
and which will discuss with the Secretary and analyze with the 
Secretary whether or not the IMF is in compliance with all of the 
statutory requirements relating to environmental protection, relating 
to human rights, relating to international labor standards, I think 
this will at least be a step forward.
  I am, on the one hand, just saying to colleagues that I think the 
provisions we have out here in relation to the IMF, the investment we 
make in the International Monetary Fund is mistaken. I think we miss a 
tremendous opportunity to exert leadership, the United States of 
America exerting leadership in behalf of working people in other 
countries, in behalf of human rights, in behalf of the environment. We 
are not doing that. But at the very least, I hope my colleagues will 
support this amendment.
  I said to my colleague from Alaska that if the Senate is, in its 
wisdom, going to support this amendment, then I am pleased to have a 
vote right now.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Minnesota has 
finished his comments on his amendment. I have had no request for time. 
So if the Senator is prepared to vote, I am prepared to yield back the 
time allocated to our side. I so yield back the time.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am prepared to vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator said we will have a voice vote on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone 
amendment No. 2128, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 2128), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the next 
order of business will be the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. I 
ask unanimous consent that that be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, the pending business 
is the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is it possible, Mr. President--I know the Senator from 
Wyoming is for the amendment and I understand the Senator from Hawaii 
is opposed to the amendment. Can we have a time agreement on the 
amendment?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, 40 minutes on a side; 80 minutes equally 
divided will be agreeable. We were just talking about reducing that by 
10 minutes a few moments ago, but I have not had a chance to check with 
the other side.
  Mr. STEVENS. Seventy minutes equally divided. I say to the Senator, 
that is agreeable, but we have a time already set for the vote on the 
Helms amendment. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. If we enter into 
a time agreement, what happens to the vote at 6:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We would suspend consideration on the Enzi 
amendment until we have the vote on the Helms amendment, and after 
that, we would resume debate on the Enzi amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we enter 
into such an agreement, 70 minutes equally divided on this amendment 
and no second-degree amendments be in order to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 2133

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2133.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the pending question.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Emrich 
and Katherine McGuire be granted the privilege of the floor during the 
course of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment with my 
colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Nevada, Senator Bryan and 
Senator Reid, and the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions.
  This bipartisan amendment touches an issue that is very important to 
me, and that is the issue of States rights. This amendment is very 
simple and straightforward. It would prohibit the Secretary of the 
Interior from finalizing the proposed rules published on January 22 of 
this year. It would also prohibit the Secretary from proposing or 
promulgating any similar regulations. In effect, this amendment would 
prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from bypassing the States in the 
process of approving class III Indian casino gambling.
  Mr. President, I must admit that I am disappointed this amendment is 
necessary at all. Last year, I offered an amendment, along with a 
number of my colleagues, on the Interior appropriations bill. We 
debated that on the floor. That prohibited the Secretary of the 
Interior from approving any new tribal-State gambling compacts which 
had not first been approved by the State in accordance with existing 
law.
  Although that amendment provided only a 1-year moratorium, the intent 
of

[[Page S2557]]

the amendment was clear. Congress does not believe that it is 
appropriate for the Secretary of the Interior to bypass the States or 
to spend money bypassing the States in an issue as important as whether 
or not casino gambling will be allowed within a State's borders.
  The debate bore out that intent. I think it was clearly understood. 
It ended with a voice vote. It was passed by wide bipartisan support. 
Unfortunately, the Secretary did not think, evidently, that Congress 
was serious when we passed the amendment last year.
  On January 22 of this year, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, published proposed regulations which would allow the 
Secretary of the Interior to bypass the State's authority in the 
compacting process. In effect, these proposed regulations would allow 
Secretary Babbitt to approve casino gambling agreements with the Indian 
tribes without the consent or approval of the States. This is precisely 
what Congress prohibited in last year's amendment. Evidently, Secretary 
Babbitt did not think we were serious.
  Mr. President, this amendment is designed to ensure that the proper 
process is followed in the tribal-State compacting process. There may 
be those who argue that changes need to be made to the Indian Gambling 
Regulatory Act. I would not necessarily disagree with my colleagues on 
that point. However, if any changes are to be made, the changes must 
come from Congress, not from an unelected Cabinet official. By 
proposing these regulations, the Secretary of the Interior has shown an 
amazing disregard for Congress and for all 50 States.
  Mr. President, I have to admit that I find the timing of the 
Secretary's actions ironic. Just recently, the Attorney General 
appointed an independent counsel to investigate Secretary Babbitt's 
actions in regard to approving and denying tribal-State gambling 
compacts from Indian tribes in Wisconsin.
  Although we will have to wait for the investigation to take its 
course, it is evident that serious questions have been raised about the 
Secretary of the Interior's objectivity in approving Indian gambling 
compacts. We should not allow the Secretary of the Interior to usurp 
the rightful role of Congress and the States in addressing the 
difficult question of Indian casino gambling.
  Mr. President, this amendment has the strong endorsement of the 
National Governors' Association. At their annual convention this year, 
the Governors adopted a resolution strongly opposing the Secretary's 
proposed regulations. I have a copy of that letter. I ask unanimous 
consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               National Governors Association,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1998.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chair, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Lott, Minority Leader Daschle, 
     Chairman Stevens, and Senator Byrd: This letter is to confirm 
     Governors' support for the Indian gaming-related amendment 
     offered by Senators Michael B. Enzi, Richard H. Bryan, and 
     Harry Reid to the Senate supplemental appropriations bill. 
     This amendment prevents the secretary of the U.S. Department 
     of the Interior from promulgating a regulating or 
     implementing a procedure that could result in tribal Class 
     III gaming in the absence of a tribal-state compact, as 
     required by law.
       The nation's Governors strongly believe that no statute or 
     court decision provides the secretary of the U.S. Department 
     of the Interior with authority to intervene in disputes over 
     compacts between Indian tribes and states about casino 
     gambling on Indian lands. Such action would constitute an 
     attempt by the Secretary of the Interior to preempt states' 
     authority under existing laws and recent court decisions and 
     would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating 
     gambling compacts with states.
       Further, the secretary's inherent authority includes a 
     responsibility to protect the interests of Indian tribes, 
     making it impossible for the secretary to avoid a conflict of 
     interest or exercise objective judgment in disputes between 
     states and tribes.
       We urge your support of the Enzi/Bryan/Reid amendment. 
     Please contact us if you have any questions about our 
     position on these matters, or call Larry Magid of NGA, at 
     202/624-7822.
           Sincerely,
                                             Raymond C. Scheppach.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also have a letter from the Western 
Governors' Association, signed by the Governor of Alaska, who is the 
chairman of that association, again, reiterating their concerns about 
bypassing the States rights. I ask unanimous consent that that letter 
also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Western Governors' Association,

