[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8639-S8648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I certainly was entertained by the 
exchange. And I know that the Senator from Utah is going to speak right 
after me. I hope he will have some biblical stories as well. The 
biblical lesson that I am about to propound has to do with the fact 
that two well-meaning and well-intentioned Americans can join together 
and resolve our problems and differences.
  Mr. President, earlier today an amendment of mine was accepted that 
unintentionally the Senator from Utah, the distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee, was unaware of. After vigorous discussion, the 
Senator from Utah and I have agreed, along with the Senator from 
Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, that we would 
modify that amendment and that basically what this means is that the 
cable rates would be held in moratorium until March 31, 1999.
  Mr. President, this is a serious issue. The chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee and I also know that it is serious, and we intend to work 
together and get this issue resolved so that there is meaningful 
competition to the rising cable rates in America which have gone up 9 
percent last year and 8 percent again this year.
  I think we reached an agreement that makes both of us slightly 
unhappy but I think will move this process along. I look forward to 
working with him in the weeks ahead, and hopefully by perhaps September 
we can get an agreement and move forward on this issue.


                 Vitiation Of Vote--Amendment No. 3229

  Mr. President, before the Senator from Utah speaks, I ask unanimous

[[Page S8640]]

consent that the vote on amendment No. 3229 be vitiated.
  The vote on amendment (No. 3229) was vitiated.


                    Amendment No. 3229, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN further ask unanimous consent that a modification of the 
amendment which is at the desk be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3229), as modified, was agreed to as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMMING.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Copyright Office is prohibited from implementing, enforcing, 
     collecting or awarding copyright royalty fees, and no 
     obligation or liability for copyright royalty fees shall 
     accrue pursuant to the decision of the Librarian of Congress 
     on October 27, 1997, which established a royalty fee of $0.27 
     per subscriber per month for the retransmission of distant 
     broadcast signals by satellite carriers, before March 31, 
     1999. This shall have no effect on the implementing, 
     enforcing, collecting, or awarding copyright royalty fees 
     pursuant to the royalty fee structure as it exists prior to 
     October 27, 1997.

  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Utah for his continued 
cooperation and offer my commitment to work with him and his staff.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona for being 
willing to work out this difficulty. There was, I think, a 
misunderstanding on this matter. We have reached an acceptable 
compromise that will encourage us to work together on these issues for 
the benefit of all of our constituents and the affected industries with 
deliberate speed. I hope that we can work together to fashion a 
comprehensive reform of the relevant laws and regulations that will 
increase the range of options that television viewers will have.
  The rates will be rolled back until early next year; that is, until 
March 31, when we would hope and expect Congress to be able to adopt 
meaningful comprehensive reform of the issues affecting the satellite 
industries and their customers.
  So, again, I want to thank my colleague for being willing to vitiate 
the prior vote, being willing to work out this compromise, and I 
express my desire to work together with him as chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, and I believe my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee will as well with him, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, 
and hopefully we can resolve the matters in the best interests of all 
Americans--both individuals and affected industries. And, again, I just 
express my appreciation.
  Parliamentary inquiry. Is that modification accepted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment was agreed to, as modified.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 3240

 (Purpose: To prohibit foreign nationals admitted to the United States 
          under a nonimmigrant visa from possessing a firearm)

  Mr. DURBIN. 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 Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3240.

  Mr. DURBIN. 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 in title I of the bill, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. FIREARMS.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (5) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(5) who, being an alien--
       ``(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been 
     admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as 
     that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));'';
       (2) in subsection (g), by striking paragraph (5) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(5) who, being an alien--
       ``(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been 
     admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as 
     that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));'';
       (3) in subsection (s)(3)(B), by striking clause (v) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(v) is not an alien who--

       ``(I) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(II) subject to subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to 
     the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is 
     defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));''; and

       (4) by inserting after subsection (x) the following:
       ``(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under 
     Nonimmigrant Visas.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `alien' has the same meaning as in section 
     101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(3)); and
       ``(B) the term `nonimmigrant visa' has the same meaning as 
     in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and 
     (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been 
     lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant 
     visa, if that alien is--
       ``(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or 
     sporting purposes;
       ``(B) an official representative of a foreign government 
     who is--
       ``(i) accredited to the United States Government or the 
     Government's mission to an international organization having 
     its headquarters in the United States; or
       ``(ii) en route to or from another country to which that 
     alien is accredited;
       ``(C) an official of a foreign government or a 
     distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by 
     the Department of State; or
       ``(D) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly 
     foreign government entering the United States on official law 
     enforcement business.
       ``(3) Waiver.--
       ``(A) Conditions for waiver.--Any individual who has been 
     admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa may 
     receive a waiver from the requirements of subsection (g)(5), 
     if--
       ``(i) the individual submits to the Attorney General a 
     petition that meets the requirements of subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) the Attorney General approves the petition.
       ``(B) Petition.--Each petition under subparagraph (B) 
     shall--
       ``(i) demonstrate that the petitioner has resided in the 
     United States for a continuous period of not less than 180 
     days before the date on which the petition is submitted under 
     this paragraph; and
       ``(ii) include a written statement from the embassy or 
     consulate of the petitioner, authorizing the petitioner to 
     acquire a firearm or ammunition and certifying that the alien 
     would not, absent the application of subsection (g)(5)(B), 
     otherwise be prohibited from such acquisition under 
     subsection (g).
       ``(C) Approval of petition.--The Attorney General shall 
     approve a petition submitted in accordance with this 
     paragraph, if the Attorney General determines that waiving 
     the requirements of subsection (g)(5)(B) with respect to the 
     petitioner--
       ``(i) would be in the interests of justice; and
       ``(ii) would not jeopardize the public safety.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to explain this amendment. It 
is rather simple, straightforward. It is, again, on the issue of guns. 
I am hoping now, for the first time today, that we can find some 
consensus on that issue. And I have spoken to some of my former 
adversaries, and there may be a chance. But I would like to explain 
what this amendment does.
  Earlier today, we have said in our votes on this floor--this body has 
said--that when it comes to requiring people who purchase guns in the 
United States when they purchase a handgun to buy a trigger lock, we 
voted no, they should not be required to buy a trigger lock. Then we 
said, if you are going to have a criminal background check when you buy 
a gun in this country, you do not have to pay for it; other taxpayers 
have to pay for it; it is free. Those are the two votes so far.
  I hope that I am going to broach a subject here where we can find 
some common ground on the issue of owning guns. Remember with me, for a 
moment, last year when there was a terrible killing at the Empire State 
Building. Gun violence in America, unfortunately, is not novel. We read 
about it every day, and we see it on the news.
  But it struck me as odd when I heard about this case because, if you 
will remember--and I think I have the sequence correctly--a resident of 
the Nation of Lebanon came to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa, 
such as a tourist visa. When he arrived in the United States, he 
visited the State of

[[Page S8641]]

