[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2609-S2614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   ADVERTISING IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, as Senators rise to address things 
that have been added to the supplemental appropriations bill, I, quite 
the contrary, rise in recognition of something significant that has not 
been added to the supplemental appropriations bill. It is one of those 
few instances where there is a genuine achievement by the Senate in 
failing to act.
  It had earlier been suggested that an amendment might be offered to 
prohibit the FCC from using its powers to order a reduction in the cost 
of television advertising in political campaigns. This legislation does 
not contain that provision. In my judgment, it affords the FCC an 
extraordinary opportunity to take the lead in campaign finance reform.
  Mr. President, on 117 occasions in this decade, the U.S. Senate has 
considered, voted, and failed to implement fundamental campaign finance 
reform. This Senate has continued that unfortunate tradition. But now 
the Senate has an opportunity to help the process of political reform 
in the United States and to renew confidence in the institutions of 
Government and the political process itself by doing something for 
which it should be fully capable. They need do nothing.
  Yesterday, the new and very able chairman of the FCC, Chairman 
Kennard, announced that he would commence a notice of inquiry, which is 
an information-gathering process, to lead to a ruling on free air time. 
This could be the most significant achievement for campaign finance 
reform in the United States in 25 years, because fundamental to the 
problem of campaign fundraising in the United States is the cost of 
campaign television advertising. President Clinton and Senator Dole, in 
the last Presidential campaign, spent two-thirds of all the money they 
raised to purchase television advertising time from the commercial 
networks. Some U.S. Senate campaigns, including my own, spent over 80 
percent of their resources on television advertising.
  Mr. President, it makes no sense that candidates for Federal office 
in the United States spend so much of their time traveling around the 
country meeting with contributors, raising money, instead of meeting 
with voters, addressing real concerns in their States, because they 
need to raise millions of dollars to purchase federally licensed air 
time that belongs to the people of this country. This air.
  Time does not belong to the networks; it belongs to us, the people of 
this country. It is only licensed and it is given on condition. One of 
those conditions should be to be responsible in aiding the public 
debate.
  I supported the McCain-Feingold legislation, and I know some of my 
colleagues, like Senator McConnell, did not. But, rightfully, Senator 
McConnell did note something with which I strongly agreed--that the 
United States does not need less political debate; it needs more 
political debate to address our serious problems, to discuss our 
differences. This is the one means by which we can reduce the cost of 
running for political office and this threshold price of inquiry, of 
entering into the political process, and still enhance and expand 
political debate.
  Mr. President, it is a considerable achievement that this 
supplemental appropriations bill does not prohibit the FCC from acting 
in this instance. I hope that continues to be the stance of this 
Congress and that Chairman Kennard moves beyond this level of inquiry, 
genuinely adjusting and changing permanently the cost of television 
advertising. It is not too late for this Congress to move beyond the 
complaining, the infighting, the inquiries of the last Federal election 
and institute genuine reform. It is not too late, but it is getting 
late. And this may be the last opportunity.
  I am very pleased, Mr. President, that this legislation has remained 
silent on this issue and that this last lingering hope of reform 
remains alive.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nickles pertaining to the introduction of S. 1868 
are located in today's Record under

[[Page S2610]]

``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business for the next 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. DeWine pertaining to the introduction of S. 1866 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2157

   (Purpose: To cancel the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum 
                                Reserve)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2157.

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

       On page 26, after line 11, insert the following new 
     section: ``Department of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve

     ``SEC.   . STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.