                                 Washington, DC, December 5, 1997.
     William J. Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. President: It is the understanding of the Western 
     Governors' Association, that the Secretary of Interior has 
     proposed a rule-making on Indian Gaming that would usurp the 
     Governors authority to enter into compact negotiations on 
     gaming with Indian tribes. States have repeatedly voiced 
     their concerns about the Secretary's desire to promulgate 
     this rule. On October 10, a letter was sent by the National 
     Governors' Association Chairman and Vice-Chairman to the 
     Secretary of Interior on this rule-making proposal.
       It is evident that the states' concerns have gone unheard 
     or at least have not been responded to by the Secretary. As a 
     former Governor, you can appreciate how troubling it is when 
     a cabinet member fails to consider or enter into a dialogue 
     with us about state's legitimate concerns.
       The Secretary is using the Seminole Tribe of Florida vs. 
     Florida decision by the Supreme Court to inappropriately 
     expand his authority. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
     established a procedure whereby decisions could be made when 
     a state and tribe were unable to agree to the terms of a 
     compact. Before the Secretary is authorized to provide a 
     compact to a tribe under IGRA, the courts must first make a 
     finding of bad faith on the part of the state. When the 
     Supreme Court stuck down the portion of IGRA that permitted 
     tribes to sue states in Federal Court, it eliminated the 
     mechanism for arriving at a finding of bad faith by the 
     court. It would be inappropriate for the Secretary to now 
     take the authority to render a finding of bad faith and then 
     to authorize a gaming compact to a tribe over the objections 
     of a state. Moreover, the Secretary's action contradicts the 
     clear intent of Congress as embodied in the final Interior 
     conference report that you signed, which imposes a one-year 
     moratorium on imposition of a procedure that would result in 
     tribal Class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-state 
     compact as required by law.
       As the National Governors' Association policy states 
     ``nothing remains in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any 
     other law that endows the Secretary with the authority to 
     independently create such a process. . . . The Governors will 
     actively oppose any independent assertion by the Secretary of 
     the power to authorize tribal governments to operate Class 
     III Gaming. State and tribal governments are best qualified 
     to craft agreements on the scope and conduct of Class III 
     Gaming under IGRA.''
       Furthermore, under the duties of the office, the Secretary 
     has a special legal relationship to Native Americans, and it 
     would be impossible for him to be objective in making 
     decisions settling compact differences between states and 
     tribes--in effect the Secretary becomes a self-appointed 
     judge and jury.
       These are difficult issues, and we understand the Secretary 
     interpreting his role as advocate for Native Americans. 
     However, Governors have Constitutional responsibilities to 
     all of the people of our states. Based on these 
     responsibilities we are compelled to tell you that the 
     Secretary started down an unproductive path when he concluded 
     that the Interior Department should become the sole arbiter 
     in the compact process.
       We urge you to find a resolution to the conflicts between 
     the states and tribes that is more appropriate than that 
     initiated by the Secretary. The Western Governors' 
     Association stands ready to participate in such an effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tony Knowles,
                                     Governor of Alaska, Chairman.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a resolution passed by the National Association of 
Attorneys General at their spring meeting.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               National Association of Attorneys General


   Resolution; Opposing Proposed Department of Interior Regulations 
         Regarding Secretarial Procedures for Class III Gaming

       Whereas, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 
     25 U.S.C. Sections 2701 to 2721 (1998)(``IGRA''), creating a 
     statutory basis for the regulation of gaming by Indian 
     tribes; and

[[Page S2558]]

       Whereas, IGRA provided the States a role in the regulation 
     of class III gaming through a process utilizing compacts; and
       Whereas, IGRA provided a remedial process for tribes 
     seeking to allege that a State has failed to negotiate for 
     class III gaming in good faith; and
       Whereas, this statutory remedial process could not be 
     initiated until a federal court determined that the State had 
     failed to negotiate in good faith; and
       Whereas, on March 27, 1996, the Court in Seminole Tribe v. 
     Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (1996), held that Congress could not 
     abrogate the States' 11th Amendment immunity pursuant to the 
     powers granted to it in the Indian Commerce Clause, thereby 
     closing the door to the remedial process in IGRA unless a 
     State consents to being sued; and
       Whereas, on May 10, 1996, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
     response to the decision in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 
     seeking comment on, among other things, whether and under 
     what circumstances the Secretary of the Interior is empowered 
     to prescribe procedures for the conduct of class III gaming 
     when a State interposes its 11th Amendment immunity to suit 
     under IGRA; and
       Whereas, some 22 State Attorneys General have signed a 
     letter concluding that ``It is clearly contrary to law and 
     inappropriate for the Secretary of the Interior to take 
     action to promulgate regulations allowing class III gambling 
     as suggested'' in the Advanced Notice of Rulemaking; and
       Whereas, on January 22, 1998, the Department of the 
     Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, published proposed 
     regulations governing class III gaming procedures;
       Now, Therefore Be It Resolved That the National Association 
     of Attorneys General:
       (1) opposes promulgation of the proposed rules by the 
     Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, on the 
     basis that the Department lacks the legal authority to 
     promulgate such regulations, as more fully set forth in 
     General Butterworth's letter of June 28, 1996 to Secretary 
     Babbitt (see attached);
       (2) opposes the proposed regulations because they empower 
     the Secretary of the Interior to determine which games are 
     ``permitted'' in a given state, as that term is used in IGRA, 
     a determination that requires an interpretation of state law 
     which should be the exclusive province of the states 
     themselves;
       (3) opposes the proposed regulations because they empower 
     the Secretary of the Interior to determine whether a State 
     has negotiated with a Tribe in good faith, even though the 
     Secretary has an acknowledged trust responsibility for the 
     Tribes, thus creating a clear conflict of interest;
       (4) opposes the proposed regulations because, in direct 
     defiance of the Supreme Court's holding in Seminole Tribe, 
     116 S. Ct. at 1133, they ``rewrite the statutory scheme in 
     order to approximate what [the Department] think[s] Congress 
     might have wanted had it known that section 2710(d)(7) [the 
     lawsuit provision] was beyond its authority''; and
       (5) authorizes the executive director and General Counsel 
     of NAAG to transmit copies of this resolution to the 
     Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, before 
     the close of the comment period for the proposed regulations 
     on April 22, 1998, and to other interested individuals, 
     members of Congress, and agencies, as appropriate.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record relevant excerpts from a 1996 letter from 
Attorney General Butterworth from Florida and signed by 22 State 
Attorneys General. This letter explains that the Attorneys General 
believe any attempts to circumvent the States in the compacting process 
violates the language and meaning of the Indian Gambling Regulatory 
Act.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 State of Florida,