Florida, which has relatively lax laws in terms of the purchase of 
firearms. He bought a firearm in Florida, took it up to the Empire 
State Building, and gunned down several innocent people, other tourists 
at the Empire State Building.
  It struck me as odd that while we enshrine the right of American 
citizens to own firearms, we apparently have few, if any, ways to check 
when people come into this country to buy a gun as to whether or not 
they are citizens of this country.
  So in this case, a man from another nation, a tourist, bought a gun 
and killed innocent Americans. I think that goes too far. I think, 
frankly, we ought to say that if you come into this country as our 
guest, not as a citizen of the United States, that we are going to 
restrict your right to purchase a firearm. You are not a citizen of our 
country; we have a right to impose such restrictions on you.
  So here is what we do: We say to the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, send over, through your computers, the names of those who are 
in this country legally on these visas; we will put them into our 
background check. If this individual had shown up at a gun store and 
said, ``I want to purchase a gun,'' they would put his name in the 
computer. And if he came up as a nonimmigrant visa holder, not a 
citizen of the United States, they would have said, ``No''; and had 
they said no to this man, several Americans might be alive today.
  I don't think that is an unreasonable requirement. In considering 
this amendment, I should think that people might question whether or 
not it is our obligation in this Nation, under the Constitution or 
otherwise, to arm people who come to visit us. I am not sure it is.
  Now, we do make exceptions, and I want to make certain that those who 
read this amendment understand the exceptions. We tried to imagine the 
exceptions of those coming to the United States on nonimmigrant visas 
who might need to own a gun for very real and legal purposes.
  Here are the exceptions that we included: We said if you are someone 
who has come to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting 
hunts--so you have someone who enjoys hunting and can legally do so in 
the United States, who comes here for that purpose, goes to the far 
west, wherever it might be, that person is exempt. That person may 
purchase a gun while here for that purpose.
  An official representative of foreign governments--certainly, any 
head of state brings a security contingent with him and that person may 
possess a gun.
  Those who are credited with the U.S. Government's mission to an 
international organization; those en route from one country to another; 
an official of a foreign government or a distinguished foreign visitor, 
a foreign law enforcement officer.
  We try to say these are categories of people which might in the 
ordinary course of events have a gun, need to purchase a gun, for very 
legitimate purposes.
  Now, what about those who are there on a nonimmigrant visa for a 
longer period of time? I am willing to concede that some are here for 
maybe even years legally on nonimmigrant visas and may need a gun at 
some point. We even put a provision in for that.
  A waiver of this requirement--if a person has resided in the United 
States for 180 days and can provide a statement to our Government from 
his Embassy or consulate that says he is authorized to acquire a 
firearm and he doesn't have a criminal record in his home country.
  So I think we have created exceptions which will allow those people 
who are here on nonimmigrant visas, who are not here to commit a crime, 
an opportunity to purchase or own a firearm. Yet we have said that 
tourists from any nation who comes in, buys a firearm, commits an act 
of terrorism or murder, is not welcome. We are not going to make it 
easy for them.
  That is the amendment which I have offered. I hope that those who are 
mulling over its provisions will come to the conclusion that it is not 
an unreasonable suggestion. I hope those who visit our country 
understand they are welcome. When it comes to purchasing a gun, which 
may lead to a violent crime, we are at least going to ask some 
questions. I think the people of America expect us to ask those 
questions.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. DURBIN. Has there been a unanimous consent agreement in terms of 
this pending amendment or any others considered this evening?
  Mr. GREGG. No.
  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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3240, As Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have sent a modification of my amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3240), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title I of the bill, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. FIREARMS.

       Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (5) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(5) who, being an alien--
       ``(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been 
     admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as 
     that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));'';
       (2) in subsection (g), by striking paragraph (5) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(5) who, being an alien--
       ``(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been 
     admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as 
     that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));'';
       (3) in subsection (s)(3)(B), by striking clause (v) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(v) is not an alien who--

       ``(I) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
       ``(II) subject to subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to 
     the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is 
     defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));''; and

       (4) by inserting after subsection (x) the following:
       ``(y) Provisions Relating to Aliens Admitted Under 
     Nonimmigrant Visas.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `alien' has the same meaning as in section 
     101(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1101(a)(3)); and
       ``(B) the term `nonimmigrant visa' has the same meaning as 
     in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)).
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Subsections (d)(5)(B), (g)(5)(B), and 
     (s)(3)(B)(v)(II) do not apply to any alien who has been 
     lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant 
     visa, if that alien is--
       ``(A) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or 
     sporting purposes or is in possession of a hunting license or 
     permit lawfully issued in the United States;
       ``(B) an official representative of a foreign government 
     who is--
       ``(i) accredited to the United States Government or the 
     Government's mission to an international organization having 
     its headquarters in the United States; or
       ``(ii) en route to or from another country to which that 
     alien is accredited;
       ``(C) an official of a foreign government or a 
     distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by 
     the Department of State; or
       ``(D) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly 
     foreign government entering the United States on official law 
     enforcement business.
       ``(3) Waiver.--
       ``(A) Conditions for waiver.--Any individual who has been 
     admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa may 
     receive a waiver from the requirements of subsection (g)(5), 
     if--
       ``(i) the individual submits to the Attorney General a 
     petition that meets the requirements of subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) the Attorney General approves the petition.
       ``(B) Petition.--Each petition under subparagraph (B) 
     shall--
       ``(i) demonstrate that the petitioner has resided in the 
     United States for a continuous period of not less than 180 
     days before the date on which the petition is submitted under 
     this paragraph; and

[[Page S8642]]

       ``(ii) include a written statement from the embassy or 
     consulate of the petitioner, authorizing the petitioner to 
     acquire a firearm or ammunition and certifying that the alien 
     would not, absent the application of subsection (g)(5)(B), 
     otherwise be prohibited from such acquisition under 
     subsection (g).
       ``(C) Approval of petition.--The Attorney General shall 
     approve a petition submitted in accordance with this 
     paragraph, if the Attorney General determines that waiving 
     the requirements of subsection (g)(5)(B) with respect to the 
     petitioner--
       ``(i) would be in the interests of justice; and
       ``(ii) would not jeopardize the public safety.''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have been working with the Senator from 
Idaho, and I think we have reached an agreement on this, in which we 
provide language that says if a person who comes to the United States 
on a non-immigrant visa is in possession of a hunting license or permit 
lawfully issued within the United States, they then would not be 
covered by the provisions of this law. That is consistent with the 
original language of the amendment.
  At this point, I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appreciate the willingness of the Senator 
from Illinois to modify his amendment. I think it is necessary and 
appropriate, and certainly the public understands that hunting is a 
lawful right and opportunity in this country. Certainly, foreign 
citizens who are here that go through the legal and necessary steps 
should be allowed that opportunity, and to acquire a gun for that 
purpose while here is necessary and fitting.
  I agree with the Senator from Illinois that he deals with a very 
important area of the law. We have seen it misused by aliens in this 
country. Our second amendment is something that we honor, that many of 
us feel is a very important right of our citizens under the 
Constitution. It should not be abused by those who are guests in our 
country, legally or illegally. I think the Senator from Illinois speaks 
clearly to that in the amendment. I appreciate his offering it.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Illinois has 
proposed a strong amendment here, and it has been strengthened further 
by the Senator from Idaho.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3240), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                         border patrol aviation