       ``For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $207,500,000, 
     to remain available until expended, and the sale of oil from 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve required by Public law 105-83 
     shall be prohibited: Provided, That the entire amount shall 
     be available and the oil sale prohibited only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for $207,500,000, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of such Act.''.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the amendment before the body that I have proposed 
addresses a genuine emergency. Indeed, it belongs on the supplemental 
appropriations bill, and, as a consequence of its emergency status, no 
offset is needed.
  The amendment allows the President to stop the sale of oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was ordered in the 1998 Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Perhaps a little history is in order. Some of us in this body and 
this Nation remember that in 1973-1974 we had an energy crisis. The oil 
embargo from the Arab world resulted in a shortage. There were lines 
blocks long in front of gas stations, and the American public was 
indignant that their oil supply should be interrupted. They had not 
seen such a curtailment since gas rationing in the Second World War. 
But it was very real.
  I find it rather disquieting that many people today do not remember 
what I am talking about and the fact that this occurred. But there was 
great concern in this body in 1973 and 1974 as a consequence of that 
outcry from the public over the shortage of gasoline. So Congress 
wisely created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
  The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is located in Texas and Louisiana in 
salt caverns, and the idea was that we would never be held in a 
position where we could be, in effect, a hostage to our increased 
dependence on imported oil. The important thing to note is that at the 
time we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we were about 37 
percent dependent on imported oil. The idea was to have a 90-day supply 
at all times. The oil could be lifted in case of national emergency. At 
one time, we had a 118-day supply.
  The irony associated with this amendment today is that we are now 
selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the purpose of 
generating a cash-flow sufficient to manage and run the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, which is estimated to cost $207 million in 1998.
  The irony is that, today we are 52 percent dependent on imported oil. 
So if there was any logic at all to the decision back in 1975 to create 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve because we were 37 percent dependent, 
it is completely illogical that today we are selling it when we are 52 
percent dependent on imported oil. This suggests the right hand does 
not know what the left hand is doing, which is not necessarily uncommon 
around here.
  In the 1998 Interior appropriations bill, the order is for the sale 
of $207 million worth of oil from the SPR.
  I think this is where the bear goes through the buckwheat. We are 
selling this oil at $9 to $12 a barrel, and we paid $33 a barrel for it 
when we put it in. We would have to sell 23.1 million barrels of oil, 
that we paid an average of $33 a barrel for, for somewhere around $9, 
$10, $11, $12. It is poor-quality oil. That is how we are going to 
raise the $207 million to pay for the operation of the SPR.
  Again, the oil cost $33 a barrel. The American taxpayer is going to 
lose $550 million on this deal. This is an emergency because we are 
about to lose a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money. Buying high 
and selling low certainly never made sense to me, but there is an old 
joke out there about the guy who is buying high and selling low and 
claims he is going to make it up in the volume.
  Maybe that is the logic here; I don't know. But if this sale from the 
SPR goes through, these sales will have cost the American taxpayer, 
over 3 past years, roughly $1 billion, because we have been selling the 
oil at a price that is substantially lower than what we paid for it.
  As we look at where we are on this issue, I think we have to 
recognize a couple of pertinent points.
  The Secretary of Energy indicated in an Associated Press article that 
this is the worst time to be selling oil out of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve. He says that the Congress has given him no choice. This is 
unfortunate, because I have fought, and my colleagues on the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee have fought, to ensure that we discontinue 
selling oil out of that Strategic Petroleum Reserve, particularly at a 
price that is substantially lower than we paid for it.

  The Secretary says that Congress has given him no choice. Today, we 
have a choice. We can choose to pay over a half a billion dollars for 
the privilege of throwing away some of our energy security, or we can 
save the taxpayer half a billion dollars and have this valuable 
resource when we need it the most.
  Again, we are 52 percent dependent on imported oil. Some may argue we 
should require an offset to the amendment. But let me make it clear 
again, this amendment saves the American taxpayer money. The American 
taxpayer understands clearly, if you bought it at $33, you don't sell 
it at $9. Selling $33-a-barrel oil for $9 and calling it income is a 
budget gimmick, make no mistake about it, and the taxpayer does not 
understand those kinds of gimmicks.
  Further, we are not offsetting funds for Bosnia because of its 
supposed national security importance. The importance of the SPR is 
significant to our national security. It could not be more clear. The 
health of our economy and the ability to defend ourselves is 
significant.
  Furthermore, we should look back at a couple of significant events in 
the history of this matter. Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, my good 
friend on the committee, and I, cosponsored a successful amendment to 
stop the sale on the Interior Appropriations bill. It was dropped in 
conference. Why? Well, a lot of things are dropped in conference.
  Selling oil from the SPR is a budget gimmick that, again, costs the 
taxpayer real money. Stopping the sale will save the taxpayer over half 
a billion dollars and our Nation's energy insurance policy. This is an 
emergency, and it should be part of the emergency supplemental.