                                   Office of Attorney General,

                                                    June 28, 1996.
     Re comments on establishing departmental procedures to 
         authorize class III gaming on Indian lands when a State 
         raises an eleventh amendment defense to suit under the 
         Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Vol. 61 Fed. Reg. No. 92, 
         pg. 21394 (5/10/96).

     Hon. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, U.S. 
       Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Babbitt: Please accept this letter as the 
     comments of the undersigned Attorneys General relating to the 
     above referenced Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 
     undersigned, on behalf of our respective states, have a vital 
     interest in the proper execution of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act and in gambling activities in our states 
     generally. In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 116 S.Ct. 1114 
     (1996), the Supreme Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit's 
     opinion that Congress had no authority to abrogate the 
     Eleventh Amendment immunity of the States in the passage of 
     IGRA and that the doctrine of Ex parte Young could not be 
     used to circumvent the States' immunity. The court did not 
     however address the issue raised by Part V of the lower court 
     opinion regarding the remaining remedy for Tribes faced with 
     States allegedly not bargaining in good faith, as required by 
     IGRA.


                      introduction and background

       It is uniformly the legal view of the undersigned state 
     Attorneys General that, absent congressional authorization, 
     the Secretary of Interior has no authority to prescribe class 
     III tribal gaming procedures when a state raises an Eleventh 
     Amendment bar to a ``bad faith'' lawsuit under IGRA. Further, 
     there is no legal question but that if the Secretary were to 
     assume such power, without congressional authorization, the 
     Secretary would be constrained by existing federal law, 
     including the federal Gambling Devices (Johnson) Act, 15 
     U.S.C. 1175, from prescribing procedures that include any 
     form of electronic or electro-mechanical gambling devices.
       Section 23 of IGRA also bars the Secretary from prescribing 
     any gambling procedures that are inconsistent with ``State 
     laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition 
     of gambling.'' Section 11(d)(6) of IGRA lifts the prohibition 
     of the Johnson Act only if there is a tribal-state compact in 
     a state where ``the gambling devices are legal'' under state 
     law. If the Secretary were to adopt procedures governing 
     gaming procedures inconsistent with or abrogating state law, 
     it would be in violation of federal law.
       Nor can the Secretary legally ``fuzz'' the statutory 
     distinction between a tribal-state compact and post-mediator 
     secretarial procedures--the Congress gave these matters 
     legally distinct and meaningful definitions. Congress 
     intended secretarial procedures in lieu of a compact to occur 
     only when a state has been adjudged to have negotiated, or to 
     have refused to negotiate, in ``bad faith.'' The raising of 
     an Eleventh Amendment defense by a State is not itself ``bad 
     faith''--indeed, the Constitution permits it, as the Supreme 
     Court has noted. Certainly the Secretary, who holds a trust 
     responsibility to the tribes, is in no position to judge a 
     State to be in ``bad faith.'' Nor can the Secretary re-write 
     the statute to provide for a new form of ``secretarial 
     procedures,'' designed to apply only when there has been no 
     finding of ``bad faith.'' If there were the law Congress 
     intended, it could have simply provided for the Secretary of 
     Interior to provide for tribal gaming procedures and 
     regulations in all cases as a matter of federal law.
       An analysis of the legal error in Part V of the Eleventh 
     Circuit's Seminole opinion clearly demonstrates these points. 
     In the opinion that was appealed to the Supreme Court, the 
     Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals included dicta stating that 
     if a State invoked its Eleventh Amendment immunity, then a 
     Tribe could apply directly to the Secretary for the 
     promulgation of procedures for class III gambling in that 
     state. By request of the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General 
     filed a brief for the United States addressing the petition 
     and cross petition in the Seminole case. With respect to the 
     remedy suggested by the appeals court, he stated at page 9,
       ``The state petitioners in Nos. 94-35 and 94-219 seek 
     review of the court of appeals' expression of the view that, 
     if a state does not consent to suit by a Tribe, the Secretary 
     of the Interior would have the authority to prescribe 
     regulations to govern the conduct of gaming on the Tribe's 
     Indian lands. That discussion in the opinion below is dicta, 
     since the court ordered the case dismissed on sovereign 
     immunity grounds[.]'' (emphasis added)
       Because the appeals court held that the case should be 
     dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, the dicta in part V 
     of the opinion does not provide any legal authority for the 
     Department of the Interior to act. In contrast to the dicta 
     of the Eleventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
     stated in Spokane, that:
       ``The Eleventh Circuit was concerned by the regulatory void 
     that it might leave by invalidating the IGRA's provisions for 
     federal judicial enforcement. Those concerns illustrate the 
     problem caused when state sovereignty is injected into the 
     federal scheme. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that a void was 
     not necessary because the provisions of the statute 
     authorizing the Secretary of Interior to impose regulations 
     would come into effect once a state asserted immunity from 
     suit.
       When that occurred the Secretary of the Interior would, in 
     the Eleventh Circuit's view, remain authorized to impose 
     regulations for Class III gaming. Seminole Tribe, 11 F.3d at 
     1029. In our view, however, such a result would pervert the 
     congressional plan. This is because the Secretary of the 
     Interior under the statute is to act only as a matter of last 
     resort, and then only after consulting with the court 
     appointed mediator who has become familiar with the positions 
     and interests of both the tribes and the states in court 
     directed negotiations. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv)-
     (vii). The Eleventh Circuit's solution would turn the 
     Secretary of the Interior into a federal czar, contrary to 
     the congressional aim of state participation.''--Spokane 
     Tribe of Indians v. Washington State, 28 F.3d 991, 997 (C.A.9 
     (Wash.) 1994) (emphasis added)
       Any proposal to allow a direct by-pass to the Secretary is 
     inconsistent with Congressional intent for two reasons: (1) 
     it allows the tribes to circumvent State participation, 
     thereby not recognizing a legitimate interest of the States; 
     and (2) it ignores IGRA's design to include the states. It 
     should be clearly understood that the proposed remedy has the 
     effect of taking the states completely out of the IGRA 
     process. A Tribe would be able to request a compact with a 
     demand it knows the State cannot accede to, thereby