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would ask to engage the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, in a brief colloquy regarding a portion of the 
report which accompanies the bill, calling on the Border Patrol to 
examine the potential cost savings and border surveillance capabilities 
of a variety of types of aircraft. I support the committee's effort to 
seek more information to improve the cost effectiveness and efficiency 
of our border surveillance effort--against both illegal immigration and 
drugs. But, I also believe that we must review all types of aircraft, 
including both manned and unmanned airships. Is it the Committee's 
intent that such airships also be considered in the study and report?
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's concerns on this subject. The 
committee believes that the full range of aircraft options, including 
airships, should be examined by the Border Patrol to assist our efforts 
to ensure the most cost-effective and efficient ways to protect our 
borders from both illegal immigration and the flow of drugs.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator for his interest in this matter and 
for his clarification of the committee report.


               congress-bundestag youth exchange program

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee in a brief colloquy on the Congress-
Bundestag Youth Exchange Program (CBYX). I would like to hear his 
thoughts about German-American student exchanges and the reasons why 
the bill before us does not include any appropriation for these 
important exchanges.
  Let me assert first of all that I am a strong and enthusiastic 
supporter of the CBYX program that has been in existence now for 15 
years. I recall the enthusiasm in the Senate when, in 1983, the late 
Senator Heinz introduced the bill authorizing this exchange program. 
Many of us rose to endorse it and the legislation received unanimous 
support.
  The legislation was inspired by the events surrounding the critical 
decision by the German Government to deploy United States Pershing-II 
missiles in Germany--a decision which, in my judgment accelerated the 
end of the Cold War. At the time, it became evident that there were 
fundamental misunderstandings within Germany of United States 
intentions and equally shallow perceptions about Germany in the United 
States.
  The German Government felt the need for correcting misperceptions 
about the United States most acutely and initiated a process to 
establish and fund a youth exchange program with the United States. The 
Congress-Bundestag exchange program that emerged from those efforts was 
not just another bilateral exchange program. Rather, it has become an 
essential component of American foreign policy. With the imminent 
expansion of NATO eastward, it takes on an even more important role in 
promoting understanding between our two countries.
  The Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange program was launched jointly in 
1983 by the U.S. Congress and the German Bundestag and has been funded 
by both governments in roughly equal amounts ever since.
  Many of us on both sides of the aisle who were in Congress in 1983 
spoke passionately in support of these exchanges. Those of us who 
follow the program closely and meet with the exchange students believe 
it is an essential component of American foreign policy.

  Apart from expanding awareness of German and American institutions 
and culture, the international experiences and increased proficiency in 
language have become valuable assets in the students' continuing 
education and community life.
  One of the unique features of the Congress Bundestag Youth Exchange 
Program is that the German Government virtually matches our 
contributions on a dollar-for-dollar basis. They try to match the 
number of students they send to the United States to those we send 
Germany. They would like to send many more students. When we increase 
or decrease our funding, they tend to increase or decrease their 
funding. Thus, if we zero out or decrease funding for this program, the 
German Government may do the same. In effect, that would be a double 
hit and a double calamity for United States-German relations.
  Thousands of young people from Germany and from the United States are 
able to spend a year in the other country, live with host families and 
learn about one another. Thousands have become young Ambassadors for 
their country. They have strengthened our mutual interests.
  Germany's strategic importance in Europe is self-evident. It enjoys 
the strongest economy in Europe and has cooperated in expanding both 
the European Union and NATO toward the East. It is poised to play an 
even greater role in international peacekeeping, international 
commerce, and the global economy. Moreover, there are more than 60 
million Americans who trace their heritage to German origins, one of 
the largest, if not the largest, ethnic groups in the United States.
  Could I ask the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee what has 
been the recent funding levels for the Congress-Bundestag Program and 
if the bill before us eliminates or reduces funding for the Congress-
Bundestag program for fiscal year 1999?
  Mr. GREGG. Funding for this program was at $2.75 million for several 
years in the past but it declined to $2.4 million and has been at or 
below that level in recent years. The current bill does not include any 
funding for the Congress-Bundestag Program but it does not prohibit any 
funding either. We suggest in the report language that there are other 
competing priorities which make it difficult to fund all requests for 
cultural and educational exchanges.

[[Page S8643]]

  Mr. LUGAR. It is my understanding that this program is a very high 
priority of the administration and that the President has publicly 
stated that he wants to increase funding for the Congress-Bundestag 
Program in fiscal year 2000 to a level at least $2.8 million--an amount 
substantially above recent levels.
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. The President has announced his intention to request 
an increase for this program in the year following the current fiscal 
year. I will look forward to that request.
  Mr. LUGAR. I understand the companion House bill includes funding for 
this exchange program at about $2 million. Therefore, funding for the 
Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange program for fiscal year 1999 will be 
an issue in conference. Is it the chairman's intention to restore funds 
for the CBYX program in conference?
  Mr. GREGG. I would like very much to restore funding for this 
program--and for other exchanges as well. Unfortunately we are 
operating under tight budgetary constraints. As the senior Senator from 
Indiana knows, the number of international exchange programs have grown 
over the years and that is a reflection of their popularity and 
importance. Overall appropriations have not kept pace with the growth 
in the number of programs. The regrettable result of this shrinkage of 
funds and growth in demand for them means that some programs must be 
reduced.
  But, I very much appreciate the Senator's strong argument in support 
of the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange program, particularly the 
foreign policy role it plays in strengthening our ties with an 
important European ally, Germany. I will keep your arguments very much 
before me when we negotiate with our House counterparts in conference.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the chairman and appreciate his explanation. My 
original intention was to introduce an amendment to restore funding for 
the CBYX program but do not want to burden the managers with a specific 
earmark. Could the chairman give assurance that he will do all he can 
to restore funding for these exchanges. If he does, I will withdraw my 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. You have made a strong argument on behalf of the program. 
And I will do my best to adjust existing programs to provide funding 
for the United States-German exchange program.
  Mr. LUGAR. I appreciate your assurances. Mr. President, I would like 
to made a few additional comments on the Congress-Bundestag Youth 
Exchange Program.
  For the past 15 years, some 11,000 young students from Germany and 
the United States have participated in these exchanges. German and 
American families have hosted these students in their homes and 
communities and formed enduring friendships and nurturing the ability 
to see each other through the other's eyes. The earliest of these 
participants are mature adults now and have assumed responsible 
positions in their communities. I'm impressed that senior members of 
the German Government, including Chancellor Kohl and the President of 
the German Bundestag, Rita Sussmuth are personally involved in the 
program. Many others have invited American students to work in their 
offices, invited them into their homes and arranged for specific events 
on their behalf. Our German counterparts value this program very highly 
and promote it with enthusiasm.
  In the end, we should support this program because it is in our 
interests to do so. It is one of our smallest international exchange 
programs but it reaps substantial foreign policy benefits. We should be 
sending more American students to Germany on this program. The German 
Government wants to increase the number of students they send here.
  I should add that most of the American students selected for this 
exchange program are juniors or sophomores in high school. The 
standards are high. To be eligible, a student must have a 3.0 grade 
point or better and be a citizen or permanent resident of the United 
States.
  Once again, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee. He has a difficult task of balancing growing and 
competing demands with increasingly sparse resources. I appreciate his 
understanding and courtesy and look forward to working with him and the 
committee to restore funding for the Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange 
Program (CBYX).