[[Page S2611]]

  Let me conclude by saying Webster defines an ``emergency'' as a 
sudden, unexpected occurrence demanding immediate action. This 
amendment certainly addresses such an issue, and I think the amendment 
certainly qualifies for the Emergency Supplemental.
  Again, the fiscal year 1998 Interior appropriations bill orders the 
sale of $207 million worth of oil from the SPR to operate the SPR. As a 
consequence, that would cost the American taxpayer roughly $500 
million, because we are proposing to sell that oil at $9 to $12 a 
barrel, when we paid in excess of $33 a barrel for the oil. That is the 
issue, Mr. President.
  I hope the managers of the bill will consider this on the merits of 
what it would save the American taxpayer. If anybody can explain the 
extraordinary accounting mechanism that would justify this as a good 
deal for the American taxpayer, the Senator from Alaska would certainly 
like to hear it.
  I thank the Chair and urge the floor managers to consider the merits 
of this amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment. Anyone familiar with New Mexico, which has an economy which 
is heavily dependent on production of oil from marginal wells, knows 
that the recent historic lows for the price of oil have posed an 
economic threat to families and communities as dire as any natural 
disaster. In this context, the concept of having the Federal government 
dumping nearly 20 million barrels of oil onto the market, equivalent to 
selling nearly 100,000 barrels per day for the remainder of the fiscal 
year, is ludicrous. Senator Murkowski and I worked hard to prevent the 
Interior Appropriations bill from selling oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve in the first place. We found an offset that would 
have worked, and that the Senate accepted, but which was dropped in 
conference. Today, we have a second chance to end this unwise and 
economically devastating sale. I fully support the amendment and urge 
my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, my colleague has stated the problem. 
Actually, if we do not adopt his amendment, the budget is more out of 
balance than it is if we do, because the sale of this oil at a time 
when the market is so low, which is the current mandate, would cause 
revenue to be so low that there would be a loss, as I said, to the 
overall budget process and it would be greater than this emergency 
amendment which provides the money for the SPR without selling the oil.
  I have had no objection to this amendment. I think we may face a 
substantial battle in the other body to justify this, but I believe we 
should accept it. And I know of no problem on the other side of the 
aisle, either. So I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time 
and urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2157) was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my colleague and good friend, the senior 
Senator from Alaska, for his acknowledgment of the importance of this 
amendment, with my hopes that it will survive the conference.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was derelict in not thanking the 
senior Senator from West Virginia, my good friend, Senator Byrd, as 
well, who just came on the floor. I appreciate his understanding. I 
know we have a great deal in common with regard to energy issues in our 
States.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CLELAND. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for this opportunity to 
speak.


                           Amendment No. 2158

(Purpose: To authorize the establishment of a disaster mitigation pilot 
             program in the Small Business Administration)

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], for himself, Mr. 
     Coverdell, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hollings, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 2158.

  Mr. CLELAND. 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, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DISASTER MITIGATION PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(b)(1) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) during fiscal years 1999 through 2003, to establish a 
     pre-disaster mitigation program to make such loans (either 
     directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending 
     institutions through agreements to participate on an 
     immediate or deferred (guaranteed) basis), as the 
     Administrator may determine to be necessary or appropriate, 
     to enable small businesses to install mitigation devices or 
     to take preventive measures to protect against disasters, in 
     support of a formal mitigation program established by the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, except that no loan or 
     guarantee shall be extended to a small business under this 
     subparagraph unless the Administration finds that the small 
     business is otherwise unable to obtain credit for the 
     purposes described in this subparagraph;''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 20 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) Disaster Mitigation Pilot Program.--The following 
     program levels are authorized for loans under section 
     7(b)(1)(C):
       ``(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
       ``(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
       ``(3) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
       ``(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
       ``(5) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.''.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, this amendment would permit SBA to use up 
to $15 million of existing disaster funds to establish a pilot program 
to provide small businesses with low-interest, long-term disaster loans 
to finance preventive measures before a disaster hits.
  I just got back from Georgia where we had an incredible tornado that 
came through and killed 14 Georgians. It is obvious to me we need to 
prevent people from becoming disaster victims, especially small 
business people. We cannot prevent disasters, but we can prevent, in 
many ways, disaster victims.
  In response to the problem of the increasing costs and personal 
devastation caused by disasters, the administration has launched an 
approach to emergency management that moves away from the current 
reliance on response and recovery to one that emphasizes preparedness 
and prevention. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has established 
its Project Impact Program to assist disaster-prone communities in 
developing strategies to avoid the crippling effects of natural 
disasters.
  This amendment supports this approach by allowing the SBA to begin a 
pilot program that would be limited to small businesses within those 
communities that will be eligible to receive disaster loans after a 
disaster has been declared.
  Currently, SBA disaster loans may only be used to repair or replace 
existing protective devices that are destroyed or damaged by a 
disaster. This pilot program would allow funds to also be used to 
install new mitigation devices that will prevent future damage.
  New legislation is necessary to authorize the SBA to establish this 
pilot program. I believe that my legislation