[[Page S2559]]

     guaranteeing that there will be no compact within 130 days, 
     and providing the ``predicate'' for a ``bad faith'' lawsuit. 
     This is possible because IGRA does not require that the Tribe 
     negotiate in good faith. At the end of 180 days, with no 
     progress toward a compact, the Tribe may file suit. If the 
     State raises its Eleventh Amendment defense, the Tribe will 
     petition directly to the Secretary of the Interior, 
     undoubtedly for the gaming activities it knew the State could 
     not agree to, including, in most cases, gambling devices and 
     activities criminally prohibited in the state. State 
     participation has thereby been rendered meaningless.
       The proposed Secretarial remedy is inconsistent with the 
     plain language of the statute and is an effort to grant a 
     remedy to the Tribes not found in IGRA. The Eleventh Circuit 
     erroneously stated that the new remedy is consistent with the 
     intent of Congress. By creating the remedy, the Eleventh 
     Circuit sacrificed the States' role in an effort to 
     effectuate its notion of the broad intent of Congress.
       ``Deciding what competing values will or will not be 
     sacrificed to the achievement of a particular objective is 
     the very essence of legislative choice--and it frustrates 
     rather than effectuates legislative intent simplistically to 
     assume that whatever furthers the statute's primary objective 
     must be the law.''--Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 
     526 (1987). The process and the remedy set forth in 
     Sec. 2710(d)(7) was: ``[T]he result of the Committee 
     balancing the interests and rights of the tribes to engage in 
     gaming against the interests of the States in regulating such 
     gaming.'' S. Rep. 100-446, S. 555, 100th Cong., 2d Sess., 14. 
     The Eleventh Circuit even recognized that IGRA was passed: 
     ``[A]fter contentious debate concerning the appropriate state 
     role in the regulation of Indian gaming.''--Seminole Tribe, 
     11F.3d at 1019.
       The Eleventh Circuit's attempt to legislate a new remedy 
     and the Department of the Interior's proposal to implement 
     such a remedy are inappropriate and it should be left to 
     Congress to reevaluate the balance of interests and purposes 
     of this act in fashioning a new remedy, if one is needed. The 
     Court of Appeals is not free to fashion remedies that 
     Congress has specifically chosen not to extend. Landgraf v. 
     U.S.I. Film Products, ____U.S.____. n 36, 62 U.S.L.W. 4255, 
     4267 n. 36 (April 26, 1994); see, Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. 
     Transportation Workers. 451 U.S. 77, 97 (1981). Nor can the 
     Secretary fashion such a remedy.
       The legal error underlying the suggested process can be 
     shown by the facts of the Seminole case itself. The Seminole 
     Tribe requested a compact and proceeded to file suit against 
     the State of Florida with a demand for slot machines and 
     gambling activities criminally prohibited by Florida. The 
     District Court found that the State had not failed to 
     negotiate in good faith. Accordingly, the Tribe was not 
     entitled to mediation or the ``secretarial procedures'' that 
     follow a court-appointed mediator's involvement. However, 
     under the suggested ``Secretarial remedy,'' the Seminole 
     Tribe could apply to the Secretary for gaming procedures, 
     even in the face of a finding of good faith on the part of 
     the State. This locks the State out of the process, contrary 
     to the intent of Congress.
       The states have a legitimate interest in what transpires on 
     Indian reservations within their borders. It is clear that 
     the patrons of Indian gambling operations are not tribal 
     members, but generally non-Indian members of the surrounding 
     communities. Further, the States have an interest in 
     protecting all state citizens.