           improving school safety and fighting school crime

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are aware, support 
for education has been at the top of my priorities since I began my 
career as a public servant.
  I've worked for many years, and on several fronts, to strengthen our 
public schools and universities, and I've focused as well on an 
essential prerequisite for improving educational opportunities--a safe 
learning environment. Unfortunately, not all students share the 
privilege of attending a safe school.
  Over the past year, tragic murders at schools across the Nation have 
chilled parents' hearts. Perhaps even more chilling are figures from a 
spring 1998 Department of Justice study, which indicates just how many 
schools, and schoolchildren, are at risk. In the past year, nearly 60 
percent of all elementary and secondary schools reported at least one 
incident of criminal activity to the police. Roughly 20 percent of 
schools reported six crimes or more. One out of every ten schools 
reported a serious violent crime during the past year.
  Mr. President, crime in school is a double threat--a threat not just 
to safety and property, but to our entire educational system. Parents 
should worry about their children dodging homework, not dodging 
bullets. Teachers should be able to devote their energy to promoting 
academic achievement, not counseling victims. And students should be 
focused on their next exam, not on making it safely to the next class.
  While the States have the primary responsibility for both education 
and criminal justice, and the Federal Government cannot give every 
neighborhood crime-free schools, I believe the Congress should do more. 
The Federal Government can help by supporting innovative efforts by 
local communities and law enforcement to improve safety, by sharing 
insights gained from these efforts with communities across the Nation, 
and simply by focusing attention on this problem.
  During past Congresses, I supported prevention programs to assist 
local communities, including drug resistance education, school security 
grants, and the Gun Free School Zones Act. In 1993, I worked to create 
a Commission on Violence in Schools to study school safety. I've also 
voted for additional deterrence measures, including adult prosecution 
of armed juveniles who commit violent crimes, and increased funding for 
juvenile prisons.
  Last fall, I proposed an amendment to permit funds available under 
the Community Oriented Policing Services Program (COPS) to go to school 
safety initiatives. COPS funding has been restricted in the past to 
hiring new police officers. The amendment I proposed, and the Senate 
adopted, expanded the use of COPS funding to reward innovative crime-
reduction efforts by communities and law enforcement, to share 
knowledge about successful school-safety programs, and to raise public 
awareness about school crime. Thanks to the support of Senators Gregg 
and Hollings, $17.5 million in grants were made available in fiscal 
year 1998. The grants will be awarded later this fall to communities 
across the Nation.

  This spring, I spoke with Senators Hollings and Gregg and urged them 
to continue and expand this program in fiscal year 1999, and I am 
grateful for their generosity and their commitment to the cause. The 
chair and ranking member provided more than $210 million for a Schools 
Safety Initiative. Under this initiative, $10 million will support 
research in technology to improve school safety, such as weapons 
detection equipment. Another $25 million will fund community efforts to 
promote nonviolent dispute resolution, to train teachers and parents to 
recognize troubled children, and to strengthen families.
  The bulk of the School Safety Initiative, $175 million, will be 
administered under the COPS school safety program that I initiated last 
fall. I believe this funding level is a strong statement to students, 
parents, teachers, and law enforcement. This program indicates that 
school safety is a national priority, and

[[Page S8644]]

I hope schools and communities across the Nation will respond.
  A number of schools in Virginia have already taken action. Some have 
set up anonymous crime tip lines for their students. Police in Richmond 
work with students to promote peaceful conflict resolution and drug 
resistance education. Other communities, such as Pulaski County, have 
actually placed police officers in schools.
  One remaining concern I have is the attention to this issue will 
receive from future Congresses. In my view, the matter of school safety 
deserves sustained attention, and continuing support from the this 
body. There are several juvenile justice reform bills pending before 
the Senate, and I'd like to move forward on legislation in this area 
this year. Unfortunately, that appears unlikely.
  Therefore, I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to 
schedule a full debate on juvenile justice issues, as a well as to 
provide continued support for school safety through the appropriations 
process during conference with the House this year and next.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3243

(Purpose: To amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, relating to 
    counsel for witnesses in grand jury proceedings, and for other 
                               purposes)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3243.

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

       At the appropriate place in title II of the bill, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 2____. GRAND JURY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

       (a) In General.--Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure is amended--
       (1) in subdivision (d), by inserting ``and counsel for that 
     witness (as provided in subdivision (h))'' after ``under 
     examination''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Counsel for Grand Jury Witnesses.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Right of assistance.--Each witness subpoenaed to 
     appear and testify before a grand jury in a district court, 
     or to produce books, papers, documents, or other objects 
     before that grand jury, shall be allowed the assistance of 
     counsel during such time as the witness is questioned in the 
     grand jury room.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. We were working on a unanimous consent agreement that 
would allow a second degree to be offered to the Senator's amendment, 
which would be reserved to the majority. Does the Senator object to 
such an option? It would be a relative second degree.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I don't know. I need to meditate on that.
  Mr. GREGG. That is why we are meditating on the yeas and nays.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I noticed there was no prompt response on that side of 
the aisle to a request for the yeas and nays, so I assumed some sort of 
cabal was in the works.
  Mr. GREGG. We would look forward to a vote on the Senator's 
amendment, but we do want to reserve the right to a second degree.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am not sure I look forward to voting on a second-
degree amendment, but then it may be, if we are going to have a 
unanimous consent agreement of any kind, it might preclude a second-
degree amendment.
  Let me think about it.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I want to suggest to each Senator that they meditate on 
this proposition.
  The doorbell rings and the Senator's wife answers the door. There is 
a nicely dressed person, in a suit and tie, standing at the door. He 
hands her a paper, and she says, ``What is this?''
  He says, ``That's a subpoena.''
  She says, ``What does that mean?''
  He says, ``That means that the district attorney, the United States 
attorney wants to question you.''
  ``Well, about what?''
  ``I don't know.''
  ``What does this paper mean?''
  ``It means that you don't have any choice. You must go down and 
appear before the grand jury.''
  ``Well, how long will that take?''
  ``Well, as a matter of fact, sometimes it takes several days. Some 
witnesses have been known to have to appear for 5 and 6 and 7 days, 
different times.''
  ``But I don't know anything. What can I testify to?''
  ``Ma'am, I'm just a functionary. I have been requested, and it is my 
official duty to present you with this subpoena. Incidentally, the U.S. 
attorney also wants you to bring all of your telephone calls and also 
any other documents or letters you may have in your possession that 
would relate to anything.''
  ``Well,'' she says, ``Do I get to bring a lawyer with me?''
  ``Oh, yes, ma'am, you can bring a lawyer.''
  Then she says, ``Well, can my lawyer sit in the grand jury room with 
me?''
  ``No, ma'am, I'm afraid not. Your lawyer can sit outside the grand 
jury room but he can't come in the room with you.''
  Now, to a lot of people, this is a real story. This is not an 
Orwellian bad dream. This is what happens to a lot of innocent people 
in this country on a daily basis. She doesn't have any choice but to 
show up.
  If she had been arrested and charged with a crime, and she was a 
possible criminal who was about to go on trial and serve jail time if 
convicted, she would have a constitutional right to a lawyer, or to 
remain silent. She would not have to tell the U.S. attorney anything. 
She could remain silent. She could not only remain silent; she would be 
provided a lawyer if she could not afford one.
  How many times has every person in the Senate stood on this floor and 
said criminals have more rights than ordinary citizens?
  In this case, it is true. I just gave you a classic illustration of 
why it is true. If this woman were arrested by the police, or charged 
with a crime, they couldn't treat her in such a way. But, because she 
is an ordinary witness, an innocent citizen, she can be made to go and 
testify. She can be made to bring any documents the U.S. attorney 
chooses to make her bring. She can be required to walk in the grand 
jury room and sit alone on the stand in abject terror because her 
lawyer is not permitted in the room with her; he must sit outside.
  It is true that she can ask for a recess, leave the witness stand and 
say to the court, say to the U.S. attorney:
  ``Before I answer that question, I would like to talk to my lawyer.''
  He says, ``OK.''
  So she goes outside and she asks her lawyer, to whom she has just 
paid a $5,000 retainer because she is terrified--not because she has 
done anything wrong--she has just paid this lawyer $5,000. They are 
people of very modest means. He cannot go in the grand jury room, but 
she can go out and ask him a question. She is not a lawyer and she is 
not sophisticated enough to know on what questions should she defer to 
her lawyer. She could answer the most incriminating question in the 
world, in all of her legal ignorance, and not know she had just 
implicated herself.
  What if she says to the man who appeared at her door with a subpoena:
  ``You say you don't know what they want to talk to me about?''
  He says, ``Well, it's about the parking meter scandal.''
  ``I don't know anything about any parking meter scandal.''
  ``Well, I'm sorry, ma'am.''
  She says, ``If they asked me something and I can't remember it, or if 
I try to remember and I give them an answer and it turns out to be 
wrong, then what happens?''
  ``Oh, then in that case, ma'am, they may charge you with perjury.''