[[Page S2612]]

would address two areas of need for small businesses--reducing the 
costs of recovery from a disaster and reducing the costs of future 
disasters.
  Furthermore, by cutting those future costs, it presents an excellent 
investment for taxpayers by decreasing the Federal and State funding 
required to meet future disaster relief costs. The ability of the small 
business to borrow money through the Disaster Loan Program to help them 
make their facility disaster resistant could mean the difference as to 
whether that small business owner is able to reopen or forced to go out 
of business altogether after a disaster hits.
  I urge my colleagues to support this effort to facilitate disaster 
prevention measures so that when nature strikes in the future, the 
costs in terms of property and lives, and taxpayer dollars, will be 
reduced. However, in the interest of time, and with a commitment by the 
chairman of the Small Business Committee, the distinguished Senator 
from Missouri, to have our committee expeditiously consider this 
proposal, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2158) was withdrawn.
  Mr. CLELAND. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for his 
consideration of this situation here today and for the process that he 
is starting. We welcome that approach to this problem. That was the 
Cleland amendment that was listed on the list.
  We now are ready for two other Senators who, I believe, will come 
soon to present their amendments. We still believe we will have a vote 
sometime around 2 o'clock.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2159

(Purpose: To provide assistance to employees of the Farm Service Agency 
                   of the Department of Agriculture)

  Mr. STEVENS. I do have an amendment authored by my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, which I send this to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2159.

  Mr. STEVENS. 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 end of the bill add the following General Provision:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     permanent employees of county committees employed during 
     fiscal year 1998 pursuant to 8(b) of the Soil Conservation 
     and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)) shall be 
     considered as having Federal Civil Service status only for 
     the purpose of applying for USDA Civil Service vacancies.''

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to S. 1768, the 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, to address the inequitable 
treatment of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service 
Agency's (FSA) federal and non-federal county committee employees when 
separated from their jobs as a result of a reduction in force (RIF).
  FSA RIFs are occurring nationwide and are a result of comprehensive 
changes in the agency's mission mandated in the USDA Reorganization Act 
of 1994 and the 1996 Farm Bill. Complicating the impact of the FSA 
downsizing is the fact that the FSA is currently operating an unusual 
personnel system that contains two classes of employees, one federal 
and one non-federal. This was a result of the reorganizing legislation 
that combined the former Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation 
Service (ASCS) and the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) into the FSA. 
ASCS employees were paid through the FSA budget but were hired by a 
county committee. Therefore, ASCS employees were non-federal. FmHA 
staff were regular federal employees. Although now in one agency, this 
two-class system continues.
  My amendment would place RIFed federal and non-federal FSA employees 
on equal footing when competing for another USDA job. Currently, the 
RIFed non-federal employees are not on equal footing with their FSA 
federal employee counterparts for USDA job vacancies due to a 
preference only available to RIFed federal employees. Current law gives 
priority to any former federal employee when applying for another 
federal job. Thus, if all other qualifications remained equal, the 
former FSA federal employee would automatically get the job over the 
former FSA non-federal employee. My amendment would grant the RIFed 
non-federal employees the same priority as currently enjoyed by the 
RIFed federal employee when applying for another USDA job.
  Again, my amendment would simply provide equitable and fair treatment 
for all FSA employees, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. STEVENS. This is the Byrd relevant amendment that has been 
cleared on both sides, dealing with a provision of the Soil 
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. It is approved on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2159) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2160

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

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself and 
     Mr. Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 2160.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SCHOOL SECURITY.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Safe 
     Schools Security Act of 1998''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     school security training and technology, and for local school 
     security programs.
       (c) School Security Technology Center.--
       (1) Establishment.--The Attorney General, the Secretary of 
     Education, and the Secretary of Energy shall enter into an 
     agreement for the establishment at the Sandia National 
     Laboratories in partnership with the National Law Enforcement 
     And Corrections Technology Center--Southeast of a center to 
     be known as the ``School Security Technology Center''. The 
     School Security Technology Center shall be administered by 
     the Attorney General.
       (2) Functions.--The School Security Technology Center shall 
     be a resource to local educational agencies for school 
     security assessments, security technology development, 
     technology availability and implementation, and technical 
     assistance relating to improving school security.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,250,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001.
       (d) Local School Security Programs.--Subpart 1 of part A of 
     title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20