                           *   *   *   *   *



                               conclusion

       The undersigned Attorneys General strongly believe that it 
     is clearly contrary to law and inappropriate for the 
     Secretary of the Interior to take action to promulgate 
     regulations allowing class III gambling as suggested. If 
     Congress determines that there needs to be a change in IGRA 
     based on the Supreme Court's holding in Seminole, then it is 
     the appropriate forum for discussion of the balancing of 
     interests among the state, federal and tribal governments.
       ``Deciding what competing values will or will not be 
     sacrificed to the achievement of a particular objective is 
     the very essence of legislative choice--and it frustrates 
     rather than effectuates legislative intent simplistically to 
     assume that whatever furthers the statutes primary objective 
     must be the law.''--Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 
     526 (1987).
       Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 
     rulemaking.
           Sincerely,
         Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General of Florida; Jeff 
           Sessions, Attorney General of Alabama; Winston Bryant, 
           Attorney General of Arkansas; Daniel E. Lungren, 
           Attorney General of California; Grant Woods, Attorney 
           General of Arizona; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney 
           General of Connecticut; M. Jane Brady, Attorney General 
           of Delaware; Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of Idaho; 
           Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General of Michigan; Joseph P. 
           Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana; Frankie Sue Del 
           Papa, Attorney General of Nevada; Margery S. Bronster, 
           Attorney General of Hawaii; Scott Harshbarger, Attorney 
           General of Massachusetts; Mike Moore, Attorney General 
           of Mississippi; Don Stenberg, Attorney General of 
           Nebraska; Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General of New 
           Hampshire; Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of 
           Ohio; Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Attorney General of 
           Pennsylvania; Jeffrey L. Armestoy, Attorney General of 
           Vermont; William U. Hill, Attorney General of Wyoming; 
           Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma; Jeffrey 
           B. Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island; Darrel V. 
           McGraw, Jr., Attorney General of Virginia.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the rationale behind this amendment is 
simple: Society as a whole bears the burden of the effects of gambling. 
A State's law enforcement, social services, and communities are 
seriously impacted by the expansion of casino gambling on Indian tribal 
lands. Therefore, a decision about whether or not to allow casino 
gambling on Indian lands should be approved by popularly elected 
representatives, not by an unelected Cabinet official.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rights of the States and the 
rights of this Congress, as popularly elected leaders, by voting for 
this amendment. And, Mr. President, the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Gorton, also approves of the amendment. I do ask for your 
consideration of that amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding me time.
  I rise to endorse the comments made by Senator Enzi. In 1996, I was 
the attorney general of the State of Alabama, and I was one of the 22 
attorneys general that signed the letter that Senator Enzi mentioned 
earlier. This letter, which was initiated under the leadership of 
Attorney General Bob Butterworth of Florida, was a 13-page letter 
discussing the legal reasons why the attorneys general believe that the 
Secretary of the Interior ought not to be setting the gambling policies 
for our various States. Why did we take this position? Because our 
review of applicable law revealed to us that there was no legal basis 
for the Secretary of Interior to act this way, especially in light of 
the important Seminole Tribe v. Florida case decided by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in 1996.
  The issue of tribal gaming is a matter of extreme importance. My home 
state of Alabama has consistently rejected casino gambling in the 
State. We have one small Indian tribe that owns several pieces of 
property in the State. If that tribe were able to go to the Secretary 
of the Interior and obtain approval to build casinos on their property, 
we would soon have three major, active casinos in the State of Alabama 
bringing with them all the problems that are associated with casino 
gaming. The tribal reservations are extremely small, however they would 
impact the community to a great degree.
  As the Senator from Wyoming so eloquently said, it is the States who 
will bear the burdens and the responsibility and the consequences of 
having the Secretary of Interior impose gambling on them. The Secretary 
of the Interior should not be imposing tribal gaming decisions on the 
States. In the past, the Secretary had indicated that he would prefer 
not to intervene in these matters. If that is so, then he certainly 
should not oppose this legislation that would prohibit his ability to 
unilaterally decide state gaming issues. I think this issue is a matter 
that we need to treat very significantly.
  Make no mistake about it, having been involved in the process, I 
learned something that is quite important, and that is just how much 
money is involved. When the Secretary of the Interior, one man, can 
look at one group of claimants, or favor one Indian tribe over another, 
and he can then select a group and say, ``You can get a gambling 
casino,'' he may have made that group hundreds of millions of dollars--
I do not mean one million, I mean hundreds of millions of dollars--and 
another tribe may get nothing from that. The Secretary's ability to 
make one decision which makes certain groups rich and certain groups 
poor is one reason why the committee testimony concerning Mr. Babbitt's 
dealing with contributions tied to Indian gaming was such a dramatic, 
and unseemly, event.
  So I think that is not the way public policy and gambling policy 
ought to be set in America. It ought to be set on a rational basis by 
the people of the State who would have to live with that

[[Page S2560]]

activity. I think Senator Enzi is correct. Similar legislation passed 
once before, I think, with consent. I hope that it will again. I 
believe we need to make clear that the people of our States will be the 
ones to decide whether or not gambling occurs.

  I would just like to share a quote from an editorial appearing in the 
Montgomery Advertiser last year. In this editorial the Advertiser, the 
newspaper of the capital of Alabama, says:

       Regardless of whether one favors or opposes legalized 
     gambling on Indian lands, surely there can be little dispute 
     over the legitimate interest of states in having some say in 
     the matter, rather than having gambling instituted within 
     their borders through federal-level negotiations.