[[Page S8645]]

  Here is a classic case of a criminal justice system that is not 
working. I heard all these lamentations about human rights in China, 
but you tell me, how much worse can a situation get, when innocent 
people every day in this country are called to testify--and, frankly, 
as good citizens they should be willing to testify--but when they get 
in the grand jury room with the U.S. attorney, they are subject to his 
mercy. He can ask them--he can ask this woman, first crack out of the 
bat, in this investigation of a parking meter scandal:
  ``Have you been faithful to your husband ever since you got 
married?'' He can do this because there is no requirement of relevancy 
in the grand jury.
  ``Well, as a matter of fact, I think that's personal.''
  ``Ma'am, I'm asking you a question. I want an answer. I understand 
that one of your children is gay; is that true?''
  ``Well, what's that got to do with anything?''
  ``Ma'am, I'm asking you the questions. I'm the U.S. attorney here, 
and I can ask anything I want. Is it true one of your children got 
picked up one time on a pot charge when he was a senior in high 
school?''
  ``What is that relevant to?''
  ``Ma'am, as I said, I'm asking the questions here. Now, I'm asking 
you, and you are legally required to answer truthfully.''
  Senators, I'm going to tell you something. You think this is 
farfetched? Believe me, believe me, it is not. It happens all the time.
  You ask yourself this question: How would you like to be in the grand 
jury room without a lawyer--nobody--and you ask the U.S. attorney:
  ``Look, I would like to go outside the room. My lawyer is sitting 
just outside the door. I would like to talk to him and ask him whether 
I should answer this question or not.''
  ``You have a right to do that, ma'am. Go right ahead.''
  She goes out. After awhile, he asks her another one of those silly 
questions. And she says, ``You know, I don't know how to answer that. I 
need to talk to my lawyer again.''

  The third time she does that, these grand jurors start nudging each 
other. ``This woman is hiding something. She knows a lot more than she 
is willing to talk about. Why is she going outside to talk to that 
lawyer so much if she doesn't have something to hide?''
  That is the psychological part of trying lawsuits. I am telling you, 
I was a trial attorney for 18 years before I became Governor. I have 
seen prosecuting attorneys, I have seen local district attorneys, I 
have seen U.S. attorneys, eaten up with political ambition. And when 
they are eaten up with political ambition, do you know what they want? 
All the notches in their belt they can get. They want to be able to 
boast, ``I never failed to get an indictment I asked for.''
  The chief judge of the State of New York once said, ``You can get a 
grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if you ask them to.'' I had a U.S. 
attorney tell me one time, ``I have never failed to get an indictment 
from a grand jury.'' I can tell you, if he had ever failed to get one, 
that would be one of the most abysmal failures I have ever heard of, 
because I know all kinds of U.S. attorneys and DA's all over this 
country who have been able to get an indictment every time they ask for 
one. Do you know why? Because there are 23 grand jurors sitting there 
who know nothing except what the U.S. attorney proposes to tell them, 
only what the witnesses he decides to call will tell them.
  Mr. President, I am not talking as any bleeding-heart liberal. I have 
defended a few criminals in my life. A couple of them I felt pretty 
sure were guilty, but the first thing I learned in law school is that 
this is a nation of laws; everybody is entitled to a lawyer, and to a 
fair trial.
  The grand jury system has gotten so bad that 27 States in this Nation 
have abolished grand juries. You think about that. The States are 
always ahead of us in Congress. Mr. President, 27 States have abolished 
the grand jury system, and 18 States have laws that allow the attorney 
for a witness to sit in the grand jury room with the witness. Now, what 
do these states know that we don't know?
  My amendment is just about as simple as you can make it. It says one 
thing, that a witness who has an attorney and wishes that attorney to 
sit in the grand jury room with them may do so. What is wrong with 
that? You tell me. Anybody, tell me.
  If a U.S. attorney is afraid to ask questions because he doesn't want 
her attorney to hear, what is objectionable about it? And why should 
he? Why should a U.S. attorney fear asking any question that he is 
going to ask later, perhaps, in the courtroom anyway? This is supposed 
to be a fair fight. Is he afraid of the truth?
  Do you know why we have a grand jury system? Because the Federal 
Government was not to be trusted and the Founding Fathers put the 
requirement in the Fifth Amendment: We will have a grand jury system. 
And the reason we cannot abolish it is because it is in the 
Constitution, and I would not change that. The States are not so 
fettered, and they are abolishing it right and left because they know 
that grand jury system is often not fair. It is just short of a Star 
Chamber proceeding because only one side of the case is heard.
  In medieval England people were tried by ordeal--they were thrown 
into the lake or had their hand dunked in boiling water. If they 
survived the ordeal, they were innocent. If they didn't, it didn't make 
any difference. That is what was called a Star Chamber proceeding. That 
is what people used to go through when they missed church. They were 
put in the stocks or they were subjected to boiling water or a whole 
host of other things.
  So that is the reason that many of the Founding Fathers came here 
after being abused and abused and abused in England. Because they were 
mostly a poor class, and they didn't trust Government. Because they had 
not trusted the King, they knew the King had all the cards, and they 
wanted to level the playing field and they wanted it to be a fair 
fight. I can tell you, we do not have a fair fight now in the grand 
jury.
  So, isn't this just simple justice, to allow a witness to have a 
lawyer? Is this complicated for anybody listening, that a witness who 
is not charged with anything should have a right to a lawyer in the 
courtroom, not sitting outside? Do you think a U.S. attorney would 
start off asking a Senator's wife if she had been faithful to him all 
of her life if her attorney was sitting there? I promise you he 
wouldn't. Do you think he would ask if her children were gay or had 
ever smoked pot if her lawyer was sitting in the room? Of course, he 
wouldn't. This is about simple deterrence of misconduct.