[[Page S2613]]

     U.S.C. 7111 et seq.) Is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 4119. LOCAL SCHOOL SECURITY PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--From amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (c), the Secretary of Education shall award grants 
     on a competitive basis to local educational agencies to 
     enable the agencies to acquire security technology, or carry 
     out activities related to improving security at the middle 
     and high schools served by the agencies, including obtaining 
     school security assessments, and technical assistance for the 
     development of a comprehensive school security plan from the 
     School Security Technology Center. The Secretary shall give 
     priority to local educational agencies showing the highest 
     security needs as reported by the agency to the Secretary in 
     application for funding made available under this section.
       ``(b) Applicability.--The provisions of this part shall not 
     apply to this section.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001.''.
       (d) Safe and Secure School Advisory Panel.--
       (1) Establishment.--There shall be established a panel 
     comprised of the Secretary of Education, the Attorney 
     General, and the Secretary of Energy, or their designees to 
     develop a proposal to further improve school security. Such 
     proposal shall be submitted to the Congress within 18 months 
     of the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment tries to deal, at least 
in part--and clearly it is only in part--with a very serious problem 
that has been brought to our attention, tragically, in the last few 
days, and that is the problem of violence in our schools.
  The occupant of the chair is painfully aware of this, as we all are, 
by virtue of the fact that this latest tragedy occurred in his home 
State of Arkansas. What we have tried to do is take provisions I have 
been working on in the nature of a ``safe schools security act'' and 
put those in amendment form to add to this legislation pending here 
today. I believe it is going to be acceptable to all Senators for us to 
go ahead in this manner.
  Let me explain the problem, as all of us know the problem exists. 
Obviously, there is no way to teach a student if a student feels 
threatened or if there is an unsafe condition in the school. 
Unfortunately, we have unsafe conditions and threatening conditions in 
too many of our schools today. The Department of Education recently 
released a study that tried to look at the incidence of school violence 
and school crime. The study shows that 10 percent of schools surveyed 
had at least one serious violent crime occur in that school during the 
1996-97 school year.
  In the case of violent crimes--obviously, I am talking about murder, 
rape, sexual battery, suicide, physical attacks with a weapon, or 
robbery of a student or adult--these are the types of crimes that we 
know are committed throughout our society, but, clearly, we need to 
provide special attention to see that these crimes are not committed in 
our schools.
  The study went on to point out that approximately 4,000 incidents of 
rape and other types of sexual battery occurred in our public schools 
across the country during the 1996-97 school year. There were 11,000 
incidents of physical attacks or fights in which weapons were used and 
approximately 7,000 robberies that occurred in schools in that same 
year.
  These statistics are frightening. They underscore a problem that I 
think we all know exists. One part of the solution, Mr. President--
again, I emphasize that this is only part--is to make better use in our 
schools of security technology. We have tremendous expertise in this 
country on the issue of technology to improve security.
  In our own National Laboratories in New Mexico, we have spent a great 
deal of time and resources working on this issue. I know other 
institutions around the country have as well. They have learned a great 
deal about how to maintain security, how to reduce the possibility of 
crime or illegal activity in a facility. And some of those lessons--not 
all--can be used effectively in our schools. We need to use this 
expertise to try to improve the way our schools function, to try to 
make available to our schools the new technology that has been 
developed.
  Already, Sandia National Laboratory in my State has an initiative in 
this regard. Two years ago, Sandia began a pilot project in the Belen 
High School in New Mexico whereby the security experts at Sandia 
implemented a security regimen and installed a variety of security 
technology in that high school. Sandia is the first to admit that they 
know very little about how to run a public school, and Belen was ready 
to admit they lacked expertise in the subject of security. 
Nevertheless, the two institutions got together. Sandia and Belen High 
School officials changed the way the school functioned by utilizing 
a comprehensive security design and technology.