  Respecting the role of states is fundamental to this issue, and 
Senator Enzi's amendment solves the problem of Federal intrusion 
created by the regulations put forward by the Secretary of Interior. I 
salute Senator Enzi for his amendment, and I thank the Chair and yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I yield such time as Senator Bryan needs, the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I thank you.
  I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, who has 
not had an opportunity to speak. If he wishes to precede me, I would be 
happy to yield.
  Mr. President, I think it is helpful to our colleagues if we put this 
amendment in some context.
  In 1988, the Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. That 
act says that to the extent that States permit gaming activities within 
the States, that Indian tribes within those States should have the same 
opportunity. Let me say that I am in support of that philosophy.
  In Nevada, we have a full range of casino gaming activity. There is 
no question in my State that tribes within Nevada have the same 
opportunity, and, indeed, we have five compacts that have been ratified 
between the Governor and the tribes in my State permitting those tribes 
to conduct the same kind of activity for gaming enterprises that we 
have in Nevada.
  Let me give a contrast, if I may. My friend from Hawaii and our 
colleagues from Utah--in those two States a determination has been made 
that no form of gaming activity should be permitted, something that I 
believe is a matter of public policy for those two States to make a 
determination. So it is equally clear under the act that Indian tribes 
would have no opportunity to participate in Indian gaming unless the 
States chose to permit it because they have made a public policy not to 
have any form of gaming.
  In between, there are 48 other States that have adopted variations of 
gaming. So there are a number of States that have entered into 
compacts; that is, agreements between Governors and tribes. The Enzi-
Bryan-Reid amendment in no way impacts those States that have 
previously entered into compacts. Those are valid and continue to be 
effective.
  What is at issue here is that some tribes, particularly in California 
and Florida, have tried to force the respective Governors of those 
States to permit gambling activity, which those States do not permit, 
specifically in the form of slot machines. California has made a 
determination that they do not, as a matter of public policy, favor 
slot machines, so therefore slot machines are not permitted in 
California. In Florida, the same public policy prevails. And the tribes 
have sought to force those Governors to negotiate this kind of gambling 
activity.
  In California today, there are 40 tribes that operate 14,000 illegal 
slot machines, slot machines that are not part of negotiated compacts. 
Recently, the Governor of California and the Pala Band Indian Tribe 
have entered into a compact that does not, Mr. President, include the 
gambling activity that currently illegally exists in these 20 
reservations; namely, slot machines.
  What is troublesome to my colleagues who join me on this amendment 
and what was of concern to the Congress in the last session is the 
Secretary of the Interior has moved forward with regulations that would 
say the Governors and the tribes are not the ones to determine the 
scope of gaming in a given State; the Secretary of the Interior should 
have that right.
  So in the Interior appropriations bill that was approved last year, 
we offered a provision that said, in effect, the Secretary of Interior 
is prohibited from expending any money to implement a regulation which 
would give to him the authority to be the final arbiter between a tribe 
and a State as to what should be negotiated.
  What causes our renewed concern is, the Secretary of Interior has now 
begun a rulemaking process that has been out for public comment, that 
is currently before the Office of Management and Budget for review, 
that is doing the very sort of thing that we sought to prohibit in the 
appropriations bill last year.
  What this amendment does is to reaffirm the policy of the Congress 
that the Secretary of Interior shall not move forward in overriding, if 
you will, a determination between a Governor and the tribe as to the 
scope of gaming. I am familiar with no circumstance--none--in which a 
Governor today has refused to negotiate in good faith for gambling 
activity on a tribal reservation that is consistent with that State's 
public policy. So what we are really talking about here are tribes that 
have been putting a lot of pressure on Governors to, in effect, open up 
casino gaming, as the distinguished Senator from Alabama pointed out. I 
believe that is a determination the States, the Governors, ought to 
make.
  The law is clear, once a State crosses the Rubicon and permits a form 
of gaming, the tribal governments within that State should be entitled 
to the same. That is fair. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the 
gander. There is no quarrel with that.
  But the tribes have sought to push some of the Governors and say, 
``Look, we want slot machines. Even though you do not permit that as a 
matter of public policy, we believe you ought to be required to 
negotiate that, and if you won't negotiate that, we will accuse you of 
acting in bad faith and will go to the Secretary of Interior and have 
him make that determination.''
  I believe however we line up on the political spectrum in this 
Chamber, that is not a decision that the Secretary of Interior ought to 
be making. That is a decision which the State, as a matter of public 
policy, should determine for itself--how much, how little, if any, 
gaming activity should be allowed.
  What our amendment does is to refine the amendment that was offered 
as part of the appropriation process and goes further and says, ``Look, 
you shall not go forward with this rulemaking process,'' in the context 
of the appropriations for this year. I believe that is totally 
consistent with what we began last year, and I believe it is something 
this Chamber ought to reaffirm.
  My concern is that the rate in which this rulemaking process is 
proceeding is, the day after the current appropriations bill expires, 
October 1, we have a regulation out there and the Secretary of Interior 
will begin to make determinations as to the scope of gaming permitted 
in States. May I say in the two States in question, one of them 
presided over by a Democrat, one by a Republican, this is bipartisan. 
Both of those Governors have resisted that. The National Governors 
Association has gone on record as opposing the Secretary of Interior's 
position, the National Association of Attorneys General has gone on 
record as opposing it, Democrats and Republicans in both of those two 
associations, because in effect the Secretary of Interior would be 
allowed to preempt State public policy. That is something that I 
believe none of us would want to occur.

  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2134

 (Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that of the rescissions, 
    if any, which Congress makes to offset appropriations made for 
  emergency items in the Fiscal Year 1998 supplemental appropriations 
   bill, defense spending should be rescinded to offset increases in 
                     spending for defense programs)

  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to send an 
amendment to the desk, the same be immediately laid aside, and later 
brought for consideration.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, what is the amendment?

[[Page S2561]]

  Mr. BUMPERS. I will send the amendment to the desk to be set aside to 
be brought up at your discretion.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is this the one on which I was to have the colloquy with 
the Senator from Arkansas?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will discuss that with you in just a moment.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator has that right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2134.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE WITH REGARD TO OFFSETS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Budget Enforcement Act contains discretionary 
     spending caps to limit discretionary spending;
       (2) within the discretionary spending caps, Congress has 
     imposed firewalls to establish overall limits on spending for 
     non-defense discretionary programs and overall limits on 
     spending for defense discretionary programs;
       (3) any increase in non-defense discretionary spending that 
     would exceed the non-defense discretionary spending caps must 
     be offset by rescissions in non-defense discretionary 
     programs;
       (4) any increase in defense discretionary spending that 
     would exceed the defense discretionary spending caps must be 
     offset by rescissions in defense discretionary programs;
       (5) the Budget Enforcement Act exempts emergency spending 
     from the discretionary spending caps;
       (6) certain items funded in the FY98 supplemental 
     appropriations bill have been designated as emergencies and 
     thus are exempt from the budget cap limitations;
       (7) the House of Representatives will be considering a 
     version of the FY98 supplemental appropriations bill that 
     will purportedly make rescissions to offset spending on items 
     that have been deemed emergencies;
       (8) the rescissions included in the House of 
     Representatives FY98 supplemental appropriations bill will 
     purportedly come solely from non-defense discretionary 
     programs;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate 
     that of the rescissions, if any, which Congress makes to 
     offset appropriations made for emergency items in the Fiscal 
     Year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, defense spending 
     should be rescinded to offset increases in spending for 
     defense programs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is set aside.
  The Senator from Hawaii has the floor.
  Mr. INOUYE. Parliamentary inquiry. Is there a vote scheduled at 6:30?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; there is a vote 
scheduled for 6:30.
  Mr. INOUYE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2130

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, debate on the Enzi 
amendment will be suspended in order to vote on amendment No. 2130.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
North Carolina, Mr. Helms.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Bingaman
     Dodd
     Feinstein
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone
  The amendment (No. 2130) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are waiting on an agreement on what to 
do with the bill for the remainder of the evening and tomorrow. I urge 
Senators--again, we are making up a list. We call it a finite list. We 
hope to get an agreement before we leave here that amendments, unless 
they are on the list, will not be in order for this bill. So I urge 
Senators to speak to their respective sides to see to it. That is the 
suggestion.
  I yield to the Senator from Virginia. He wants to qualify an 
amendment now.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2135

 (Purpose: To reform agricultural credit programs of the Department of 
                  Agriculture, and for other purposes)

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

       The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Robb) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2135.