  I ask those who will oppose this amendment, What is the prohibition 
now under existing law to keep a U.S. attorney from asking those kinds 
of abusive questions, and worse? There is none.
  I remember one time talking with Senator McGovern when he was a 
Senator. One of these questions came up about charging everybody with 
everything and vetting everybody who came through. If you get nominated 
to an executive position, you have to go through a kind of inquisition. 
George McGovern said, ``I want it on the record right now: I stole a 
watermelon when I was 12 years old.''
  I can tell you, what we have right now in the grand jury system is 
not fair, and every Member of this body knows it. I am not defending 
criminals. I am not saying give criminals an upper hand. What I am 
saying is give witnesses the same choices you give a defendant, the 
criminal, which is the right to the assistance of counsel, as 
guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment.
  Mr. President, I hope everybody understands this issue. I don't want 
to belabor it. It is the kind of amendment that doesn't need a lot of 
discussion. But you think about this, I say to Senators, your wife or 
family member who is as innocent as a newly ordained nun, who never did 
anything wrong in her life, is going before the grand jury system 
hardly knowing why she has been called and then subjected to day after 
day after day of testimony, or even 2 hours of testimony--whatever it 
is. At least put her on a par with the criminal defendants who are 
arrested and have to be placed on trial, who have a right to an 
attorney.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Arkansas yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S8646]]

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to debate the following amendments--one which we are now 
debating--with votes in relation to the issues to be postponed to occur 
on Wednesday, July 22, at 9:40 a.m.
  I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be 
in order, and that all debate be concluded this evening; that there be 
2 minutes for debate for closing remarks prior to each vote in the 
stacked sequence, with the exception of the vote in relation to the 
Bumpers amendment, on which there will be 10 minutes for closing 
remarks. The amendments to be debated are as follows: Moseley-Braun, an 
Internet prevention amendment; Graham of Florida, sheriff's auction; 
and Bumpers amendment on grand juries, which we are presently debating.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. In light of this agreement, there will be no further votes 
this evening, and the next votes will be in a stacked sequence 
beginning at 9:40 a.m.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, that is a perfectly fair, legitimate 
undertaking, and I will not be much longer. Senator Levin is here and 
wishes to speak on the amendment, and any other cosponsors of the 
amendment who are listening should feel free to come over and speak, if 
they choose.
  The point I was about to make, and I will close on this--is this: The 
American people are fairly happy right now because the economy is going 
well. But I can tell you, there is one underlying sentiment in this 
country that is undeniable, and it is that the vast majority of the 
people in this country don't think we, who live in this rarefied 
atmosphere, know what their everyday lives are like, and they are 
right. They are right.
  Here is an opportunity to restore people's confidence in the system. 
It doesn't happen often. One of the reasons this amendment may not 
prevail is because in the scheme of things, with 268 million people in 
this country and probably no more than, what should I say, 10,000, 
20,000 at most will appear before grand juries in any given year and 
answer questions, who cares about 10,000 people out of 268 million? I 
care. If I didn't, I wouldn't be staying here tonight to offer this 
amendment.
  I first started to object to voting on this in the morning, but the 
more I thought about it, the more I thought that it might be good. It 
might be good for Senators to reflect on this overnight and to think 
about the fact that justice denied to one single soul is an aberration 
to a free nation.
  I sincerely hope people will think about this and think about it in 
terms of their own personal lives--not some obscure thing you read in 
the Washington Post every morning or the New York Times--but you think 
about some of these things happening to people, and ask yourself: How 
would I feel about that? And, if a member of your family were involved, 
wouldn't you wish that this amendment was in place as a matter of law?
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to my distinguished 
colleague from Arkansas and his very literal discussion of the grand 
jury process. It isn't quite as simple as my colleague is explaining.
  The reason we have a grand jury process and the reason we don't allow 
attorneys in there is because that process is to remain secret. Under 
rule 6(e) of the Federal rules, people are not allowed to talk about 
what happens within the grand jury--certainly the prosecutors are not 
allowed to talk about it. That doesn't mean they have to be totally, 
meticulously unable to talk about the cases that they are handling. But 
basic 6(e) grand jury testimony is not permitted to be talked about, 
and there is a reason for that. There is a reason for not allowing 
attorneys into the grand jury proceedings.
  The distinguished Senator from Arkansas seems to have the opinion 
that in almost every case, or at least in many cases, prosecutors will 
act irresponsibly, improperly, will take advantage of witnesses, will 
abuse the law. And I do not believe that is the case.
  But one reason why grand jury proceedings have been basically 
secretive is because, let us say the prosecution was doing a major 
investigation of organized crime. You can bet your bottom dollar with 
every witness who goes before that grand jury they would have the same 
organized crime attorney or attorney representing organized crime or 
those organized criminals in that grand jury proceeding. Every one of 
them would want that attorney there, except those who are blowing the 
whistle on the criminals for whom the grand jury is being held to begin 
with.
  In other words, it would be almost impossible to ever get a witness 
to come forward in grand jury proceedings of any consequence involving 
organized crime, and sometimes not so organized crime, because the 
minute that person appeared, it would be known who literally was 
testifying against the people whom the prosecutors were trying to bring 
the actions against.
  So it isn't quite as simple as the distinguished Senator has said, 
although I share some of his concerns. If there is any evidence that 
grand jury proceedings have been used to abuse witnesses or have been 
used to seduce witnesses into incriminating themselves, or have been 
used to ask questions that are irrelevant, such as some of those 
suggested by my distinguished colleague, then, yes, I agree with him, 
something ought to be done to prevent those types of things from 
happening, and perhaps we should look at this whole area.
  On the other hand, we have suggested to him that the way to do this 
would be, of course, to let the judicial conference look at this and 
make recommendations and really look at all sides of this issue so we 
do not go into this half cocked and throw out a system that has served 
this country well over 200 years just because there are some alleged 
occasional prosecutors who might abuse the process.
  It is not quite as simple as people try to make it seem. The grand 
jury proceeding has served this country well for well over 200 years. 
And, yes, some of these issues that are raised are ones that trouble me 
as well. But before we throw this out and before we decide to allow 
attorneys in the room, then it seems to me we ought to at least have a 
thorough study to determine whether throwing it out is the thing to do, 
whether that is going to really be a better process than what we have 
today. I don't think it will be.
  But it does not take many brains to realize the current grand jury 
process is one-sided. The prosecutor can present whatever the 
prosecutor wants. And unscrupulous prosecutors can bring an indictment 
against almost anybody by just basically asking the grand jury to do 
it, because there is nobody in there to represent the rights of the 
accused.
  The distinguished Senator does raise some very important issues, but 
I would prefer that we look at this in a very broad-based study that 
really looks at the pros, the cons, the good, the bad, and helps us to 
make a determination here. If, after a study like that, we find that 
the distinguished Senator is primarily right, and that there are many 
injustices that occur through grand jury proceedings, then I would be 
the first to join him in making the changes that he would request here 
this evening.
  But frankly, I think that is the type of thing that should be done, 
that should be done carefully and deliberately. And we should not throw 
out 200 years of history and 200 years of grand jury proceedings that 
have served this country at least ostensibly very well because we are 
concerned that there may be some abuses of this particular process in 
some instances.
  My experience has been that there are very seldom abuses, that the 
system works well, that it is a system that can bring indictments 
against those who deserve indictments brought against them; and 
especially in the area of organized crime, it is a very useful and 
worthwhile system.
  Having said that, that does not mean that I am ignoring what my 
distinguished friend and colleague has said or what he believes, 
because I myself