  The results have been impressive. Since this pilot project was 
implemented at the school, on-campus violence is down 75 percent; 
truancy is down 30 percent; theft of vehicles parked in the school 
parking lot is down 80 percent; vandalism is down 75 percent. These 
statistics, I think, make the point that there is information here and 
there are lessons here that can be learned and can be put to valuable 
use in our schools.
  This technology is not cheap. Our schools are already strapped for 
adequate resources in a variety of ways. But I believe, with the right 
kind of technical assistance and technology, we can help the schools to 
help themselves to provide safer environments for our children.
  That is the purpose of the amendment that we are offering today. I 
hope very much that this is accepted. We need to take advantage of the 
lessons we have learned in other areas to try to assist our schools as 
well. Mr. President, I hope that over the remainder of this Congress we 
can identify other initiatives that we can take to improve security in 
our schools in addition to this. But this is one concrete step we can 
take. I hope very much that my colleagues will agree to this amendment 
and that it can be added to this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today as the proud cosponsor of 
the Safe Schools Security Act of 1998. Over the last three days the 
nation's attention has been riveted by the terrible school shootings in 
Jonesboro, Arkansas. In this time of sorrow, Americans have extended 
their hearts to the people of Jonesboro, particularly the families of 
the murdered and wounded children--once again demonstrating this 
country's incredible well-spring of sympathy and compassion. As we all 
struggle to explain how such a tragedy could occur, I have heard people 
offer different explanations. I have also heard people propose ways to 
combat the violence that has beset so many of our children's schools.
  I am convinced there is no simple solution. There is no easy way to 
staunch the violence in our schools. But complexity is never a solution 
for inaction. I am certain we in government must seek new ways to 
assist local school officials to combat the wave of violent crime in 
their schools. If we fail to act, school violence will grow to epidemic 
proportions, claiming more and more lives and injecting constant fear 
into the very institutions that once were a safe haven for our 
children.
  The legislation Senator Bingaman and I propose today, the Safe 
Schools Security Act, is an important first step in providing federal 
assistance to local school officials to help them combat violence. 
Local officials know their schools and communities best; it is crucial 
that we remember this. But some federal agencies possess unique 
expertise and practical experience in combating violence and protecting 
vital assets--and what greater asset is there than our children?--that 
we can provide to local school officials to help prevent acts of terror 
and violence such as those in Jonesboro.
  The Safe Schools Security Act is uncomplicated. It would create a 
school security technology center as a joint venture between the 
Departments of Justice and Energy. This center would be charged with 
creating a model or blueprint for school security programs and 
technologies. To realize this goal, the center will enlist the 
technological expertise of the Department of Energy--expertise gained 
by protecting our nation's most closely guarded nuclear secrets for 
over fifty years.
  Of course, technology works only if applied in the appropriate and 
most effective manner. In order to create a comprehensive plan for 
school security and ensure the most effective use of the Department of 
Energy's technological resources, we propose to couple them with the 
expertise found at the

[[Page S2614]]

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in my 
hometown of Charleston.
  Senator Bingaman and I hope this combination of technological 
expertise and real-world experience will produce a blueprint for a 
comprehensive security plan which can be used in any school in the 
nation. The center will be--and here I quote from the amendment--`` 
resource to local educational agencies for school security assessments, 
security technology development, technology availability and 
implementation, and technical assistance relating to improving school 
security.''
  Additionally, our legislation authorizes the Department of Education 
to begin a competitive grant program to provide funds to local school 
districts to implement a school security plan, with a preference for 
schools most at risk of violence.
  Again, the Safe Schools Security Act is not a panacea; it will not 
eradicate all the violence in our schools. But it is an important step 
in the right direction. The Act will use the expertise the Departments 
of Justice, Energy, and Education possess to help prevent tragedies 
like the one that befell Jonesboro. Developing a security model and 
assisting local schools to implement comprehensive school security 
plans is the right thing for us to do. I urge my colleagues to adopt 
this amendment, and I thank my cosponsor from New Mexico, Senator 
Bingaman, for his hard work and great assistance.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment authorizes grants to be 
made on a competitive basis to try to establish security technology 
systems and other devices and programs to help deal with this problem.
  The amendment has been reviewed on this side of the aisle, and we 
have no objection to having a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2160) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


                           Amendment No. 2161

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

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2161.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:

       On amendment No. 2118, on page 1 after line 13 insert 
     ``shipbuilding''.
       On page 3 line 7 Of amendment No. 2100, change the word 
     ``requirement'' to ``requiring''.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment that 
corrects language in amendments previously adopted by the Senate on 
this bill. The amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2161) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 
minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________