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

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     ``SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This section may be cited as the `Agricultural Credit 
     Restoration Act'.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSOLIDATED FARM AND RURAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT ACT.

       (a) Section 343(a)(12)(B) of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(12)(B)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(B) Exceptions.--The term `debt forgiveness' does not 
     include--
       ``(i) consolidation, rescheduling, reamortization, or 
     deferral of a loan;
       ``(ii) debt forgiveness in the form of a restructuring, 
     write-down, or net recovery buy-out during the lifetime of 
     the borrower that is due to a financial problem of the 
     borrower relating to a natural disaster or a medical 
     condition of the borrower or of a member of the immediate 
     family of the borrower (or, in the case of a borrower that is 
     an entity, a principal owner of the borrower or a member of 
     the immediate family of such an owner); and
       ``(iii) any restructuring, write-down, or net recovery buy-
     out provided as a part of a resolution of a discrimination 
     complaint against the Secretary.''.
       (b) Section 353(m) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2001(m)) is 
     amended by striking all that precedes paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(m) Limitation on Number of Write-Downs and Net Recovery 
     Buy-Outs Per Borrower.--
       ``(I) In general.--The Secretary may provide a write-down 
     or net recovery buy-out under this section on not more than 2 
     occasions per borrower with respect to loans made after 
     January 6, 1988.''.
       (c) Section 353 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2001) is amended by 
     striking subsection (o).
       (d) Section 355(c)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2003(c)(2)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Reservation and allocation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the greatest 
     extent practicable, reserve and allocate the proportion of 
     each State's loan funds made available under subtitle B that 
     is equal to that State's target participation rate for use by 
     the socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers in that State. 
     The Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, distribute 
     the total so derived on a county by county basis according to 
     the number of socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers in 
     the county.
       ``(B) Reallocation of unused funds.--The Secretary may pool 
     any funds reserved and allocated under this paragraph with 
     respect to a State that are not used as described in 
     subparagraph (A) in a State in the first 10 months of a 
     fiscal year with the funds similarly not so used in other 
     States, and may

[[Page S2562]]

     reallocate such pooled funds in the discretion of the 
     Secretary for use by socially disadvantaged farmers and 
     ranchers in other States.''.
       (e) Section 373(b)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2008h(b)(1)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may not make or guarantee a loan under subtitle A 
     or B to a borrower who on, 2 or more occasions, received debt 
     forgiveness on a loan made or guaranteed under this title.''.
       (f) Section 373(c) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 2008h(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) No More Than 2 Debt Forgivenesses Per Borrower On 
     Direct Loans.--The Secretary may not, on 2 or more occasions, 
     provide debt forgiveness to a borrower on a direct loan made 
     under this title.''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out the amendments made by 
     this Act, without regard to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code; and
       (2) the statement of policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     relating to notices of proposed rule-making and public 
     participation in rulemaking that became effective on July 24, 
     1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804).

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment to 
correct a measure that was in the 1996 agriculture bill. There are $48 
million in this emergency bill to provide for direct operating loans to 
farmers. But most of the minority and small farmers are not able to get 
to those loans because of a disqualifying provision. This corrects 
that. We will try to work it out so it will be accepted when it is 
taken up on the floor.
  Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to improve access 
to the USDA's lending programs for farmers.
  The emergency supplemental appropriations bill we're considering 
contains enough funds to allow $48 million more money to be available 
for direct operating loans. These loans are crucial to farmers, 
especially in the spring, because they use the borrowed funds to buy 
the seed, fertilizer and other material essential for planting, which 
they repay after harvest.
  Unfortunately, there are many minority and socially disadvantaged 
farmers who will not have access to these critical loan funds because 
of a provision in the 1996 farm bill. That provision bars a farmer--
forever--from turning to the USDA's loan programs if they have ever 
defaulted previously on a federally-backed agricultural loan. This 
inflexible provision permanently eliminates the farmers' access to 
these loan programs, even if the cause of the previous default was the 
result of racial discrimination against the farmer perpetrated by the 
Federal Government, or a disaster beyond the farmer's control, or a 
medical condition which affected the farmer's ability to pay.
  My amendment addresses this situation.


                                 farad

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand that the USDA is working 
toward the release of funds relating to the competitively awarded Smith 
Lever 3(d) Food Safety grants program. An eligible activity of this 
program is the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database (FARAD). The 
American people are demanding higher levels of food safety, and the 
FARAD program will help develop better methods of assuring the safety 
of food products from our livestock sector.
  The Smith Lever 3(d) Food Safety program contains a total of 
$2,365,000, but it has been suggested that only $195,000 would be 
available for the FARAD activities. However, I understand that FARAD is 
not limited by the suggested amount of $195,000 and that additional 
funds under the Smith Lever 3(d) Food Safety grants program could be 
directed to FARAD as a competitive award. I further understand that no 
funds under this program have been obligated for the current fiscal 
year.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Montana is correct. The suggested 
figure of $195,000 is not a binding cap on the funds potentially 
available to FARAD in fiscal year 1998. I understand that grants under 
the Smith Lever 3(d) Food Safety program will be awarded in the near 
future and that proponents of the FARAD program should be advised that 
additional competitive funds may be available and they may wish to 
craft their applications to reflect this opportunity.