[[Page S8647]]

have some concerns, as he does. Personally, I believe that in most 
instances it is a good thing to give people the right to have their 
counsel there. And remember, grand jury proceedings can bring down 
indictments but they cannot convict people.
  On the other hand, once the indictment is brought down, that amounts 
to a criminal defense that must be waged in almost every case. So I 
hope that I can talk my colleague into having a major, major review and 
study of this rather than doing something that literally throws out the 
system or at least changes the system dramatically in such a way that 
might have very detrimental effects in our getting to the bottom of 
organized crime, to the bottom of organized criminal conduct with 
regard to drugs, to the bottom of criminal activity in general where 
witnesses might be intimidated or afraid to even appear before grand 
juries.
  The more we do this, I think the more we are going to find that some 
of those concerns may outweigh some of the concerns that the 
distinguished Senator has, because I do not believe that you can point 
to many instances as a whole--as a whole--where the feelings or 
complaints of the distinguished Senator from Arkansas are actually 
fulfilled.
  Currently, all witnesses may leave the grand jury proceeding or grand 
jury room to consult with their attorneys anytime they want. Now the 
Senator makes a good point when he says, How is that person going to 
know whether they are incriminating themselves if they are not skilled 
in the law, if you have a skillful grand jury prosecutor in there 
asking questions? And that is a tough question to answer.
  But the fact of the matter is that if they have an attorney to begin 
with, that attorney is going to say, ``Don't answer anything unless you 
talk to me, so tell them after each question you want to come out and 
talk to me.'' That has been my experience where you have attorneys who 
are concerned about their clients going in before the grand jury. And 
there is a way to be represented by an attorney to not say one word or 
to answer one question without continuously going out and discussing it 
with your attorney. So there is a protection.
  The difference is that, if I am correct--and I believe I am--there 
are instances where the grand jury proceeding works better than any 
other system we have ever had, especially in the area of organized 
crime. I would be very hesitant to throw out that system without the 
study by those who are experts in this field and those who really can 
make a difference in determining just what is right and what is wrong 
here.
  But having said that, I have raised these concerns. I hope my 
colleague will consider having a study. I would join with him in that. 
We can place a limited period of time on it, and if that study proves 
to augment his feelings and proves his thesis here, then I may very 
well join with him in making the changes that he would like to make 
here today.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                    Amendment No. 3243, As Modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to send a 
modification to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At the appropriate place in title II of the bill, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 2____. GRAND JURY DUE PROCESS.

       (a) In General.--Rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 
     Procedure is amended--
       (1) in subdivision (d), by inserting ``and counsel for that 
     witness (as provided in subdivision (h))'' after ``under 
     examination''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Counsel for Grand Jury Witnesses.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Right of assistance.--Each witness subpoenaed to 
     appear and testify before a grand jury in a district court, 
     or to produce books, papers, documents, or other objects 
     before that grand jury, shall be allowed the assistance of 
     counsel during such time as the witness is questioned in the 
     grand jury room.
       ``(2) Powers and duties of counsel.--A counsel retained by 
     or appointed for a witness under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) shall be allowed to be present in the grand jury room 
     only during the questioning of the witness and only to advise 
     the witness;
       ``(B) shall not be permitted to address the attorney for 
     the government or any grand juror, or otherwise participate 
     in the proceedings before the grand jury; and
       ``(C) shall not represent more than 1 client in a grand 
     jury proceeding, if the exercise of the independent judgment 
     of the counsel on behalf of 1 or both clients will be, or is 
     likely to be, adversely affected by the representation of 
     another client.''

  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to say a few things about 
grand juries. I spent 15 years as a Federal prosecutor working with 
grand juries on a regular basis. And people say, ``Oh, it's a secret 
proceeding.'' Well, would you rather have your witnesses have to go and 
testify in open court?
  You see, the purpose of a grand jury is simply to determine whether 
there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and 
whether the defendant probably committed it, to set that case for 
trial. It is a protection. Some say, ``Well, just let the prosecutors 
indict and eliminate the grand jury because the grand jury will indict 
a ham sandwich.'' I heard that here today. Grand juries will not indict 
a ham sandwich.
  You have to present evidence to them sufficient for them to 
understand the charge; and the evidence that is presented is before 
they will return an indictment and set the case for trial. At trial, 
the burden of proof is not ``probably committed a crime''; at trial the 
burden of proof is ``beyond a reasonable doubt''; to a moral certainty 
sometimes the judge charges the jury. So that is where the trial takes 
place.
  Now, I recall a line by Justice Macklin Fleming in California. He 
said, ``Perfect justice is not achievable in this life. In the pursuit 
of perfect justice, we destroy what justice is achievable.''
  Well, I just say that an obsession with everything becoming more and 
more complicated is not the history of our Nation and its criminal law. 
The founders of our country realized you needed a trial and that people 
who are accused of crimes ought to have a chance to present their 
defense fully before a jury of 12 citizens, with their lawyer there to 
argue, debate, object, and do everything possible to defend that client 
in that trial, but there ought to be a vehicle to decide whether a case 
should go forward. They decided it was better for the defendant and for 
the witnesses when a charge is brought by virtue of a grand jury 
investigation before citizens of the community, if the testimony is 
taken in secret, so that if the evidence is not sufficient, the public 
may never even know that the individual was under investigation and his 
reputation would not be stained.
  I submit to you that sometimes grand juries will not indict. And 
also, in the course of an investigation, a prosecutor may discover, as 
his witnesses are called and put under oath, that the good case he 
thought he might have had was not sufficient. Many times I have pulled 
a case after presenting evidence before a grand jury because I was not 
confident, and the grand jury wasn't confident, that there was enough 
evidence to proceed to indictment. Sometimes I presented grand jury 
indictments to a grand jury and thought there was evidence to indict 
and a grand jury declined to do so. That is the power and privilege 
they have been given under our laws in this country.
  Based on my experience, the grand jury system certainly is working. 
It has served us well for 200 years. I think we ought not to, this late 
night, without any debate or without any analysis or without any 
hearings, alter this historic principle, which I believe protects 
citizens from embarrassment as well as unfounded charges.
  I have to suggest and note for the Record, Mr. President, that the 
Department of Justice strongly opposes this Bumpers amendment. They 
don't think it is the way we ought to be going now. I share that 
feeling, and that shows that both I, as a Republican Senator, and the 
Department of Justice agree on this. I think we are making a big 
mistake to go forward at this time without having considered precisely 
what we are doing.
  There are a number of important reasons. The chairman of the 
Judiciary

[[Page S8648]]

Committee has stated quite a number of those in his excellent legal 
way, demonstrating his legal skill and analysis of important issues 
that come before us. He has made that point. I will not take any more 
time on it. I feel very, very strongly about this issue. I think it 
would be a colossal error for this body, without any hearings, to 
change this historic principle, because I will tell you, it will tie 
the grand jury in knots. You will have another adversarial hearing. You 
will have two trials instead of one. It will not further the 
ascertainment of truth, which is the purpose and nature of a grand 
jury.
  I know others need to talk, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from 
Arkansas. It embodies a historical principle that has been embedded in 
most of our psyches and consciousness, which is that an individual has 
a right to counsel--particularly an individual involved in the criminal 
justice system has a right to counsel.

  Our good friend from Utah says, well, someone appearing before a 
grand jury can leave the room and get counsel. Indeed, he knows of 
cases, as do I, where somebody who is in front of a grand jury leaves 
the room after every question to go outside the door and talk to an 
attorney.
  What is the common sense of requiring somebody who is entitled to 
counsel not to be able to get that counsel inside the grand jury room? 
What is the common sense of forcing somebody in front of the jury to 
leave at the end of each question--leave the grand jury room to go talk 
to his or her attorney? How does that meet the ends of either common 
sense or justice--to force that rigmarole, that process, when we come 
to something as fundamental and basic as the right to counsel?
  I don't think anyone here questions that there is a right to counsel 
under our Constitution. The question is, Why not then permit that right 
to be exercised inside the grand jury room? Why not permit the advice 
to be given to somebody inside the grand jury room, rather than to 
force that person at the end of each question to say, ``Excuse me, I 
want to go outside the grand jury room to consult with my counsel''?
  The only argument that I have heard against permitting that is that, 
somehow or other, that would tie a grand jury in knots, as our good 
friend from Alabama just said. But under this amendment, that is not 
possible, because under this amendment, as modified, it carries out the 
original language of this amendment, which says that, ``A counsel for a 
witness shall be allowed to be present in the grand jury room only 
during the questioning of the witness and only to advise the witness, 
and shall not be permitted to address the attorney for the government, 
or any grand juror, or otherwise participate in the proceedings before 
the grand jury.''
  That is it. This amendment would only permit the attorney, which 
every person under this Constitution has a right to at least hire, to 
give advice to a citizen inside the grand jury room instead of forcing 
that person to leave each time. I think it is a modest amendment. It is 
a modest amendment because it makes sure that we will not tie up a 
grand jury in knots. It is a modest amendment because it only says that 
what we know is right, that someone ought to have a right to counsel 
when they become involved in the criminal justice system--something 
that we know is right and something that we know is guaranteed, which 
is the right to counsel, to be exercised in a sensible way, in a way 
that doesn't undercut and diminish that very right.
  To be forced to leave the grand jury room after each question, in 
front of that grand jury, it seems to me, undermines the very right to 
counsel which is guaranteed in the Constitution. But, at a minimum, we, 
it seems to me, as people who want to defend this Constitution, should 
say, if there is a right--and there is one--that it ought to be 
exercisable in a commonsense way.
  In 90 percent of the grand jury proceedings, the witnesses are law 
enforcement officers or other governmental officials who are not likely 
even to have an attorney or want an attorney. But in those other 10 
percent of the cases, it seems to me only fair, only common sense, to 
avoid the absurdity of making a witness leave the grand jury room after 
every question in order to exercise a constitutional right to the 
advice of counsel.
  I want to close by emphasizing the words of this amendment, because I 
think they are very important: ``The counsel that a witness is allowed 
to have in the grand jury room under this amendment is present only 
during the questioning of the witness and''--these are the key words--
``only to advise the witness and not to address the attorney for the 
government or address any grand juror, or to otherwise participate in 
the proceedings before the grand jury.''
  Many of our States allow the attorney to be inside of the grand jury 
room. Some States do, some States don't. But we have to make up our own 
minds as to what makes the most sense in this Federal system. It seems 
to me the most fundamental form of common sense. Forcing a person to 
get up, walk through the door, and leave the room to talk to someone, I 
believe, diminishes and undermines the very fundamental right that 
people have to the advice of counsel.
  So there is no tying up in knots in this amendment.
  This amendment precludes any possibility that an attorney inside the 
grand jury room will address the court, will address the grand jurors, 
will address the prosecutor. All that is permitted under this 
amendment, and all that is required under this amendment, is that the 
counsel for the witness be allowed to be present in the grand jury 
room, and only to advise his or her client.
  I want to commend the Senator from Arkansas for his extraordinary 
courage and, as always, his eloquence in presenting a case.
  I think that if we will all think about this basic right overnight, 
hopefully the majority of this body will do what at least a number of 
States have done, and that is to permit the attorney to be inside the 
grand jury room solely for the purpose of advising the witness.
  I thank the good Senator for his leadership.


                      technical assistance funding

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, one of the most significant economic 
problems facing Alaska is the underdevelopment of the business sector 
in our rural areas. Alaska's vast size, lack of highway infrastructure, 
and numerous small, remote communities present unique problems 
requiring unique solutions. If we want to empower people to move from 
assistance to self-sufficiency we have to grow small businesses in 
rural Alaska. During the conference on the Commerce, Justice and State 
appropriations bill, I will ask the conferees to address these issues.
  Specifically, my State is suffering from an acute shortage of 
technical assistance funding to provide training and other services 
specific to rural needs. This is a need that can be satisfied under 
SBA's 7(j) program. Additionally, I am informed that regulations 
promulgated in 1995 have virtually eliminated all small business 
lending by banks and other financial institutions in Alaska under SBA's 
7(a) lending program. Before 1995, the 7(a) program provided critical 
financing in rural Alaska, and I intend to explore ways to make the 
program viable once again in Alaska. Finally, Alaska's size and 
remoteness will require SBA to adopt high-tech solutions to facilitate 
service delivery. I will seek to create an electronic assistance center 
within the SBA specifically designed to provide Internet connectivity, 
outreach and training to rural areas specifically in Alaska.
  I look forward to working with Senator Gregg and his staff and others 
on this issue. It will be within the scope of the conference, I 
believe.

                          ____________________