                          disaster assistance

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I would first like to thank my 
distinguished colleagues, the Chairman, Senator Stevens and Ranking 
Member Senator Byrd for addressing the issue of providing relief for 
Georgia disaster victims in this bill. And, to my colleague, Senator 
Coverdell the Senior Senator from Georgia for his direct involvement 
and for offering his amendment to see that adequate relief is obtained 
for Georgia. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of his amendment. I would 
also like to thank my colleague Senator Bumpers, for his skillful work 
as the Ranking Member on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in 
his efforts to incorporate the valuable requests for disaster 
assistance into this bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CLELAND. I would like to follow up on the comments made yesterday 
by my colleagues, Senator Cochran and Senator Coverdell with a question 
to Senator Bumpers. I wanted to confirm the report that the $60 million 
from the Emergency Conservation Program along with the amendment 
providing an additional $50 million from the Emergency Watershed and 
Flood Prevention program provided in the 1998 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Bill will be sufficient to fully cover the losses in 
Georgia resulting from the recent flooding and tornado?
  Mr. BUMPERS. My colleague from Georgia is correct. The reports from 
officials at the Department of Agriculture would suggest that with an 
additional $50 million, which would bring the total supplemental 
appropriation for the Emergency Watershed and Flood Prevention account 
to $100 million along with the $60 million allocated for the Emergency 
Conservation Program, the needs of Georgia as well as the numerous 
other Americans around the country who are in need of natural disaster 
relief will be met.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank my colleague for his assistance. The vital funds 
for disaster assistance provided in this bill will be a blessing for 
those farmers in Georgia who have been so devastated by the severe 
weather that they have endured for the past year. I also will be 
thankful to see that relief is provided to those in the Northeast and 
California as well as the many other Americans who have been victims of 
natural disaster. I thank Senator Bumpers for his leadership in this 
effort for the people of Georgia and all those affected.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am privileged to be the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the full Committee 
on Environment and Public Works. I have been involved in the Patent and 
Trademark Office space consolidation for the past 4 years. However, 
this has had a much longer history of review. In August of 1995, GSA, 
the Department of Commerce, and the PTO negotiated with OMB on 
alternatives for proceeding to consolidation and the placement of the 
PTO's expiring leases scheduled for 1996. The administration determined 
that there were insufficient funds available in the President's budget 
for the foreseeable future to pursue these alternatives of direct 
Federal construction or an equity lease.
  Let me repeat, Mr. President: That history has shown that often 
construction is less expensive than the option of leasing. There is no 
mystery here. The problem is, we do not have $250 million to construct 
such a building. Budget constraints dictate a lease in this instance.
  For this reason OMB then authorized the General Services 
Administration to transmit a prospectus, pursuant to the Public 
Buildings Act, to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committees requesting 
authorization to acquire a competitively procured, 20-year operating 
lease for 1,989,116 occupiable square feet (osf) to consolidate the PTO 
on a Northern Virginia site within boundaries extending from the 
Potomac River along the Dulles corridor. Once again, let me stress that 
this is a competitively procured lease.
  Mr. President, the prospectus was approved by the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works on October 24, 1995, and the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on November 16, 1995. 
The Senate

[[Page S2563]]

Committee on Environment and Public Works carefully considered the need 
for the facility, various alternatives, and the costs of each approach 
before authorizing the lease procurement to be conducted by the GSA for 
the PTO. Further, both Committees directed GSA to amend its Source 
Selection approach to provide ``that any evaluation used for such 
acquisition considers proximity to public transportation, including 
MetroRail, to be a factor as important as any other non cost factor.''
  I have been assured by the PTO, Senator Gregg, that prior to the 
issuance of the Solicitation for Offerors (SFO), the PTO undertook a 
detailed analysis and review of case law, news articles, and recent 
Federal acquisitions and leases such as: the Internal Revenue Service, 
the Federal Communications Commission, and the Ronald Reagan Building 
etc. to identify potential problems with the PTO procurement.
  In short, the analysis that the Senator seeks was performed by the 
Administration in developing the prospectus, was reviewed by both the 
House and Senate authorizing committees, and approved in 1995. 
Furthermore, as I have already stated, the PTO and the Administration 
are continuing to revalidate that analysis.
  Mr. President, to date, all analysis of this procurement has shown 
that under the current budget scenario, this procurement is needed by 
the PTO, and is in the best interest of the taxpayers. PTO 
currently resides in expired holdover leases. This is an untenable and 
costly situation that must be addressed immediately.

  Senator Gregg will now join in a colloquy.
  As we discussed, am I correct that the current language as drafted 
excludes comparison in the requested report between leasing and federal 
construction?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Would the Senator also agree that the budget will not 
likely enable us to proceed with any project which will be scored as a 
capital investment?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator have a view as to whether the 
Appropriations Committee would be prepared to fund a lease/purchase 
arrangement, given the scoring impacts that would result in such a 
transaction?
  Mr. GREGG. No we are not.
  Mr. WARNER. Is it the Senator's understanding that a lease-purchase 
would require that budget authority be scored against this project? 
Where as a operating lease is only scored for the annual rent payment?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator. Is it true that this budget 
authority for any lease-purchase would be scored against GSA's Federal 
Buildings Fund?
  Mr. GREGG. That is my understanding.
  Mr. WARNER. Is it the Senator's understanding that there is no 
capital available for either construction or lease-purchase of this 
project? That is what the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 
was relying upon when we authorized this long-term lease.
  Mr. GREGG. That is also my understanding.
  Mr. WARNER. Finally, I am concerned that the study comparing the cost 
versus the benefit of relocating to a new facility compares ``apples to 
apples''. Therefore, it is important that such things as the cost of 
space required to accommodate new staff at the PTO's existing 
locations; the costs of bringing existing facilities into compliance 
with current, not grandfathered, codes for life safety and 
accessibility for the disabled, and the costs of providing amenities 
such as day care facilities be considered as part of the costs of PTO's 
remaining in its current space. Do you agree?
  Mr. GREGG. I believe that these things should be considered in the 
cost versus benefit analysis.
  Mr. WARNER. I have taken a very active role in this matter because of 
the wonderful, loyal, dedicated service of the thousands of employees 
of PTO. I think our Federal Government owes them no less than the 
opportunity to have a new facility to perform their valuable work, and 
I hasten to say this building will largely be financed not by Federal 
taxpayers funds but by funds derived from the sevices performed by the 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not know of any further amendments 
on our side. There will be a managers' package. I understand Senator 
Smith has an amendment, and Senator Murkowski has an amendment.
  Mr. President, before we do anything more, I would suggest the 
absence of a quorum and wait for the leader to come.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator withhold so I may speak briefly?
  Mr. STEVENS. We have a pending matter with people entitled to speak 
now if we go back on the bill. I would suggest the absence of a quorum 
so we can straighten that out, and the Senator can speak. If we make 
this arrangement, anyone who wants to speak may do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________